Considering that Apple is selling more computers than it ever has in its history, and the fact that most of them are glossy displays, I doubt Apple really cares what you think. They're obviously making products people want or else they wouldn't be selling as many as they do.
OBVIOUSLY, they would be selling TWICE as much if they did not such stupid things!
It surprises me that Apple doesn't already offer adapters to get the Cinema Display to work with DVI to support at least the older Mac models without DP. It seems like an obvious thing to do and can only increase the market for the Cinema Display. I can't really see a disadvantage with offering adapters. Maybe some people are less likely to upgrade, but I don't see many people buy a new laptop just to use the new Cinema Display. Maybe Apple just doesn't care?
I'm not sure whAt is up at Apple here. This would be an almost ideal display to go with my early 2008 MBP. I can only hope that a proper adapter comes out soon. I'm not surprised that Apple doesn't offer the adapter I'm just surprised they didn't get all their ducks in a row and have a third party ready at debut.
Yeah the display is a little expensive but for me it almost exactly meets my needs and desires for a display to go with my notebook. It would have been a Christmas sale if an adapter existed for it. About the only possible improvement I could see would have been a built in Compact Flash card reader!
I'm not sure whAt is up at Apple here. This would be an almost ideal display to go with my early 2008 MBP. I can only hope that a proper adapter comes out soon.
Going from a machine with DVI to DP won't work with an adapter. You need some sort of converter, which I doubt Apple will make. Now, going from a machine with DP to a monitor with DVI/HDMI only requires a simple adapter that alters the port interface.
What confounds me is the hate toward mDP. For the first time Apple has moved to a robust and versatile connector that it will use among its entire product line (if we are to believe Jobs). We no longer have dual-link and single-link, digital and integrated, & mini-, micro-, and standard port interfaces for Macs with DVI. It's also free, has the exact same capabilities as the standard sized interface, bests HDMI and DVI in bandwidth and is backwards compatible to DVI and HDMI monitors. And as previously mentioned it's new enough that we are likely to see others readily adopt it.
Yeah, it's great if you buy everything from Apple. Unless you're going to spend the large chunk of change money a cinema display requires, you're going to need to put down extra money on an adapter. Displayport is the standard, not mini display port. It will not become the standard. What it does do is complicate things with another uneeded connector.
You might see it on say netbooks, but for the rest standard display port is small enough where there is no incentive to use mini-DP. Other companies don't let their designers build designs where the engineers need to develop creatives ways to make them usable.
Apple has influence in online movie rentals and sales, but it can't force studios to offer content without HDCP limits or control what happens with Blu-ray videos (should Apple ever adopt Blu-ray movie playback).
Since Apple is a member of the Blu-ray association, shouldn't they be trying to promote the format rather than avoiding it?
Isn't one of the features of DisplayPort the ability to daisy chain monitors together? Does the LED Cinema Display support daisy chaining? Can the new MacBooks work with daisy chained DisplayPort monitors?
Isn't one of the features of DisplayPort the ability to daisy chain monitors together? Does the LED Cinema Display support daisy chaining? Can the new MacBooks work with daisy chained DisplayPort monitors?
No. The connector might support it, but there's no port on the new 24" display to plug a second display in.
What confounds me is the hate toward mDP. For the first time Apple has moved to a robust and versatile connector that it will use among its entire product line (if we are to believe Jobs). We no longer have dual-link and single-link, digital and integrated, & mini-, micro-, and standard port interfaces for Macs with DVI. It's also free, has the exact same capabilities as the standard sized interface, bests HDMI and DVI in bandwidth and is backwards compatible to DVI and HDMI monitors. And as previously mentioned it's new enough that we are likely to see others readily adopt it.
There is still a lot of resentment towards Apple's obsession with pulling nonstandard connectors out of their ass: ADC, Mini VGA, Mini DVI, Micro DVI. People thought it was finally going to end, but apparently it did not.
There is no guarantee that Mini DP will be the last DP variant from Apple. After all, Apple followed Mini DVI with Micro DVI. So who's to say that Apple won't decide to introduce "Micro DisplayPort" or "Nano DisplayPort"? And will free licensing also apply to any future DisplayPort variations from Apple?
