Apple needs the 17 at $249, or even less, and the 20 at $399.
No one expects a pro level display in a 17 any more. It has to be a home display. The standard size for displays is now 19", going on to 20", as the prices on those have dropped significantly this year. They can even drop the aluminum frame for a metallized plastic one, and have a less expensive base. It has to be a price leader.
The 20 isn't really suitable for pro use today either. That should also be less expensive. They could also do metallized plastic, but keep the base.
Metallized plastic looks very good, and is much less expensive.
If those things happened I wouldn't complain at all. I just didn't suggest it because it wasn't sure if was realistic for a company with an mantra like apple.
To do that, I think the screens would just get smaller. From what I can tell, the resolution of the 30" is the highest or very near the highest that a dual link connection can offer without going below 60Hz refresh. Increasing the resolution of a 23"/24" would mean it becomes a dual-link monitor or go below 60Hz, limiting its useful market given that dual link isn't very common.
That's why HDMI, or the equivalent, will take over. We are now seeing it on ATI and Nvidia boards. The new 1.3 HDMI spec offers twice the bandwidth of the old one, and more than twice that of a single link DVI . It also allows for up to 48 bit color depth, among other advantages. Plus, of course, it carries up to 7.1 audio.
That's why HDMI, or the equivalent, will take over. We are now seeing it on ATI and Nvidia boards. The new 1.3 HDMI spec offers twice the bandwidth of the old one, and more than twice that of a single link DVI . It also allows for up to 48 bit color depth, among other advantages. Plus, of course, it carries up to 7.1 audio.
I did not realize that. At a glance, only looking at Wikipedia though, it looks like dual link DVI is supposed to offer 7.6Gbps, HDMI 1.3 appears to offer 10.2Gbps. It offers a little bit more head room, but probably not quite enough to go for a 125ppi display of the same size as the current displays, nevermind anything higher.
If you look at most of the 19" widescreen displays though from people like HP, they're actually 1440x900 - the same as Apple's 17" iMac panel. There's a glut of cheap 19" panels just now it seems so everyone is dumping out cheap £150/$300 19" widescreens. I'd happily pay more for a 17" with 1440x900 res but at 19" I'd want 1680x1050 or whatever the 20" iMac is.
I was looking a few weeks back for a cheap monitor for a server and it was as cheap to buy a 19" HP monitor as some of the 1024x768 17" monitors.
I use a 17" iMac professionally so that's not really true. It depends on your profession obviously. Bigger would be nice but I find anything bigger than 20" too big.
I'm sorry. What I should have said is that professionals in the visual arts now use larger displays.
Quote:
Please no....
Good industrial design abhors making something look like something else like fake metal or fake wood panelling unless you're doing it as a joke. Keep your materials true to their nature. Apple is very clear about this in almost all their design. If it looks like aluminium, it IS aluminium. If it looks like plastic, it's extra shiny plastic that's obviously plastic.
Obviously they broke that with the Mac Mini but it'd be too expensive otherwise and everyone has to have a bad day, even Jonathon Ive.
The Mac Mini is a good example. But it can look very good. There are a number of colors in any metallic hue. Glossy, matte, or brushed.
Yes, I don't like vinyl instead of leather (If vinyl is "real" imitation leather, is leather "real" imitation vinyl?).
But, I don't mind the "fake" metal look. The reason is that they are both processed, and so they are not natural anymore. The plastic weighs less, and costs less, so it's fine. It wouldn't be, for something that costs several thousand dollars, such as a high end component, but otherwise, sure. A low end series of monitors, or computers, to keep the "look", but not the price, would be an exceptable tradeoff.
If we want something to have an antique look, and feel, that's different. I built a large copper potrack for my kitchen. It weighs almost 80 pounds, fake wouldn't have been possible, but for modern components, it's different.
And yeah, I don't like fake wood either, for those reasons.
I did not realize that. At a glance, only looking at Wikipedia though, it looks like dual link DVI is supposed to offer 7.6Gbps, HDMI 1.3 appears to offer 10.2Gbps. It offers a little bit more head room, but probably not quite enough to go for a 125ppi display of the same size as the current displays, nevermind anything higher.
