There are already a few ways around this protection scheme. I have read of a HDMI to DVI converter with allows HDCP content on non-hdmi monitors. They are wasting there time on trying to implement encryption to combat piracy... too many smart 14 year old hackers.
I have had the 24 inch dell for 6 months now. Nothing can touch it at anywhere near its price range. I bought it for 875 shipped over 6 months ago.
Mike
"For all the people talking about HDCP like it's not important you are damn wrong. Windows Vista is going to limit the resolution of HD content if you don't have a compatible video card and moniter. There are already lawsuits against Samesung for making a DVD player which it's HDCP protection can be circumvented. The MPAA is not going to let any new HiDef content be played on non HDMI and HDCP moniters, they've made that very clear. It would be foolish to purchese a moniter without the support. "
Apple's LCD prices are flat out absurd. I personally think that anyone that pays all that extra money for less features on a purely "omg it's pretty!!" idea is just dumb.
Why? Some people spend millions of dollars on artwork. I want to spend an extra $100 (at the time I got it), for a display that matches everything else. I think it is well justified.
Technology isn't art. If you want to spend more on an overpriced display, with less features then the competiors feel free. I for one still think it's stupid.
Technology isn't art. If you want to spend more on an overpriced display, with less features then the competiors feel free. I for one still think it's stupid.
I think "overpriced" is such a clumsy sounding word to use. I wish critics could think of a better word.
A lot of people say this about the entire Mac platform and most of Apple's product line. Do you agree or disagree?
Apple may charge a premium on alot of their products, but alot of their products, such as their new Intel powered computers and the ipod line are feature filled, to the point where they can really compete with other manufacturers.
My main point is the fact that Apple charges a premium on a display that has less features and doesn't support the new drm technology, which like it or not unless you plan to break the DMCA you cannot get around the fact that you will need HDCP for new HiDef stuff.
I have nothing against the rest of Apples products, the iMac line is extremely competively priced I think, and it will do well.
Whats amazing to me is that people will pay for those displays just becuase they "match" and they will pay for something that should cost less then a competitors due to less features.
I think someone compared it to cars. Generally cars that cost more have more features, then cars that cost less, it's not just becuase they are "pretty"
I'd pay more for an Apple display for a few reasons:
* Simplicity - I like the streamlined cabling.
* Features - FireWire ports on the display
* Quality - Usually top-notch screens.
Only lately has Dell been using the same LCD panels and Apple has also had some color issues (pink screens anyone). Also now there are higher quality screens on the market by other manufacturers.
Sure I like the matching look too, but if price was my top concern I'd get a run-of-the-mill Dell or a screen by some other manufacturer.
I use a Dell screen at the office and its not bad but I wouldn't want this thing at home.
I think "overpriced" is such a clumsy sounding word to use. I wish critics could think of a better word.
A lot of people say this about the entire Mac platform and most of Apple's product line. Do you agree or disagree?
Not all Macs are overpriced. The Mac mini seems to be a pretty good value and probably will be even better once it has the intel architecture.
At this point in time, the Cinema Displays are overpriced. There is hardly an arguement against it when you compare them to what else is out there. Apple tends to be more reluctant to lower prices just to keep up with the market. Probably because Apple buyers don't seem to care about paying the premium.
I've bought several apple computers and monitors as well as a lot of their software and most of the time I feel as though I am getting my moneys worth. This perception may begin to fade away now that the intel switch makes it easier to compare hardware with PC conterparts.
The x factor has always been that you can't put a price on the ease of use of the Mac OS. So far that has kept me from even thinking about buying a PC just because it is cheaper. That is until someone gets OSX running on your a PC box.
Why? Some people spend millions of dollars on artwork. I want to spend an extra $100 (at the time I got it), for a display that matches everything else. I think it is well justified.
If that kind of expendeture is within your budget, cool, enejoy it -- Everybody knows APPLES ALUMINUM CINEMA Displays are the best looking, the same reason people buy Linclon Mark VIIIs when they could save money with a Crown Vic, Trim is everything.
Not all Macs are overpriced. The Mac mini seems to be a pretty good value and probably will be even better once it has the intel architecture.
BULLSPIT! it needs AT LEAST a 2 gig proc and a 7200RPM HDD to keep pace with the $499 beige boxen...people that buy Minis are buying OSX, the mini just happens to be the cheapest (legal) way of running the OS that lots of folks want.
BULLSPIT! it needs AT LEAST a 2 gig proc and a 7200RPM HDD to keep pace with the $499 beige boxen...people that buy Minis are buying OSX, the mini just happens to be the cheapest (legal) way of running the OS that lots of folks want.
