I'm pretty sure he means 17", in which case they both have the same vertical resolution, just the horizontal is different. I prefer widescreen displays, not just because they're "cool", but because it is how we naturally see. Our vision isn't a box, it's wide, and it's why movies are done in 16:9...
And in OS X, having a wide display makes it a lot easier to keep the dock on the bottom
I really like the Cinema Display over the 17" myself.. It has an aspect ratio that, to me at least, is much easier to work with. (Besides the fact of it being nice and big.)
BOTH the 22 and 23 are pretty expensive pieces of glass. If any of the following could be supplied $600-900 cheaper than the 22: 19-20" widescreen (1600x1024) or standard (1600x1200 which would actually have more pixel area than the 22), or even a standard ratio 1440x1080, Apple might consider dropping the 22 altogether. People who can't afford the 23" probably can't afford the 22" either, people who can afford both and need them for WORK, will probably go with the 23"
The next few months may decide if there's really any point in keeping it (the 22). A slightly smaller, but significantly cheaper size may be a better marketing proposition. Of course, the 22 may get cheaper and naturally fall into the 1500-1900 price range.
Yes, the 23" is a very good deal as far as high-end displays go. I guess I just don't see too many ad agencies, animation houses, and TV/film studios opting for 22's when they can get HD color correct displays. The savings won't matter to these customers if they have to give up HD and color control. Likewise, the consumers who wouldn't mind giving up those features, will still not be able to afford the 22" (for the most part).
<strong>all those ad agencies, animation houses, and TV/film studios can send their old 22" displays to me. i'll be happy to take them off their hands.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
And in OS X, having a wide display makes it a lot easier to keep the dock on the bottom
<hr></blockquote>
or on the top
IF
apple made a 19" Apple Studio Display
AND
apple still made the 22" Apple Cinema Display
Which would you prefer
(i didn't realize my post wasn't clear. sorry.
[ 03-30-2002: Message edited by: Max8319 ]</p>
<strong>i was just wondering
IF
apple made a 19" Apple Studio Display
AND
apple still made the 22" Apple Cinema Display
Which would you prefer
(i didn't realize my post wasn't clear. sorry.
[ 03-30-2002: Message edited by: Max8319 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. No
2. Yes
I think everyone prefers the biggest display out there, it's more of a question of what you can afford.
BOTH the 22 and 23 are pretty expensive pieces of glass. If any of the following could be supplied $600-900 cheaper than the 22: 19-20" widescreen (1600x1024) or standard (1600x1200 which would actually have more pixel area than the 22), or even a standard ratio 1440x1080, Apple might consider dropping the 22 altogether. People who can't afford the 23" probably can't afford the 22" either, people who can afford both and need them for WORK, will probably go with the 23"
The next few months may decide if there's really any point in keeping it (the 22). A slightly smaller, but significantly cheaper size may be a better marketing proposition. Of course, the 22 may get cheaper and naturally fall into the 1500-1900 price range.
Dunno if TigerWoods can verify this, but doesn't the 24 inch LCD with the same res as the ACD HD cost around 2k more?
<strong>all those ad agencies, animation houses, and TV/film studios can send their old 22" displays to me. i'll be happy to take them off their hands.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just as long as they send one or two my way!