Well, that is nice to know. I have been eyeing the 27-inch LED Cinema Display for my Mac mini (mid 2010) and MacBook Air (Late 2010) a while. With today annoucment, I'm safe to go ahead and buy the 9/2010 release model. Few days ago, I thought Apple is going to drop the price on the non-TB Cinema Display but Apple keeps it for Mac Pro customers.
It doesn't matter. You're not "masses" and you're hardly important to Apple.
It doesn't seem to Apple that catering to your outlandish demands and false statements is of any benefit to them, otherwise they'd do it.
People who demand a certain type of display are the ones who saved Apple? I don't think so.
No, seriously, what do you do that would have 'saved Apple' while simultaneously forcing you to be in total darkness when you're using your computer? I'm totally, genuinely curious now.
1. We are "masses". Hundreds of thousands it would seem if you go to Apple's own forums.
So your wrong there.
2. Having displays that don't impair vision and the onset of migraine headaches is hardly an 'outlandish demand'.
3. Professionals are demanding a matte display option. Professionals are the ones who saved Apple. Again, that's your 10 minutes of Apple familiarity showing. Go ahead, read up or ask around.
4. We are aware we are not important to Apple... anymore. Divorce isn't easy. Especially when one party doesn't want one. That is why we are frustrated.
Do you understand that? No, seriously, do you understand that?
5. The 'creative industry' if you will, saved Apple (common known fact). Critical applications would include graphic design, pre-press (color correcting files from designers with no clue). Scanning and color correcting photographs, photography as a whole, matching Macbeth charts/photos for the dental lab industry for opaquing crowns, lighting calibration for video projects, video projects in general, testing calibration of new equipment, interior design applications, paint matching systems... to name a few. Pretty much any job that ended with the word 'production'.
Were you aware that walls were/are painted neutral greys in most cases as to reduce hue and tone tainting on displays? That a billion dollar industry for resolving color shifting and calibration was created. How do think having a mirror for a display affects these applications today?
Glossy displays are Apple going back to the stone age.
They may be fine for the light consumer and vain - but not professionals or those who value their eyesight.
Apple's focus is on selling computers, iPhones, iPads and iPods, not on creating the best uber display in the world for a few niche users.
They've sold far more Macs with glossy displays in the past year than your niche of professional matte lovers bought ten years ago.
Truth be told that the professional machines have been a small fraction of total Macs sold since 99. It was the original iconic iMac and iBook that helped to change Apple's fortunes.
I'd go as far as to state that Apple got into difficulty during the nineties because it was catering mainly for the niche users and lost the wider user groups to Windows 3.1 and 95.
Going back on topic, I've been using Macs since the Mac Plus.
My first Mac was a Performa 6200. I wasn't keen on the Performa monitor so I used a Sony Multisync with it instead.
Seeing that you're the professional user who'd be blinded and suffer from cerebral seizures the instant you glance at a glossy display, what's so offensive about hooking up an alternative, non Apple monitor to your Mac?
I do like this new Thunderbolt monitor, it would have been nice if it worked with a Displayport Mac but this is the price of progress: I'm not bemoaning the lack of a floppy drive on my Aluminium Macbook.
1. We are "masses". Hundreds of thousands it would seem if you go to Apple's own forums.
So your wrong there.
2. Having displays that don't impair vision and the onset of migraine headaches is hardly an 'outlandish demand'.
3. Professionals are demanding a matte display option. Professionals are the ones who saved Apple. Again, that's your 10 minutes of Apple familiarity showing. Go ahead, read up or ask around.
4. We are aware we are not important to Apple... anymore. Divorce isn't easy. Especially when one party doesn't want one. That is why we are frustrated.
Do you understand that? No, seriously, do you understand that?
5. The 'creative industry' if you will, saved Apple (common known fact). Critical applications would include graphic design, pre-press (color correcting files from designers with no clue). Scanning and color correcting photographs, photography as a whole, matching Macbeth charts/photos for the dental lab industry for opaquing crowns, lighting calibration for video projects, video projects in general, testing calibration of new equipment, interior design applications, paint matching systems... to name a few. Pretty much any job that ended with the word 'production'.
Were you aware that walls were/are painted neutral greys in most cases as to reduce hue and tone tainting on displays? That a billion dollar industry for resolving color shifting and calibration was created. How do think having a mirror for a display affects these applications today?
Glossy displays are Apple going back to the stone age.
They may be fine for the light consumer and vain - but not professionals or those who value their eyesight.
