I went straight from a 19" CRT + smallish laptop LCD's to a 24" LCD. I used to think you can't have enough screen, but I have to say this feels enough for desktop. I wouldn't pay a lot to exchange this for a 30".
20":s are nice and big, and I wouldn't rush anyone currently with a 20" to upgrade to a larger one.
Looking at the specs and prices, either go with the 2.0GHz 20" or the 2.4GHz 24". The other two are bad value compared to these, no matter what use you have in mind for the computer.
There is a $300 difference between the 20 inch and the 24 inch 2.4GHz Macs ? similarly equipped.
...
Sad words:
?I could have had a V-8.? (Do you get US commercials in Ireland?)
?I could have been a contender.? (Did you see the movie ?On the Waterfront??)
Later on, don?t say to yourself, ? Could a, would a, should a.?
That's a nice pep talk but the meaningful question is whether it's worth $600 to have a 20% faster processor (just above the threshold of whether you are able to notice a difference), 4" more screen and the corresponding pixels going from 2.0 20" to 2.4 24".
Graphics don't matter. Both have good enough that you won't see a difference between them on the desktop. If someone wants to play games, both are poor and iMac is not the right choice.
Get the 24", it's a better display in that it's brighter and has a wider viewing angle.
NOTE: the iMac displays are 6-bit displays. The new iMacs use LG panels that offer only 6-bits per channel. Apple cleverly states "millions of colors" but they don't say 24-bit or 16.7 million colors. They use dithering to turn the actual 262,144 colors into 16.2m colors. That's how they can come up with the term "millions" but those aren't true colors. If you look at Apple's Cinema display specs, they say 16.7m colors so those are true 8-bit panels. Get the idea?
Get the 24", it's a better display in that it's brighter and has a wider viewing angle.
NOTE: the iMac displays are 6-bit displays. The new iMacs use LG panels that offer only 6-bits per channel. Apple cleverly states "millions of colors" but they don't say 24-bit or 16.7 million colors. They use dithering to turn the actual 262,144 colors into 16.2m colors. That's how they can come up with the term "millions" but those aren't true colors. If you look at Apple's Cinema display specs, they say 16.7m colors so those are true 8-bit panels. Get the idea?
link please, not for the "millions" statement from Apple but a link for your 6-bit display statement
If money isn't a issue I would go for the 24 inch if you need the room. I have a 20" and it's fine for me but I would have gotten a 24" if I'd had the money. Good luck.
The internet is an amazing thing. Plus, it just might be the most genius show ever devised: one part car show, one part "The Three Stooges," and one part pyrotechnics. And they unabashedly bring the better looking women to the front of the studio audience (well, better looking is relative; we are talking about an English show). Absolutely brilliant, as they'd say.
The internet is an amazing thing. Plus, it just might be the most genius show ever devised: one part car show, one part "The Three Stooges," and one part pyrotechnics. And they unabashedly bring the better looking women to the front of the studio audience (well, better looking is relative; we are talking about an English show). Absolutely brilliant, as they'd say.
I can catch the occasional episode of Top Gear on a local PBS affiliate hereabouts. Love it.
I still laugh when I think of the episode where they tried and tried but just couldn't kill a Toyota Hilux diesel pick-up truck. Oh, hey, here it is.
If money isn't a issue I would go for the 24 inch if you need the room.
Seconded, get the 24" no matter what. No reason to go 20" if money doesn't matter. I still wouldn't take the 2.8GHz processor because it's not going to make a noticeable difference going up from 2.4.
Seconded, get the 24" no matter what. No reason to go 20" if money doesn't matter. I still wouldn't take the 2.8GHz processor because it's not going to make a noticeable difference going up from 2.4.
I think I wondered about this before, a few years ago, but I wonder what the upper limit on "big enough" is?
20" used to be fairly huge, now it seems kinda puny and 24" seems like the sweet spot.
As prices continue to drop, I wonder if, in a year or two, we aren't advising people to skip the somewhat cramped 24" and go straight to the 30".
