By the way, to all those complaining about the iSight & speakers...I'm thinking that Apple was making this more of a docking station (in clamshell mode) than a second display! I'm a bit confused about the speakers though, but maybe it was to clean up a desk area (no speakers with long wires)...I'm sure you will be able to add your own speakers. But for the desktop users and those of us with the current notebooks....?
I assume that the mini Display Port cable sends the audio (like HDMI) to the screen. And the iSight camera & microphone send their data back to the Mac via USB?
Sound right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Another way to look at it.
A keyboard, mouse, external HDD permanently plugged into the monitor.
Plug your notebook in and close the lid, you essentially get both advantages of notebook and desktop combo.
Yes, printer too for home setups. Just plug in 3 cords and you can access everything.
In fact, turn your notebook 90', so the cords are at the "back", and then you've got a DVD at the "front".
Only problem.. external speakers. The monitor doesn't offer a headphone-out so you'd have to plug them directly into the MacBook I guess.
Worthless. Integrated speakers are always bad enough that mono or stereo is not even an issue. Besides, the speakers are probably too close to each other for stereo being anything but a gimmick on the spec sheet.
Quote:
3 USB port hub built-in.
That's pretty common, no innovation there.
Quote:
iSight and mic.
Interesting for 5% of the users. The 95% pay for nothing rather than paying for a better LCD pannel or better ergonomics.
Quote:
If I had a public office space I'd by them simply because the way they look would create a good impression to potential clients.
I know some clients that might consider that this just shows that you're wasting their money on fancy show-off stuff rather than on cutting his costs... Having crappy shameful offices has never prevented my companies from winning huge international clients - sadly.
Quote:
I love the way everyone is so pissed we didn't get matte screens. I'm a glossy guy
Then, you don't need an IPS pannel. You could have had the same monitor from Apple with exactly the same look and feature but for $500 with a TN pannel. How do you feel paying extras for a feature that you can't use because of the glossy screen.
This is the first Blu-Ray Capable External Monitor Apple has shipped. I think this not only means that we'll see an update to the video cards of the MacPros but that we'll also see a Blu-Ray option soon.
Hmm.... This is a strange one. Glossy screen and integrated cables for the new macbook/macbook pro certainnly doesnt indicate a Pro slant. Also has anyone noticed NO HDCP!! I mean come on! For this much money people were crying out for this in the next update. And yes, the extra cables are useless for anyone wanting to use this with a cube/pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah
I wonder if Apple is going to release an entirely new range of Cinema Displays, without the MacBook charger, and call them something other than 'Cinema Displays'...?
Given the 'shortfalls' this is possibility. Or maybe i'm being too optimistic?
It may just be that Apple will introduce displays without the magsafe for the Pro and just update the cube to include a display port and leave the older macbook's/macbook pro's out in the cold with the option to but the older (circa 04!) cinema displays. I was waiting for a display update with HDCP and a slightly lower price point for my macbook pro.
This is a IPS panel which means it will not have the nasty colorshift of TN panels. When you see a 24" for $300 it's a TN panel folks.
Let's just hope that whatever panel is inside is better than what is in the 24" iMac: truer colours, and the ability to reduce brightness to humane levels. Although I personally doubt it - Apple have been so successful in the consumer market and are so pleased with themselves with the MacBook, iMacs, iPods and iPhones that frankly I'm surprised they still have a Mac Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister
A different monitor is coming that will have a different set of cables.
Ha! I would not bet $1 on that. Apple really likes milking their customers for all they're worth -- which I don't mind, as long as the stuff they are offering is above par.
Which, with the new MacBook Pro, is clearly not the case.
On a different note - when I watched the video, I never had any glorious joyful "Steve-o" moment, it all felt rather subdued and mechanical. They probably know they are gambling somewhat with their reputation as concerns professional users. The look on the 3 faces in the Q&A was downright gloomy.
1920x1200 is a satisfactory resolution for the 17" MacBook Pro. It is not satisfactory for a 24" display. With about the same pixel density as the 17" MacBook Pro, a 24" monitor would boast 2560x1600 resolution. I would buy one for $1500.
Personally I think it's a very wise choice to have 1 type of digital out instead of 3 (DVI, Mini DVI, Micro DVI); however, was it a good decision to switch to Displayport instead of HDMI? Thoughts please.
Personally I think it's a very wise choice to have 1 type of digital out instead of 3 (DVI, Mini DVI, Micro DVI); however, was it a good decision to switch to Displayport instead of HDMI? Thoughts please.
The respective Wikipedia pages for DP and HDMI are pretty thorough but there are plenty of articles that compare the two.