DUDE I OWN 3 LG SCREEN TV's AND 2 MBP,s
All of them have glass screens.
All of them look fantastic,
Glass is reflective
Glass is glossy
I just watched the ;Tourist ; and t looked fantastic .
Matte screens suck for many reasons
The big suck reasons any liquids or stuff put on the screen stays there and can easily dis color it .
We have had dozens of ruined hi jaclked TOPICS with people like you harping on and on about glossy AND matte .
Let it go dude . People who need Matte for work are a very tiny group who should not be cheap bugger snots and simply buy a matte CRT and join the matte lovers club LTD ,
Many moons ago apple counted on your sales.Now apple looks to a wider market.
Do the people who prefer glossy screens prefer to have glare and reflections? Do people who prefer matte screens prefer having washed out colors?
Isn't a good monitor supposed to display images that are true to life, not what looks cool in someone's mind?
The only way to see what more people prefer is for Apple to make both matte and glossy screen versions of all Mac laptops, iMacs and Apple monitors, with everything else being equal. Including the price. Make both versions available in stock everywhere. Take away any penalty associated with buying the matte screen option and then we can see which screen more people prefer.
On the other hand, make matte screens the standard and charge extra for glossy. Also make glossy screens special order items which take longer to deliver. Then see if people are willing to pay extra and wait longer to get glossy screens.
Furthermore, allow anyone to exchange their laptop, iMac, or Apple monitor free of charge if they decide that they prefer the other screen type.
Apple's focus is on selling computers, iPhones, iPads and iPods, not on creating the best uber display in the world for a few niche users.
Are you implying that best quality displays for professional use are matte displays, and that glossy screens are for those who have to settle for something less?
The article states "Thunderbolt-based Macs with discrete graphics can drive two external displays giving professional users over 7 million additional pixels of display real estate and the ability to daisy chain additional Thunderbolt devices, as well as video and audio capture devices."
My understanding then is, only the mid-range new mini has discrete graphics. And only the 2011 15" and 17" (and not the 13") mac books qualify. And none of the MacBook Airs. So only a handful of the Thunderbolt macs can drive two displays like in the picture.
I would like to see a close-up of the ports on the new monitor, won't there have to be TWO thunderbird plugs, to enable the daisy chain?
Lastly, does this monitor use the same LG panel that the previous Apple 27", and the Dell u2711 both use? Is the dot-pitch the same across all 3 generations of Apple (27") monitors?
My understanding then is, only the mid-range new mini has discrete graphics. And only the 2011 15" and 17" (and not the 13") mac books qualify. And none of the MacBook Airs. So only a handful of the Thunderbolt macs can drive two displays like in the picture.
Wonder what would happen if you tried it on something integrated.
Quote:
I would like to see a close-up of the ports on the new monitor, won't there have to be TWO thunderbird plugs, to enable the daisy chain?
How is EVERYONE missing this? The one you connect to the computer is built into the monitor, just like every Apple monitor since at least 1999.
Quote:
Lastly, does this monitor use the same LG panel that the previous Apple 27", and the Dell u2711 both use? Is the dot-pitch the same across all 3 generations of Apple (27") monitors?
I would imagine so, but we'd have to grab one to confirm.
Tallest Skil: I was exactly like you until I used a glossy monitor. Then I got over it. And there's absolutely no problem with using one in a room with windows. Perhaps you've never used a glossy display.
Interesting! I'll have to keep this in mind. I did however use a macbook pro once (the unibody ones) and I used it for 6 months before finally deciding the glare was too much. Perhaps an iMac will fare better...
Tallest Skil: Were you even alive when CRTs were the only choice? How did you get by then?
I thought about this too. I assume it was the anti-glare coating my CRT had that the new Apple displays do not...
I thought about this too. I assume it was the anti-glare coating my CRT had that the new Apple displays do not...
Well, whoever it was has since explained that he holed himself up in a room with no windows, painted his walls a neutral color, and used "expensive shades" to stop glare and whatever else.
So there's that mystery solved.
Oh, and you ought to use the forum's built-in quote feature. It's neater than you'd imagine. You can even quickly multi-quote multiple posts!
I never considered these displays as docking stations but not that it was mentioned in the article it is fitting. The most I use a docking station for at the office is to connect to ethernet, LCD display, and keyboard and mouse. Very cool Apple.
Enough of the "professionals saved Apple" nonsense. When Apple focused on professionals, it was in deep doodoo. After Jobs returned, the two products that *really* turned things around were released: the iMac and the iPod. They were aimed squarely at consumers. They have been followed by the iPad and iPhone, which are just as consumer-friendly and even more profitable.