It aint a preformance rig at ALL.
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
What I was trying to say is that OSX is the value for the money, not the Mac mini, the Mini is the needle, OSX is the drug.
If that was your point in quoting my comment then you did a piss poor job of trying to say that.
Who in their right mind would call it a "performance rig"?????? I sure as hell didn't.
I said that the Mac mini is a good value and I stick to that. It is a computer aimed at people who do word processing, surf the internet, and load their iPods. Plus it can do a hell of a lot more. Of course the Mac operating system comes at a price, but i'd put the current Mac mini up against any $499 Dell or Gateway (also not "performance rigs" by any stretch) anyday.
What I was trying to say is that OSX is the value for the money, not the Mac mini, the Mini is the needle, OSX is the drug.
That's a VERY good analogy.
And yes, when a product has more/better features than the competition (ie: MacOS), then it's worth extra money. Monitors, however are a different beast. Also, while other competitors' monitors are not as pretty, they do perform better.
On the other hand, I'd buy an ACD in a secon if I had the money. Design is definitely worth something in my book.
BULLSPIT! it needs AT LEAST a 2 gig proc and a 7200RPM HDD to keep pace with the $499 beige boxen...people that buy Minis are buying OSX, the mini just happens to be the cheapest (legal) way of running the OS that lots of folks want.
It aint a preformance rig at ALL.
Very true, the only way mini can be considered competitive in performance and cost is to compare it to a mini-ITX system of a similar size. Before mini, SolarPC and the like were incredibly expensive.
If that kind of expendeture is within your budget, cool, enejoy it -- Everybody knows APPLES ALUMINUM CINEMA Displays are the best looking, the same reason people buy Linclon Mark VIIIs when they could save money with a Crown Vic, Trim is everything.
No, sorry. Because while getting a Lincoln Mark VIII says that you have prestige, taste, and affluence, getting an Apple cinema display says that you're stupid.
No, sorry. Because while getting a Lincoln Mark VIII says that you have prestige, taste, and affluence, getting an Apple cinema display says that you're stupid.
Or that you look at a computer screen 8 hours a day, and have something called taste.
Or that you look at a computer screen 8 hours a day, and have something called taste.
We revolve around technology too much. Who cares if its silver or black or pink with orange pokadots. Technology was invented to get things done quicker and streamline our actions, making us more efficient, and thus rewarding us greatly. But in many regards its gone way to far. What ever happend to fun without technology. So sure technology is and can be fun, and should be part of your fun fix, but you shouldn't spend extra money just for style or color.
I seriously challange everybody here to go out and run, or do a sport or something active. Bike, walk, run to work. Maybe you'll realize how wrapped up we are in technology to the exclusion of other things.
I seriously challange everybody here to go out and run, or do a sport or something active. Bike, walk, run to work. Maybe you'll realize how wrapped up we are in technology to the exclusion of other things.
Well, I did as you said. PANT, PANT, PANT.... You'll be hearing from my cardiologist, and perhaps my lawyer.
We revolve around technology too much. Who cares if its silver or black or pink with orange pokadots. Technology was invented to get things done quicker and streamline our actions, making us more efficient, and thus rewarding us greatly. But in many regards its gone way to far. What ever happend to fun without technology. So sure technology is and can be fun, and should be part of your fun fix, but you shouldn't spend extra money just for style or color.
I think maybe you missed that maybe the "8hrs a day" might actually be the day job, it is rare that a tech job allows an outdoor life while on the job. I work at home and can choose what I use for a computer. It's not a big issue to amortizing a little bit of luxury over several years. It might also be true that such a person might be a media person that needs the color calibration certs, something that most consumer displays don't offer. Some people throw money away by buying a new car, I woundn't mind throwing away a lot less money on an Apple display if it fit my wants or needs.
While I don't have an Apple display, I do think there is more to it than just taking a utilitarian view. I don't see why it should be considered wrong to also have fun with technology and splurge a bit on occasion, but I do see it as wrong on the part of other people (though not you) to be insulting about the choices other people make in this regard.
People do seem to whine excessively about how competing displays are brighter, but I wonder if that brightness comes at the expense of accuracy. I personally don't think brightness matters, much like wattage usually doesn't matter any more for home stereos, my stereo runs very loudly at much less than 1Wpc, and I certainly don't need a 500nit display, that's very tiring and the brighter displays often don't have adequate dimming either.
Besides, the weather near me is no fun right now, I'm not going outside if I don't have to.
Comments
I have had the 24 inch dell for 6 months now. Nothing can touch it at anywhere near its price range. I bought it for 875 shipped over 6 months ago.
