When will Apple adopt 16:9 screens?

[DHagan4755]

Not that I want them to...it's just that I notice a lot of other manufacturers starting offer more and more notebooks with 16:9 displays. I've read that LCD panel makers are standardizing on this screen ratio because it's more cost effective for them. Where there's smoke there's usually fire and I'm curious what everyone thinks will be the time line for this transition? Fall?

[MacHope theWorld]

I'd think probably at LEAST a year from now, because Apple takes design changes very seriously.

I really hope they don't though, because i'm gonna get less and less content on my screen when i'm writing essays and such.

[Hiro]

Why would you want 16:9 when 16:10 gives you more screen real estate? With 16:10 you can run 16:9 HD content and still have some room above or below for whatever.

[ksec]

16:10 - the closest to Golden Ratio, 16:9, apart from being cost effective doesn't actually have any advantage.

It properly also depends on SJ view on it. If he is a 16:10 guy then we may never see 16:9 on Mac.

[Hiro]

The cinema displays were explicitly 16:10 so you could see 16:9 video for editing and have a few toolbars available for FCP or room at the bottom for QT Pro widgets. Steve said so when they were launched. Now why would someone want to restrict their screen physical dimensions so they cannot edit a full width/resolution stream without covering up part of the picture???

16:9 is great for a TV where you won't have editing tools to deal with. Computers and their monitors should not be primarily designed to watch TV but primarily designed as a tool which can do TV without loss.

[dfiler]

Not that I want them to...it's just that I notice a lot of other manufacturers starting offer more and more notebooks with 16:9 displays. I've read that LCD panel makers are standardizing on this screen ratio because it's more cost effective for them. Where there's smoke there's usually fire and I'm curious what everyone thinks will be the time line for this transition? Fall?By "cost effective" they probably mean that they can share the same fabs for both TV panels and computer panels.

Personally, I think the market is big enough to support more than one ratio.

[gugy]

The cinema displays were explicitly 16:10 so you could see 16:9 video for editing and have a few toolbars available for FCP or room at the bottom for QT Pro widgets. Steve said so when they were launched. Now why would someone want to restrict their screen physical dimensions so they cannot edit a full width/resolution stream without covering up part of the picture???

16:9 is great for a TV where you won't have editing tools to deal with. Computers and their monitors should not be primarily designed to watch TV but primarily designed as a tool which can do TV without loss.

Well said.
I hope Apple have in store new displays coming soon. Specially a larger than 30" display. For folks that design motion graphics or edit video/film content that would be a blessing.

It's about time.

[nvidia2008]

I can tell you my gut feeling is if the costs really come down (16:9 is cheaper to manufacture apparently) ~~ Apple will switch to it and then market it as "HD super good stuff woot"...

Even though the amount of vertical resolution you are losing is significant going from 16:10 to 16:9 ... But hey, welcome to the HD world.

[nvidia2008]

16:10 - the closest to Golden Ratio, 16:9, apart from being cost effective doesn't actually have any advantage.

It properly also depends on SJ view on it. If he is a 16:10 guy then we may never see 16:9 on Mac.

I'm curious as to when SJ went from a Matte guy to a Glossy guy. :smokey:

[DHagan4755]

I'm curious as to when SJ went from a Matte guy to a Glossy guy. :smokey:
That's a good question.

After a walk through Best Buy the other day, just about all of the notebooks made from other manufacturers have a glossy display. Some of them are also framed in black. I was surprised just how many of them have moved to the 16:9 panels.

I am now more convinced that Apple is going to migrate their entire product line to the 16:9 display ratio soon, probably starting with the MacBook.

[Mr. Me]

...

I am now more convinced that Apple is going to migrate their entire product line to the 16:9 display ratio soon, probably starting with the MacBook.I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I can't afford to keep in this economy. I'm willing to let it go--cheap. If you are interested in helping out a fellow Mac user, then have your people get in touch with my people.

[DHagan4755]

I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I can't afford to keep in this economy. I'm willing to let it go--cheap. If you are interested in helping out a fellow Mac user, then have your people get in touch with my people.

No, it's more like, "Monkey see, monkey do."

[FuturePastNow]

I'm curious as to when SJ went from a Matte guy to a Glossy guy. :smokey:

Probably when glossy screens became cheaper than matte, thus increasing his margins. It's all about the money.

[John French]

I'm curious as to when SJ went from a Matte guy to a Glossy guy. :smokey:

When his black and glass phase happened.

