That is one fantastic screen! I bought it the moment it got EOL-ed some 18 months ago. Still don't understand why they killed it; Dell is still selling it, same panel, same price.
I like my 30" Cinema but the color is a little inconsistent from one side to the other which is typical with fluorescent back light.
Quote:
But if you have the space a CRT still outshines all these different flat panels. I've been told that Hollywood uses CRT's because of their quality - can anyone verify that?
I thought the Ezio monitors were considered the top of the line. Who still makes CRT displays?
I like my 30" Cinema but the color is a little inconsistent from one side to the other which is typical with fluorescent back light.
I thought the Ezio monitors were considered the top of the line. Who still makes CRT displays?
Could that be the artifact when speakers are standing too close to the screen? I've seen this happen to by B&O TV with one of my Elipson speakers standing next to it. The TV started to show color banding amongst other crap.
Eizo is indeed considered an extremely good brand. They still make the CRT's
Forget the idea of Apple doing a TV - it just makes more sense to do an Add-on box that they have more control over and is easier for consumers to invest in versus a massively large TV that they keep for 10 years until it breaks. The purchasing decisions behind TV?s and the Apple TV is very different. Too different.
Apple will do an AIO iOS device with no wired inputs or outputs.
It will not be a "TV", even though it can be used that way. It will instead be a portal to Apple Land, accessed a la carte with a credit card.
Could that be the artifact when speakers are standing too close to the screen?
No, the speakers are over 12" away. The woofer is on the floor, so I doubt that is affecting the monitor at all. The color shift is not really that noticeable except when there is a solid shade across the entire screen. So, I'm just being picky about a problem that is pretty insignificant. I never trust color on any monitor though. When designing I usually sample the color on screen by the numbers and then print it on a calibrated high end Epson inkjet. I usually tweak the color a bit on press if necessary.
For video work I have an Intensity Pro HDMI card in my Mac Pro and output to a top of the line Sony 1080 HD, which I'm told is not as good as some other brands, however, it looks pretty good to me.
I think Apple will be out of the game when the newer double resolution TV and movie digital format takes hold. I've read about it but don't recall it's name. Also the new super low power OLED screens that are very thin are also appealing. Do you think manufacturers of such TVs will add Thunderbolt ports to those? Since they cost five times more than conventional LCD TVs they might.
That same mentality doesn?t work too well in the TV market - the demand for a range of products of different sizes is very much against what Apple does.
Forget the idea of Apple doing a TV - it just makes more sense to do an Add-on box that they have more control over and is easier for consumers to invest in versus a massively large TV that they keep for 10 years until it breaks. The purchasing decisions behind TV?s and the Apple TV is very different. Too different.
I will take note of the time and date of your response and check back in a year so how this panned out.
Does anyone sell a 27" display that's 2560x1440 like Apple's? All the ones I find are only 1920x1080. I like apple's resolution, not the price. I can't put something smaller next to my 27" iMac!
Does anyone sell a 27" display that's 2560x1440 like Apple's? All the ones I find are only 1920x1080. I like apple's resolution, not the price. I can't put something smaller next to my 27" iMac!
dell do, and they use the same panels pretty much.
As a CAD/CAM user, I get that. Multiple screens do well for multiple documents, but the bigger screen can help for detailed view while keeping tools on the screen. I plan to get a 27" iMac when it's updated. I might make a portrait stand for one of my 24" monitors.
I've been having the Dell VS. Apple display discussion with a friend recently because we're both in the market to upgrade our current monitors. So this post is right up our respective alleys.
I do Architecture as well...been using my Dell Laptop for work and a Mac for personal use. Most Architecture firms mainly use AutoCAD and Revit and, up until recently, neither were available for OSX platforms. Now, only AutoCAD is available...from what i've read, it's a pretty poor translation when you compare it to the Windows version.
