WWDC: New LCD Displays

[the future]

Apple is not manufacturing the panels themselves, they are buying them from one of the big panel manufacturers like everybody else. Exactly the same panels you find in at least 10 other LCDs from well-known manufacturers.

Ok, then please link to 10 other 20" or 23" or 30" widescreen displays on the market today using those same panels (with all specs equal, obiously, as they are supposed to have exactly the same panels, and all cheaper than the Apple displays, please, as they are so overpriced). Good luck...

So once again we are supposed to pay just for the design and the name. I bet the aluminum enclosure is big part of the reason why the monitors seem like a rip-off. Off course the material looks nice, but in the end a computer is a frickin' tool and I want to get my work done with it.

You don't sound very much like an Apple user here. Most Apple users do value the design, the quality materials, the build quality etc. (not to mention little goodies like the USB 2 hub, the FW hub, being widescreen...)

I can't think of any situation in my daily work so far that cries for a monster like this.

Call Apple, quick! Groovebuster doesn't need a 30" display, so obviously no-one else does!

 

[Mr MacNabbit]

Take all contrast and brightness and viewing angles specs, response time, with a HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEE Grain of SALT, as they have been disproven numerous times, LCD Panel construction is still far from a science

That's as may be, but side by side, my Samsungs are still a lot brighter with more defined black and white levels than a current 20" Apple LCD.

Hey if you have the cash to throw away, or just cant cope with third party products, then go for it! - all I am pointing out is that despite Apples brilliance at many things, they make a lot of claims they cannot back up with hard facts, and if what you want is a really good monitor as opposed to a fashion accessory, then you'd best look around! - all this and as you can see from my signature - I love Macs! - but as stated by someone else in this thread, after the CPU, everything else can be acquired elsewhere cheaper, and often with better/newer specs.

 

[JBReed]

That's as may be, but side by side, my Samsungs are still a lot brighter with more defined black and white levels than a current 20" Apple LCD.

How do you adjust your Samsungs? The controls as I understand it for the 173p are software only (Windows).

 

[Mr MacNabbit]

Adjust what? - they are great out of the box! - yeah that is a negative if you like tweaking the controls, but I havent needed too, so no probs really.

 

[MacinDoc]

you can get a pair of 17" Samsungs offering a total 2560x1024 pixels with over 30" of screen real estate, with nearly twice the contrast ratio of the 30" Apple monitor for less than a third of the price, let alone that you need to buy an additional £500 video card, it is a no brainer.

That's like saying you get more memory for your money by buying 4X1GB DIMMS than by buying 2X2GB DIMMS. In the computer world, you always pay a premium for the best, newest, biggest, or fastest gear.

As for the 25ms response, unless all you do is play high frame rate games all day, you wouldn't really notice that as any kind of valid impedement, I dont notice it on these with 3D or video work etc.

Actually, slow response rate is the one thing that annoys me most about LCD displays vs. CRTs.

 

[zsmooth]

I find it more mind-boggling how you are defending Apple like this...

Ahem... then I feel really sorry for you that you only saw crappy LCDs in your whole life before.

Apple is not manufacturing the panels themselves, they are buying them from one of the big panel manufacturers like everybody else. Exactly the same panels you find in at least 10 other LCDs from well-known manufacturers.

That's true, but each manufacturer when they make a bunch of panels, some will be great, and some will suck (inconsistent color, stuck pixels). Apple (and other high end players) pay more to get the great ones, and the sucky ones go to people like Dell, who don't care too much about quality. Just because the panels are coming from the same place doesn't make them all equal.

And then as others have asked, where are all the non-Apple 23" and 30" widescreen LCDs?

Sounds pretty crappy to me. Apple finally caught up with the rest of the industry regarding the form factor (There are still other displays out there that have an even smaller bevel). And as I said before, Apple is not using some kind of voodoo panel, they are buying at the same places as the other ones. If the difference is so obvious for you it just tells how long Apple didn't update their LCD monitors... that's all.

Again - where are all these 23" and 30" widescreen LCDs that you speak of?

So once again we are supposed to pay just for the design and the name. I bet the aluminum enclosure is big part of the reason why the monitors seem like a rip-off. Off course the material looks nice, but in the end a computer is a frickin' tool and I want to get my work done with it. The hundreds of dollars that I pay more for Apple Hardware just because it looks nice(r) I have to earn at some point before (and economy still sucks here in Germany).

I said it already before, the only hardware I will buy from Apple in the future is the computer itself in the most possible stripped down version. Everything else I can get cheaper with the same quality somehwere else.