[DHagan4755]

When his black and glass phase happened.
The look of Apple's notebooks closely resembles the look of the iPhone. I think it's a case of the dog waging the tail here. I am sure Apple is trying to milk the halo effect of the iPhone onto their Macs.

[DHagan4755]

Interesting article related to this on Digitimes:

http://digitimes.com/news/a20090428PD209.html

[hmurchison]

Interesting article related to this on Digitimes:

http://digitimes.com/news/a20090428PD209.html

Count me in with the group that thinks that we'll be standardizing on 16x9

Thus if Apple goes above 24" on an iMac it'll be a 26" panel most likely.

[webmail]

short answer straight from campus : Absolutely positively never.

16:9 is only for movies, 16:10 is what apple generally uses.

[webmail]

It will be 27" not 26, there will never be a mac ever (unless it's a TV) that is 16:9.

Count me in with the group that thinks that we'll be standardizing on 16x9

Thus if Apple goes above 24" on an iMac it'll be a 26" panel most likely.

[BenRoethig]

It will be 27" not 26, there will never be a mac ever (unless it's a TV) that is 16:9.

Then they might have to stop making all in ones and notebooks in the very near future. It doesn't matter what Apple's preferences are if 16:10 panels stop being made.

Add "this to the Apple will never..." list. They usually end up happening.

[hmurchison]

It will be 27" not 26, there will never be a mac ever (unless it's a TV) that is 16:9.

Actually it would most likely be 26" not 27" because most of the IPS panels are 26" inch though they do run at 1980x1200

NEC LCD2690WUXi
Planar PX2611W
LG W2600HP
Hazro HZ26Wi

I'm not aware of any IPS monitors over 26". I have a 27.5 Hannspree monitor that's 1980x1080 and definitely not IPS.

[mdriftmeyer]

Actually it would most likely be 26" not 27" because most of the IPS panels are 26" inch though they do run at 1980x1200

NEC LCD2690WUXi
Planar PX2611W
LG W2600HP
Hazro HZ26Wi

I'm not aware of any IPS monitors over 26". I have a 27.5 Hannspree monitor that's 1980x1080 and definitely not IPS.

http://www.hazro.co.uk/products/hazro_hz30w.html

Hazro HZ30W 30” Widescreen Professional Monitor
30" WQXGA S-IPS Widescreen Display

Assuming one can actually get their hands on one. [Doesn't look like any are available either from the UK.]

Too bad Hazro doesn't have a US subsidiary to make it possible to buy one and not have the VAT.

[hmurchison]

http://www.hazro.co.uk/products/hazro_hz30w.html

Hazro HZ30W 30” Widescreen Professional Monitor
30" WQXGA S-IPS Widescreen Display

Assuming one can actually get their hands on one. [Doesn't look like any are available either from the UK.]

Too bad Hazro doesn't have a US subsidiary to make it possible to buy one and not have the VAT.

Oops I mean IPS monitors over 26" and under the popular 30"

[Amorph]

Then they might have to stop making all in ones and notebooks in the very near future. It doesn't matter what Apple's preferences are if 16:10 panels stop being made.

Add "this to the Apple will never..." list. They usually end up happening.

Apple has already moved to widescreen and HD. They just add a bit extra at the bottom for editing and navigation tools. In other words, this move already happened, and it happened when most laptops were still shipping with 5:4 screens.

The companies that make LCD panels will make whatever you ask them to make. It might be a bit more expensive to do 16:10 instead of 16:9, but when has that stopped Apple? It's a bit more expensive to mill your case out of a block of aluminum. It's a bit more expensive to use a glass screen instead of a plastic one.

[BenRoethig]

A custom panel would be prohibitively expensive which is why Apple, like everyone else, uses of the shelf ones in their products. Custom ones might add a couple hundred or more to the price of the Mac. They have two options, they can either buy up to date panels that are more than likely going to be 16:9 or they can make a huge 16:10 order and stockpile them. Either way, Apple will be using 16:9 panels sooner or later.

[Amorph]

A custom panel would be prohibitively expensive which is why Apple, like everyone else, uses of the shelf ones in their products. Custom ones might add a couple hundred or more to the price of the Mac. They have two options, they can either buy up to date panels that are more than likely going to be 16:9 or they can make a huge 16:10 order and stockpile them. Either way, Apple will be using 16:9 panels sooner or later.

Why would it be? Apple has used them before, when it was shipping the 4:3 ratio PowerBooks.