The only real crux with going with DP is Apple's use of what appears to be their proprietary Mini-DisplayPort. I know know if they can patent a new connector on an open standard interface, but the reasoning on Apple's part to make a smaller connector does seem sound on Apple's part if it prevents them from having to create multiple DP adapters in the future, like they did with DVI, Mini-DVI, and Micro-DVI. Hopefully others will be using this same svelte DP port, unlike Apple's MagSafe with they seem hell bent on preventing others from using
1920x1200 is a satisfactory resolution for the 17" MacBook Pro. It is not satisfactory for a 24" display. With about the same pixel density as the 17" MacBook Pro, a 24" monitor would boast 2560x1600 resolution. I would buy one for $1500.
Are such panels even available? Or are you just asking for unicorns? Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's being made or it even has a viable market.
Higher density is fine on notebooks, their portability requires it, and their use generally means the screens are closer to the user. Desktop displays don't need to be such a high pitch, they don't need to be portable and the user can sit a bit farther away.
900 bucks for a 24" S-IPS with LED backlight is not expensive at all. If it would not be glossy, I would be very tempted (but with this mirror and without FW-hub they can keep it).
ha-ha, 24'' S-IPS LED monitor, even glossy, would be a great choice for 900 USD
TFT LED is much better by color space than simple TFT display, yet, I expect, previous S-IPC Cinema give better color accuracy anyway
It looks like Apple has made a sharp turn to Consumers. Right now I use Ilyama 22'' TFT monitor (good quality for its money) and will upgrade to 23/24 NEC S-IPS most likely. New Cinema is totally out of choice.
Personally I think it's a very wise choice to have 1 type of digital out instead of 3 (DVI, Mini DVI, Micro DVI); however, was it a good decision to switch to Displayport instead of HDMI? Thoughts please.
DisplayPort is designed for computers. HDMI is designed for televisions. DisplayPort has two main advantages over HDMI:
- DisplayPort is royalty free, and
- DisplayPort supports much higher resolutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Are such panels even available? Or are you just asking for unicorns? Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's being made or it even has a viable market.
Neither. The panel manufacturers could use exactly the same processes they now use to produce 17" 1920x1200 panels to make 2560x1600 panels of about 24" with exactly the same pixel density. They would just be cutting the sheets into fewer but larger panels. Apple is a big enough player to get them if they wanted them. Asking for a pixel density not already in production would be nearer to asking for unicorns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Higher density is fine on notebooks, their portability requires it, and their use generally means the screens are closer to the user. Desktop displays don't need to be such a high pitch, they don't need to be portable and the user can sit a bit farther away.
You just made an argument about screen size, not about pixel density. I certainly would not want a 24" laptop. That doesn't change the fact that 100ppi on the desktop is blurry. Higher pixel densities are better up to the point which humans can no longer discern the difference -- which is around 300ppi. I would love to have a 34" 3840x2400 ACD, except that there isn't yet any way to drive it. Eventually, DisplayPort will support higher bitrates, but not now.
HDMI is intended as an external consumer electronics connection for HDTVs. It is rapidly replacing S-Video and component video as the primary connection to TV sets. HDMI appears on consumer monitors so that they can be connected to Blu-ray Disc players, game consoles, and other consumer electronics. This allows the monitor to be used as an entertainment display. HDMI is also found on PCs to enable connectivity to HDTVs.
In contrast, DisplayPort is the digital interface for connecting flat-panel displays to computer systems. It will eventually replace VGA, DVI, and LVDS in IT equipment such as home and office PCs, projectors, monitors, and data center consoles. HDMI is not designed to meet these internal and external IT connectivity requirements...it is an external consumer electronics interface.
HDMI is based on legacy CRT raster-scan architecture. DisplayPort is designed for modern flat-panel displays and PC chipsets. DisplayPort has a micro-packet architecture with low voltage signaling that more easily enables networked displays. In the future, DisplayPort will also allow daisy chaining displays at full graphics performance, including 3D. and content protection. Today's USB-based daisy-chaining solutions do not support high performance 3D graphics or protected content.
HDMI has rules for how to implement and use the technology. Business and enterprise customers may not want to implement all of the consumer electronics features that are required in HDMI products. In contrast, DisplayPort is the display equivalent of Ethernet....anyone can implement it in any type of application. A VESA compliance program ensures interoperability for products featuring the "DisplayPort Certified" logo.
Comments
Another way to look at it.
A keyboard, mouse, external HDD permanently plugged into the monitor.
Plug your notebook in and close the lid, you essentially get both advantages of notebook and desktop combo.
By the way, to all those complaining about the iSight & speakers...I'm thinking that Apple was making this more of a docking station (in clamshell mode) than a second display! I'm a bit confused about the speakers though, but maybe it was to clean up a desk area (no speakers with long wires)...I'm sure you will be able to add your own speakers. But for the desktop users and those of us with the current notebooks....?
I assume that the mini Display Port cable sends the audio (like HDMI) to the screen. And the iSight camera & microphone send their data back to the Mac via USB?