The top end is close to 2,000 x 4000. I don't remember the actual numbers.
The latest Apple-centric report to cross the news desk over at DigiTimes claims the Mac maker is amongst several display manufacturers that will soon introduce a new 17-inch…
Let's see. iTV is coming. We expect more goodies and surprises in the January Keynote.
Certainly Mac is vitually in every room in our house but the kitchen, bathroom, sauna and laundry room.
Now I can see putting a 17" wide screen HD everywhere with the exception of the laundry room. Put one there and my wife will expect me to start doing the wash.
Apple needs to offer a 24-inch Cinema Display with HDMI 1.3, HDCP and at least one component input (plus PIP) for no more than $799.
I think Apple can do that if they switch to a plastic enclosure. If you are asking for all that and keep the aluminum enclosure, then it's asking for too much.
The top end is close to 2,000 x 4000. I don't remember the actual numbers.
Isn't that with a reduced frame rate? Dual link DVI can do 3840 × 2400, but only at 33 Hz. I'm not seeing where the HDMI 1.3 numbers would magically allow it to do 4k @ 60Hz.
I think Apple can do that if they switch to a plastic enclosure. If you are asking for all that and keep the aluminum enclosure, then it's asking for too much.
Why does a computer monitor need PIP?
That and lower color and grayscale differentiation, diminished rendering of gray tones, texture and appearance, increase digital noise, reduce image sharpness, produce less realistic colors, and offer less-vivid color pallet.
Interesting when lookin at product reviews more often than not the conclusion is that Apple screens maybe high on price. but when you put them side by side "you'll kiss practicality good-bye."
why would anyone buy an Apple monitor? They just cost too much, even some of the prices people are wishing they were down to is too much. Dell Monitors are not ugly at all (besides the Dell word on them). Theyll give you 3 year warranties without having to buy a computer and applecare.... and they cost much less... Dell E207WFP 20-inch Widescreen Flat Panel LCD Monitor 1680x1050... on their website right now for $289... If you need something thats a bit faster for like gaming its $399... Apples equivalent to Dells $399 monitor costs $699... but still you can get a Dell 24"er for $799. You can get a almost equivalent Apple thats just 1" smaller for only 200 more....
Apple has done a decent job on computer prices lately, but their monitors are a complete rip off.
Interesting when lookin at product reviews more often than not the conclusion is that Apple screens maybe high on price. but when you put them side by side "you'll kiss practicality good-bye."
Odd, Ive put many side by side... Ive even opened some up and they have the exact same manufactured screens inside the housing... and they cost almost double the price. I love the enclosures on Apple monitors, but id rather pay less for the same quality, a better warranty, and nice little things like telescoping stands and such to make the height i want.
Odd, Ive put many side by side... Ive even opened some up and they have the exact same manufactured screens inside the housing... and they cost almost double the price. I love the enclosures on Apple monitors, but id rather pay less for the same quality, a better warranty, and nice little things like telescoping stands and such to make the height i want.
They're monitors are expensive, yet they're probably the one thing you look at day in and day out. I can't stand looking at my old plastic 17-inch Apple Cinema Display after using my MacBook Pro. It just feels so gaudy.
Your monitor, more than anything else, seems to affect your mood while using a computer.
Considering that it'll last for years, it works out to like 10-20 cents a day. i've wasted money on far stupider things.
Isn't that with a reduced frame rate? Dual link DVI can do 3840 × 2400, but only at 33 Hz. I'm not seeing where the HDMI 1.3 numbers would magically allow it to do 4k @ 60Hz.
It's close to it. It's not 4k. I didn't say that. But, remember basic things about Tv rates. with "i", you have one field every 60th sec, but one frame every 30th sec. 50 and 25 in Europe. Motion pictures are projected at 24 frames per second, but project two identical frames in a row every 48th of a second.
4,000 x 2,000 equals 8 million pixels, 3,800 x 2,40 equals 9.216 million pixels, considerably more than that. It is also not a Hi Def format. 3840 x 2160 would be correct, but still have more pixels than 4,000 x 2,000 (but very close) which is a 2:1 format, in itself, not Hi Def, which, as you know is 16:9. So 3,556 x 2,000 would be correct, giving about 7.111 Million pixels.