Custom sizing is really not such a big deal. It's a big sheet. It's cut into pieces. It's not hard to say, "I want the pieces to be X by Y" even if the factory doesn't ordinarily cut the sheets into N pieces of X by Y. These are immense contract manufacturers. Their whole business is building what they're contracted to build to the tolerances they are contracted to test to with the quality of raw materials they are contracted to start with. Custom work for companies as huge as Apple are no problem at all.

[hmurchison]

The Quicktime X window should be an indication that Apple is likely going to move to 16x9 panels.

By superimposing the controls over the video Apple has obviated the need for the extra pixels.

Professionals that are editing video will have multiple monitors anyways and will likely run 2560x1600 resolution for the apps and display on a 16x9 monitor.

I see little reason to spend more for a 16x10 panel when the commodity items will be 16x9. This is a commodity market now and costing is important to maintaining margins.

[FuturePastNow]

The Quicktime X window should be an indication that Apple is likely going to move to 16x9 panels.

By superimposing the controls over the video Apple has obviated the need for the extra pixels.

That could also reflect the increasing use of computers in the home theater. HDTVs have always been 16x9, of course.

[BenRoethig]

Why would it be? Apple has used them before, when it was shipping the 4:3 ratio PowerBooks.

Custom sizing is really not such a big deal. It's a big sheet. It's cut into pieces. It's not hard to say, "I want the pieces to be X by Y" even if the factory doesn't ordinarily cut the sheets into N pieces of X by Y. These are immense contract manufacturers. Their whole business is building what they're contracted to build to the tolerances they are contracted to test to with the quality of raw materials they are contracted to start with. Custom work for companies as huge as Apple are no problem at all.

They weren't custom, they were stockpiled previous generation ones.

[Mr. Me]

They weren't custom, they were stockpiled previous generation ones.Do you know this for a fact or are you talking out of your hat. Stockpiles and warehousing today are generally not done in favor of JIT manufacturing. In a field that advances as rapidly as flat panel displays, deliberately trying to keep inventory of the previous generation would be a nightmare.

[BenRoethig]

Do you know this for a fact or are you talking out of your hat. Stockpiles and warehousing today are generally not done in favor of JIT manufacturing. In a field that advances as rapidly as flat panel displays, deliberately trying to keep inventory of the previous generation would be a nightmare.

Like all things LCD panels have the part numbers on them. Apple has been known to use LCD panels (and optical drives) well after those parts were no longer sold.

[Amorph]

Like all things LCD panels have the part numbers on them. Apple has been known to use LCD panels (and optical drives) well after those parts were no longer sold.

In other words, they use custom parts, and whether the company offers them for sale is essentially irrelevant.

I will never understand why contract manufacturing seems so unintuitive. If your company doesn't normally offer X, but it offers things like X, and a company approaches you to make 5 million Xs over the course of 3 years, will your company take up the offer? The companies that Apple goes to tend to say 'yes'.

The simple fact is that in the quantities that Apple orders over the time periods that they request the only difference between a 'custom' line for them and a general offering is that the company is 100% guaranteed to sell every part in the 'custom' line. Otherwise the production runs are similar in size, so the cost differential is minimal to none. This has been a solved problem for, oh, 40 or 50 years.

[rezwits]

I am going to hmm...

Never.

why? the dock and the extra :1 from 16:9 to 16:10 is most likely for the dock. You can get 720p full pixel output on a 1280x800 macbook with a little black at the top and bottom...

Laters

[JeffDM]

The cinema displays were explicitly 16:10 so you could see 16:9 video for editing and have a few toolbars available for FCP or room at the bottom for QT Pro widgets. Steve said so when they were launched. Now why would someone want to restrict their screen physical dimensions so they cannot edit a full width/resolution stream without covering up part of the picture???

16:9 is great for a TV where you won't have editing tools to deal with. Computers and their monitors should not be primarily designed to watch TV but primarily designed as a tool which can do TV without loss.

16:10 is closer to that of standard paper documents too, landscape and two sheets in portrait, side by side. I think that's more significant than editing, my gut feeling is that most industries and home users need to deal with documents, editing video is less of a concern for most people.

short answer straight from campus : Absolutely positively never.

16:9 is only for movies, 16:10 is what apple generally uses.

I'd say stay away from never. I don't like absolutes because they rarely hold up.

I think it may be a while because the notebooks were all refreshed within the last 18 months, changing all the dimensions of everything so soon might not be so simple.