Apple defenders blame VESA for not making connectors super small, and praise Apple for seeing the need for smaller connectors. So what about Micro DVI? Wasn't Mini DVI supposed to be small enough? Has Apple finally learned their lesson, or will they introduce "Micro DisplayPort" sometime in the future, and then "Nano DisplayPort" after that?
If all this praise for Apple's smaller connector is to be deserved, then Mini DisplayPort had better be the smallest connector that Apple can possibly make. There had better be no further DisplayPort variations from Apple. If Apple tries to follow up with "Micro DisplayPort" or "Nano DisplayPort", then Apple deserves all the blame that Mac users gave to VESA for not making the smallest possible connector in the first place. And hopefully, Apple defenders will have the strength of their convictions to lay that blame on Apple.
What confounds me is the hate toward mDP. For the first time Apple has moved to a robust and versatile connector that it will use among its entire product line (if we are to believe Jobs). We no longer have dual-link and single-link, digital and integrated, & mini-, micro-, and standard port interfaces for Macs with DVI. It's also free, has the exact same capabilities as the standard sized interface, bests HDMI and DVI in bandwidth and is backwards compatible to DVI and HDMI monitors. And as previously mentioned it's new enough that we are likely to see others readily adopt it.
Yes I know...I've done my fair share of ranting about the lack of Firewire but typically I like moving forward with technology. DisplayPort is so much better than VGA and even DVI. Just having an HDMI like auxilliary channel for audio and other signals is going to be huge for the future. People just don't like leaving their legacy hardware behind. I'm willing to do so when the potential benefits outweigh the temporary pain.
Quote:
Isn't one of the features of DisplayPort the ability to daisy chain monitors together? Does the LED Cinema Display support daisy chaining? Can the new MacBooks work with daisy chained DisplayPort monitors?
Yes..I don't know if this is enabled yet. I'm assuming that a daisychain DP cable likely has two connectors on the cable itself or we're going to need dual DP ports on monitors.
There is still a lot of resentment for all the nonstandard connectors that Apple pulled out of their ass in the past: ADC, Mini VGA, Mini DVI, Micro DVI. People thought it was finally going to end.
They might as nothing is set in stone, but what would be the point? We got mini-DVI for the GPUs that could only run SL-DVI and where space was an issue. Micro-DVI came out of the need for a thinner SL-DVI port for the MBA. We now have a port that is not as tall as USB and half as wide that will run a 30" display.
While the future may very well require Apple to differentiate their display port interface, the fact that they are using it on the MacBook Pro, MacBook and MacBook Air which all had different ports as of 2 months ago should indicate to you that we'll have a standard port for the foreseeable future. Add to the fact that Jobs has stated that the entire Mac product line will be using the exact same port interface. When was the last time all Macs had this. It's a good thing.
ADC is DVI with added power connectors and a different shell. That expensive adapter is only a power input. I'm surprised there weren't less expensive options. It was one of those connectors where Apple didn't seem to anticipate larger screens, there was only so much power that can be drawn through ADC, quickly making ADC a useless gesture.
ADC was a digital connection, similar to DVI. You are correct in that respect. However, an ADC cable will not plug into a DVI port. It was more than just power and a different shell, it also included USB signals. However, you could not connect an Apple Cinema Display with ADC to a PowerBook G4 with DVI (or any computer with DVI) without the expensive adapter. The adapter provided power to the Cinema Display, as well as separating the cable from a single connection to three separate connections: Power, USB, and a standard DVI cable for the video signal. The power supply offered by ADC became an issue when the 30" Cinema Display was introduced.
I believe the review soft pedals the glossy screen factor.
I have a new 24" iMac on my desk at work and two 23" Cinema Displays in my home office.
The work office is interior; light sources are filtered sun and a mix of CFL and LED table, desk and floor lamps. At home there are giant windows on the north and west sides, unobstructed to the sky so the room is flooded with sunlight, especially in the afternoon.
Given these conditions, the work office should be ideal for computer use and the home space a disaster. The hardware design though makes it the opposite.
I despise the 24" iMac because of its glossy, really mirror-like display. Since it landed on my desk, I've had to rearrange the lighting in the office just to make the thing passable. Note that it replaced a previous generation 20" white iMac that sat in the same spot without issue. In contrast the 23" Cinema Displays I have at home never cause a problem because of environmental factors.
