Who would trade yr 15" for the new 17" iMac?
July 20, 2002 5:12AM
edited January 2014
just wondering why they didn't do the 17" iMac in the first release?
Reply 1 of 8
lemon bon bon
July 20, 2002 5:15AM
Because 17 inch displays were very, VERY expensive. The gap between 15 and 17inch prices has narrowed markedly.
Lemon Bon Bon
Reply 2 of 8
July 20, 2002 10:36AM
If I had a 15" iMac to begin with I would.
Reply 3 of 8
July 20, 2002 10:44AM
i would, i guess...but i will be quite happy with my 15" iMac lcd for the next two years...at which time i will update to the newest 19" widescreen G5 iMac running cheetah (os 11)
Reply 4 of 8
July 20, 2002 11:08AM
The prices for larger panels are falling faster than those for 15".
In a few months a number of manufacturers will release 19" TFT's with 1600x1200 (24bit color depth) resolution for 999USD. Apple is still selling their Studio 17 at that price. Curiously, Apple's 22 and 23 are very competitively priced for their size, but NOT their 15 and 17" models.
Some new sizes of glass like the wide 17" are probably cheaper to make than the square 17" because they have less overall surface area. The panal market is still a little fluxed as manufacturers sort out the optimum sizes and ratios. I've seen 3:2, 16:10, 16:9, 16:9.6 and of course 4:3 and 5:4 ratios. Wierd. Also we have desktop panels in 15, 15.1, 16, 17, 17.4, and 18" sizes. Again, wierd, as tubes have tended to standardize on two inch increments. I haven't seen any 16" desktop panels, but I know that Samsung makes a 1280x1024 16" TFT the idea being that it is cheaper to produce than a 17", while offering the same res. Might this size oust the 15" as the bottom end? It seems to me that both OSX and WinXP really would like a little more room than standard XGA provides.
I think this wide 17" is not too much more expensive to make than the square 15". It might be a neat thing to see Apple's LCD line-up go ALL WIDESCREEN, and drop the 15". 17" Widescreen, 19" Widescreen, 22" widescreen, and 23" hi-def widescreen. Maybe the 19 and 22 will have the same res? Who knows? The powerbook and 17"iMac already use widescreens... It would be a very Apple gimmick, but not totally practical.
Reply 5 of 8
July 20, 2002 11:21AM
The nice thing about the wide type screen is most people are used to scrolling up and down, but scrolling side to side sucks. I'd like to see all widescreen lcd's
I'd trade in a second for the choice of a 15" or 17" widescreen
Reply 6 of 8
July 20, 2002 5:06PM
[quote]Originally posted by thegelding:
<strong>i would, i guess...but i will be quite happy with my 15" iMac lcd for the next two years...at which time i will update to the newest 19" widescreen G5 iMac running cheetah (os 11)
Are you *sure* you want Cheetah? Considering that Cheetah was the codename for Mac OS X 10.0 4K78...
Reply 7 of 8
July 20, 2002 5:26PM
Quick Question: I'm considering purchasing a new iMac for several reasons. One of which is I'd like to use it to transfer video from my Sony Camcorder to DVD. My Sony camcorder uses Digital 8mm tapes. I'd like to burn copies onto DVDs. I know I can do this with the Fire Wire connection. My question is: How much video can I fit onto each DVD? One apple.com page states that a person can fit "up to 22 minutes of digital video" onto each DVD. Another apple.com site states that one can fit "up to 90 minutes of high quality video" onto each DVD. Are these both correct? And if so, what is meant by "high quality video"?
I am getting the impression that current DVD-writing technology is just "single-layered" or something like that and that in the future, it will be "multi-layered" enabling much more video to be placed onto each DVD. Is that correct? And if so, what is the guestimate on the ETA of that technology?
Sorry fur bugging you all with my inane questions. Keep up the amusing posts. I get a real kick out of a lot of them....
Reply 8 of 8
July 20, 2002 6:32PM
I'd love the extra screen width for palettes and inspectors. But i'm too lazy and poor to go through the e-bay thing.