or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's LED Cinema Display: the review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's LED Cinema Display: the review - Page 3

post #81 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

STEVE JOBS DOESN"T CARE ABOUT MATTE PEOPLE!

Steve Jobs needed a higher green rating and threw matte under the bus to get it- that is the bottom line.
Too bad Sony has the patent for hybrid matte/semiglossy - gorgeous screens. Check them out on their Vaio line.
Apple screens now look like looks like HPs- circa 2005.
post #82 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid-EOS View Post

Seems like I must be the only guy that has no issue with the glossy MacBook Pro and the glossy 24" LED Cinema Display. To be honest, I did wonder if there would be a problem, but I now know that there are no reflection issues for me.

Don't complain about something you haven't tried, but I guess that if you live on a sun deck then it may not work for you.

Go into any store and compare your screen to a SONY Vaio screen and tell me there is no difference. You can't. The only screen that should be glossy is a PLASMA and that because of plasma technology itself.
I have a plasma and love it but only because I have it positioned without any glare factor- between two windows. I pity the fool who spends hard earned money on a glossy laptop.
post #83 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Lust is having two LED 24 Cinema Display on an articlulating arm.


Make that TWO articulating arms.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #84 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo View Post

I did not know that.

Hey, can I settle this Glossy/Matte issue once and for all? Some people like Glossy; some people like Matte. Offer an option and everybody wins. Now, was that so hard? Apple once saw things this way, and then they forgot. They should remember again. Options.

Al Gore and the Green party threw Matte under the bus.
post #85 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by germ View Post

Does this display suffer from the same problems of the 24" iMac monitor, namely uneven brightness level across the whole display area? This is very noticeable and very annoying on my iMac.

Old 20" Cinema Display+Mac mini: Perfect display, no reflecions
New 24" iMac: Very uneven display, lots of reflections. A definite step backwards.

I have checked this a few times (since Saturday), it looks even across the full screen.
Tested with techtool pro display test and all the solid colors in system prefs's desktop.
post #86 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by mklos View Post

Considering that Apple is selling more computers than it ever has in its history, and the fact that most of them are glossy displays, I doubt Apple really cares what you think. They're obviously making products people want or else they wouldn't be selling as many as they do.

You don't think APple cafres about potential loss of sales and people defecting to other brands of hardware?
If it wasn't for the OS a lot of us would probably buy something else. It's getting really tired.
post #87 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

steve jobs doesn"t care about matte people!



hey solipsism - you are a true arse. When you go to an art gallery or museuM- would you prefer to see a painting (canvas) as is?
0r under a shiny, glossy sheet of glass?
post #88 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woz2024 View Post

And I can't see a reason why having the large plate of glass would prevent them from having matte - after all, matte screens are glass too!

Good point. Also, to those who say matte is somehow less realistic or more distorted than glossy, get up from your computer and take a look around. Most real objects are not shiny and reflective.
post #89 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Good point. Also, to those who say matte is somehow less realistic or more distorted than glossy, get up from your computer and take a look around. Most real objects are not shiny and reflective.

Thank goodness what lets you see with are clear, shiny and reflective, i.e., your eyes. Otherwise, everything would be less realistic or more distorted.
post #90 of 199
i've been seriously bitten with my 20" adc apple display so i'm very weary bout any apple monitor. One of the internal components fused and died again a day after i replaced it. This apparently was subject to a class action suit for the 17" version... It's still ticking and usable. however i can't use it on a new mac pro without an expensive adaptor.

making sweeping statements re matte is better for design etc is just as patronising and naiive as saying it doesn't matter. it's all about personal preference. I have 3 designers working in front of me all on imacs - 2 matte 1 gloss. Those using the smaller imacs prefer the matte the one working on gloss loves hers. My monitors are 2 cheapo matte thingies. Their colour accuracy is non existent but they help pick up differences in blacks for example more than any other display. Also, web professionals might prefer working on glossy screens as that's how most screens are being sold now. I also think that professional designers always learn how to compensate for colour inaccuracy and variance since even a matte screen can't give you excellent colour matching unless you spend time and money calibrating and if all your workflow is colour calibrated too.


besides, with pro machines you are not forced to buy apple's offering and macbook owners will get adaptors soon enough so you can pick the screen you prefer. I won't be getting one not because the screen is gloss but because apple decided not to include more connectors. I currently have dvi equipped machines - i already bought 2 adaptors for my macbook... i'm not going to buy a 3rd. And it's a bit pricey as is this - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=MO-024-DE but at least it has enough different ports... maybe no camera but i have a firewire isight...
post #91 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffle911 View Post