Sound right?
Another way to look at it.
A keyboard, mouse, external HDD permanently plugged into the monitor.
Plug your notebook in and close the lid, you essentially get both advantages of notebook and desktop combo.
Yes, printer too for home setups. Just plug in 3 cords and you can access everything.
In fact, turn your notebook 90', so the cords are at the "back", and then you've got a DVD at the "front".
Only problem.. external speakers. The monitor doesn't offer a headphone-out so you'd have to plug them directly into the MacBook I guess.
Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP 24-inch Widescreen
http://accessories.dell.com/sna/prod...1&sku=320-6272
It's a S-PVA panel with Display-port...but no LED backlight.
$699 CDN
This is the Monitor I'm buying when I get some extra cash...
The ACD with Aluminium Body, H-IPS Panel, Glass and LED Black Light, cost $899.
I think it is pretty reasonable.
Oh, i forgot to mention it is much better looking
I think this is not too bad...compare to Dell 2408, a S-PVA Panel, which cost $619.
The ACD with Aluminium Body, H-IPS Panel, Glass and LED Black Light, cost $899.
I think it is pretty reasonable.
Oh, i forgot to mention it is much better looking
You're assuming. There are no documents stating it's panel, that I've seen. Include links.
Now HP has learned something: HP LP2475w 24" LCD Display
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/spe...ecs-_-Main+Tab
Component video, DisplayPort, DVI (2), HDMI
They aren't f***ing over their possible pool of customers by eliminating output choice.
$629.99
The Adjustable Stand is also much appreciated.
Stereo speakers.
Worthless. Integrated speakers are always bad enough that mono or stereo is not even an issue. Besides, the speakers are probably too close to each other for stereo being anything but a gimmick on the spec sheet.
3 USB port hub built-in.
That's pretty common, no innovation there.
iSight and mic.
Interesting for 5% of the users. The 95% pay for nothing rather than paying for a better LCD pannel or better ergonomics.
If I had a public office space I'd by them simply because the way they look would create a good impression to potential clients.
I know some clients that might consider that this just shows that you're wasting their money on fancy show-off stuff rather than on cutting his costs... Having crappy shameful offices has never prevented my companies from winning huge international clients - sadly.
I love the way everyone is so pissed we didn't get matte screens. I'm a glossy guy
Then, you don't need an IPS pannel. You could have had the same monitor from Apple with exactly the same look and feature but for $500 with a TN pannel. How do you feel paying extras for a feature that you can't use because of the glossy screen.
First, they can't leave all of us who bought new notebooks this spring and have MacPros sitting at work with four-year old monitors out in the cold.
A different monitor is coming that will have a different set of cables.
-----
That said, I like the idea of this monitor. If I were at my old job, I would buy it in a heartbeat. College students will enjoy it, too.
You're assuming. There are no documents stating it's panel, that I've seen. Include links.
Now HP has learned something: HP LP2475w 24" LCD Display
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/spe...ecs-_-Main+Tab
Component video, DisplayPort, DVI (2), HDMI
They aren't f***ing over their possible pool of customers by eliminating output choice.
$629.99
The Adjustable Stand is also much appreciated.
I'll add the Dell comes with similar connections...
HDMI, Display Port, DVI-D with HDCP and HDMI 2.1 Audio Out.
I wonder if Apple is going to release an entirely new range of Cinema Displays, without the MacBook charger, and call them something other than 'Cinema Displays'...?
Given the 'shortfalls' this is possibility. Or maybe i'm being too optimistic?
It may just be that Apple will introduce displays without the magsafe for the Pro and just update the cube to include a display port and leave the older macbook's/macbook pro's out in the cold with the option to but the older (circa 04!) cinema displays. I was waiting for a display update with HDCP and a slightly lower price point for my macbook pro.
Disappointing.
Folks let's clear some things up.
This is a IPS panel which means it will not have the nasty colorshift of TN panels. When you see a 24" for $300 it's a TN panel folks.
Let's just hope that whatever panel is inside is better than what is in the 24" iMac: truer colours, and the ability to reduce brightness to humane levels. Although I personally doubt it - Apple have been so successful in the consumer market and are so pleased with themselves with the MacBook, iMacs, iPods and iPhones that frankly I'm surprised they still have a Mac Pro.
A different monitor is coming that will have a different set of cables.
Ha! I would not bet $1 on that. Apple really likes milking their customers for all they're worth -- which I don't mind, as long as the stuff they are offering is above par.
Which, with the new MacBook Pro, is clearly not the case.
On a different note - when I watched the video, I never had any glorious joyful "Steve-o" moment, it all felt rather subdued and mechanical. They probably know they are gambling somewhat with their reputation as concerns professional users. The look on the 3 faces in the Q&A was downright gloomy.
