It's a simple issue of the differential aging rates of displays and computers. A quality display like the 23" Cinema display will have a far longer usable life-span than a computer. Simple.
With an AIO in which the display isn't the primary cost, this aging differential isn't so important. But when the display costs ten times what the CPU costs, then it raises some questions about the worth of such a pairing. At some point, the CPU won't even be able to run many new applications, but the display will still be usable. What then? Do you throw out the beautiful display because the CPU won't run the new Final Cut Pro? Do you set the giant iMac next to your TV/Stereo setup and use it as an iTunes server?
Why not buy a 23" Cinema display and run it with laptop or a Powermac? A 23" Cinema display will last through several Powermac upgrade cycles, probably 6-8 years, before it begins to show its age.
BTW, have you ever SEEN a 20" iMac? The things are freakin' HUGE! Why do you need such a large display? All of the things that would require a 23"+ display that I can think of would require something better than an iMac to run well.
Price! have you tried configure
PM with ACD?
PB with ACD?
they are really pricy, iMac is the solution who want to hv good monitor and good config. (unless you want to buy third party monitor like Dell, Samsung and so on)
we will see price increase in PMs when they go into Quad, then options much lesser than now.
whether we like it or not, iMac is the solution for large consumer market, if some one has money let them get PMs and ACDs
I seriously doubt that Apple's target audience is people who will keep their iMac for 5-6 years. They want you to upgrade every 2-3 years. Unfortunately the Mini is underpowered and the PM is a big, inelegant machine.
Interesting post synp. I certainly agree on the PM part, but it was designed to "blow you away" and look like the core of a neo-industrial world coated in high-tensil strength metals to go with the AL PB, the new displays, etc. If you recall the amazing IBM factory scenes inthe earliest video promos, then the guy blown through his living room in the commercials....
Nonetheless, I happen to agree with your premise, though. I still have my Cubes, though they are pushing it. (Un)fortunately, the Mac mini overpowers them, except on memory (1.5 MB maxed out), and it can run a 23 inch HD display (how well I am not sure), even though it has just 32MB of video RAM. I may keep the old G4^3 going a little long, with a mini tucked underneath, supported by one of those DVForge silver thing-ies.
I have a 20" display that I use with my G5 and I want to replace it when I get a new computer. Not only do I want a bigger screen, but modern flat panels have increased response times and better contrast. I'd expect 3 years from now LCDs will be even better and even more ports can be added on the back.
While I used to think the iMac was perfect for most casual users, now even I am attracted to its minimalism since the power is almost there. I mean come on... you can get an iMac with a 1/2 TB HD!
Meanwhile, other than RAM and larger drives, the only thing I'd add to my G5 is an upgraded graphics card. And since I'm limited to AGP I'm getting excluded from the latest cards. If I'm going to replace everything, might as well make it a package deal!
Yeah, as to JD's thoughts about size-- is there an upper limit to what "the ideal" display size is?
It wasn't that long ago that 23" was the kind of vast real estate that only graphics professionals could afford. Now we seem to moving to 30" as the "dream" size.
Once 23" displays are $500 dollars and 30" are around a grand, do we start feeling like "you just can't get any real work done" on a 23", 30" is nice, but real men demand at least 38" displays?
It's not like CPU and memory, since faster is always better. But I would think at some point whatever gargantuan monitors have become the norm would be big enough.
Yeah, as to JD's thoughts about size-- is there an upper limit to what "the ideal" display size is?
It wasn't that long ago that 23" was the kind of vast real estate that only graphics professionals could afford. Now we seem to moving to 30" as the "dream" size.
Once 23" displays are $500 dollars and 30" are around a grand, do we start feeling like "you just can't get any real work done" on a 23", 30" is nice, but real men demand at least 38" displays?
It's not like CPU and memory, since faster is always better. But I would think at some point whatever gargantuan monitors have become the norm would be big enough.
I'm hoping that the real "bragging factor" will become resolution, response times and rendering quality.
I for one will only be satisfied once one cannot tell the difference between a screen hung on a wall and a window showing the same image 8)
This of course will require vastly higher resolutions as well as maturation of stereoscopic (3D) screen technology.
I want to look "through" my screen like it is a piece of glass.
Plenty of possibilities for improvement besides size, I'd say.
Eventually I'd expect screen sizes to stop growing but resolutions will continue to increase. Large screens will still be useful for presenting or working with large projects, but I'd expect most users will not want to be glancing all over the place when normally using the computer.
I remember when I first got my 20" cinema display over 2.5 years ago and at the time I thought it was huge!! But now it feels cramped at times and there's definitely faster/crisper displays.
But the 23" is BIG. I'm glad the bezel is tiny so it doesn't take up much more room than my current 20" display!
Right, I'm on a 20" that seemed mighty indeed when I upgraded from the days of ubiquitous 15" displays.
Now the old 15 inchers start to look like the original AIO Mac screens and 20" does seem a bit cramped.
I could see getting used to 23" and starting to eye the next level up, but I would guess that anything over 30" is just "too big" for most people, assuming you're working about 2-3 feet from the monitor.
It is funny, but I've been using the 22" Cinema display with my first Cube since they came out at that outrageous price. I've got the original 15" FPD working with the EOL Cube I got when Apple discontinued the G4^3. While I have a 23" HD display now, since it cannot run with the Cubes, and I never could bear to spring for a PowerMac, I've been using it with an alBook (1st rev) and it is wonderful. All of this is a prelim to saying that the iMac G4 with the 20" screeen is by far the most convenient configuration I'v experienced. I just wish that level of ergonomics was available in the iMac G5 of any stripe...
It is, depending on which version of the G5 iMac you have. the first and second iMac G5 were VESA compliant and Apple sold an adapter for it.
