Cinema Display Prices...

The Dell ones are so much better. The same actual panel, for two thirds of the price, plus a whole complement of analog inputs, and a digital media card reader to boot.

The 24" Dell UltraSharp is a FAR better piece of LCD than any Cinema Display. The Cinema Displays are actually very very poor compared to most other displays. The Dell 24" which is only about $850 right now has a 1000:1 contrast ratio whereas the ACD has 400:1... and 500 cd/m2 brightness to the ACD's 270. You'd have to be silly to buy a Cinema Display unless you are that addicted to having things match.

I don't doubt that the Dells are generally a better deal (I have said so myself before), but does the additional screen brightness even matter? It seems like one of those vapid marketing things that people latch on to, even under excessively bright flourescent light the ACDs look plenty bright enough. The only place the extra brightness would seem to matter is if you had these displays outside. I have a Samsung 730B which I have the backlight turned all the way down.

Neither of those displays have DVI inputs do they?

You can get other displays for cheaper, yes, but in the end the Apple Displays just look great. It is the same way with cars. I have a Nissan Pathfinder. The Infinity version (Q4) I think has the same, seats, engine, parts, etc., but it is refines and just looks a lot nicer. Same car, one just looks better. Now me, I consider me car nothing more than a transport for my laptop and I, but other might value the looks more.

If aesthetics don't matter to you, then Dell has some great deals. I believe I read on another thread that they even use the same panels.

I don't know if this is true or not, but I would expect a display that starts out brighter to take longer to reach that point where it just won't get bright enough anymore.

Why would high end LCDs be sold without a DVI input?

Because the average consumer class TV isn't used as a computer monitor.

To the OP: An LCD TV is not the same as a computer LCD. Interfaces are different, resolutions are different, etc. Show me a 30"+ LCD TV that does 2560x1600 for <$2000.

I suppose I missed the consumer TV part, which shouldn't be compared to computer monitors as if they were directly comparable products. Still, any flat panel TV or computer monitor worth money these days does have a DVI compatible input. Even if it only hs HDMI inputs, all it needs is a cable adapter as HDMI is electrically DVI compatible.

I don't recommend hooking buying a TV for hookup to a computer unless it will generally be used as a TV. Computer monitors are generally too expensive to be used as a TV screen.

Screen size and cost are not the only considerations on value. Resolution, overscan, fill ratio and rectangular grid are very significant as well. Most LCD TVs are 720p or lower in resolution, have a very low fill ratio, many use a "honeycomb" grid and many crop out the outer 5-10% of a display signal. The smallest 1080p TV is 37", which has slightly fewer pixels than a 23" or 24" monitor. Then when you get to plasma, you'll find that many of them have non-square pixels.

Sounds good Jeff, I wasn't aware of that .

Brightness notwithstanding, Apple really does need to bring their prices down.

A 20" Cinema Display for $800 is just plain absurd.
I think the Dell equivalent can be had for $450 or so. Yes, the Dell looks ugly, but it has height adjustment, and even a pivoting screen.
But something tells me we won't see a $300 cut from Apple any time soon.

Bestbuy has a Westinghouse 20.1 inch for 399 that looks better than the Apple 20 inch cinema...Dells lowest price is ~$449 and Westinghouse isnt a bad brand.

Oh yea, and the kicker - the BB model is 399 - NO REBAITS...just 399

The Best Buy web site says it is a 1400x1050 screen, is that wrong?


Was that intentional?

Yes on both counts, I hate MIRs and I thought the sign at the store said 1680.1050, maybe I mis read it, or maybe the tag was made by the same duchebag that was telling a lady that she needed the latest PSE for windows to garentee color accuracy of her artwork when she told him flat out that she already had PS on Mac, he also said that she would need a super high end $1000+ CRT "like the pros use", not once did he mention color adjustment of the monitor its self using Apples color sync tools or Gama in Windows...or a pro calebrator if she had a couple of hundred to spend.

That's a nice fantasy that won't be met for a few years yet. There doesn't exist a 30" computer monitor anywhere that costs twice your wished-for price. And don't quote the price of an LCD TV. The only competition for the 30" is Dell's, their list price is $2200, though some claimed to have gotten one for $1900. Heck, Dell's 24" is still $825, and I think that is just clearing them out for the next revision.

Keep in mind that the pro monitor market is a different beast, if a monitor gives them the color quality and calibration features they want, many of them will pay more if they have to. Consumer monitors generally don't have the adjustment capabilities that are necessary for that market.

It still boils down to the aesthetics of them. They look good, that is one of the things that you pay for.

Also, Dell apparently has a neverending 20% discount on the widescreen 20 and 24. That brings them down to "really damned cheap".

I believe the price of everything Apple computer related will drop once the entire range of Macs has been transitioned to using Intel processors.

Even for the items that don't have any obvious Intel components?

Yeah, but none of the Dells have that sweet aluminum covering.

The biggest problem with the cinema displays IMHO isn't the price (tho' I would prefer cheaper) but the lack of HDCP.

You can't watch HD movies* without HDCP.

*from HD-DVD/BluRay discs.

Exhibit A: Intel processors are more expensive than the G5 procs they replaced:

Exhibit B: Apple likes its margins.


Detective! Detective! We need a detective to piece all of this together!

We don't know anything whatsoever about what Apple pays Intel, what Apple pays/paid IBM or what Apple pays/paid Freescale.