I've been using my old Dell 2007FP 20" for years and love it! It's a testament to Dell that they still offer this monitor for sale. However, I've been toiling over buying the Apple TB Display over the equivalent Dell 27" as an upgrade for a couple reasons. And I've been holding off mainly to see where TB technology goes...because for me, buying a new monitor is like an investment. You keep them much longer than your computer and I want one that's going to last through the life-space a at least 2 or 3 computer upgrades.
On one hand the Apple TB Display is great for the MB, but not so much for the my dell Laptop. My only 2 video connections are VGA or HDMI. With the Apple TB Display, I haven't really found a way to connect both my MB and my Dell Latitude to the Apple TB display both at the same time...so Dell win's that argument. I even went to the Apple store and had the "geniuses" there trying to figure out if it's even possible. So far, the only solution is a KVM switch, which they weren't even sure that would work on Thunderbolt. I really love the idea of a docking station for my MB and the way the TB display is the all-in-one, but it only really works for Macs. TB technology is just too new right now to make a compelling solution for non-Mac users, or the rare cases like mine where I want a single monitor for both my Mac and PC at the same time.
EDIT: I answered my own quesiton here. Eizo makes monitors that do this, but $1400 is a little out of my price range, and many others i'd assume. I'm talking about the FORIS FX2431, pretty sweet little monitor. Only doesn't come in 27"
So at the moment, i'm shelving the idea of a new display...and going to just keep using my MB without a monitor, bought a port replicator for my Dell, since the Mac is just my personal computer and not for work.
Thats an informative post, thanks. That 30" is really the best out there. But if you have the space a CRT still outshines all these different flat panels. I've been told that Hollywood uses CRT's because of their quality - can anyone verify that?
I've heard the same thing as well, though i can't sight any link on it. I've also been told that one of the main reasons for it is because CRT's still reproduce color, brightness and contrast much more accurately than any flat-panel tech. out there...except for possibly Plasma.
Apple still sell the 27" Display Port LED LCD too, and I might suggest that this display probably sells at a rate about half as many again as the Thunderbolt display has.
Does that mean that Apple has more than a third of all 24" plus LED LCD screens?
I just don't believe it.
I am an Apple Advocate from way back, but these figures just cannot be right. Most of the people I see using large screens with their Macs don't use Apple screens, let alone such a large percentage of the whole market as this article would have us believe.
I might believe the figures if they were referring to the 27" panel used by these displays, which the iMac also usesas does the 27" Display port display.
And that the figures quoted were the aggregate of these sales of the panel too.
I mean, good on Apple if it were true. But it just aint!
Ummm... 26% for Apple is about one-quarter - hardly a "large percentage of the whole market". That means 74% of the large screens are non-Apple - that would be "most" of the displays. You haven't said anything that contradicts the story.
Now imagine when Apple releases their new 27, 36 and 46 inch Cinema Displays with the same functions as the current but now also HDMI and audio outputs so you can use it with your computer or even as a display with your Blu-ray player or your Apple TV STB. With a beautiful retina display, 1080p FaceTime camera and revoluntary museum style anti reflective glass so you get all the rich color but none of that mirror effect.
And all the analysts figure out that this, not a 'real' TV is what all those parts etc were for
Ummm... 26% for Apple is about one-quarter - hardly a "large percentage of the whole market". That means 74% of the large screens are non-Apple - that would be "most" of the displays. You haven't said anything that contradicts the story.
You realize that "large screens" means "24 inches and up", right?
The 24" display market is huge. Supposedly, at least. And 24" displays can be had VERY cheaply.
And yet a quarter of all these sales are of Apple's SINGLE model of display, which costs $1,000, and only works with the newest Macs.
I've heard the same thing as well, though i can't sight any link on it. I've also been told that one of the main reasons for it is because CRT's still reproduce color, brightness and contrast much more accurately than any flat-panel tech. out there...except for possibly Plasma.
It's been a while since I've heard anything like that, I don't know if that's still true anymore. One of the display tech companies basically said that the latest iPad's screen is just a tiny tweak away from being a good pro quality display for color rendition.