Back in the late nineties Apple sold overpriced, uncompetitive hardware and the professionals were deserting them in droves for speedier, cheaper Pentium systems. But it's all good, as the iOS products, along with the consumer computers, have turned them into the World's most valuable tech company. The professionals didn't save Apple. They very nearly sank it.
Are you implying that best quality displays for professional use are matte displays, and that glossy screens are for those who have to settle for something less?
No more than I'm implying that the best computers for professional use are supercomputers and that a single unit Xserve or iMac are for those who have to settle for something else.
A niche group built a supercomputer from Apple Xserves and Mac Pros; it doesn't mean that Apple should now focus on making their computers into supercomputing nodes.
Equally a relatively small group need extremely colour accurate and calibrated monitors for their professional work. It doesn't mean should now focus on making such monitors, especially as Apple has never made such a monitor and third party alternatives are readily available:
So I guess this means the new MacBook Airs can't drive two displays?
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir
No, they don't have a discrete graphic card, they have an integrated one (integrated into the Intel chipset).
This response doesn't actually answer the question. Apple have stated that Macs equipped with Thunderbolt and discreet graphics can drive two monitors. Apple have not (to the best of my knowledge) stated what happen when a Mac equipped with Thunderbolt but without discreet graphics is connected to two Thunderbolt-equipped Cinema Displays. For example, it might be the case that it works but the performance doesn't meet a standard that Apple wish to defend. Until someone tries it and reports the results, I think we need to consider this an open question. Many things are not officially supported but work anyway.
I read the Thunderbolt specification. It doesn't support matte displays.
Great response. Sounds like something I would have said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel
I never considered these displays as docking stations but not that it was mentioned in the article it is fitting. The most I use a docking station for at the office is to connect to ethernet, LCD display, and keyboard and mouse. Very cool Apple.
I absolutely want one of these as a docking station. What I really need is to find a treasure chest in my backyard with about $3000 of mad money in it that I can donate to Apple. The reason for this would be one of these bad boys, and then I would get the wife one of the new 13" Airs while I take her new MBP. The rest of the cash would go to OWC for a 240GB SSD and an 8GB upgrade for the MBP. The I could relegate the 3+ year old Mac Pro to being a spare computer/media server.
Oh well, if wishes were horses the beggars would ride...
I wouldn't have believed them (because they generally know nothing), but Apple's display release history made me think they'd know what they were on about.
Really, what are you moaning about? Your new monitor works with your current system, right? Does your current computer have a thunderbolt output? If so, how is it connecting to your new monitor? If you are using an adapter, then your monitor should not be obsolete for as long as it works. Are you moaning that you will need to upgrade the monitor when you next upgrade your system
Comments
I read the Thunderbolt specification. It doesn't support matte displays.
It doesn't matter. You're not "masses" and you're hardly important to Apple.
It doesn't seem to Apple that catering to your outlandish demands and false statements is of any benefit to them, otherwise they'd do it.
People who demand a certain type of display are the ones who saved Apple? I don't think so.
No, seriously, what do you do that would have 'saved Apple' while simultaneously forcing you to be in total darkness when you're using your computer? I'm totally, genuinely curious now.
1. We are "masses". Hundreds of thousands it would seem if you go to Apple's own forums.
So your wrong there.
2. Having displays that don't impair vision and the onset of migraine headaches is hardly an 'outlandish demand'.
3. Professionals are demanding a matte display option. Professionals are the ones who saved Apple. Again, that's your 10 minutes of Apple familiarity showing. Go ahead, read up or ask around.
4. We are aware we are not important to Apple... anymore. Divorce isn't easy. Especially when one party doesn't want one. That is why we are frustrated.
Do you understand that? No, seriously, do you understand that?
5. The 'creative industry' if you will, saved Apple (common known fact). Critical applications would include graphic design, pre-press (color correcting files from designers with no clue). Scanning and color correcting photographs, photography as a whole, matching Macbeth charts/photos for the dental lab industry for opaquing crowns, lighting calibration for video projects, video projects in general, testing calibration of new equipment, interior design applications, paint matching systems... to name a few. Pretty much any job that ended with the word 'production'.
Were you aware that walls were/are painted neutral greys in most cases as to reduce hue and tone tainting on displays? That a billion dollar industry for resolving color shifting and calibration was created. How do think having a mirror for a display affects these applications today?