No, public pricing lists do not apply.

No, really, they don't. They're pointless.

No, comparing based on them doesn't have any merit either.

HDCP, Blu-ray, nor HD-DVD really exist quite yet as a fully functioning system.

HDCP has been in shipping displays, though mostly in TVs, for a while now, and there is an increasing number of monitors that are shipping with it. I will not buy a new monitor without it.

HDCP is a DRM, and I won't be buying a monitor WITH it...

Even if you never use it? With that sort of stand, then you wouldn't have anything to do with the iTunes software, iPod, DVDs or MacOS for Intel.

I would just like to point out that these are COMPUTER monitors not TVs, which happen to specifically be targeted towards graphic designers, video editors and the like. As someone who uses a 23" Cinema Display for exactly this purpose, I must say that without doubt the Cinema Display is an exceptional monitor, albeit a little pricey.

When you calibrate a monitor such as the cinema display you actually need to turn the brightness DOWN quite a bit. Mine is at about 75%. I just purchased an LG monitor for my PC at home that is so bright it hurts my eyes, even at the lowest setting (besides that the picture quality is pretty good, especially for the $150 I paid for it). Ive had to go into the Nvidia control panel and reduce the gamma manually to make it tollerable.

So why the heck to you need a monitor that is so bright? Its a BAD thing. I hope Apple doesnt release a display that is much brighter.

As far as using the monitor as a TV, why would you want to? The best practice is for your TV to match the exact resolution that your video source is outputting. Any higher OR lower resolution will result in a degredation in quality due to upsampling or downsampling. Like JeffD mentioned, all LCD TVs currently are not 1080i/p, many have about 900 lines of vertical resolution. So you cant compare an LCD TV to and LCD monitor, they simply arent the same thing.

Aesthetically, I would rather crap on my desk than put a Dell on it. Dell is perhaps second ugliest next to Benq (which make perhaps the worst monitors I have ever seen).

So to say that the Dell is a better monitor because it is brighter, has analog inputs (why would you pay for such a monitor and use them?), and can be used as a TV is just plain absurd. Now, pricewise, I agree, Apple needs to reduce their prices (and perhaps increase the response time). I think they will soon, but of course as with anything Apple, you can always expect to pay more for what you get.

Shouldn't that be "reduce response time" ie: faster response?

I too have my brightness turned down, but because I am a bit sensitive, my 17" Samsung is pretty close to its lowest setting. I've considered getting some neutral density gels to see if I can somehow place them around the backlight bulb.

Regarding the analog inputs, there have been many times where I thought I didn't need a feature that I later wished I had, having additional inputs on a monitor was one of those kinds of features. Using a monitor as a TV isn't ideal primary use, but it would make it a fine fall-back device, or for those in tight quarters, such as a small apartment or college dorm.

I don't think the larger, more recent Dell monitors are ugly, I'm not sure what you are basing that on.

I have both an Apple 20" Cinema Display and also an HP 23" LCD monitor. The HP blows the Apple monitor away, plain and simple, in sharpness, quality and especially in brightness.

A friend of mine also has the Dell 24" LCD monitor, and it's even better than both of the monitors I use.

the truth is apple needs to step their monitor game up, straight up.

I switched last year and got a mini, wanted a nice apple monitor to go with it and suddenly....mini+cinema display = imac price? wtf no, I didn't want an all in one computer at the time and didn't want the weakness of a mini for the price of an imac. So I bought another brands monitor.

Nice looking aluminum isn't worth the price compared to dell. ESPECIALLY the 20", at least the other two are HD.

If apple really wants to kick in the marketshare and provide the full user experience they NEED at least one at a smaller size and better prices if they''re gonna get away with skimping on features.

17" Widescreen HD - 599
21" Widescreen HD - 899
24" Widescreen HD - 1199.99
30" Widescreen HD - 2299.99

Apple always wants to do things first so they should be the first to make the push to a whole HD line with pretty fair prices. They'll sell like hotcakes. Almost no one will get a mini without getting a 17 HD apple display and the others will sell well as well.

Obviously future revisions of the imac need to be HD too to stay competitive, but that's inevitable. And the mini would need to be considerably weaker than the imac as not to canabalize imac sales. And hell MAKE IMACS 20 AND 23 INCH HD(as well as push imac prices up by 100).

That'd be perfect imo. Maybe I should start a thread about this?

My housemate just received her Dell Ultrasharp 24 and it is amazing!!! I mean amazing. It has a native resolution of 1920x1200, DVI-D Input as well as VGA if you needed it. Composite RGB video inputs (sorry for the lack of proper terminology), as well as slew of USB ports and several different flash memory readers... and the image quality is better than any ACD i've seen. It arrived two days after she ordered it with no extra cost other than standard low level shipping, all for 870 something dollars... Wow Dell, Wow.

I mentioned this in another thread. I am using one a work and feel exactly the same way. This is possibly the best product Dell has put out as far as price and performance go. I kick myself everyday that I didn't know about this deal before I bought my 23" Apple display.

I suppose the price went up a bit, Costco had it for $825 a couple weeks ago, with free shipping. I think it is still a good deal.

There isn't much else that competes against it from anybody on that price, so I think it is a bit unfair to single out Apple when no one else has anything close to Dell's pricing. The cost of Samsung's 24" display is even higher than Apple's for some reason.