19" Wide or Standard?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
it IS coming soon... but how soon and in what ratio and price?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    i think it will be wide and priced at around 1000-1300

    17 gets dropped to 600-800

    23 gets dropped to 3200ish unless of course it is already selling well enough



    IMHO the 17 should go wide also so it is the height of the old 15 and gets dropped in price even further to around 500

    so there is an all widescreen layout 17, 19, 23
  • Reply 2 of 17
    mcqmcq Posts: 1,543member
    With Apple discontinuing the 15", I'd imagine that they almost have to introduce a 19" soon (by MWSF I'd guess at the latest)... my guess would be move the 17" to around $599-699, make the 19" somewhere around $999.
  • Reply 3 of 17
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    is there an echo in here?
  • Reply 4 of 17
    19 incher must be wide screen. I dunno about the 17incher changing to widescreen though.
  • Reply 5 of 17
    I just saw a Dell 20inch LCD monitor going for $999 new...I would never buy a dell but at that point it is getting damn tempting...
  • Reply 6 of 17
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Was the Dell 1280x1024 or 1600x1200?



    It's weird how we have the 1280 res on monitors from 17-20"



    Depending on how the things are made a 17" widescreen might actually be cheaper to make than a 17" 5:4. I vote for an all widescreen line-up too.



    17, 19, 22, and 23. No 15, but only if the 17" widescreen comes in at nearly the same price. No more than 699. A 19" would have to be widescreen to match the rest of the line-up, but it would also need to have a price in line with other 19" screens, not too much more.



    <a href="http://www.formac.com/p_bin/?cid=solutions_displays_gallery2010"; target="_blank">This Formac</a> looks to be the best deal going as far as large displays are concerned, offering more overal pixels, contrast, fewer dead pixels, faster pixel response, and better viewing angle than just about anything on the market. Just a touch smaller than the 22, but only 2/3rds the cost, it looks like a great display for digital artists.



    If Apple keeps the 22, what would the resolution of a proposed 19-20 panel be? Assuming that the 15" is dropped and the 17" becomes a 1440x900 unit like the iMac's.
  • Reply 7 of 17
    Hopefully Apple stays away from 1280x1024 for their next LCD lineup. That res is so fugly, I don't understand it. Why not use 1280x960, which maintains the proper ratio so that images aren't distorted? Odd.
  • Reply 8 of 17
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I used to think that too, but apparently the 1280x1024 screens are even squarer at 5:4, the antithesis of Widescreen, haha. The pixels are square and the image isn't distorted in any way, but you do end up with a squarer desktop.
  • Reply 9 of 17
    drboardrboar Posts: 477member
    For us that work with things that end up on paper reducing hight to get a wide screen is a bad idea. In Europe that use the A4 that is taller than the sqat US letter size the problem is even worse.



    However, with adaptors that turns that crappy ADC connnector into a more useful DVI there is plenty of good monitors to select from <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 10 of 17
    JD, I too despise the 5:4 ratio of the current 17" Studio Display.



    OK, here's what I think is coming display wise and it all hinges (pun intended) on new iMacs at MWSF. No inside info, just my speculation.



    The 15" iMac will be discontinued and the following lineup introduced.



    17" 1440X900 iMac 800/128/Combo $1399

    17" 1440X900 iMac 800/256/Superdrive $1699

    19" 1600X1024 iMac 800/256/Superdrive $1999





    These prices are aggressive folks, but LCD component costs are plummeting and Apple can actually save some money on volume production by using the same glass in its all new, stand alone display line.



    17" 1440X900 Studio Display $699

    19" 1600x1024 Studio Display $1299

    23" 1932x1200 HD Cinema Display $2499



    By standardizing on the 17" and 19" displays on both the iMacs and Studio Displays, Apple can buy in much larger volume and pass the savings along. Plus, Steve can do a lot of chest thumping about how Apple is the first company to go all widescreen, etc. He's got to do something to prop up sales until the 970 arrives, and this seems as good a plan as any.
  • Reply 11 of 17
    [quote]Originally posted by DrBoar:

    <strong>For us that work with things that end up on paper reducing hight to get a wide screen is a bad idea. In Europe that use the A4 that is taller than the sqat US letter size the problem is even worse.



    However, with adaptors that turns that crappy ADC connnector into a more useful DVI there is plenty of good monitors to select from <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I agree.



    However an iMac with a 17" widescreen that could rotate 90 degrees would be sweet. :cool:



    [ 11-05-2002: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
  • Reply 12 of 17
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Surely though, as display sizes increase, a wider aspect ratio is preferable. The smaller a display, then (at least for print work) a tall display is better, but once a display is so big that a vertical page fits it's height, you don't gain much by getting taller. A ratio between 3:2 and 16:9 is much closer to a person's visual field, and should make more comfortable viewing when vertical height is no longer an issue. In most displays bigger than 19" vertical height is not really an issue as the display is tall enough.



    Remember, owing party to the grossly inflated price of Apple's 15" display, a proposed 17" widescreen would be something of a 15" replacement at the bottom of the line-up. A little more expensive than the 15 currently, but also cheaper than the current 17.



    [ 11-05-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 17
    xmogerxmoger Posts: 242member
    Do people just not like to work with theatrical widescreen's(16/9, not 47/20)? I would think they could be cheaper, sharing costs and volume with consumer electronics.
  • Reply 14 of 17
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:

    <strong>Hopefully Apple stays away from 1280x1024 for their next LCD lineup. That res is so fugly, I don't understand it. Why not use 1280x960, which maintains the proper ratio so that images aren't distorted? Odd.</strong><hr></blockquote>







    The images aren't distorted.



    The screen dimensions of the 17" LCD match the resolution. If you don't know that, you're not right in the head. None of the LCDs display distorted images unless you tell them to.



    And 1280x1024 is better to me for one reason. It provides room for a horizontally mounted Dock on the bottom of my screen where it exists by *default*



    In fact, I'm using 1280x1024 on my physically 4:3 CRT with big black bars to the left and right of the image because those added 64 vertical pixels are that important to me.



    [ 11-05-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
  • Reply 15 of 17
    ajmasajmas Posts: 558member
    One thing that would be nice with the 17" flat screen is if Apple took a page out of Raduis' book and made it so that you could rotate the screen. That way you would have a screen that easily showed the whole page.
  • Reply 16 of 17
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    [quote]Originally posted by ajmas:

    <strong>One thing that would be nice with the 17" flat screen is if Apple took a page out of Raduis' book and made it so that you could rotate the screen. That way you would have a screen that easily showed the whole page.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Or even the SGI 1600SW - that was one mother of a screen.
  • Reply 17 of 17
    is there an echo in here?
Sign In or Register to comment.