The Display Apple Should Have Released

[Hellhammer]

Who has actualy had display fail? Not me, I have some from the 90's, still working great. Longer life is silly unless you are locking yourself in a bunker away from the world for the next 10 years.

It doesn't have to fail completely to be useless. If it's used for professional work, the backlight cannot change during the time like washout or get dimmer, inaccurate etc as that will make the work inaccurate as well and that is not what you want.

Lower power consumption, also silly. A few watts here and there, so what, nobody cares if it saves you 71 cents on your power bill over the course of a year.

Again, may not matter in home use but have an office full of them operating 40 hours a week. The few watts add up and it isn't only few watts anymore. Same for pollution.

 

[ValSalva]

these points are silly!

Who has actualy had display fail? Not me, I have some from the 90's, still working great. Longer life is silly unless you are locking yourself in a bunker away from the world for the next 10 years.

From the 90's? You must be referring to CRTs.

I have a ViewSonic VP211b from 2003 whose backlight has severely faded. It is useless for any design or photography work.

 

[kd5jos]

This upcoming display from Dell sounds perfect.

It's 30", is 16:10, is an IPS 10-bit display, matte, and has a lower pixel density than the 27"ACD.

The only negative is that it is not LED backlit. The main advantages to LED backlighting are that it takes a while for fluorescent backlights to warm up and they don't tend to last as long as LEDs. Apple's 27" ACD has white LED backlight so there is no advantage to color gamut there. And this Dell displays over 1 billion colors.

My only hesitation in ordering this Dell when it becomes available is that it is a revision one device.

But I will probably not get the U2711 because the higher pixel density makes reading text and menus harder and I will not get the 27" ACD because of the high gloss, pixel density, and questionable quality (iMac screen issues).

I think this is the one! What do you all think?

Does anyone here believe that the human eye can detect a "billion colors"? As I remember it the human eye is good up to 21 bit color depth (since the human eye is analog it varies slightly, but this is a good approximation). Beyond that, there is no discernible difference. Try this experiment:

Have someone go into the room where your computer is and set the bit depth to either 24 bit, or 32 bit and put a picture on the screen. Have them leave the room and then go in and determine if it is 24 or 32 bit depth by just looking at the picture. Repeat this process 40, 60, even 100 times times. Then take a look at your percentage correct. Same picture, same monitor, same room, same lighting and same graphics card. If I'm wrong you should get better than an 80% score. I've seen people get 15% correct.

Not convinced? Add more people. Use two different pictures (one is the same for everybody, the other is specific to each participant).

 

[snberk103]

Does anyone here believe that the human eye can detect a "billion colors"? As I remember it the human eye is good up to 21 bit color depth (since the human eye is analog it varies slightly, but this is a good approximation). Beyond that, there is no discernible difference. Try this experiment:

Have someone go into the room where your computer is and set the bit depth to either 24 bit, or 32 bit and put a picture on the screen. Have them leave the room and then go in and determine if it is 24 or 32 bit depth by just looking at the picture. Repeat this process 40, 60, even 100 times times. Then take a look at your percentage correct. Same picture, same monitor, same room, same lighting and same graphics card. If I'm wrong you should get better than an 80% score. I've seen people get 15% correct.

Not convinced? Add more people. Use two different pictures (one is the same for everybody, the other is specific to each participant).

That's not a valid test, IMO. Put two identical photos on identical displays and change the colour depth. I believe most people will be able to tell there is a difference. Most people do colour correction by looking at the original and visually comparing what they see to what they saw a moment ago. Leaving the room breaks that direct comparison.

 

[Vylen]

You don't really need to do some silly experiment.

Just do a little research on the net - the estimated number is 10million.

 

[ValSalva]

Does anyone here believe that the human eye can detect a "billion colors"? As I remember it the human eye is good up to 21 bit color depth (since the human eye is analog it varies slightly, but this is a good approximation). Beyond that, there is no discernible difference. Try this experiment:

Have someone go into the room where your computer is and set the bit depth to either 24 bit, or 32 bit and put a picture on the screen. Have them leave the room and then go in and determine if it is 24 or 32 bit depth by just looking at the picture. Repeat this process 40, 60, even 100 times times. Then take a look at your percentage correct. Same picture, same monitor, same room, same lighting and same graphics card. If I'm wrong you should get better than an 80% score. I've seen people get 15% correct.

Not convinced? Add more people. Use two different pictures (one is the same for everybody, the other is specific to each participant).

I don't doubt that I couldn't tell the difference. I mentioned the 1 billion colors as a specification of the display in regards to it not suffering from being a CCFL vs. being RGB backlit for instance. Usually displays with wide color gamuts are considered high end and tend to be better quality which is of much more interest to me.