I'm thinking 30" is pretty much it-- after all, our field of view isn't getting any bigger and no one wants to have to scan a wall of monitor in front of them to find a particular element.
I think I wondered about this before, a few years ago, but I wonder what the upper limit on "big enough" is?
20" used to be fairly huge, now it seems kinda puny and 24" seems like the sweet spot.
As prices continue to drop, I wonder if, in a year or two, we aren't advising people to skip the somewhat cramped 24" and go straight to the 30".
I'm thinking the limit with the current desktop might be between the 24" and the 30". I have only used a 30" at the store, but I found myself actually turning my head to see things happening on another side of the display.
Another thing about the larger displays, which I also noticed with the 30" even in a short time, was that it bothers me when graphics are drawn in a straight pane and that pane is so wide everything on the edges appears to you with significant perspective distortion unless you move your head.
A fun idea would be using the iSight to monitor where the user's head is (easy) and distorting a huge panel's picture so that all windows face you. A 3D desktop projected on a 2D screen in order to keep the appearance of a 2D desktop. I think that could tremendously increase the usable display size.
I'm thinking the limit with the current desktop might be between the 24" and the 30". I have only used a 30" at the store, but I found myself actually turning my head to see things happening on another side of the display.
Another thing about the larger displays, which I also noticed with the 30" even in a short time, was that it bothers me when graphics are drawn in a straight pane and that pane is so wide everything on the edges appears to you with significant perspective distortion unless you move your head.
Two 22" or 24" displays have more real estate than a 30" (except in height) but it's seems easier (to me) to move my head from side to side using two displays than up and down with a taller display. AND two 22's or 24's are cheaper.
It's bugging me that I won't be able to use both of my 2 x 22" displays if I get a new Mac. The Mini and the iMac have only one DVI out. I don't want a Mac Pro.
I'm thinking the limit with the current desktop might be between the 24" and the 30". I have only used a 30" at the store, but I found myself actually turning my head to see things happening on another side of the display.
Another thing about the larger displays, which I also noticed with the 30" even in a short time, was that it bothers me when graphics are drawn in a straight pane and that pane is so wide everything on the edges appears to you with significant perspective distortion unless you move your head.
A fun idea would be using the iSight to monitor where the user's head is (easy) and distorting a huge panel's picture so that all windows face you. A 3D desktop projected on a 2D screen in order to keep the appearance of a 2D desktop. I think that could tremendously increase the usable display size.
Oooh, I like that head tracking idea. Maybe eye tracking, as well, and you could map some functions so that they are triggered just by looking at them.
I can catch the occasional episode of Top Gear on a local PBS affiliate hereabouts. Love it.[/URL]
The thing about all the US syndications I've seen is that they cut out the "star in a reasonably priced car" segments as well as most of the anti-american comments from Clarkson. You'll also never see on US TV the "the film" of the Top Gear roadtrip from Miami to New Orleans. I tend to be somewhat supportive of my fellow countrymen, but Clarkson is such an American-in-disguise that it's easy not to take him too seriously.
Fortunately, most episodes are downloadable. Yeah, I know it's probably illegal, but until there's a better way I'll stick to it.
I was in Dublin a week or two ago and saw the 24" iMac (not the brand spanking new aluminum one mind you) in a shop at the top of the new dundrum shopping centre and another in the city centre, (both those mainly useless small shops that also sell phones, etc... why Dublin hasn't even got rumours for an Apple store (never mind a real Apple store) is beyond me) So you might be able to go preview one without tripping to London.
Regarding the sizes, if you work day in day out on your computer, definitely go for the 24". Even if you can't think why, trust me, the extra screen real estate will be used. I remember going from a 14" to a 17" and thinking, damn this is fantastic, i could never go back. Same thing happened when i then went to 19", same again when i went to dual monitor 19", and same again when i went to dual monitor 24". The dual 30" is tempting me, but I don't think they'll fit on my desk \
Comments
20":s are nice and big, and I wouldn't rush anyone currently with a 20" to upgrade to a larger one.