Mike
"For all the people talking about HDCP like it's not important you are damn wrong. Windows Vista is going to limit the resolution of HD content if you don't have a compatible video card and moniter. There are already lawsuits against Samesung for making a DVD player which it's HDCP protection can be circumvented. The MPAA is not going to let any new HiDef content be played on non HDMI and HDCP moniters, they've made that very clear. It would be foolish to purchese a moniter without the support. "
Originally posted by scavanger
Apple's LCD prices are flat out absurd. I personally think that anyone that pays all that extra money for less features on a purely "omg it's pretty!!" idea is just dumb.
Why? Some people spend millions of dollars on artwork. I want to spend an extra $100 (at the time I got it), for a display that matches everything else. I think it is well justified.
Originally posted by scavanger
Technology isn't art. If you want to spend more on an overpriced display, with less features then the competiors feel free. I for one still think it's stupid.
I think "overpriced" is such a clumsy sounding word to use. I wish critics could think of a better word.
A lot of people say this about the entire Mac platform and most of Apple's product line. Do you agree or disagree?
My main point is the fact that Apple charges a premium on a display that has less features and doesn't support the new drm technology, which like it or not unless you plan to break the DMCA you cannot get around the fact that you will need HDCP for new HiDef stuff.
I have nothing against the rest of Apples products, the iMac line is extremely competively priced I think, and it will do well.
Whats amazing to me is that people will pay for those displays just becuase they "match" and they will pay for something that should cost less then a competitors due to less features.
I think someone compared it to cars. Generally cars that cost more have more features, then cars that cost less, it's not just becuase they are "pretty"
* Simplicity - I like the streamlined cabling.
* Features - FireWire ports on the display
* Quality - Usually top-notch screens.
Only lately has Dell been using the same LCD panels and Apple has also had some color issues (pink screens anyone). Also now there are higher quality screens on the market by other manufacturers.
Sure I like the matching look too, but if price was my top concern I'd get a run-of-the-mill Dell or a screen by some other manufacturer.
I use a Dell screen at the office and its not bad but I wouldn't want this thing at home.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I think "overpriced" is such a clumsy sounding word to use. I wish critics could think of a better word.
A lot of people say this about the entire Mac platform and most of Apple's product line. Do you agree or disagree?
Not all Macs are overpriced. The Mac mini seems to be a pretty good value and probably will be even better once it has the intel architecture.
At this point in time, the Cinema Displays are overpriced. There is hardly an arguement against it when you compare them to what else is out there. Apple tends to be more reluctant to lower prices just to keep up with the market. Probably because Apple buyers don't seem to care about paying the premium.
I've bought several apple computers and monitors as well as a lot of their software and most of the time I feel as though I am getting my moneys worth. This perception may begin to fade away now that the intel switch makes it easier to compare hardware with PC conterparts.
The x factor has always been that you can't put a price on the ease of use of the Mac OS. So far that has kept me from even thinking about buying a PC just because it is cheaper. That is until someone gets OSX running on your a PC box.
Originally posted by ibook911
Why? Some people spend millions of dollars on artwork. I want to spend an extra $100 (at the time I got it), for a display that matches everything else. I think it is well justified.
If that kind of expendeture is within your budget, cool, enejoy it -- Everybody knows APPLES ALUMINUM CINEMA Displays are the best looking, the same reason people buy Linclon Mark VIIIs when they could save money with a Crown Vic, Trim is everything.
Originally posted by buckeye
Not all Macs are overpriced. The Mac mini seems to be a pretty good value and probably will be even better once it has the intel architecture.
BULLSPIT! it needs AT LEAST a 2 gig proc and a 7200RPM HDD to keep pace with the $499 beige boxen...people that buy Minis are buying OSX, the mini just happens to be the cheapest (legal) way of running the OS that lots of folks want.
It aint a preformance rig at ALL.
Originally posted by a_greer
It aint a preformance rig at ALL. [/B]
I'm sorry. I seem to have missed Apple's marketing blitz claiming the mini as a performance rig.
Originally posted by Guartho
I'm sorry. I seem to have missed Apple's marketing blitz claiming the mini as a performance rig.
What I was trying to say is that OSX is the value for the money, not the Mac mini, the Mini is the needle, OSX is the drug.
BULLSPIT! it needs AT LEAST a 2 gig proc and a 7200RPM HDD to keep pace with the $499 beige boxen...people that buy Minis are buying OSX, the mini just happens to be the cheapest (legal) way of running the OS that lots of folks want.
It aint a preformance rig at ALL.