Good for you. You're obviously not the market Apple is aiming for, and all your whining isn't going to make them lower their prices. The truth is, they could have probably charged an extra $1k and the 30" would still be sold out for the first 6 months. Following your advice to charge less would not be a very savvy business move.

 

[stuBCN75]

Has anyone found a non Apple 23" widescreen display ?

something that can match the Apple specs point by point, ports etc. and better on price ?

honestly, i will not buy from Apple if i can find an alternative. I just want a good display, ideally 23" widescreen ( because why not ).

anyone ?

i have looked around but can find nothing to match it yet. of course i can find similar displays but nothing which widescreen and has all the ports and is cheaper.

 

[Mr MacNabbit]

In the computer world, you always pay a premium for the best, newest, biggest, or fastest gear.

Well not in this case though is it!!?? - biggest single screen yes - best, no.

Actually, slow response rate is the one thing that annoys me most about LCD displays vs. CRTs.

Even when it is outweighed by superior image quality and contrast? - hmmm :/

 

[the future]

Well not in this case though is it!!?? - biggest single screen yes - best, no.

The 30" is not only the best, it's the only lcd display of it's size and resolution on the market! For the 20" and 23": again, please post links to better specced and cheaper WIDESCREEN LCDS OF THE SAME SIZE!

Even when it is outweighed by superior image quality and contrast?

I assume you didn't go to WWDC, so how do you know your 17" Samsungs, as nice (and small) as they may be, have a "superior image quality" compared to the new Apple LCDs?

 

[groovebuster]

Where else can i find 20" Widescreen lcd monitors for sale?

thanks,

A normal 20" LCD offers more Real Estate...

20" Widescreen -> 1,764,000 Pixels

20" "normal" 4:3 -> 1,920,000 Pixels

... and the normal 4:3 LCD costs less as well.

I don't see any other reason as "looks" for the 20" Apple Cinema Dislplay...

groovebuster

 

[mstecker]

It's all about useful resolution

You're correct that a 20" normal has more pixels, BUT the 20" widescreen is more useful for most applications.

Why do people need more real estate?

1) Side-by-side documents. The widescreen format works better than the 4x3 format. So what if there's a buch of space above and to one side of your document? It's not useful real estate split that way.

2) Production of wide-format media obviously speaks to the widescreen monitor.

A normal 20" LCD offers more Real Estate...

20" Widescreen -> 1,764,000 Pixels

20" "normal" 4:3 -> 1,920,000 Pixels

... and the normal 4:3 LCD costs less as well.

I don't see any other reason as "looks" for the 20" Apple Cinema Dislplay...

groovebuster

 

[MrSugar]

Well not in this case though is it!!?? - biggest single screen yes - best, no.



Even when it is outweighed by superior image quality and contrast? - hmmm :/

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!!!!! Read the whole thread before making obseen and harsh observations that are blatently incorrect, it shows you lack of knowledge about the matter.

Contrast is not the end of the world, many displays run at a high contrast and users keep it down because it is hard on their eyes. A 400:1 ratio such as the one Apple provides is very competetive. Besides this the apple display has many many other benefits, lets start at the 100PPI. I point you back to one of my previous posts in this topic,
here.

 

[Mr MacNabbit]

The 30" is not only the best, it's the only lcd display of it's size and resolution on the market! For the 20" and 23": again, please post links to better specced and cheaper WIDESCREEN LCDS OF THE SAME SIZE!

Yes, but spec wise (other than size), it isn't the best, that's what I have been trying to convey to you. Widescreen wasn't my issue - quality and value was.

I assume you didn't go to WWDC, so how do you know your 17" Samsungs, as nice (and small) as they may be, have a "superior image quality" compared to the new Apple LCDs?

I didn't, and I am comparing to the last Apple 20" monitor from first hand experience. The specs have only raised very slightly since the upgrades.

 

[Euthyphro]

A normal 20" LCD offers more Real Estate...

20" Widescreen -> 1,764,000 Pixels

20" "normal" 4:3 -> 1,920,000 Pixels

... and the normal 4:3 LCD costs less as well.

I don't see any other reason as "looks" for the 20" Apple Cinema Dislplay...

groovebuster

This is not responsive. Your original claim was that the panels used in the 20" 23" 30" apple cinema displays are the same ones used by 10 or so other manufacturers. I was just trying to find out which other manufacturers are using the same the 20" widescreen LCDs used in the apple. Please back up your claim.

 

[Mr MacNabbit]

You're correct that a 20" normal has more pixels, BUT the 20" widescreen is more useful for most applications.