That's just plain false. There have been opposing LED-backlit displays for at least several weeks, if not a few months. \

And as for glare and reflections, what ever did we do before matte flat panel displays? We had glossy CRT's, if I'm not mistaken. I had an old TV that was completely unviewable without shutting the curtains and thus dictated the layout of the room. As far as I'm concerned, it's only two steps forward, one step back. No biggie. So what did we do? We had anti-glare filters that we clipped onto the monitor. Why not do it again? Apple could even approach this idea with an over-priced, aesthetically-complimentary screen filter for both the ACD and the iMac.

I also recall the old CRT's had a anti-reflective coating, bit like my current plastic specs. If it was done for CRT's then it couldn't have been so costly, so why not do it for these new screens??
post #92 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Thank goodness what lets you see with are clear, shiny and reflective, i.e., your eyes. Otherwise, everything would be less realistic or more distorted.

Thats not possible! Yours eyes are what defines reality for you and then "distortion" means any departure from that. I was merely pointing out that a lot of computer graphics can look too shiny to be realistic and maybe a little bit of filtering isn't such a bad thing, to make it closer to physical objects.

Often the way you can recognize CGI in movies is that it's too shiny, and sometimes computer games use "trilinear filtering" and such to try and improve the realism.
post #93 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Thank goodness what lets you see with are clear, shiny and reflective, i.e., your eyes. Otherwise, everything would be less realistic or more distorted.

The assertions that matte somehow blurs/distorts the outgoing images are way over-exaggerated and obviously being made to counter the slightly over-exaggerated glossy claims. It partly depends on your resolution and screen-size. A 1680 x 1050 20" screen is going to look sharper than a 1440 x 900 19" screen. A high enough resolution matte screen that is properly setup with your display signal (usually just pressing an auto-setup button) is very sharp.

The issue is with the glass plate. It needs a coating to absorb light rather than reflect it:

http://devicedaily.com/misc/new-anti...ll-angles.html

It needs to be able to transmit outgoing light very well so the solar panel tech might not be useful. If it could be used, it could charge the machine too and that improves the green status further.
post #94 of 199
My money's ready for a 30' LED Cinema Display I can connect to my 2008 MacPro - I hope I won't have to wait too long.
post #95 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I was just reminiscing the other day about how the traditionalists argued that film could never be replaced by digital imaging .... oh the debates were fun back then. I also remember type setters screaming Mac's keyboards were far too small for them. Pre press folks love to fight progress at times.

But the debate over digital vs. film was back when digital wasn't producing the same quality as film so it's not really a parallel situation. Digital eventually improved and got better than film.

In this case, matte screens replaced the old CRT displays and alleviated the glare and reflection problems. The current trend toward glossy screens is a step backward in that regard.

A more similar situation would be if the makers of digital imaging equipment suddenly decided to push a system by which users would have to have their images "developed" on a physical media before you could view it, just like in the old days. That's more akin to what's happening with displays. It's an intentional step backward.
post #96 of 199
Part of my work is in graphic design: my final products are either in print or on DVD. I like working on glossy and matte screens; sometimes I have a choice (at the office), sometimes I don't (when I'm out with a single notebook). Both have their good and bad points and work better or worse in various situations. It can also depend on my mood on the day. For any project, I always review it on a variety of screens including my plasma TV at home, which is again very different. All in all, I think it is a very personal decision as to which is better and sweeping statements for or against either are just not easy to make and stand by.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #97 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaw3000 View Post

Does anyone know where one can download the grass with dewdrop wallpaper image used in the review? Thanks!

Update: Found it! http://www.shareapic.net/content.php...owner=Turnbull

yay finally!
thanks
post #98 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Isn't this screen fort the MacBook? Don't professionals have a pair of 30" ACDs on a Mac Pro?

Absolutely.

But I think the professionals are starting to worry that their screens will soon have glass panels as well. After all, the MacBook Pro is meant to be a professional notebook computer, and it has a glass panel.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #99 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

But the debate over digital vs. film was back when digital wasn't producing the same quality as film so it's not really a parallel situation. Digital eventually improved and got better than film.

In this case, matte screens replaced the old CRT displays and alleviated the glare and reflection problems. The current trend toward glossy screens is a step backward in that regard.