As 2560 x 1600 equals 4.096 million pixels at 60 Hz. I don't see a problem with even 4,000 x 2,000, with a bandwidth more than twice that needed for 2560 x 1600. That should be coming by late 2007, according to reports.
But, as I say, they are talking about being close to 4k.
Unfortunately, the site doesn't mention actual rez. You have to have access to the actual tech specs. So you have to work it out.
That and lower color and grayscale differentiation, diminished rendering of gray tones, texture and appearance, increase digital noise, reduce image sharpness, produce less realistic colors, and offer less-vivid color pallet.
Interesting when lookin at product reviews more often than not the conclusion is that Apple screens maybe high on price. but when you put them side by side "you'll kiss practicality good-bye."
Sadly enough, Apple's monitors no longer enjoy a quality edge over the competition. Apple's innovation all too often extends to the first model in a series, and doesn't improve, while their competitors move up to their level. Meanwhile, while they slowly bring prices down, their initial price advantage becomes a price disadvantage.
But, as electronics is continually getting better, at lower prices, on a regular basic, there is no reason to believe their quality should have to go down along with the price.
Whatever we might think of Dell, their larger monitors are pretty good, offer more features and are far cheaper.
Whatever we might think of Dell, their larger monitors are pretty good, offer more features and are far cheaper.
Yep, nowhere to go but up and still just "pretty good." Offers more features in an attempt to compensate for their lower quality. Far cheaper but not as far as it used to be.
Like the reviews posted by Macworld and CNN, same manufacturer, but Apple as it has done with Intel, they just ends up with a simpler and simply better looking, better quality and better functional product. Like a Movado vs Timex, Volvo vs Hyunda or Mont Blanc vs Waterman.
It is like everything that Apple produces. Just better quality all around. Walk into a top NY ad agency with a bunch of different monitors, and it is amazing how everbody gravitates towards the Apple displays.
Read one reviewer after another, and it basically the same, "the Apple just looks so much better."
Interesting that if the price were the same, like everybody else, I would be that you would undoubtedly take the Apple over the Dell.
Comments
Their prices on the 17 and 20 are still too high.
Apple needs the 17 at $249, or even less, and the 20 at $399.
No one expects a pro level display in a 17 any more. It has to be a home display. The standard size for displays is now 19", going on to 20", as the prices on those have dropped significantly this year. They can even drop the aluminum frame for a metallized plastic one, and have a less expensive base. It has to be a price leader.
The 20 isn't really suitable for pro use today either. That should also be less expensive. They could also do metallized plastic, but keep the base.
Metallized plastic looks very good, and is much less expensive.
If those things happened I wouldn't complain at all. I just didn't suggest it because it wasn't sure if was realistic for a company with an mantra like apple.
Let's hope you're right!
To do that, I think the screens would just get smaller. From what I can tell, the resolution of the 30" is the highest or very near the highest that a dual link connection can offer without going below 60Hz refresh. Increasing the resolution of a 23"/24" would mean it becomes a dual-link monitor or go below 60Hz, limiting its useful market given that dual link isn't very common.
That's why HDMI, or the equivalent, will take over. We are now seeing it on ATI and Nvidia boards. The new 1.3 HDMI spec offers twice the bandwidth of the old one, and more than twice that of a single link DVI . It also allows for up to 48 bit color depth, among other advantages. Plus, of course, it carries up to 7.1 audio.
That's why HDMI, or the equivalent, will take over. We are now seeing it on ATI and Nvidia boards. The new 1.3 HDMI spec offers twice the bandwidth of the old one, and more than twice that of a single link DVI . It also allows for up to 48 bit color depth, among other advantages. Plus, of course, it carries up to 7.1 audio.
I did not realize that. At a glance, only looking at Wikipedia though, it looks like dual link DVI is supposed to offer 7.6Gbps, HDMI 1.3 appears to offer 10.2Gbps. It offers a little bit more head room, but probably not quite enough to go for a 125ppi display of the same size as the current displays, nevermind anything higher.