Glossy displays are Apple going back to the stone age.
They may be fine for the light consumer and vain - but not professionals or those who value their eyesight.
incessant diatribe
Oh for the love of God give it a break!
Apple's focus is on selling computers, iPhones, iPads and iPods, not on creating the best uber display in the world for a few niche users.
They've sold far more Macs with glossy displays in the past year than your niche of professional matte lovers bought ten years ago.
Truth be told that the professional machines have been a small fraction of total Macs sold since 99. It was the original iconic iMac and iBook that helped to change Apple's fortunes.
I'd go as far as to state that Apple got into difficulty during the nineties because it was catering mainly for the niche users and lost the wider user groups to Windows 3.1 and 95.
Going back on topic, I've been using Macs since the Mac Plus.
My first Mac was a Performa 6200. I wasn't keen on the Performa monitor so I used a Sony Multisync with it instead.
Seeing that you're the professional user who'd be blinded and suffer from cerebral seizures the instant you glance at a glossy display, what's so offensive about hooking up an alternative, non Apple monitor to your Mac?
I do like this new Thunderbolt monitor, it would have been nice if it worked with a Displayport Mac but this is the price of progress: I'm not bemoaning the lack of a floppy drive on my Aluminium Macbook.
1. We are "masses". Hundreds of thousands it would seem if you go to Apple's own forums.
So your wrong there.
2. Having displays that don't impair vision and the onset of migraine headaches is hardly an 'outlandish demand'.
3. Professionals are demanding a matte display option. Professionals are the ones who saved Apple. Again, that's your 10 minutes of Apple familiarity showing. Go ahead, read up or ask around.
4. We are aware we are not important to Apple... anymore. Divorce isn't easy. Especially when one party doesn't want one. That is why we are frustrated.
Do you understand that? No, seriously, do you understand that?
5. The 'creative industry' if you will, saved Apple (common known fact). Critical applications would include graphic design, pre-press (color correcting files from designers with no clue). Scanning and color correcting photographs, photography as a whole, matching Macbeth charts/photos for the dental lab industry for opaquing crowns, lighting calibration for video projects, video projects in general, testing calibration of new equipment, interior design applications, paint matching systems... to name a few. Pretty much any job that ended with the word 'production'.
Were you aware that walls were/are painted neutral greys in most cases as to reduce hue and tone tainting on displays? That a billion dollar industry for resolving color shifting and calibration was created. How do think having a mirror for a display affects these applications today?
Glossy displays are Apple going back to the stone age.
They may be fine for the light consumer and vain - but not professionals or those who value their eyesight.
DUDE I OWN 3 LG SCREEN TV's AND 2 MBP,s
All of them have glass screens.
All of them look fantastic,
Glass is reflective
Glass is glossy
I just watched the ;Tourist ; and t looked fantastic .
Matte screens suck for many reasons
The big suck reasons any liquids or stuff put on the screen stays there and can easily dis color it .
We have had dozens of ruined hi jaclked TOPICS with people like you harping on and on about glossy AND matte .
Let it go dude . People who need Matte for work are a very tiny group who should not be cheap bugger snots and simply buy a matte CRT and join the matte lovers club LTD ,
Many moons ago apple counted on your sales.Now apple looks to a wider market.
ok
9
Isn't a good monitor supposed to display images that are true to life, not what looks cool in someone's mind?
The only way to see what more people prefer is for Apple to make both matte and glossy screen versions of all Mac laptops, iMacs and Apple monitors, with everything else being equal. Including the price. Make both versions available in stock everywhere. Take away any penalty associated with buying the matte screen option and then we can see which screen more people prefer.
On the other hand, make matte screens the standard and charge extra for glossy. Also make glossy screens special order items which take longer to deliver. Then see if people are willing to pay extra and wait longer to get glossy screens.
Furthermore, allow anyone to exchange their laptop, iMac, or Apple monitor free of charge if they decide that they prefer the other screen type.
Apple's focus is on selling computers, iPhones, iPads and iPods, not on creating the best uber display in the world for a few niche users.
Are you implying that best quality displays for professional use are matte displays, and that glossy screens are for those who have to settle for something less?
My understanding then is, only the mid-range new mini has discrete graphics. And only the 2011 15" and 17" (and not the 13") mac books qualify. And none of the MacBook Airs. So only a handful of the Thunderbolt macs can drive two displays like in the picture.
I would like to see a close-up of the ports on the new monitor, won't there have to be TWO thunderbird plugs, to enable the daisy chain?