Personally, the idea that there should only be one aspect ratio of screens is pushing the idea of uniformity too far. TVs are in part for movies, but most theatrically distributed movies aren't even in 16:9. With overscan, you can clip the borders of one movie format so it looks like it's 16:9, but it isn't. Old academy movies and IMAX movies are 4:3 and Cinemascope is roughly 2.35:1 (with some variations). We've already seen that computers can and do routinely handle 4:3, 5:4, 3:2, 16:9 and 16:10, and maybe others, without issue. I don't really see any reason it has to be bludgeoned into just one.

[talksense101]

I use a 16:9 monitor with my Mac mini and I hate it. I prefer 16:10.

[FuturePastNow]

I certainly prefer the little extra vertical space a 16:10 display provides, but I think there's a good chance of Apple adopting 16:9, particularly on the non-pro Macbook and iMac.

The industry as a whole is shifting to them, which makes the new panels cheaper in volume, and we all know how Apple likes its profit margins. And Apple will claim that its consumer models are for personal entertainment more than anything else.

It won't come until those machines are due for a good, solid external redesign, which is probably going to be soon for the iMac and a couple of years for the Macbook.

[mcarling]

Well said.
I hope Apple have in store new displays coming soon. Specially a larger than 30" display. For folks that design motion graphics or edit video/film content that would be a blessing.

It's about time.

It think we'll see a replacement for the 30inch Cinema Display when large enough LED backlights become available. I'm hoping for 3840x2400 resolution in a size not larger than 30 inches, but Resolution Independence will be needed for it to be useable.

[Mr. Me]

... Resolution Independence will be needed for it to be useable.How you figure that?

[mcarling]

How you figure that?

Without Resolution Independence, a 3840x2400 monitor not larger than 30" would have UI elements too small for most people to read at reasonable distances.

[Mr. Me]

Without Resolution Independence, a 3840x2400 monitor not larger than 30" would have UI elements too small for most people to read at reasonable distances.So you haven't used a Mac since Apple released MacOS X then? If you had, then you would know that you comment is not necessarily true.

[hmurchison]

512 icons would do me fine.

I'm willing to beta test a 4k monitor if any vendors are reading this thread :smokey:

[JeffDM]

So you haven't used a Mac since Apple released MacOS X then? If you had, then you would know that you comment is not necessarily true.

I guess that depends on your standards. You haven't elaborated on what you mean, but a 30" screen with a 150ppi resolution without adjusting the user interface is really pushing the usability for a lot of people. And 12 point text would probably be the equivalent to about 6 points on the actual screen, given that OS X still apparently equates 1 typography point to being the size of one pixel.

[DHagan4755]

Where there's smoke there's usually fire and I'm curious what everyone thinks will be the time line for this transition? Fall?With rumors of redesigned MacBooks and iMacs soon...could it be 16:9 ratio displays are about to be integrated into these newly redesigned product lines?

[nvidia2008]

512 icons would do me fine.
I'm willing to beta test a 4k monitor if any vendors are reading this thread :smokey:

I'm willing to beta test a Red Scarlet 3K if any vendors are reading this thread :smokey::D

[nvidia2008]

With rumors of redesigned MacBooks and iMacs soon...could it be 16:9 ratio displays are about to be integrated into these newly redesigned product lines?

Heh. Scary but unlikely.

[JeffDM]

With rumors of redesigned MacBooks and iMacs soon...could it be 16:9 ratio displays are about to be integrated into these newly redesigned product lines?

Having used a 16:9 screen on a notebook, I'm not liking the aspect ratio for computer use, 16:10 is short enough as it is. What 16:9 really does is make the screen shorter, not necessarily wider. Less information on the screen and more scrolling, and for what? To make movies fit the screen better without letterbox bars? I have a machine to watch movies on, and that's a home theater with an image measured in feet, not inches. My parents watch movies on their computer less than 5% of the time, the rest of the time, they have to deal with a shorter screen because the world apparently has to normalize on one aspect ratio for every kind of device. I do watch videos on my MBP from time to time, but it's not the main use of the machine. Besides, I watch a lot 4:3 TV shows too, and shortening the screen makes that image smaller.

[DHagan4755]

I'm curious what everyone thinks will be the time line for this transition? Fall?

Looks like with the iMac, the transition is now underway...

[Mr. K]

Looks like. :no:

16:9 is fine for movies, and I prefer it for gaming (peripheral vision!), but for every day computer use I prefer 16:10. I don't particularly care if the iMac is transitioned to 16:9 displays, but please, keep the MBP 16:10. 16:9 simply isn't as pleasant to use on a laptop screen.