A more similar situation would be if the makers of digital imaging equipment suddenly decided to push a system by which users would have to have their images "developed" on a physical media before you could view it, just like in the old days. That's more akin to what's happening with displays. It's an intentional step backward.

I couldn't agree more.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #100 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Thats not possible! Yours eyes are what defines reality for you and then "distortion" means any departure from that. I was merely pointing out that a lot of computer graphics can look too shiny to be realistic and maybe a little bit of filtering isn't such a bad thing, to make it closer to physical objects.

Often the way you can recognize CGI in movies is that it's too shiny, and sometimes computer games use "trilinear filtering" and such to try and improve the realism.

There is an adage that states, "The more choices one has, the longer it takes to make a decision." In business, the more choices I give you, the more it costs to make, inventory or distribute.

And another equally important adage is, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." In business, "ugly doesn't sell."

So in light of what you said above, Apple has a choice to place a sheet of clear glass, a non-reflective glass or both on its new LED backlit LCDs to protect the screens, which is the primary purpose of the glass panel in the first place.

Now as we have witnessed in these forums, there will never be one perfectly acceptable format for everybody.

However, there is only one iteration that could work for or could satisfy everybody. The decision can be as fast as you can get out your credit card, and it will be the least expensive from both the manufacturer's and consumer's perspective once you have decided that a new LED Cinema Display would be perfect for you.

That is the one that Apple is currently selling. Clear, glossy glass and all. Its big, bright, green, and placed in the right light, glare free. And if you can't adjust it's position, turn down the overhead reflecting lights or find it too realistic and shiny, just buy a suitable matte film overlay. It is not permanent. As such, you can have a second choice at any time you want. However, I would suggest that the choosing which matte film will best suit your needs, will equally drive you mad.

Remember, if Apple did give you a 'matte' choice, you couldn't make it 'clear'.

By then however, you may come to the same conclusion as was reported by James' in his article, "LED-backlit display: Is it better for digital photography?" on O'Reilly's Digital Media site. http://blogs.oreilly.com/aperture/20...s-it-bett.html

As I said before, the iPhone or iPod Touch is one of the best examples what 'clear glossy' screens will affect. Off, it is a mirror. On, clear, brilliant images with no glare. Same for Jobo's Mirror L. http://www.jobo.com/web/Mirage-L-PDJ155.435.0.html
post #101 of 199
As a freelance graphic designer, I've already worked in more studios than most people will see in their entire career.

In the last year or so, a lot of the studios have been replacing their aging Power Mac G5s with aluminium iMacs, rather than Mac Pros. You can argue the benefits of the Mac Pros until you are blue in the face, but every single studio I've worked with can't see past the price tag, and hence they go for the iMac every single time.

So I've been asking around to see what end-users make of the new iMacs. Without exception, and I'm talking about 30+ seats here, including designers and artworkers, the end users loved the look of the new iMacs, but having used them for any longer than one day, they now HATE the iMacs glassy screen with a passion. The word 'torture' was actually used.

There are studios who replaced a few machines, realised their mistake, and are now scratching their heads about what to buy now, because unless they pony up for Mac Pros, their choices are limited.

This is where the market share and financial results don't tell the truth these studios have bought the kit, and the money is in Apple's coffers, but they don't actually like what they've bought, and they are unlikely to buy glassy Apple products again. In three years time, when they come to replace their fleet of aluminium iMacs, they aren't going to buy glassy again. And if all that Apple offers them is glassy, they simply won't be buying Apple.

I wonder how many aluminium iMac users, the power of denial aside, actually have buyers remorse? I'm guessing there are a lot of people out there who thought that the iMac looked great on the shopfloor are now regretting the glassy screen. I personally owned two, and I offloaded them on Ebay at a massive loss shortly after buying them.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #102 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by m01ety View Post

Not true -- that's what Control + Shift + Eject is for. This will turn off all displays, internal and external.

cool beans! thanks for that.
I love control+eject... never have to use the mouse to shutdown/sleep/restart again!
post #103 of 199
I expect a 30" model will follow shortly, so here's my question:

When using an iSight on the 30", I find I have to point the camera all the way down in order for it to be pointed at me (or more commonly, my kid). It appears that the camera in this display cannot be aimed. Is this true?

Maury
post #104 of 199
Cinema Display = expensive dongle (as it currently stands).