It's kind of a moot point, I don't think CRT broadcast monitors are still being made, I think JVC and Sony quit making them in 2009.
You realize that "large screens" means "24 inches and up", right?
The 24" display market is huge. Supposedly, at least. And 24" displays can be had VERY cheaply.
And yet a quarter of all these sales are of Apple's SINGLE model of display, which costs $1,000, and only works with the newest Macs.
Pretending that's not significant is foolish.
As has been stated, the article is talking about "LED LCD computer screens sized 24 inches and up"... not the entire 24"+ market. And according to the article, the survey does includes the legacy ACD, not just the new Thunderbolt Display. Just pointing that out for clarity. But no matter, because it's impressive that this category is still led by Apple, though the lead seems to be shrinking. Having more OEM's employing Thunderbolt would greatly help. Hopefully that's on the horizon.
Marvin and some other A/I members gave me some great advice last year, as I was trying to make a purchase decision. I had to do some remodeling of my home office workstation to accommodate the dual 27" setup (2x24 was the max that I had room for), but the iMac and the matching Thunderbolt display have proven to be worth every cent. I see now why people choose them as much as they do.
One thing that has crossed my mind though... other than the 27" displays, Apple has discontinued the other monitor sizes, correct? But since they still make a 21.5" iMac, that just seems rather odd to me. Why wouldn't Apple offer a matching monitor for those who prefer dual screen setups in that size as well?
Does anyone sell a 27" display that's 2560x1440 like Apple's? All the ones I find are only 1920x1080. I like apple's resolution, not the price. I can't put something smaller next to my 27" iMac!
Dell, HP, NEC, a few others I forget off hand. I doubt you can find a 27" IPS display with less than 2560x1440 resolution.
Apple's Thunderbolt display is nice but like most of their hardware it's overpriced and has poor ergonomics. Thunderbolt is clever but it doesn't add to display quality. I'd much rather have seen Apple make a wide color gamut display while adding the necessary support for wide gamut color spaces to OS X. THAT would seriously improve the Mac user experience, and put Apple a few generations ahead of Windows.
Comments
That is one fantastic screen! I bought it the moment it got EOL-ed some 18 months ago. Still don't understand why they killed it; Dell is still selling it, same panel, same price.
I like my 30" Cinema but the color is a little inconsistent from one side to the other which is typical with fluorescent back light.
But if you have the space a CRT still outshines all these different flat panels. I've been told that Hollywood uses CRT's because of their quality - can anyone verify that?
I thought the Ezio monitors were considered the top of the line. Who still makes CRT displays?
I like my 30" Cinema but the color is a little inconsistent from one side to the other which is typical with fluorescent back light.
I thought the Ezio monitors were considered the top of the line. Who still makes CRT displays?
Could that be the artifact when speakers are standing too close to the screen? I've seen this happen to by B&O TV with one of my Elipson speakers standing next to it. The TV started to show color banding amongst other crap.
Eizo is indeed considered an extremely good brand. They still make the CRT's
Forget the idea of Apple doing a TV - it just makes more sense to do an Add-on box that they have more control over and is easier for consumers to invest in versus a massively large TV that they keep for 10 years until it breaks. The purchasing decisions behind TV?s and the Apple TV is very different. Too different.
Apple will do an AIO iOS device with no wired inputs or outputs.
It will not be a "TV", even though it can be used that way. It will instead be a portal to Apple Land, accessed a la carte with a credit card.
It will not even hook up to traditional cable TV.
Could that be the artifact when speakers are standing too close to the screen?
No, the speakers are over 12" away. The woofer is on the floor, so I doubt that is affecting the monitor at all. The color shift is not really that noticeable except when there is a solid shade across the entire screen. So, I'm just being picky about a problem that is pretty insignificant. I never trust color on any monitor though. When designing I usually sample the color on screen by the numbers and then print it on a calibrated high end Epson inkjet. I usually tweak the color a bit on press if necessary.
