Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iMac' started by dunnoguit, Jan 10, 2015.
Basically, I think 21" is too small and 27" is too big
Apple doesn't. They'll make the sizes they think are best for the market. They aren't going to have products of all sizes. Other companies do that.
I would disagree. In my opinion, 23" full HD panels are cheap products of low quality. What purpose is there in a full HD display if the screen is so big that everything is pixelated and blurry? The 21" delivers a much better picture quality at this resolution. Apple is the company that tries to stay true to their principles. That is what makes them so great. Even though it is infuriating sometimes
P.S. Same reasoning goes for all the cheap 4k monitors with an oversized 32" diagonal. That is lower pixel density than a Macbook Air! Sure, you can fit a ton of data that screen but the text will still be pixelated.
It's about pixel density. Any bigger and you start to get a pixelated view.
It's also about perception; a 17" screen was once pretty large.
I agree there should be more screen sizes.
Here's a novel idea for Apple... what if they offered the iMac internals in a streamlined case a little larger than a Mac Mini, that allowed users to use any size and type of monitor they wanted.
the 5k mac is so dumb, because nothing is going to be scaled to 5k this soon
I really suggest you read up about how 5K works on the iMac, because you're objectively wrong.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What do mean by scaled to 5k?
I suggest you find out how "pixel doubling" works. I can say from experience that nearly everything does looks four times as sharp on a HiDPI display compared to a standard display.
Have you shopped for a TV recently, or maybe a Lenovo laptop? There are about 100 TV's by Samsung alone, it is almost impossible to compare features or even find out which are new releases and which are older models, etc. Same with most PC/Laptop manufacturers.
I'm very happy that Apple keeps a very limited number of main product lines. Sure it would be nice if we had more freedom with the internal components (e.g. different GPUs), but overall I find Apples approach more consumer friendly.
I agree about not having too many product lines, but people go overboard with this point. It doesn't have to be just "2" to keep it simple. And it doesn't have to be dozens like it seemed Apple had back in the '90s.
To use your TV analogy, do you think Samsung should only offer two screen sizes?
Not having 10 different products at each screen size would help already.
To me this sound dumb...
I actually think I will like to get to a 32 inch before getting that amount of real estate. To me it makes no sense to have a 4k 24 inch, if you want to run it native and not scaled/double pixel.
And just to correct you, the 13 inch air has a density of 128, the 32 inch (actually 31.5) has 140, so you are run. And funny enough, the monitors less than 32 are in the market of the cheap TN Panel ones and above they get expensive...
Stop saying BS when you have no knowledge, the young ones might believe you, like when they think that Kanye discovered Paul McCartney