Anyone here have an iMac 20"

raverave
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
I just need to know which is smallest LCD resolution in these 20" iMacs. Some friends with light blindness wish to buy these, so I will need anyone with one to try changing resolution. is it possible to use 640x480 or 800 x 500 8which is way better because of 16:9 lcd).

Please write down all possible resolutions up to 1280...

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Rave

    I just need to know which is smallest LCD resolution in these 20" iMacs. Some friends with light blindness wish to buy these, so I will need anyone with one to try changing resolution. is it possible to use 640x480 or 800 x 500 8which is way better because of 16:9 lcd).

    Please write down all possible resolutions up to 1280...



    i don't own one, but i would assume the resolution can be changed just like all of apple's other lcd display, with one major caveat -- since lcd's used a fixed number of pixels, the computer will have to anti-alias the text to do so (so instead of one pixel being black, for example, you may have to have nine to make a black dot at an enlarged size, and would therefore look blurry).



    silly question, but why not get a smaller screen than the 20"? the fuzziness would be a lot less pronounced since you wouldn't be making such a dramatic switch in resolution.
  • Reply 2 of 14
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    If it is the same as the 20" apple cinema display (which I assume it is)

    then it has resolutions of



    1680 by 1050

    1280 by 800

    1024 by 640
  • Reply 3 of 14
    raverave Posts: 7member
    As you assume - hard of vision and half blind people needs as big picture as they can get one - 640x480 on an 21" Apple Studio Display is great - so bigger the monitor, picture is bigger .-) Did you ever tried 640x480 on smaller monitor like 15" or 17" - its terribly small - web pages are cut at 1/4 etc... So 20" iMac as I assume will be great especially because of widescreen. but if smaller resolution is 1024 this will be problem.



    To Flounder - can you tell me smaller ones - maybe i confunsed you - but I look for these with bigger elements on screen (like 640x480). Can you look at these "minimal" resolutions?
  • Reply 4 of 14
    mcqmcq Posts: 1,543member
    This is pulled off the hardware developer notes for the 20" iMac

    http://developer.apple.com/documenta...Mac/index.html



    The displays page from it has the relevant information:

    http://developer.apple.com/documenta...00884/BBCBAJJG
  • Reply 5 of 14
    raverave Posts: 7member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MCQ

    The displays page from it has the relevant information:

    http://developer.apple.com/documenta...00884/BBCBAJJG



    Thanks - it helped a lot - interesting as table shows

    640 by 480 4:3 *

    640 by 480 4:3 *stretched to fit full screen

    800 by 500 16:10



    are possible reolutions but not recommended. Any clue why? Especially because 800x600 is 4:3 and is OK in that table.
  • Reply 6 of 14
    gargoylegargoyle Posts: 660member
    Why don't you use the Zoom settings under universal access, and the "Speak Text Under Mouse" option from the speech pref panel?
  • Reply 7 of 14
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Rave

    Thanks - it helped a lot - interesting as table shows

    640 by 480 4:3 *

    640 by 480 4:3 *stretched to fit full screen

    800 by 500 16:10



    are possible reolutions but not recommended. Any clue why?



    No resolution under 1024x768 is recommended for OS X.
  • Reply 8 of 14
    raverave Posts: 7member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gargoyle

    Why don't you use the Zoom settings under universal access, and the "Speak Text Under Mouse" option from the speech pref panel?



    Zoom setting is nice - but in real life, people got a headache after some period of use. it is a problem to look at moving screen all the time, especially when you need something that is just out of the zoom area....



    Speak text is also not helpful - these persons are at most deafblind - many have some vision and nothing of hearing and vice versa. For these which cant hear but can see big type we use largest monitors with smallest resolution (640x480) which helps a lot. Other ones which cant see at all - there are braille terminals for them and offcourse Speech settings if they can hear.



    Thaks to all for fast response, especially MCQ, they helped us a lot.
  • Reply 9 of 14
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:

    No resolution under 1024x768 is recommended for OS X.



    I agree, I sometimes use this when plugging to a tv to watch movies. But back in OS X it's just not enough space, for the menu bar and working with windows, etc.
  • Reply 10 of 14
    mattjohndrowmattjohndrow Posts: 1,618member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    No resolution under 1024x768 is recommended for OS X.



    yeah, too bad that's the only resolution i can really use on my 400 mhz imac
  • Reply 11 of 14
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    The resolutions are:



    800 x 500, Millions

    800 x 600, Millions

    800 x 600 (stretched), Millions

    840 x 524, Millions

    1024 x 640, Millions

    1024 x 768, Millions

    1024 x 768 (stretched), Millions

    1280 x 800, Millions

    1344 x 840, Millions

    1680 x 1050, Millions



    Sometimes the specs don't give you EVERY resolution available.



    Hope this helps!



  • Reply 12 of 14
    bostonmerlinbostonmerlin Posts: 28member
    i found that when lowering the resolution to 800x600 (non stretched) on my powerbook 17" it would put black blocks on either side of the screen (like widescreen does on non widescreen tv's). on the stretched mode it looks horrible.



    bm
  • Reply 13 of 14
    chychchych Posts: 860member
    There are multiple zoom options, some do not constantly move with the mouse. I think the zoom is pretty feasible.
  • Reply 14 of 14
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    OSX officially supports nothing less than thousands of colours

    Classic mode's Monitors panel brings back 256 colour and 256 Grays

    Some old Classic games (SimEarth) even run 16 colour or less, CMD-CTRL-Option-8 too

    Same goes for the "Recommended" resolution list and the larger actual range,

    so it isn't that the panel physically can't do it... it's a design and UI decision.



    You can run LCD screens at 800x600 or 640x480 resolution, but it isn't recommended by Apple in part because of the limited menubar and dock space at this res, and in part because of the font smoothing and anti-aliasing optimizations at the LCD's "native" res that aren't available lower down the res tree. As a result, the rest of the graphics systems have to work a little harder to present the same crisp experience (in order to avoid long-exposure eyestrain and some of the other issues that may be of direct concern to your proposed audience)



    It is certainly possible to use the minimum resolution in order to 'enlarge' the Interface.

    Zoom, as mentioned, has some other settings that may complement, supplement, or supplant this method.



    If you have access to a current LCD Mac (iBook, PB, earlier iMacFP) you can lower the res and test the zoom settings to get a rough idea of what will be possible.



    the 20inch iMac actually has two backlights in its LCD, so it will be noticeably brighter than any other Mac LCD you test other than the Cinema Displays. The aspect ratio and size may help further, but if you don't have access to a 20", you might still be able to answer 60% of your general question by testing settings on any other modern Mac LCD.



    If it stands to be a large order, contact Apple and ask if they'll arrange a demo of solutions.

    Universal Access has long been an Apple value, and they often want to leverage it.
Sign In or Register to comment.