I've got a similar situation: 23" Cinema Dispays at work, a glossy iMac at home. The glare off the iMac screen is brutal, and it's color reproduction is unusable. My only feasible solution was to add a second monitor to the iMac. This was not such a big deal for me since I prefer a dual monitor set-up anyway, but there is one curious aspect. My second monitor at home is a cheap $200 LG 22". Color, contrast, and image quality on this low end monitor is vastly superior to both the iMac, and the Cinema Displays that I'm using. So I use the cheap LG as the main work monitor, and the iMac monitor for palettes and such.
Not only has this firmly cemented my position in the "no-glossy" camp, but it also makes me think twice about whether I'd buy an Apple monitor in the future.
Not true -- that's what Control + Shift + Eject is for. This will turn off all displays, internal and external.
Doesn't that keyboard command also put the Mac to sleep? I believe the author was referring to turning off the monitor but keeping the computer fully active, like when you are encoding videos overnight and don't need to be sitting at the computer.
[QUOTE=Haggar;1347065There is no guarantee that Mini DP will be the last DP variant from Apple. After all, Apple followed Mini DVI with Micro DVI. So who's to say that Apple won't decide to introduce "Micro DisplayPort" or "Nano DisplayPort"? And will free licensing also apply to any future DisplayPort variations from Apple?[/quote]
I would doubt it, it's already a great deal smaller than Micro-DVI. Apple seemed to try to make this port as compact as physically possible.
Quote:
Apple defenders blame VESA for not making connectors super small, and praise Apple for seeing the need for smaller connectors
Why would they? Standard display port is already as small Apple's mini ports. There's no logical reason to use a connecter that small on a computer, a netbook or handheld device maybe, but that's another story.
Doesn't that keyboard command also put the Mac to sleep? I believe the author was referring to turning off the monitor but keeping the computer fully active, like when you are encoding videos overnight and don't need to be sitting at the computer.
That keyboard command only turns off the display and backlit keyboard, if you have one. The light on your Mac will be solid, not blinking slowly, to indicate that it is on.
That keyboard command only turns off the display and backlit keyboard, if you have one. The light on your Mac will be solid, not blinking slowly, to indicate that it is on.
I thought a solid light indicated the computer is off. At least that's how Mapples work.
Comments
Considering that Apple is selling more computers than it ever has in its history, and the fact that most of them are glossy displays, I doubt Apple really cares what you think. They're obviously making products people want or else they wouldn't be selling as many as they do.
OBVIOUSLY, they would be selling TWICE as much if they did not such stupid things!
STEVE JOBS DOESN"T CARE ABOUT MATTE PEOPLE!
Solipsism, you sir are a Gentleman and a Scholar!
++ I predict Pearl is going to sell out of Black Matteboard, Grey Art Tape, and Retouching Smocks.
It surprises me that Apple doesn't already offer adapters to get the Cinema Display to work with DVI to support at least the older Mac models without DP. It seems like an obvious thing to do and can only increase the market for the Cinema Display. I can't really see a disadvantage with offering adapters. Maybe some people are less likely to upgrade, but I don't see many people buy a new laptop just to use the new Cinema Display. Maybe Apple just doesn't care?
I'm not sure whAt is up at Apple here. This would be an almost ideal display to go with my early 2008 MBP. I can only hope that a proper adapter comes out soon. I'm not surprised that Apple doesn't offer the adapter I'm just surprised they didn't get all their ducks in a row and have a third party ready at debut.
Yeah the display is a little expensive but for me it almost exactly meets my needs and desires for a display to go with my notebook. It would have been a Christmas sale if an adapter existed for it. About the only possible improvement I could see would have been a built in Compact Flash card reader!
Dave
I'm not sure whAt is up at Apple here. This would be an almost ideal display to go with my early 2008 MBP. I can only hope that a proper adapter comes out soon.
Going from a machine with DVI to DP won't work with an adapter. You need some sort of converter, which I doubt Apple will make. Now, going from a machine with DP to a monitor with DVI/HDMI only requires a simple adapter that alters the port interface.
What confounds me is the hate toward mDP. For the first time Apple has moved to a robust and versatile connector that it will use among its entire product line (if we are to believe Jobs). We no longer have dual-link and single-link, digital and integrated, & mini-, micro-, and standard port interfaces for Macs with DVI. It's also free, has the exact same capabilities as the standard sized interface, bests HDMI and DVI in bandwidth and is backwards compatible to DVI and HDMI monitors. And as previously mentioned it's new enough that we are likely to see others readily adopt it.