If you look at most of the 19" widescreen displays though from people like HP, they're actually 1440x900 - the same as Apple's 17" iMac panel. There's a glut of cheap 19" panels just now it seems so everyone is dumping out cheap £150/$300 19" widescreens. I'd happily pay more for a 17" with 1440x900 res but at 19" I'd want 1680x1050 or whatever the 20" iMac is.
I was looking a few weeks back for a cheap monitor for a server and it was as cheap to buy a 19" HP monitor as some of the 1024x768 17" monitors.
I use a 17" iMac professionally so that's not really true. It depends on your profession obviously. Bigger would be nice but I find anything bigger than 20" too big.
I'm sorry. What I should have said is that professionals in the visual arts now use larger displays.
Please no....
Good industrial design abhors making something look like something else like fake metal or fake wood panelling unless you're doing it as a joke. Keep your materials true to their nature. Apple is very clear about this in almost all their design. If it looks like aluminium, it IS aluminium. If it looks like plastic, it's extra shiny plastic that's obviously plastic.
Obviously they broke that with the Mac Mini but it'd be too expensive otherwise and everyone has to have a bad day, even Jonathon Ive.
The Mac Mini is a good example. But it can look very good. There are a number of colors in any metallic hue. Glossy, matte, or brushed.
Yes, I don't like vinyl instead of leather (If vinyl is "real" imitation leather, is leather "real" imitation vinyl?).
But, I don't mind the "fake" metal look. The reason is that they are both processed, and so they are not natural anymore. The plastic weighs less, and costs less, so it's fine. It wouldn't be, for something that costs several thousand dollars, such as a high end component, but otherwise, sure. A low end series of monitors, or computers, to keep the "look", but not the price, would be an exceptable tradeoff.
If we want something to have an antique look, and feel, that's different. I built a large copper potrack for my kitchen. It weighs almost 80 pounds, fake wouldn't have been possible, but for modern components, it's different.
And yeah, I don't like fake wood either, for those reasons.
I did not realize that. At a glance, only looking at Wikipedia though, it looks like dual link DVI is supposed to offer 7.6Gbps, HDMI 1.3 appears to offer 10.2Gbps. It offers a little bit more head room, but probably not quite enough to go for a 125ppi display of the same size as the current displays, nevermind anything higher.
The top end is close to 2,000 x 4000. I don't remember the actual numbers.
The next generarion will be higher still.
The latest Apple-centric report to cross the news desk over at DigiTimes claims the Mac maker is amongst several display manufacturers that will soon introduce a new 17-inch…
Let's see. iTV is coming. We expect more goodies and surprises in the January Keynote.
Certainly Mac is vitually in every room in our house but the kitchen, bathroom, sauna and laundry room.
Now I can see putting a 17" wide screen HD everywhere with the exception of the laundry room. Put one there and my wife will expect me to start doing the wash.
Apple needs to offer a 24-inch Cinema Display with HDMI 1.3, HDCP and at least one component input (plus PIP) for no more than $799.
I think Apple can do that if they switch to a plastic enclosure. If you are asking for all that and keep the aluminum enclosure, then it's asking for too much.
Why does a computer monitor need PIP?
The top end is close to 2,000 x 4000. I don't remember the actual numbers.
Isn't that with a reduced frame rate? Dual link DVI can do 3840 × 2400, but only at 33 Hz. I'm not seeing where the HDMI 1.3 numbers would magically allow it to do 4k @ 60Hz.
I think Apple can do that if they switch to a plastic enclosure. If you are asking for all that and keep the aluminum enclosure, then it's asking for too much.
Why does a computer monitor need PIP?
That and lower color and grayscale differentiation, diminished rendering of gray tones, texture and appearance, increase digital noise, reduce image sharpness, produce less realistic colors, and offer less-vivid color pallet.
Interesting when lookin at product reviews more often than not the conclusion is that Apple screens maybe high on price. but when you put them side by side "you'll kiss practicality good-bye."
Apple has done a decent job on computer prices lately, but their monitors are a complete rip off.
Interesting when lookin at product reviews more often than not the conclusion is that Apple screens maybe high on price. but when you put them side by side "you'll kiss practicality good-bye."