So the new one isn't? That's a shame. I actually sprang for the ARM for my 23" Cinema HD display when I bought it, but have never gotten around to actually using it, unfortunately... kept waiting for the right time to buy that PowerMac G5 tower, but could never quite justify it.
Comments
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
I think cost is irrelevant here.
It's a simple issue of the differential aging rates of displays and computers. A quality display like the 23" Cinema display will have a far longer usable life-span than a computer. Simple.
With an AIO in which the display isn't the primary cost, this aging differential isn't so important. But when the display costs ten times what the CPU costs, then it raises some questions about the worth of such a pairing. At some point, the CPU won't even be able to run many new applications, but the display will still be usable. What then? Do you throw out the beautiful display because the CPU won't run the new Final Cut Pro? Do you set the giant iMac next to your TV/Stereo setup and use it as an iTunes server?
Why not buy a 23" Cinema display and run it with laptop or a Powermac? A 23" Cinema display will last through several Powermac upgrade cycles, probably 6-8 years, before it begins to show its age.
BTW, have you ever SEEN a 20" iMac? The things are freakin' HUGE! Why do you need such a large display? All of the things that would require a 23"+ display that I can think of would require something better than an iMac to run well.
Price! have you tried configure
PM with ACD?
PB with ACD?
they are really pricy, iMac is the solution who want to hv good monitor and good config. (unless you want to buy third party monitor like Dell, Samsung and so on)
we will see price increase in PMs when they go into Quad, then options much lesser than now.
whether we like it or not, iMac is the solution for large consumer market, if some one has money let them get PMs and ACDs
now iMac with 256MB VRAM sure enough to run 23"
here we are talking/dreaming about $1999 iMac 23"
for the consumers (hear it again consumers not Professional /Creative Industry) price is the big factor choosing between iMac than PMs/PBs with ACD
Originally posted by synp
...
I seriously doubt that Apple's target audience is people who will keep their iMac for 5-6 years. They want you to upgrade every 2-3 years. Unfortunately the Mini is underpowered and the PM is a big, inelegant machine.
Interesting post synp. I certainly agree on the PM part, but it was designed to "blow you away" and look like the core of a neo-industrial world coated in high-tensil strength metals to go with the AL PB, the new displays, etc. If you recall the amazing IBM factory scenes inthe earliest video promos, then the guy blown through his living room in the commercials....
Nonetheless, I happen to agree with your premise, though. I still have my Cubes, though they are pushing it. (Un)fortunately, the Mac mini overpowers them, except on memory (1.5 MB maxed out), and it can run a 23 inch HD display (how well I am not sure), even though it has just 32MB of video RAM. I may keep the old G4^3 going a little long, with a mini tucked underneath, supported by one of those DVForge silver thing-ies.
While I used to think the iMac was perfect for most casual users, now even I am attracted to its minimalism since the power is almost there. I mean come on... you can get an iMac with a 1/2 TB HD!
Meanwhile, other than RAM and larger drives, the only thing I'd add to my G5 is an upgraded graphics card. And since I'm limited to AGP I'm getting excluded from the latest cards. If I'm going to replace everything, might as well make it a package deal!
It wasn't that long ago that 23" was the kind of vast real estate that only graphics professionals could afford. Now we seem to moving to 30" as the "dream" size.
Once 23" displays are $500 dollars and 30" are around a grand, do we start feeling like "you just can't get any real work done" on a 23", 30" is nice, but real men demand at least 38" displays?
It's not like CPU and memory, since faster is always better. But I would think at some point whatever gargantuan monitors have become the norm would be big enough.
Originally posted by addabox
Yeah, as to JD's thoughts about size-- is there an upper limit to what "the ideal" display size is?
It wasn't that long ago that 23" was the kind of vast real estate that only graphics professionals could afford. Now we seem to moving to 30" as the "dream" size.
Once 23" displays are $500 dollars and 30" are around a grand, do we start feeling like "you just can't get any real work done" on a 23", 30" is nice, but real men demand at least 38" displays?
It's not like CPU and memory, since faster is always better. But I would think at some point whatever gargantuan monitors have become the norm would be big enough.
I'm hoping that the real "bragging factor" will become resolution, response times and rendering quality.
I for one will only be satisfied once one cannot tell the difference between a screen hung on a wall and a window showing the same image 8)
This of course will require vastly higher resolutions as well as maturation of stereoscopic (3D) screen technology.
I want to look "through" my screen like it is a piece of glass.
Plenty of possibilities for improvement besides size, I'd say.
I remember when I first got my 20" cinema display over 2.5 years ago and at the time I thought it was huge!! But now it feels cramped at times and there's definitely faster/crisper displays.
But the 23" is BIG. I'm glad the bezel is tiny so it doesn't take up much more room than my current 20" display!
Now the old 15 inchers start to look like the original AIO Mac screens and 20" does seem a bit cramped.
I could see getting used to 23" and starting to eye the next level up, but I would guess that anything over 30" is just "too big" for most people, assuming you're working about 2-3 feet from the monitor.
Originally posted by Cubit
I just wish that level of ergonomics was available in the iMac G5 of any stripe...
It is, depending on which version of the G5 iMac you have. the first and second iMac G5 were VESA compliant and Apple sold an adapter for it.
Originally posted by rageous
It is, depending on which version of the G5 iMac you have. the first and second iMac G5 were VESA compliant and Apple sold an adapter for it.
So the new one isn't? That's a shame. I actually sprang for the ARM for my 23" Cinema HD display when I bought it, but have never gotten around to actually using it, unfortunately... kept waiting for the right time to buy that PowerMac G5 tower, but could never quite justify it.