Yeah, it's great if you buy everything from Apple. Unless you're going to spend the large chunk of change money a cinema display requires, you're going to need to put down extra money on an adapter. Displayport is the standard, not mini display port. It will not become the standard. What it does do is complicate things with another uneeded connector.
You might see it on say netbooks, but for the rest standard display port is small enough where there is no incentive to use mini-DP. Other companies don't let their designers build designs where the engineers need to develop creatives ways to make them usable.
Apple has influence in online movie rentals and sales, but it can't force studios to offer content without HDCP limits or control what happens with Blu-ray videos (should Apple ever adopt Blu-ray movie playback).
Since Apple is a member of the Blu-ray association, shouldn't they be trying to promote the format rather than avoiding it?
Isn't one of the features of DisplayPort the ability to daisy chain monitors together? Does the LED Cinema Display support daisy chaining? Can the new MacBooks work with daisy chained DisplayPort monitors?
No. The connector might support it, but there's no port on the new 24" display to plug a second display in.
What confounds me is the hate toward mDP. For the first time Apple has moved to a robust and versatile connector that it will use among its entire product line (if we are to believe Jobs). We no longer have dual-link and single-link, digital and integrated, & mini-, micro-, and standard port interfaces for Macs with DVI. It's also free, has the exact same capabilities as the standard sized interface, bests HDMI and DVI in bandwidth and is backwards compatible to DVI and HDMI monitors. And as previously mentioned it's new enough that we are likely to see others readily adopt it.
There is still a lot of resentment towards Apple's obsession with pulling nonstandard connectors out of their ass: ADC, Mini VGA, Mini DVI, Micro DVI. People thought it was finally going to end, but apparently it did not.
There is no guarantee that Mini DP will be the last DP variant from Apple. After all, Apple followed Mini DVI with Micro DVI. So who's to say that Apple won't decide to introduce "Micro DisplayPort" or "Nano DisplayPort"? And will free licensing also apply to any future DisplayPort variations from Apple?
Apple defenders blame VESA for not making connectors super small, and praise Apple for seeing the need for smaller connectors. So what about Micro DVI? Wasn't Mini DVI supposed to be small enough? Has Apple finally learned their lesson, or will they introduce "Micro DisplayPort" sometime in the future, and then "Nano DisplayPort" after that?
If all this praise for Apple's smaller connector is to be deserved, then Mini DisplayPort had better be the smallest connector that Apple can possibly make. There had better be no further DisplayPort variations from Apple. If Apple tries to follow up with "Micro DisplayPort" or "Nano DisplayPort", then Apple deserves all the blame that Mac users gave to VESA for not making the smallest possible connector in the first place. And hopefully, Apple defenders will have the strength of their convictions to lay that blame on Apple.
Not true -- that's what Control + Shift + Eject is for. This will turn off all displays, internal and external.
Wow thanks!
I've learnt something today. That's a new one for me.
What confounds me is the hate toward mDP. For the first time Apple has moved to a robust and versatile connector that it will use among its entire product line (if we are to believe Jobs). We no longer have dual-link and single-link, digital and integrated, & mini-, micro-, and standard port interfaces for Macs with DVI. It's also free, has the exact same capabilities as the standard sized interface, bests HDMI and DVI in bandwidth and is backwards compatible to DVI and HDMI monitors. And as previously mentioned it's new enough that we are likely to see others readily adopt it.
Yes I know...I've done my fair share of ranting about the lack of Firewire but typically I like moving forward with technology. DisplayPort is so much better than VGA and even DVI. Just having an HDMI like auxilliary channel for audio and other signals is going to be huge for the future. People just don't like leaving their legacy hardware behind. I'm willing to do so when the potential benefits outweigh the temporary pain.
Isn't one of the features of DisplayPort the ability to daisy chain monitors together? Does the LED Cinema Display support daisy chaining? Can the new MacBooks work with daisy chained DisplayPort monitors?
Yes..I don't know if this is enabled yet. I'm assuming that a daisychain DP cable likely has two connectors on the cable itself or we're going to need dual DP ports on monitors.