Do we know for sure whether this panel is PVA or IPS? The reviewer is inclinded to say IPS, but I'm not so sure. Given the $900 price tag and the 14ms response time, the Cinema Display would fall more in-line with PVA panels I would think. Not that PVA is at all bad; it is 8-bit like IPS (although the actual NTSC color gamut may be a little less than what an IPS would provide), and the response time is middle-of-the-road (TN panels being the fast end and IPS panels being the slow end). So, I'd say the Cinema Display is a prosumer dongle, but not necessarily a professional's first choice.
post #105 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah View Post

As a freelance graphic designer, I've already worked in more studios than most people will see in their entire career.

In the last year or so, a lot of the studios have been replacing their aging Power Mac G5s with aluminium iMacs, rather than Mac Pros. You can argue the benefits of the Mac Pros until you are blue in the face, but every single studio I've worked with can't see past the price tag, and hence they go for the iMac every single time.

So I've been asking around to see what end-users make of the new iMacs. Without exception, and I'm talking about 30+ seats here, including designers and artworkers, the end users loved the look of the new iMacs, but having used them for any longer than one day, they now HATE the iMacs glassy screen with a passion. The word 'torture' was actually used.

There are studios who replaced a few machines, realised their mistake, and are now scratching their heads about what to buy now, because unless they pony up for Mac Pros, their choices are limited.

This is where the market share and financial results don't tell the truth these studios have bought the kit, and the money is in Apple's coffers, but they don't actually like what they've bought, and they are unlikely to buy glassy Apple products again. In three years time, when they come to replace their fleet of aluminium iMacs, they aren't going to buy glassy again. And if all that Apple offers them is glassy, they simply won't be buying Apple.

I wonder how many aluminium iMac users, the power of denial aside, actually have buyers remorse? I'm guessing there are a lot of people out there who thought that the iMac looked great on the shopfloor are now regretting the glassy screen. I personally owned two, and I offloaded them on Ebay at a massive loss shortly after buying them.

I know I sure do. First Mac I've own that led to a decrease in productivity instead of an increase. Look, customer satisfaction doesn't show up for 3-5 years when they buy their next machine. Like you said, Apple already has the money for the current machines. If you alienate the professional base, they will leave. They have no choice as they're in the business of making money themselves. If price your most popular education models out of reach (Macbook), they will look elsewhere. And if the original iMacs were any indication, you can't count on the switcher staying as a given. Sure there are those who would spend a grand on a turkey sandwich if it had an Apple logo, but their numbers on the internet are far higher than their real life foot print. If you make your machines according to them and only them, can you think of the current profits as more like cash advances.
post #106 of 199
All of the mac sites discussing merits/flaws of the new 24 LED backlit 'suggest' what types of panel it might be. PVA, IPS.......

What other (sub $1000) 24" LED backlit screens are 'out there'?

Lenovo (matte screen) $624.99
http://shopper.cnet.com/lcd-monitors...col;txt#info-5

Eizo (matte screen) - $780
http://www.eizo.com/products/lcd/ev2411w/index.asp

Any others?
post #107 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonkin View Post

All of the mac sites discussing merits/flaws of the new 24 LED backlit 'suggest' what types of panel it might be. PVA, IPS.......

What other (sub $1000) 24" LED backlit screens are 'out there'?

Lenovo (matte screen) $624.99
http://shopper.cnet.com/lcd-monitors...col;txt#info-5

Eizo (matte screen) - $780
http://www.eizo.com/products/lcd/ev2411w/index.asp

Any others?

That that many. LED back lighting in larger desktop displays is still very expensive compared to similar CCFL backlit displays. Most companies don't want to take the risk quite yet and holding back until it becomes more affordable.
post #108 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonkin View Post

All of the mac sites discussing merits/flaws of the new 24 LED backlit 'suggest' what types of panel it might be. PVA, IPS.......

What other (sub $1000) 24" LED backlit screens are 'out there'?

Lenovo (matte screen) $624.99
http://shopper.cnet.com/lcd-monitors...col;txt#info-5

Eizo (matte screen) - $780
http://www.eizo.com/products/lcd/ev2411w/index.asp

Any others?

The Lenovo has had very dismal review.

I don't believe the Eizo is available yet.
post #109 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

hey solipsism - you are a true arse. When you go to an art gallery or museuM- would you prefer to see a painting (canvas) as is?
0r under a shiny, glossy sheet of glass?