For video work I have an Intensity Pro HDMI card in my Mac Pro and output to a top of the line Sony 1080 HD, which I'm told is not as good as some other brands, however, it looks pretty good to me.
That same mentality doesn?t work too well in the TV market - the demand for a range of products of different sizes is very much against what Apple does.
Forget the idea of Apple doing a TV - it just makes more sense to do an Add-on box that they have more control over and is easier for consumers to invest in versus a massively large TV that they keep for 10 years until it breaks. The purchasing decisions behind TV?s and the Apple TV is very different. Too different.
I will take note of the time and date of your response and check back in a year so how this panned out.
Does anyone sell a 27" display that's 2560x1440 like Apple's? All the ones I find are only 1920x1080. I like apple's resolution, not the price. I can't put something smaller next to my 27" iMac!
dell do, and they use the same panels pretty much.
[...] Tuesday's report is the first major indication of how Apple's Thunderbolt Display performs against competitors in the market. [...]
Not bad, considering how new Thunderbolt is.
As a CAD/CAM user, I get that. Multiple screens do well for multiple documents, but the bigger screen can help for detailed view while keeping tools on the screen. I plan to get a 27" iMac when it's updated. I might make a portrait stand for one of my 24" monitors.
I've been having the Dell VS. Apple display discussion with a friend recently because we're both in the market to upgrade our current monitors. So this post is right up our respective alleys.
I do Architecture as well...been using my Dell Laptop for work and a Mac for personal use. Most Architecture firms mainly use AutoCAD and Revit and, up until recently, neither were available for OSX platforms. Now, only AutoCAD is available...from what i've read, it's a pretty poor translation when you compare it to the Windows version.
I've been using my old Dell 2007FP 20" for years and love it! It's a testament to Dell that they still offer this monitor for sale. However, I've been toiling over buying the Apple TB Display over the equivalent Dell 27" as an upgrade for a couple reasons. And I've been holding off mainly to see where TB technology goes...because for me, buying a new monitor is like an investment. You keep them much longer than your computer and I want one that's going to last through the life-space a at least 2 or 3 computer upgrades.
On one hand the Apple TB Display is great for the MB, but not so much for the my dell Laptop. My only 2 video connections are VGA or HDMI. With the Apple TB Display, I haven't really found a way to connect both my MB and my Dell Latitude to the Apple TB display both at the same time...so Dell win's that argument. I even went to the Apple store and had the "geniuses" there trying to figure out if it's even possible. So far, the only solution is a KVM switch, which they weren't even sure that would work on Thunderbolt. I really love the idea of a docking station for my MB and the way the TB display is the all-in-one, but it only really works for Macs. TB technology is just too new right now to make a compelling solution for non-Mac users, or the rare cases like mine where I want a single monitor for both my Mac and PC at the same time.
EDIT: I answered my own quesiton here. Eizo makes monitors that do this, but $1400 is a little out of my price range, and many others i'd assume. I'm talking about the FORIS FX2431, pretty sweet little monitor. Only doesn't come in 27"
So at the moment, i'm shelving the idea of a new display...and going to just keep using my MB without a monitor, bought a port replicator for my Dell, since the Mac is just my personal computer and not for work.
Thats an informative post, thanks. That 30" is really the best out there. But if you have the space a CRT still outshines all these different flat panels. I've been told that Hollywood uses CRT's because of their quality - can anyone verify that?
I've heard the same thing as well, though i can't sight any link on it. I've also been told that one of the main reasons for it is because CRT's still reproduce color, brightness and contrast much more accurately than any flat-panel tech. out there...except for possibly Plasma.
You know, I just can't believe the figures.
Apple still sell the 27" Display Port LED LCD too, and I might suggest that this display probably sells at a rate about half as many again as the Thunderbolt display has.
Does that mean that Apple has more than a third of all 24" plus LED LCD screens?
I just don't believe it.
I am an Apple Advocate from way back, but these figures just cannot be right. Most of the people I see using large screens with their Macs don't use Apple screens, let alone such a large percentage of the whole market as this article would have us believe.