Looking at the specs and prices, either go with the 2.0GHz 20" or the 2.4GHz 24". The other two are bad value compared to these, no matter what use you have in mind for the computer.
There is a $300 difference between the 20 inch and the 24 inch 2.4GHz Macs ? similarly equipped.
...
Sad words:
?I could have had a V-8.? (Do you get US commercials in Ireland?)
?I could have been a contender.? (Did you see the movie ?On the Waterfront??)
Later on, don?t say to yourself, ? Could a, would a, should a.?
That's a nice pep talk but the meaningful question is whether it's worth $600 to have a 20% faster processor (just above the threshold of whether you are able to notice a difference), 4" more screen and the corresponding pixels going from 2.0 20" to 2.4 24".
Graphics don't matter. Both have good enough that you won't see a difference between them on the desktop. If someone wants to play games, both are poor and iMac is not the right choice.
Doesn't sound all that clear cut to me.
But the specs are almost identical if you're looking for performance for less buck with the 20".
get 24 with 4 gigs ram or go home
I am home biatch!
Recently bought the new 24". I really love it, but it might be biased moving from a 15" laptop to a 24" desktop. I feel liberated!!!!
But the specs are almost identical if you're looking for performance for less buck with the 20".
Let's just say money isn't the issue.
Let's just say money isn't the issue.
Get the 24", it's a better display in that it's brighter and has a wider viewing angle.
NOTE: the iMac displays are 6-bit displays. The new iMacs use LG panels that offer only 6-bits per channel. Apple cleverly states "millions of colors" but they don't say 24-bit or 16.7 million colors. They use dithering to turn the actual 262,144 colors into 16.2m colors. That's how they can come up with the term "millions" but those aren't true colors. If you look at Apple's Cinema display specs, they say 16.7m colors so those are true 8-bit panels. Get the idea?
Get the 24", it's a better display in that it's brighter and has a wider viewing angle.
NOTE: the iMac displays are 6-bit displays. The new iMacs use LG panels that offer only 6-bits per channel. Apple cleverly states "millions of colors" but they don't say 24-bit or 16.7 million colors. They use dithering to turn the actual 262,144 colors into 16.2m colors. That's how they can come up with the term "millions" but those aren't true colors. If you look at Apple's Cinema display specs, they say 16.7m colors so those are true 8-bit panels. Get the idea?
link please, not for the "millions" statement from Apple but a link for your 6-bit display statement
Get the 24", it's a better display in that it's brighter and has a wider viewing angle.
I'm 90% set on 24" now.
Top Gear? How do you know?
The internet is an amazing thing. Plus, it just might be the most genius show ever devised: one part car show, one part "The Three Stooges," and one part pyrotechnics. And they unabashedly bring the better looking women to the front of the studio audience (well, better looking is relative; we are talking about an English show). Absolutely brilliant, as they'd say.
The internet is an amazing thing. Plus, it just might be the most genius show ever devised: one part car show, one part "The Three Stooges," and one part pyrotechnics. And they unabashedly bring the better looking women to the front of the studio audience (well, better looking is relative; we are talking about an English show). Absolutely brilliant, as they'd say.
I can catch the occasional episode of Top Gear on a local PBS affiliate hereabouts. Love it.
I still laugh when I think of the episode where they tried and tried but just couldn't kill a Toyota Hilux diesel pick-up truck. Oh, hey, here it is.
If money isn't a issue I would go for the 24 inch if you need the room.
Seconded, get the 24" no matter what. No reason to go 20" if money doesn't matter. I still wouldn't take the 2.8GHz processor because it's not going to make a noticeable difference going up from 2.4.
Seconded, get the 24" no matter what. No reason to go 20" if money doesn't matter. I still wouldn't take the 2.8GHz processor because it's not going to make a noticeable difference going up from 2.4.
I think I wondered about this before, a few years ago, but I wonder what the upper limit on "big enough" is?