[BenRoethig]

You can cross another off of the "Apple will never" list.

[Mike Fix]

Apple is a full blown consumer company now. With every new product and software release they're proving time and time again that they are a consumer and not a professional products company.

This is truly sad for someone like myself who use their hardware daily to make a living, but time's up for the pros. Hopefully they'll stay on top of their towers and not let them slip too far behind...

Quicktime amateur X is enough to show that 16x9 will be the future of apple displays...which will all be glossy so you can see if anyone is sneaking up behind you.

[s.metcalf]

So far they've only adopted 16:9 on the iMac, which is not a "Pro" machine anyway. Many people like to watch TV and movies on their iMac screens so I think it's a good move for them.

I can't see what's inherently un-pro about 16:9 anyway. It seems unlikely the laptops will go 16:9. They've just re-released the iBook and that didn't go 16:9. I think it would make the laptops too narrow and not give them enough palm rest. Plus there is a whole ecosystem of accessories (bags etc) suited to the current sizes that have been around for years. The 15" MBP's dimensions basically haven't changed since the 15" PowerBook debut.

It'll be interesting to see what happens to the top-of-the-line 30" Cinema Display...

Apple is a full blown consumer company now. With every new product and software release they're proving time and time again that they are a consumer and not a professional products company.

This is truly sad for someone like myself who use their hardware daily to make a living, but time's up for the pros. Hopefully they'll stay on top of their towers and not let them slip too far behind...

Quicktime amateur X is enough to show that 16x9 will be the future of apple displays...which will all be glossy so you can see if anyone is sneaking up behind you.

[wizard69]

So I read through it. What a bunch of laughs.

As one can see once a screen exceeds a certain size and pixel count arguing about ratios becomes a bit silly. The iMac can now display 1080P HD in a window if you are in editing mode or it can blow the image up to full screen size. Not a bad deal if you ask me.

Screen ratios are only an issue if you don't have enough pixels to display common formats and the associated tools. Once you move beyound that, that is have the ability to display common formats pixel for pixel in a window the screen ratio doesn't mean much. Sure it is easier on the electronics when blowing an image up to have nice multiples in pixel counts but do you really want to edit on a system that is doing so.

Frankly I'm happy to see Apple becoming agressive with screens and iMac design in general.


Dave

[JeffDM]

You can cross another off of the "Apple will never" list.

That's true, but going through the discussion, only one person said "Apple will never", and said person claimed some special, unprovable connection to someone in Cupertino, for all we know, it was just a bit of hot air (maybe the contact was imaginary), simply someone that wasn't actually in the loop or the contact was lying.

So I read through it. What a bunch of laughs.

As one can see once a screen exceeds a certain size and pixel count arguing about ratios becomes a bit silly. The iMac can now display 1080P HD in a window if you are in editing mode or it can blow the image up to full screen size. Not a bad deal if you ask me.

Screen ratios are only an issue if you don't have enough pixels to display common formats and the associated tools. Once you move beyound that, that is have the ability to display common formats pixel for pixel in a window the screen ratio doesn't mean much. Sure it is easier on the electronics when blowing an image up to have nice multiples in pixel counts but do you really want to edit on a system that is doing so.

Frankly I'm happy to see Apple becoming agressive with screens and iMac design in general.

My concern was about notebooks, and the thread starter specifically mentions notebooks, and if you didn't notice, the MacBook still sticks with 16:10.

But even looking at my 30" display, the width is fine, I don't see why I would want it to be a shorter display in order to make it fit a shorter aspect ratio designed for video. I wouldn't even mind if it was a bit taller, say 1.5:1.

I will say that it is nice Apple went beyond 1920x1200 on a consumer display. But if I were in the market for a 1920 display, I would go for the 1200 pixel tall one over the 1080 one, as both are roughly the same price anyways. I might watch video on a given computer screen as much as 25% of the time, no reason to make it shorter just to fit an arbitrary media format without black bars.

[DHagan4755]

There's no question that MacBook Pros are next on the 16:9 hit parade. At least starting with the 15" and 17" models. To be precise, 15.4 will become 15.6" and 17.1 will be 17.3". If we are lucky, a new high-end model at 18.4" will be added.

Dell and HP are going this route, expect Apple to follow in hot pursuit. Dell's new corporate thin and light "Latitude Z series" uses a 16:9 display at 15.6".

As far as the 13" Pro goes, I think this may get a wee bit smaller with the 13.1" display. Probably of the same ilk used in the new 13" HP Envy.

