Originally Posted by Foo2
And how does video compare between the two? Instead of repeating yourself, you could have provided some new information such as this.
allright, maybe i wasn't clear enough, so I'll state it in layman's terms :
we (= me, my boss and 3 colleagues) compared, face-to-monitor two setups :
a mac with a 24" ultrasharp Dell
the same mac with a 30" apple cinema display
we did both ordinary work and graphical & video work (having a 30", you could have expected me to be in the video or CAD business, not a secretary)
we did NOT play any games in case someone wants to bring that up.
conclusion : BOTH monitors performed equally, in terms of sharpness, brightness and update speed. The cinema display gave a slight inferior impression on full-screen HD video, but that might be the video card, or the 5 of us viewers standing to close.
ALL OF THE SPECTATORS agreed : BOTH monitors were equal from any point of view.
now PLEASE don't come up with calibration stuff and color correction, because neither of these monitors are for pre-press purposes (our pre press dept uses BARCO monitors for that, and they are not flat el-cheapo panels !)
so, here is my conclusion, to which ALL OF THE SPECTATORS agreed : there is NO agrument whatshowever that justifies the price tag of the apple display. The ultrasharp is as good, if not better, for a fraction of the price. Hell, we could buy THREE ultrasharps and still be cheaper than the 30" cinema !
Voila. Can I get any more clearer ?
The dell monitor had a 100% vote of 5 (reasonably fanatic) apple users, and we ALL agreed that apple cinema displays are FUCKING expensive for what they provide for 99% of the users. And the other 1% will not buy an apple display, but a high priced CRT.
(now i expect someone to come up with a comment about the new LED display being new technology, to which I'll massively shrudder for missing the point completely, or (even worse) come tell me that i should not compare a 30" with a 24".... that's when I call fanboyism)