20" used to be fairly huge, now it seems kinda puny and 24" seems like the sweet spot.
As prices continue to drop, I wonder if, in a year or two, we aren't advising people to skip the somewhat cramped 24" and go straight to the 30".
I'm thinking 30" is pretty much it-- after all, our field of view isn't getting any bigger and no one wants to have to scan a wall of monitor in front of them to find a particular element.
I think I wondered about this before, a few years ago, but I wonder what the upper limit on "big enough" is?
20" used to be fairly huge, now it seems kinda puny and 24" seems like the sweet spot.
As prices continue to drop, I wonder if, in a year or two, we aren't advising people to skip the somewhat cramped 24" and go straight to the 30".
I'm thinking the limit with the current desktop might be between the 24" and the 30". I have only used a 30" at the store, but I found myself actually turning my head to see things happening on another side of the display.
Another thing about the larger displays, which I also noticed with the 30" even in a short time, was that it bothers me when graphics are drawn in a straight pane and that pane is so wide everything on the edges appears to you with significant perspective distortion unless you move your head.
A fun idea would be using the iSight to monitor where the user's head is (easy) and distorting a huge panel's picture so that all windows face you. A 3D desktop projected on a 2D screen in order to keep the appearance of a 2D desktop. I think that could tremendously increase the usable display size.
I'm thinking the limit with the current desktop might be between the 24" and the 30". I have only used a 30" at the store, but I found myself actually turning my head to see things happening on another side of the display.
Another thing about the larger displays, which I also noticed with the 30" even in a short time, was that it bothers me when graphics are drawn in a straight pane and that pane is so wide everything on the edges appears to you with significant perspective distortion unless you move your head.
Two 22" or 24" displays have more real estate than a 30" (except in height) but it's seems easier (to me) to move my head from side to side using two displays than up and down with a taller display. AND two 22's or 24's are cheaper.
It's bugging me that I won't be able to use both of my 2 x 22" displays if I get a new Mac. The Mini and the iMac have only one DVI out. I don't want a Mac Pro.
I'm thinking the limit with the current desktop might be between the 24" and the 30". I have only used a 30" at the store, but I found myself actually turning my head to see things happening on another side of the display.
Another thing about the larger displays, which I also noticed with the 30" even in a short time, was that it bothers me when graphics are drawn in a straight pane and that pane is so wide everything on the edges appears to you with significant perspective distortion unless you move your head.
A fun idea would be using the iSight to monitor where the user's head is (easy) and distorting a huge panel's picture so that all windows face you. A 3D desktop projected on a 2D screen in order to keep the appearance of a 2D desktop. I think that could tremendously increase the usable display size.
Oooh, I like that head tracking idea. Maybe eye tracking, as well, and you could map some functions so that they are triggered just by looking at them.
There could be a slight damping and delay used so the windows aren't "restless", too.
I can catch the occasional episode of Top Gear on a local PBS affiliate hereabouts. Love it.[/URL]
The thing about all the US syndications I've seen is that they cut out the "star in a reasonably priced car" segments as well as most of the anti-american comments from Clarkson. You'll also never see on US TV the "the film" of the Top Gear roadtrip from Miami to New Orleans. I tend to be somewhat supportive of my fellow countrymen, but Clarkson is such an American-in-disguise that it's easy not to take him too seriously.
Fortunately, most episodes are downloadable. Yeah, I know it's probably illegal, but until there's a better way I'll stick to it.
Fortunately, most episodes are downloadable. Yeah, I know it's probably illegal, but until there's a better way I'll stick to it.
yeah .. UK iTunes PLZ!
Regarding the sizes, if you work day in day out on your computer, definitely go for the 24". Even if you can't think why, trust me, the extra screen real estate will be used. I remember going from a 14" to a 17" and thinking, damn this is fantastic, i could never go back. Same thing happened when i then went to 19", same again when i went to dual monitor 19", and same again when i went to dual monitor 24". The dual 30" is tempting me, but I don't think they'll fit on my desk