Originally posted by a_greer
What I was trying to say is that OSX is the value for the money, not the Mac mini, the Mini is the needle, OSX is the drug.
If that was your point in quoting my comment then you did a piss poor job of trying to say that.
Who in their right mind would call it a "performance rig"?????? I sure as hell didn't.
I said that the Mac mini is a good value and I stick to that. It is a computer aimed at people who do word processing, surf the internet, and load their iPods. Plus it can do a hell of a lot more. Of course the Mac operating system comes at a price, but i'd put the current Mac mini up against any $499 Dell or Gateway (also not "performance rigs" by any stretch) anyday.
Originally posted by a_greer
What I was trying to say is that OSX is the value for the money, not the Mac mini, the Mini is the needle, OSX is the drug.
That's a VERY good analogy.
And yes, when a product has more/better features than the competition (ie: MacOS), then it's worth extra money. Monitors, however are a different beast. Also, while other competitors' monitors are not as pretty, they do perform better.
On the other hand, I'd buy an ACD in a secon if I had the money. Design is definitely worth something in my book.
Originally posted by a_greer
BULLSPIT! it needs AT LEAST a 2 gig proc and a 7200RPM HDD to keep pace with the $499 beige boxen...people that buy Minis are buying OSX, the mini just happens to be the cheapest (legal) way of running the OS that lots of folks want.
It aint a preformance rig at ALL.
Very true, the only way mini can be considered competitive in performance and cost is to compare it to a mini-ITX system of a similar size. Before mini, SolarPC and the like were incredibly expensive.
Originally posted by a_greer
If that kind of expendeture is within your budget, cool, enejoy it -- Everybody knows APPLES ALUMINUM CINEMA Displays are the best looking, the same reason people buy Linclon Mark VIIIs when they could save money with a Crown Vic, Trim is everything.
No, sorry. Because while getting a Lincoln Mark VIII says that you have prestige, taste, and affluence, getting an Apple cinema display says that you're stupid.
Originally posted by Placebo
No, sorry. Because while getting a Lincoln Mark VIII says that you have prestige, taste, and affluence, getting an Apple cinema display says that you're stupid.
Or that you look at a computer screen 8 hours a day, and have something called taste.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Or that you look at a computer screen 8 hours a day, and have something called taste.
We revolve around technology too much. Who cares if its silver or black or pink with orange pokadots. Technology was invented to get things done quicker and streamline our actions, making us more efficient, and thus rewarding us greatly. But in many regards its gone way to far. What ever happend to fun without technology. So sure technology is and can be fun, and should be part of your fun fix, but you shouldn't spend extra money just for style or color.
I seriously challange everybody here to go out and run, or do a sport or something active. Bike, walk, run to work. Maybe you'll realize how wrapped up we are in technology to the exclusion of other things.
Originally posted by icfireball
I seriously challange everybody here to go out and run, or do a sport or something active. Bike, walk, run to work. Maybe you'll realize how wrapped up we are in technology to the exclusion of other things.
Well, I did as you said. PANT, PANT, PANT.... You'll be hearing from my cardiologist, and perhaps my lawyer.
Now back to my pixels....
Originally posted by icfireball
We revolve around technology too much. Who cares if its silver or black or pink with orange pokadots. Technology was invented to get things done quicker and streamline our actions, making us more efficient, and thus rewarding us greatly. But in many regards its gone way to far. What ever happend to fun without technology. So sure technology is and can be fun, and should be part of your fun fix, but you shouldn't spend extra money just for style or color.
I think maybe you missed that maybe the "8hrs a day" might actually be the day job, it is rare that a tech job allows an outdoor life while on the job. I work at home and can choose what I use for a computer. It's not a big issue to amortizing a little bit of luxury over several years. It might also be true that such a person might be a media person that needs the color calibration certs, something that most consumer displays don't offer. Some people throw money away by buying a new car, I woundn't mind throwing away a lot less money on an Apple display if it fit my wants or needs.
While I don't have an Apple display, I do think there is more to it than just taking a utilitarian view. I don't see why it should be considered wrong to also have fun with technology and splurge a bit on occasion, but I do see it as wrong on the part of other people (though not you) to be insulting about the choices other people make in this regard.
People do seem to whine excessively about how competing displays are brighter, but I wonder if that brightness comes at the expense of accuracy. I personally don't think brightness matters, much like wattage usually doesn't matter any more for home stereos, my stereo runs very loudly at much less than 1Wpc, and I certainly don't need a 500nit display, that's very tiring and the brighter displays often don't have adequate dimming either.
Besides, the weather near me is no fun right now, I'm not going outside if I don't have to.