Lastly, does this monitor use the same LG panel that the previous Apple 27", and the Dell u2711 both use? Is the dot-pitch the same across all 3 generations of Apple (27") monitors?
My understanding then is, only the mid-range new mini has discrete graphics. And only the 2011 15" and 17" (and not the 13") mac books qualify. And none of the MacBook Airs. So only a handful of the Thunderbolt macs can drive two displays like in the picture.
Wonder what would happen if you tried it on something integrated.
I would like to see a close-up of the ports on the new monitor, won't there have to be TWO thunderbird plugs, to enable the daisy chain?
How is EVERYONE missing this? The one you connect to the computer is built into the monitor, just like every Apple monitor since at least 1999.
Lastly, does this monitor use the same LG panel that the previous Apple 27", and the Dell u2711 both use? Is the dot-pitch the same across all 3 generations of Apple (27") monitors?
I would imagine so, but we'd have to grab one to confirm.
Interesting! I'll have to keep this in mind. I did however use a macbook pro once (the unibody ones) and I used it for 6 months before finally deciding the glare was too much. Perhaps an iMac will fare better...
Tallest Skil: Were you even alive when CRTs were the only choice? How did you get by then?
I thought about this too. I assume it was the anti-glare coating my CRT had that the new Apple displays do not...
I thought about this too. I assume it was the anti-glare coating my CRT had that the new Apple displays do not...
Well, whoever it was has since explained that he holed himself up in a room with no windows, painted his walls a neutral color, and used "expensive shades" to stop glare and whatever else.
So there's that mystery solved.
Oh, and you ought to use the forum's built-in quote feature. It's neater than you'd imagine. You can even quickly multi-quote multiple posts!
Back in the late nineties Apple sold overpriced, uncompetitive hardware and the professionals were deserting them in droves for speedier, cheaper Pentium systems. But it's all good, as the iOS products, along with the consumer computers, have turned them into the World's most valuable tech company. The professionals didn't save Apple. They very nearly sank it.
Are you implying that best quality displays for professional use are matte displays, and that glossy screens are for those who have to settle for something less?
No more than I'm implying that the best computers for professional use are supercomputers and that a single unit Xserve or iMac are for those who have to settle for something else.
A niche group built a supercomputer from Apple Xserves and Mac Pros; it doesn't mean that Apple should now focus on making their computers into supercomputing nodes.
Equally a relatively small group need extremely colour accurate and calibrated monitors for their professional work. It doesn't mean should now focus on making such monitors, especially as Apple has never made such a monitor and third party alternatives are readily available:
LaCie 526 Colour Accurate Monitor with hood, software and BlueEye colorimeter
So I guess this means the new MacBook Airs can't drive two displays?
No, they don't have a discrete graphic card, they have an integrated one (integrated into the Intel chipset).
This response doesn't actually answer the question. Apple have stated that Macs equipped with Thunderbolt and discreet graphics can drive two monitors. Apple have not (to the best of my knowledge) stated what happen when a Mac equipped with Thunderbolt but without discreet graphics is connected to two Thunderbolt-equipped Cinema Displays. For example, it might be the case that it works but the performance doesn't meet a standard that Apple wish to defend. Until someone tries it and reports the results, I think we need to consider this an open question. Many things are not officially supported but work anyway.
I read the Thunderbolt specification. It doesn't support matte displays.
Great response. Sounds like something I would have said.
I never considered these displays as docking stations but not that it was mentioned in the article it is fitting. The most I use a docking station for at the office is to connect to ethernet, LCD display, and keyboard and mouse. Very cool Apple.
I absolutely want one of these as a docking station. What I really need is to find a treasure chest in my backyard with about $3000 of mad money in it that I can donate to Apple. The reason for this would be one of these bad boys, and then I would get the wife one of the new 13" Airs while I take her new MBP. The rest of the cash would go to OWC for a 240GB SSD and an 8GB upgrade for the MBP. The I could relegate the 3+ year old Mac Pro to being a spare computer/media server.
Oh well, if wishes were horses the beggars would ride...
A representative at Apple.
I wouldn't have believed them (because they generally know nothing), but Apple's display release history made me think they'd know what they were on about.
Really, what are you moaning about? Your new monitor works with your current system, right? Does your current computer have a thunderbolt output? If so, how is it connecting to your new monitor? If you are using an adapter, then your monitor should not be obsolete for as long as it works. Are you moaning that you will need to upgrade the monitor when you next upgrade your system