 

[brentsg]

Lower pollution, even more silly. Nobody shops for a monitor and wonders "hmm which one will pollute less?" No! That's just bizarre thinking. Use it, throw it away when it's done. End.

Well I've actually had a small but still sizable mercury spill in my home, that required throwing away a couch and tearing the carpet out of my living room. It was crazy, the EPA came to my house and could determine where everyone that encountered the spill went in my home using a small detecting device.

So yeah, I do my best to avoid products like the CCFL displays, florescent lighting, etc. Despite the fact that these bulbs contain a pretty small quantity, consider all the ones that won't be recycled properly. It'll be a significant environmental impact.

 

[Argon21]

They aren't silly at all. They are a serious consideration for manufacturers, business, government. As for individual users, some people do look at the environmental impact of their purchases. It may not be that way in Russia, and many other parts of the world, but in the US and UK at least there is a lot of pressure for people to think about such things, and many do.

Of course for a large office with x500 of these, then small difference gets multiplied. Not what I am talking about.

As for individual people buying monitor with pollution in their specs, thos peoples usually stink like patchouli and dirty birkenstock feets!! Jajajaja!!! Not normal thinking people!! All these thinks make no difference for normal people!

 

[Argon21]

From the 90's? You must be referring to CRTs.

No I'm talking of LCD flat dispolays. Maybe you are too young to remember but there existed laptop computers in 1990's. They all used flat LCD technolgoies.

I have Panasonic Toughbook from 1997. Pentium II with 266 Mhz. Use this one many times every week for more than 10 years now it is perfct still!!!

 

[ValSalva]

No I'm talking of LCD flat dispolays. Maybe you are too young to remember but there existed laptop computers in 1990's. They all used flat LCD technolgoies.

I have Panasonic Toughbook from 1997. Pentium II with 266 Mhz. Use this one many times every week for more than 10 years now it is perfct still!!!

I see. I thought you meant stand alone displays. I had a Dell Inspiron 3800 from 1998 that also had a Pentium II. In many ways those were the good old days. Computers were not yet a commodity and IMHO were of better quality. I'm not surprised to hear that your Toughbook is still running well. Win 95, 98, 98SE, or XP?

I wish I had a Powerbook from that era especially the early '00s Titanium Powerbook.

 

[Argon21]

I see. I thought you meant stand alone displays. I had a Dell Inspiron 3800 from 1998 that also had a Pentium II. In many ways those were the good old days. Computers were not yet a commodity and IMHO were of better quality. I'm not surprised to hear that your Toughbook is still running well. Win 95, 98, 98SE, or XP?

I wish I had a Powerbook from that era especially the early '00s Titanium Powerbook.

Yes true I believe quality was much better before. These were expensive machines in 1990's, not like today where every student and kids has one is so cheap. You still have this Dell? Good to see another person who appreciate this older technologies! Toughbook was Win95 from original, but now Win 2k from 8 years ago. Upgrade HDD too with 80 GB now.

 

[Argon21]

From the 90's? You must be referring to CRTs.

I did have one SGI 1600SW display. It is available from 1998, but I buy it used in 2000 (too much $$$ brand new for this one!!). I sell it in 2006, still working good. It had strange data connection, not a standard one, and has special video card. I think video card is still in my closet somewhere?

It is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGI_1600SW

This is one I really wanted, but was even way $$$$ more than SGI 1600. Still specs nice today with 22" and 3840 x 2400!!!:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

 

[juicedropsdeuce]

these points are silly!

Who has actualy had display fail? Not me, I have some from the 90's, still working great. Longer life is silly unless you are locking yourself in a bunker away from the world for the next 10 years.

Lower power consumption, also silly. A few watts here and there, so what, nobody cares if it saves you 71 cents on your power bill over the course of a year.

Lower pollution, even more silly. Nobody shops for a monitor and wonders "hmm which one will pollute less?" No! That's just bizarre thinking. Use it, throw it away when it's done. End.

Have some gazpacho and calm down.

 

[trip1ex]

these points are silly!

Who has actualy had display fail? Not me, I have some from the 90's, still working great. Longer life is silly unless you are locking yourself in a bunker away from the world for the next 10 years.

Lower power consumption, also silly. A few watts here and there, so what, nobody cares if it saves you 71 cents on your power bill over the course of a year.

Lower pollution, even more silly. Nobody shops for a monitor and wonders "hmm which one will pollute less?" No! That's just bizarre thinking. Use it, throw it away when it's done. End.

Bizarre? Look at your post. Heaven forbid newer tech uses less energy, pollutes less and lasts longer. We're entering a dark era in our history. Watch out folks.