Most photography is usually under glass... the Mona Lisa is in a glass box.
post #110 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDonG4 View Post

Most photography is usually under glass... the Mona Lisa is in a glass box.

I love that I'm a "true arse" because I crack a joke about Jobs/Apple currently feels about matte display sales in relation to glossy display sales.

PS: Responding to Teckstud with facts, especially sourced ones, usually gets him riled up.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #111 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

But the debate over digital vs. film was back when digital wasn't producing the same quality as film so it's not really a parallel situation. Digital eventually improved and got better than film.

From a technical sense of resolving picture and color information digital is not really better than film. Digital just became accepted and widely adopted.

Quote:
In this case, matte screens replaced the old CRT displays and alleviated the glare and reflection problems. The current trend toward glossy screens is a step backward in that regard.

LCD has never been considered technically equal to CRT. The only reason LCD has replaced CRT is because television manufacturers are all moving to LCD televisions. The CRT factories are all being shut down, while LCD factories are going online.

Quote:
A more similar situation would be if the makers of digital imaging equipment suddenly decided to push a system by which users would have to have their images "developed" on a physical media before you could view it, just like in the old days. That's more akin to what's happening with displays. It's an intentional step backward.

Having to develop an image on a physical medium is not a step backwards. Their are advantages to physical mediums. For one it exists as a physical medium. A digital image does not actually exist, its just a collection of data being read and displayed. Physical mediums do not need electricity to be seen. You can hold a positive film transparency up to the sun and see an image. You cannot do that with a digital image.
post #112 of 199
It's painfully obvious today that Apple has survived by keeping hardware and software controlled completely by them. What could be argued as once their downfall is now their reason for success. However, the new cinema display is really lacking. The lack of firewire and a glossy only screen has its cons, but the new display port is whats really whacked. I may not be the average user but I currently use my 23" apple cinema display through a dvi switch to several other macs. Now I have to wait to see if they put out an adapter. Which I don't see happening because the new display port is clearly a device to protect content. I will say that I do like the power cable provided, but no sleep or power controls? What gives! With the new macbooks missing firewire and now the new crippling display. Apple's new moniker should be "First it giveth' then they taketh away."
post #113 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by orkel101 View Post

The lack of firewire and a glossy only screen has its cons, but the new display port is whats really whacked. I may not be the average user but I currently use my 23" apple cinema display through a dvi switch to several other macs. Now I have to wait to see if they put out an adapter.

This ACD is not designed to be used with all Macs its only designed for the notebooks.

Any one is free to use mini Display port so 3rd parties can make any type of adaptor they choose.

Quote:
Which I don't see happening because the new display port is clearly a device to protect content.

Not sure what you mean by this. Display port is designed to use HSDPA. This only restricts content that contains this type of DRM. It has no effect on content without HSDPA. It has absolutely nothing to do with display adaptors.

Quote:
Apple's new moniker should be "First it giveth' then they taketh away."

Apple has always abandoned older technology for newer technology. This is nothing new.
post #114 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfabulous View Post

I consider my self a pro and have spend many many hours using PS + FCP with both Matte and Glossy screens. My conclusion is... There is nothing beating the Glossy screen!!! ( ...and I´m always right ) When I use my Glossy screen iMac and Glossy screen MacBook Pro in an invironment where light sources may be an issue, I just tilt or move the screen a little. Its no hassle, and its almost never a problem EVEN to start with!

Glossy displays create more saturated colours, deeper blacks, brighter whites, and are sharper than traditional matte displays.This makes these types of displays more appropriate for viewing photos, watching movies, or even just general computer usage such as web browsing. Also, in extremely bright conditions where no direct light is facing the screen, such as outdoors, glossy displays can become more readable than matte displays because they don't disperse the light around the screen (which would render a matte screen washed out).

Finally. It would be almost impossible to turn a Matte screen in to a functional Glossy screen. Its all in the glass! On the other hand it only takes a Non-glare film to change it the other way around. 



Apple has made the right choice and they know it!

Agree with you 100% and I'm a pro too. Glossy is awesome!! Glad to see more people are seeing the light.
post #115 of 199
I just bought a 2.53 GHz macbook pro and will soon be getting the ACD dock to make life easier while in the office. Just shell out the cash if you can and get them and stop complaining. If you do real work the savings in time and improvement in quality of how you interact with your computer will pay itself in no time.