It's also possible that Apple will change their design a little bit since they are being so heavy copied by the likes of HP. They'll need something to differentiate their portfolio.

[BenRoethig]

So far they've only adopted 16:9 on the iMac, which is not a "Pro" machine anyway. Many people like to watch TV and movies on their iMac screens so I think it's a good move for them.

$2000 is pretty Pro.

[synp]

$2000 is pretty Pro.
$2000 is expensive, it is not necessarily "pro". These are two different concepts.

And for some of our favorite other-industry examples:

A Leica M9 is expensive, but not "pro". A Nikon D3 or Canon 1D is "pro"
A ferrari is expensive, but not "pro". An 18-wheeler is pro.


Getting back to computers, all iMacs are targeted for the (relatively affluent) homes or schools. Of course some businesses might find them useful and buy lots of them, but equating expensive with pro is wrong.

[BenRoethig]

Why? Because Apple didn't apply that branding to them?

[synp]

Why? Because Apple didn't apply that branding to them?

Because offices, especially ones with cubicles prefer smaller screens, many even keep using 4:3 or 5:4 screens - saving desk space is important.

Because graphic designers, video editors and even pro photoshoppers prefer dual screens, each screen being not quite so big. Yes, you can connect a secondary screen to an iMac, but it looks weird.

The whole all-in-one package is for home use. Businesses require continuity above all else, so a faulty monitor can be swapped out quickly, as could a hard drive in a faulty computer. Only a faulty hard drive would cause any kind of discontinuity. With an iMac, any malfunction means the whole package is out of service, and replacing the hard disk? Well, I'd say that it's like pulling teeth, but a mouth opens more easily than the back of an iMac.

It's a consumer machine, though an expensive one.

[Amorph]

Because offices, especially ones with cubicles prefer smaller screens, many even keep using 4:3 or 5:4 screens - saving desk space is important.

And yet, somehow I have two 20" widescreen monitors on my desk.

Because graphic designers, video editors and even pro photoshoppers prefer dual screens, each screen being not quite so big. Yes, you can connect a secondary screen to an iMac, but it looks weird.

Is "looks weird" actually a criterion here? Has no designer really figured that hey, they could swap two one-page monitors for one two-page monitor? I doubt that.

The whole all-in-one package is for home use. Businesses require continuity above all else, so a faulty monitor can be swapped out quickly, as could a hard drive in a faulty computer. Only a faulty hard drive would cause any kind of discontinuity. With an iMac, any malfunction means the whole package is out of service, and replacing the hard disk? Well, I'd say that it's like pulling teeth, but a mouth opens more easily than the back of an iMac.

Business has been losing that battle for 30 years. Remember when they required PCI ethernet cards so they could quickly swap them out when they got chatty? Those were the days.

If you require continuity, you keep user data on the network, keep some up-to-date iMacs on standby, and swap them in for any non-functional iMac. Total user downtime: About 1 minute, regardless of what the problem is. Repairing the machine might not be quick or easy, but since production is humming along it doesn't really matter. The real issue here is that Apple doesn't have a service program as robust as Dell's. If they had overnight off-site and same-day on-site service (available for a price, of course) nobody would be talking about this.

It's a consumer machine, though an expensive one.

A consumer machine with an 8-bit screen with incredibly high resolution and the capacity for an i7 and 16GB of RAM is purely a consumer machine? Ah, no. It is certainly not the Ultimate Professional Workstation, but it can do heavy lifting and therefore there will be people using them for heavy lifting.

Heck, I know designers who are stuck at work on 6-bit Dell monitors. The iMac's display might not be the best possible, but it beats the pants off a lot of what's actually out there.

[JeffDM]

And yet, somehow I have two 20" widescreen monitors on my desk.

In portrait or landscape? A 20" screen seems pretty short to me in landscape, but too tall in landscape. I'm guessing you have a setup that's only a thousand pixels tall, and three times wider than it is tall.


If you require continuity, you keep user data on the network, keep some up-to-date iMacs on standby, and swap them in for any non-functional iMac. Total user downtime: About 1 minute, regardless of what the problem is. Repairing the machine might not be quick or easy, but since production is humming along it doesn't really matter. The real issue here is that Apple doesn't have a service program as robust as Dell's. If they had overnight off-site and same-day on-site service (available for a price, of course) nobody would be talking about this.

Having an entire machine that's ready to swap in "within a minute" would require the expense of keeping an entire spare machine, and I'm pretty sure in most cases, active licenses for all the software that's on it. Then that's not counting the time to move the user's account over.