Why do people need more real estate?

1) Side-by-side documents. The widescreen format works better than the 4x3 format. So what if there's a buch of space above and to one side of your document? It's not useful real estate split that way.

Hence my point about dual monitors, and the comparison to a single 30" screen - more vhorizontal space.

2) Production of wide-format media obviously speaks to the widescreen monitor.

Cant argue with that.

 

[Mr MacNabbit]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!!!!! Read the whole thread before making obseen and harsh observations that are blatently incorrect, it shows you lack of knowledge about the matter.

Obscene (note spelling!) and harsh comments? - are you over sensitive?Lack of knowledge? - what being a designer, having used most screens out there from the crap to the sublime? - seen the difference between Apple displays and my current choice of Samsungs!? - what can be 'blatantly incorrect' about what I know from experience? - hey, it's your money - I don't need to argue about it - go see for yourself.

Contrast is not the end of the world, many displays run at a high contrast and users keep it down because it is hard on their eyes. A 400:1 ratio such as the one Apple provides is very competetive.

I am not saying it is 'the end of the world' I am merely pointing out that other manufacturers units often have higher specs, and have for some time.

 

[daveg5]

Review of IBM/VIEWSONIC 22.2"

http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=533
just a review of the good and bad for info to those who want it.
according to ATI, the Mac video card ati 8500 with 64MB can push all 3800X2400 pixel on this display, however the refresh time will be to low for fast moving games or animations.

 

[MrSugar]

Obscene (note spelling!) and harsh comments? - are you over sensitive?Lack of knowledge? - what being a designer, having used most screens out there from the crap to the sublime? - seen the difference between Apple displays and my current choice of Samsungs!? - what can be 'blatantly incorrect' about what I know from experience? - hey, it's your money - I don't need to argue about it - go see for yourself.



I am not saying it is 'the end of the world' I am merely pointing out that other manufacturers units often have higher specs, and have for some time.

Yes I didn't run it through spell check, sorry.

Please show me links to displays that have the specs that Apple's displays do. Even for the same price, just give me some hard evidence besides just blabbing. You speak so highly like you know, but you provide no evidence. I however have provided multiple example of how the displays Apple offers are cutting edge and some of the best out on the market, if not the best when it comes to being well rounded in all aspects of the display.

Please show me where you get your info from? You know, these tons of other brands that offer high quality monitors that own Apple's line up...

Otherwise you have less credit than I do.. even with bad speling.

 

[m.r.m.]

http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=533
just a review of the good and bad for info to those who want it.

over 4000 pounds for a monitor that smears? that´s a lot of money to look at photos.

 

[Mr MacNabbit]

Yes I didn't run it through spell check, sorry.

Please show me links to displays that have the specs that Apple's displays do. Even for the same price, just give me some hard evidence besides just blabbing. You speak so highly like you know, but you provide no evidence. I however have provided multiple example of how the displays Apple offers are cutting edge and some of the best out on the market, if not the best when it comes to being well rounded in all aspects of the display.

Please show me where you get your info from? You know, these tons of other brands that offer high quality monitors that own Apple's line up...

Otherwise you have less credit than I do.. even with bad speling.

Evidence? - Do you think it's some kind of conspiracy or something? - do you actually look around for product choices or just buy Apple? - look them up yourself! - I have already pointed out the samsungs I have, and their 21" (213T I think) has higher specs also. MacUser recently ran labs tests on 17 and 19" models, and the Apple one didn't figure highly at all compared to screens by LG, Samsung, Nec etc - the 20" are not really any different.

I can't believe the over sensitive reaction - you sound like PC users lol! - As I have said, if the Apple screens fulfill your needs, and you have all that cash to spare, then that's cool - go for it - just don't kid yourself you are buying 'the best' in every respect - is that so hard to register?

Peace (and quiet!)

 

[stuBCN75]

Evidence? - I have already pointed out the samsungs I have, and their 21" (213T I think) has higher specs also. MacUser recently ran labs tests on 17 and 19" models, and the Apple one didn't figure highly at all compared to screens by LG, Samsung, Nec etc - the 20" are not really any different.

do you know of any other 23" widescreen displays out there. i am being serious ! not just trying to stir things up. i have looked and looked and found nothing that can match the Apple 23". ( old or new one )

I am just about to spend a load of hard earned cash on a new G52.5 + 23" Cinema Display. I am going to put the order in on Friday. I will have to go with the Apple 23" unless anyone else can point me to another similar display.

 

[the future]

I have already pointed out the samsungs I have, and their 21" (213T I think) has higher specs also.