If you don't have the cash go buy el cheapo windows PC components and torture yourself while you eat shit and die.
post #116 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by federmoose View Post

cool beans! thanks for that.
I love control+eject... never have to use the mouse to shutdown/sleep/restart again!

You do realise that you can get the same thing as Control+Eject by pressing power? On a notebook it's right next to it and just one button, not two!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Not sure what you mean by this. Display port is designed to use HSDPA. This only restricts content that contains this type of DRM. It has no effect on content without HSDPA. It has absolutely nothing to do with display adaptors.

I hope you mean HDCP, otherwise the new Cinema is a 24" iPhone.

And on that, HDCP first appeared through DVI. Not HDMI or DisplayPort, DVI. Apple could have kept DVI and implemented HDCP if they wanted to. The move to MDP is about keeping up with what will be the next industry standard, DisplayPort.
post #117 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

If you don't have the cash go buy el cheapo windows PC components and torture yourself while you eat shit and die.

Come on, is that really necessary? I think this sort of crass display shows that you're another malcontent, just on the other side of the issue.
post #118 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

I just bought a 2.53 GHz macbook pro and will soon be getting the ACD dock to make life easier while in the office. Just shell out the cash if you can and get them and stop complaining. If you do real work the savings in time and improvement in quality of how you interact with your computer will pay itself in no time.

If you don't have the cash go buy el cheapo windows PC components and torture yourself while you eat shit and die.

That's mature. Buy a Dell 2408WFP and a spare MagSafe charger and you'll have nearly the same for less. Don't even think about pulling the "it'll use a crappy TN panel", because the Dell Ultrasharps use the Samsung PVA, and there's still no confirmation of whether the new Cinema even uses IPS! Plus you get to avoid the mirror effect.

On glossy vs matte, in early 2006 I bought a Toshiba laptop with a glossy screen and loved the color etc. When 2008 rolled around and I was going to buy my MacBook Pro, a friend convinced me to get matte. I'm glad he did. I can use mine on almost zero brightness in most average conditions, my old laptop had to always be on full to avoid reflections. And the same goes for the new MacBooks. The power savings of LED are offset by the need to have it on 100% brightness the whole time. To those "switchers" with glossy now, go and sit down at a matte screen for a while.
post #119 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woz2024 View Post

That's mature. Buy a Dell 2408WFP and a spare MagSafe charger and you'll have nearly the same for less. Don't even think about pulling the "it'll use a crappy TN panel", because the Dell Ultrasharps use the Samsung PVA, and there's still no confirmation of whether the new Cinema even uses IPS! Plus you get to avoid the mirror effect.

On glossy vs matte, in early 2006 I bought a Toshiba laptop with a glossy screen and loved the color etc. When 2008 rolled around and I was going to buy my MacBook Pro, a friend convinced me to get matte. I'm glad he did. I can use mine on almost zero brightness in most average conditions, my old laptop had to always be on full to avoid reflections. And the same goes for the new MacBooks. The power savings of LED are offset by the need to have it on 100% brightness the whole time. To those "switchers" with glossy now, go and sit down at a matte screen for a while.

I am sitting right now with my glossy macbook pro (october 2008 model) in a cafe with 100 ceiling lights, a fireplace, neon signs and cars... And the only reflection I can see are the black parts of the screen, which has no text or pictures on them anyways... and I don't need to go 100% brighness at all.

Also, for the $400 dollars you think you are saving you don't get power management, isight reroute, good sound with subwoofer, audio reroute, usb reroute, instant dual monitor if needed, an any other soft-hardware integration apple can think of. I don't know about you but it is just not worth my time to spend 2-3 hours researching a cheapo alternative for the pennies you will save.

[personal attack removed]
post #120 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woz2024 View Post

I hope you mean HDCP, otherwise the new Cinema is a 24" iPhone.

Right, got my acronyms mixed up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woz2024 View Post

Buy a Dell 2408WFP and a spare MagSafe charger and you'll have nearly the same for less. Don't even think about pulling the "it'll use a crappy TN panel", because the Dell Ultrasharps use the Samsung PVA, and there's still no confirmation of whether the new Cinema even uses IPS! Plus you get to avoid the mirror effect.

Not the same: LED backlighting, web cam, speakers.

Quote:
The power savings of LED are offset by the need to have it on 100% brightness the whole time. To those "switchers" with glossy now, go and sit down at a matte screen for a while.

The LED backlighting in the MacBook makes a big difference in brightness and contrast. You don't need it on 100%.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's LED Cinema Display: the review