I might believe the figures if they were referring to the 27" panel used by these displays, which the iMac also usesas does the 27" Display port display.
And that the figures quoted were the aggregate of these sales of the panel too.
I mean, good on Apple if it were true. But it just aint!
Ummm... 26% for Apple is about one-quarter - hardly a "large percentage of the whole market". That means 74% of the large screens are non-Apple - that would be "most" of the displays. You haven't said anything that contradicts the story.
And all the analysts figure out that this, not a 'real' TV is what all those parts etc were for
Ummm... 26% for Apple is about one-quarter - hardly a "large percentage of the whole market". That means 74% of the large screens are non-Apple - that would be "most" of the displays. You haven't said anything that contradicts the story.
You realize that "large screens" means "24 inches and up", right?
The 24" display market is huge. Supposedly, at least. And 24" displays can be had VERY cheaply.
And yet a quarter of all these sales are of Apple's SINGLE model of display, which costs $1,000, and only works with the newest Macs.
Pretending that's not significant is foolish.
I've heard the same thing as well, though i can't sight any link on it. I've also been told that one of the main reasons for it is because CRT's still reproduce color, brightness and contrast much more accurately than any flat-panel tech. out there...except for possibly Plasma.
It's been a while since I've heard anything like that, I don't know if that's still true anymore. One of the display tech companies basically said that the latest iPad's screen is just a tiny tweak away from being a good pro quality display for color rendition.
It's kind of a moot point, I don't think CRT broadcast monitors are still being made, I think JVC and Sony quit making them in 2009.
You realize that "large screens" means "24 inches and up", right?
The 24" display market is huge. Supposedly, at least. And 24" displays can be had VERY cheaply.
And yet a quarter of all these sales are of Apple's SINGLE model of display, which costs $1,000, and only works with the newest Macs.
Pretending that's not significant is foolish.
As has been stated, the article is talking about "LED LCD computer screens sized 24 inches and up"... not the entire 24"+ market. And according to the article, the survey does includes the legacy ACD, not just the new Thunderbolt Display. Just pointing that out for clarity. But no matter, because it's impressive that this category is still led by Apple, though the lead seems to be shrinking. Having more OEM's employing Thunderbolt would greatly help. Hopefully that's on the horizon.
Marvin and some other A/I members gave me some great advice last year, as I was trying to make a purchase decision. I had to do some remodeling of my home office workstation to accommodate the dual 27" setup (2x24 was the max that I had room for), but the iMac and the matching Thunderbolt display have proven to be worth every cent. I see now why people choose them as much as they do.
One thing that has crossed my mind though... other than the 27" displays, Apple has discontinued the other monitor sizes, correct? But since they still make a 21.5" iMac, that just seems rather odd to me. Why wouldn't Apple offer a matching monitor for those who prefer dual screen setups in that size as well?
I don't think CRT broadcast monitors are still being made, I think JVC and Sony quit making them in 2009.
Didn't find a Sony CRT, but see that JVC still makes a 17inch model:
As has been stated, the article is talking about "LED LCD computer screens sized 24 inches and up"? not the entire 24"+ market.
Do they even make CCFL displays anymore?
And according to the article, the survey does includes the legacy ACD, not just the new Thunderbolt Display. Just pointing that out for clarity.
Ah, but thanks.
Does anyone sell a 27" display that's 2560x1440 like Apple's? All the ones I find are only 1920x1080. I like apple's resolution, not the price. I can't put something smaller next to my 27" iMac!
Dell, HP, NEC, a few others I forget off hand. I doubt you can find a 27" IPS display with less than 2560x1440 resolution.
Apple's Thunderbolt display is nice but like most of their hardware it's overpriced and has poor ergonomics. Thunderbolt is clever but it doesn't add to display quality. I'd much rather have seen Apple make a wide color gamut display while adding the necessary support for wide gamut color spaces to OS X. THAT would seriously improve the Mac user experience, and put Apple a few generations ahead of Windows.