Odd, Ive put many side by side... Ive even opened some up and they have the exact same manufactured screens inside the housing... and they cost almost double the price. I love the enclosures on Apple monitors, but id rather pay less for the same quality, a better warranty, and nice little things like telescoping stands and such to make the height i want.
Odd, Ive put many side by side... Ive even opened some up and they have the exact same manufactured screens inside the housing... and they cost almost double the price. I love the enclosures on Apple monitors, but id rather pay less for the same quality, a better warranty, and nice little things like telescoping stands and such to make the height i want.
what monitors do you recommend??
Your monitor, more than anything else, seems to affect your mood while using a computer.
Considering that it'll last for years, it works out to like 10-20 cents a day. i've wasted money on far stupider things.
Isn't that with a reduced frame rate? Dual link DVI can do 3840 × 2400, but only at 33 Hz. I'm not seeing where the HDMI 1.3 numbers would magically allow it to do 4k @ 60Hz.
It's close to it. It's not 4k. I didn't say that. But, remember basic things about Tv rates. with "i", you have one field every 60th sec, but one frame every 30th sec. 50 and 25 in Europe. Motion pictures are projected at 24 frames per second, but project two identical frames in a row every 48th of a second.
4,000 x 2,000 equals 8 million pixels, 3,800 x 2,40 equals 9.216 million pixels, considerably more than that. It is also not a Hi Def format. 3840 x 2160 would be correct, but still have more pixels than 4,000 x 2,000 (but very close) which is a 2:1 format, in itself, not Hi Def, which, as you know is 16:9. So 3,556 x 2,000 would be correct, giving about 7.111 Million pixels.
As 2560 x 1600 equals 4.096 million pixels at 60 Hz. I don't see a problem with even 4,000 x 2,000, with a bandwidth more than twice that needed for 2560 x 1600. That should be coming by late 2007, according to reports.
But, as I say, they are talking about being close to 4k.
Unfortunately, the site doesn't mention actual rez. You have to have access to the actual tech specs. So you have to work it out.
Go here:
http://www.hdmi.org/press/pr/pr_20060622.asp
That and lower color and grayscale differentiation, diminished rendering of gray tones, texture and appearance, increase digital noise, reduce image sharpness, produce less realistic colors, and offer less-vivid color pallet.
Interesting when lookin at product reviews more often than not the conclusion is that Apple screens maybe high on price. but when you put them side by side "you'll kiss practicality good-bye."
Sadly enough, Apple's monitors no longer enjoy a quality edge over the competition. Apple's innovation all too often extends to the first model in a series, and doesn't improve, while their competitors move up to their level. Meanwhile, while they slowly bring prices down, their initial price advantage becomes a price disadvantage.
But, as electronics is continually getting better, at lower prices, on a regular basic, there is no reason to believe their quality should have to go down along with the price.
Whatever we might think of Dell, their larger monitors are pretty good, offer more features and are far cheaper.
I'm just asking Apple to move halfway.
However...by the time the protection is used, I've read 2010+, then the display would have already passed its effective life anyway in most cases.
I'll be sure to tell my cable company to stop using HDCP for a few more years then, and nevermind those Blu-ray and HD-DVD players.
Whatever we might think of Dell, their larger monitors are pretty good, offer more features and are far cheaper.
Yep, nowhere to go but up and still just "pretty good." Offers more features in an attempt to compensate for their lower quality. Far cheaper but not as far as it used to be.
Like the reviews posted by Macworld and CNN, same manufacturer, but Apple as it has done with Intel, they just ends up with a simpler and simply better looking, better quality and better functional product. Like a Movado vs Timex, Volvo vs Hyunda or Mont Blanc vs Waterman.
It is like everything that Apple produces. Just better quality all around. Walk into a top NY ad agency with a bunch of different monitors, and it is amazing how everbody gravitates towards the Apple displays.
Read one reviewer after another, and it basically the same, "the Apple just looks so much better."
Interesting that if the price were the same, like everybody else, I would be that you would undoubtedly take the Apple over the Dell.
DigiTimes.
Moving on.
17" display, moving on.