There is still a lot of resentment for all the nonstandard connectors that Apple pulled out of their ass in the past: ADC, Mini VGA, Mini DVI, Micro DVI. People thought it was finally going to end.
They might as nothing is set in stone, but what would be the point? We got mini-DVI for the GPUs that could only run SL-DVI and where space was an issue. Micro-DVI came out of the need for a thinner SL-DVI port for the MBA. We now have a port that is not as tall as USB and half as wide that will run a 30" display.
While the future may very well require Apple to differentiate their display port interface, the fact that they are using it on the MacBook Pro, MacBook and MacBook Air which all had different ports as of 2 months ago should indicate to you that we'll have a standard port for the foreseeable future. Add to the fact that Jobs has stated that the entire Mac product line will be using the exact same port interface. When was the last time all Macs had this. It's a good thing.
ADC is DVI with added power connectors and a different shell. That expensive adapter is only a power input. I'm surprised there weren't less expensive options. It was one of those connectors where Apple didn't seem to anticipate larger screens, there was only so much power that can be drawn through ADC, quickly making ADC a useless gesture.
ADC was a digital connection, similar to DVI. You are correct in that respect. However, an ADC cable will not plug into a DVI port. It was more than just power and a different shell, it also included USB signals. However, you could not connect an Apple Cinema Display with ADC to a PowerBook G4 with DVI (or any computer with DVI) without the expensive adapter. The adapter provided power to the Cinema Display, as well as separating the cable from a single connection to three separate connections: Power, USB, and a standard DVI cable for the video signal. The power supply offered by ADC became an issue when the 30" Cinema Display was introduced.
I believe the review soft pedals the glossy screen factor.
I have a new 24" iMac on my desk at work and two 23" Cinema Displays in my home office.
The work office is interior; light sources are filtered sun and a mix of CFL and LED table, desk and floor lamps. At home there are giant windows on the north and west sides, unobstructed to the sky so the room is flooded with sunlight, especially in the afternoon.
Given these conditions, the work office should be ideal for computer use and the home space a disaster. The hardware design though makes it the opposite.
I despise the 24" iMac because of its glossy, really mirror-like display. Since it landed on my desk, I've had to rearrange the lighting in the office just to make the thing passable. Note that it replaced a previous generation 20" white iMac that sat in the same spot without issue. In contrast the 23" Cinema Displays I have at home never cause a problem because of environmental factors.
I've got a similar situation: 23" Cinema Dispays at work, a glossy iMac at home. The glare off the iMac screen is brutal, and it's color reproduction is unusable. My only feasible solution was to add a second monitor to the iMac. This was not such a big deal for me since I prefer a dual monitor set-up anyway, but there is one curious aspect. My second monitor at home is a cheap $200 LG 22". Color, contrast, and image quality on this low end monitor is vastly superior to both the iMac, and the Cinema Displays that I'm using. So I use the cheap LG as the main work monitor, and the iMac monitor for palettes and such.
Not only has this firmly cemented my position in the "no-glossy" camp, but it also makes me think twice about whether I'd buy an Apple monitor in the future.
an excellent review!
It puts Macworld's short and wishy-washy review to shame.
Not true -- that's what Control + Shift + Eject is for. This will turn off all displays, internal and external.
Doesn't that keyboard command also put the Mac to sleep? I believe the author was referring to turning off the monitor but keeping the computer fully active, like when you are encoding videos overnight and don't need to be sitting at the computer.
I would doubt it, it's already a great deal smaller than Micro-DVI. Apple seemed to try to make this port as compact as physically possible.
Apple defenders blame VESA for not making connectors super small, and praise Apple for seeing the need for smaller connectors
Why would they? Standard display port is already as small Apple's mini ports. There's no logical reason to use a connecter that small on a computer, a netbook or handheld device maybe, but that's another story.
Doesn't that keyboard command also put the Mac to sleep? I believe the author was referring to turning off the monitor but keeping the computer fully active, like when you are encoding videos overnight and don't need to be sitting at the computer.
That keyboard command only turns off the display and backlit keyboard, if you have one. The light on your Mac will be solid, not blinking slowly, to indicate that it is on.
That keyboard command only turns off the display and backlit keyboard, if you have one. The light on your Mac will be solid, not blinking slowly, to indicate that it is on.
I thought a solid light indicated the computer is off. At least that's how Mapples work.