Not true. The 213T has almost identical specs to the new Apple 20" (slightly higher contrast, but slower response time). It is not widescreen, though, and has neither USB nor Firewire ports. Nor an aluminum enclosure. And guess what - it's costs about the same as the Apple 20" display. Go figure...

P.S. You keep saying that you don't care about widescreen, and that's fair enough, but as there are much more panels produced in the traditional ratio, that alone should make them considerably cheaper.

 

[studiopix]

Have fun waiting Euthyphro

This is not responsive. Your original claim was that the panels used in the 20" 23" 30" apple cinema displays are the same ones used by 10 or so other manufacturers. I was just trying to find out which other manufacturers are using the same the 20" widescreen LCDs used in the apple. Please back up your claim.

You'll have to forgive Groovebuster if he doesn't get back to you right away Euthyphro, cause they're aren't any 20" widescreen displays for the PC. If he does find one (definitely not 10 or more) from some obsure company off in the far east somewhere, I'll be curious to know what the price is. What remains as fact is that Apple introduced widescreen displays long ago with a 20" size that no other company has bothered to offer. And up until recently, Apple offered a 23" widescreen display that was hundereds less than any offering from any other PC manufacturer. The Sony 23" widescreen that retails for around $2500 is just crap, (low contrast, washed out colors, slow pixel response time) especialy compared to Sony's newer 17" LCDs.

I personally bought the HP L2335 for my PC but I'll be sure to grab a new Cinema Display when I upgrade my G4 to a G5.

My blog.

 

[MrSugar]

Evidence? - Do you think it's some kind of conspiracy or something? - do you actually look around for product choices or just buy Apple? - look them up yourself! - I have already pointed out the samsungs I have, and their 21" (213T I think) has higher specs also. MacUser recently ran labs tests on 17 and 19" models, and the Apple one didn't figure highly at all compared to screens by LG, Samsung, Nec etc - the 20" are not really any different.

I can't believe the over sensitive reaction - you sound like PC users lol! - As I have said, if the Apple screens fulfill your needs, and you have all that cash to spare, then that's cool - go for it - just don't kid yourself you are buying 'the best' in every respect - is that so hard to register?

Peace (and quiet!)

For your information I run dual Viewsonic 17" VP171b monitors. I know all of which you speak of, I do my own research and buy what I think is the best deal. But I also know that Apple's displays are among the best out there.

To answer your question YES, I have looked at the other competition out there. Here is your 173p monitor specs:

Specifications

* Model: 173P-Silver
* Panel Type: a-si TFT/PVA
* Size: 17"
* Pixel Pitch (mm): 0.264
* Brightness: 270 cd/m2
* Contrast Ratio: 700:1
* Viewing Angle (H/V): 178/178
* Response Time (ms): 25
* Aspect Ratio: 4:3
* Interface: Analog/Digital
* Frequency Horiz Rate (kHz): 30-81 (Analog), 30-63 (Digital)
* Vert. Rate (Hz): 56-76
* Bandwidth (Mhz): 140
* Resolution: Maximum 1280x1024, Native: 1280x1024
* Colors Supported: 16.7 Million
* Signal Input: Input Video Signal; Analog RGB, DVI Digital Link
* Video Level: Analog : 0.7VP-P; Digital: TMDSTM
* Sync Type: Separate H/V, Composite H/V, SOG
* Input Connectors: 15pin D-Sub, DVI-D
* Plug and Play: DDC 2B
* Power On/Working (Watts): 40
* Wall Mount: VESA® 75mm (optional)

This monitor DOES NOT compare to any of the Apple display's except the old models. Wow 700:1 contrast ratio, nice one.. except it will be utilized by almost no one. Now look at the pixle pitch, much lower than apple's displays, this means not as clear of a picture, in other words less pixles per inch.

Second, let me look at the response time, 25ms compared to Apple's 16. Now you lose out on the fire wire hub, and the nice enclosure.

It's clear you really aren't providing me with any of the information which you talk so highly about. You make claims without links or background to support them. I have proved my point from various sides now, doing the research to find the exact specs which you did not. The Apple monitors are clearly better, if you find your cheaper displays, with worse pixle pitch, and slower response time to look and work better than an Apple display that is fine by me... just know that your claims are out of place.


that being said I have yet to see the "new" apple displays, but just from people that have, they sound amazing. Hard for me to think that Apple wouldn't put out one of the best displays on the market, esspecially after such a long wait...

 

[yadmonkey]

I'm looking forward to when a third-party can test the new displays and prove/disprove their impressive specs. Response time can make or break the deal for me.