Personally I think it's a very wise choice to have 1 type of digital out instead of 3 (DVI, Mini DVI, Micro DVI); however, was it a good decision to switch to Displayport instead of HDMI? Thoughts please.
The respective Wikipedia pages for DP and HDMI are pretty thorough but there are plenty of articles that compare the two. The only real crux with going with DP is Apple's use of what appears to be their proprietary Mini-DisplayPort. I know know if they can patent a new connector on an open standard interface, but the reasoning on Apple's part to make a smaller connector does seem sound on Apple's part if it prevents them from having to create multiple DP adapters in the future, like they did with DVI, Mini-DVI, and Micro-DVI. Hopefully others will be using this same svelte DP port, unlike Apple's MagSafe with they seem hell bent on preventing others from using
1920x1200 is a satisfactory resolution for the 17" MacBook Pro. It is not satisfactory for a 24" display. With about the same pixel density as the 17" MacBook Pro, a 24" monitor would boast 2560x1600 resolution. I would buy one for $1500.
Are such panels even available? Or are you just asking for unicorns? Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's being made or it even has a viable market.
Higher density is fine on notebooks, their portability requires it, and their use generally means the screens are closer to the user. Desktop displays don't need to be such a high pitch, they don't need to be portable and the user can sit a bit farther away.
900 bucks for a 24" S-IPS with LED backlight is not expensive at all. If it would not be glossy, I would be very tempted (but with this mirror and without FW-hub they can keep it).
ha-ha, 24'' S-IPS LED monitor, even glossy, would be a great choice for 900 USD
BUT - from Apple site -
24-inch (viewable) LED-backlit thin film transistor (TFT) active-matrix liquid crystal display
TFT LED is much better by color space than simple TFT display, yet, I expect, previous S-IPC Cinema give better color accuracy anyway
It looks like Apple has made a sharp turn to Consumers. Right now I use Ilyama 22'' TFT monitor (good quality for its money) and will upgrade to 23/24 NEC S-IPS most likely. New Cinema is totally out of choice.
Personally I think it's a very wise choice to have 1 type of digital out instead of 3 (DVI, Mini DVI, Micro DVI); however, was it a good decision to switch to Displayport instead of HDMI? Thoughts please.
DisplayPort is designed for computers. HDMI is designed for televisions. DisplayPort has two main advantages over HDMI:
- DisplayPort is royalty free, and
- DisplayPort supports much higher resolutions.
Are such panels even available? Or are you just asking for unicorns? Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's being made or it even has a viable market.
Neither. The panel manufacturers could use exactly the same processes they now use to produce 17" 1920x1200 panels to make 2560x1600 panels of about 24" with exactly the same pixel density. They would just be cutting the sheets into fewer but larger panels. Apple is a big enough player to get them if they wanted them. Asking for a pixel density not already in production would be nearer to asking for unicorns.
Higher density is fine on notebooks, their portability requires it, and their use generally means the screens are closer to the user. Desktop displays don't need to be such a high pitch, they don't need to be portable and the user can sit a bit farther away.
You just made an argument about screen size, not about pixel density. I certainly would not want a 24" laptop. That doesn't change the fact that 100ppi on the desktop is blurry. Higher pixel densities are better up to the point which humans can no longer discern the difference -- which is around 300ppi. I would love to have a 34" 3840x2400 ACD, except that there isn't yet any way to drive it. Eventually, DisplayPort will support higher bitrates, but not now.
HDMI is intended as an external consumer electronics connection for HDTVs. It is rapidly replacing S-Video and component video as the primary connection to TV sets. HDMI appears on consumer monitors so that they can be connected to Blu-ray Disc players, game consoles, and other consumer electronics. This allows the monitor to be used as an entertainment display. HDMI is also found on PCs to enable connectivity to HDTVs.
In contrast, DisplayPort is the digital interface for connecting flat-panel displays to computer systems. It will eventually replace VGA, DVI, and LVDS in IT equipment such as home and office PCs, projectors, monitors, and data center consoles. HDMI is not designed to meet these internal and external IT connectivity requirements...it is an external consumer electronics interface.
HDMI is based on legacy CRT raster-scan architecture. DisplayPort is designed for modern flat-panel displays and PC chipsets. DisplayPort has a micro-packet architecture with low voltage signaling that more easily enables networked displays. In the future, DisplayPort will also allow daisy chaining displays at full graphics performance, including 3D. and content protection. Today's USB-based daisy-chaining solutions do not support high performance 3D graphics or protected content.
HDMI has rules for how to implement and use the technology. Business and enterprise customers may not want to implement all of the consumer electronics features that are required in HDMI products. In contrast, DisplayPort is the display equivalent of Ethernet....anyone can implement it in any type of application. A VESA compliance program ensures interoperability for products featuring the "DisplayPort Certified" logo.
HDMI just isn't tailored for computing applications.