Thunderbolt Display stock-outs continue as Apple's iMac inventory improves

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,801member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post



    This is, what, the third story about low stocks of Thunderbolt Displays in the past five months, isn't it? Previous story, six weeks ago. Same author too.



    I believe it's more likely now, but really, it seems most low stock situations aren't an indicator of an upcoming model, it's just supplies on the model are temporarily slim.

    I don't think it makes sense to buy a mini with a Thunderbolt display. An iMac with a Thunderbolt display beside it, that's an enticing idea.


     


    I agree! 

  • Reply 22 of 36
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah View Post



    Well hopefully it will be thinner than current IMac, or at least it have a retina(it is verry expensive compared to other prices currently I estimate it half the price,) yet with a update with these features:thinner than IMac, Retina, latest ports.


    Retina! Seems too soon for 27" Retina (just 15" Retina requires 2880 across), but if such a thing came out I would mortgage my house to get one.

  • Reply 23 of 36
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post



    Cue the rumors. This is proof positive Apple is making a 'real TV'


     


    Zzzzz ...


     


    After a while, constant mocking of rumors just makes the "mocker" foolish for slavishly reading the articles.

  • Reply 24 of 36
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    Retina! Seems too soon for 27" Retina (just 15" Retina requires 2880 across), but if such a thing came out I would mortgage my house to get one.





    You must have a cheap house :)

  • Reply 25 of 36
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post



    This is, what, the third story about low stocks of Thunderbolt Displays in the past five months, isn't it? Previous story, six weeks ago. Same author too.



    I believe it's more likely now, but really, it seems most low stock situations aren't an indicator of an upcoming model, it's just supplies on the model are temporarily slim.

    I don't think it makes sense to buy a mini with a Thunderbolt display. An iMac with a Thunderbolt display beside it, that's an enticing idea.


     


    Perhaps it is enticing for certain power users. But in general, why is it enticing to have two displays side by side?

  • Reply 26 of 36
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    I never understood why they do not make the height adjustable in the first place.



     


    Agree. But that's part of the Apple way that makes it an easy target for some critics.

  • Reply 27 of 36
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Zzzzz ...

    After a while, constant mocking of rumors just makes the "mocker" foolish for slavishly reading the articles.

    Who said you need to slavishly read articles to mock therm? Read headline, skim a bit, click the forum link, mock story.

    Perhaps it is enticing for certain power users. But in general, why is it enticing to have two displays side by side?

    I'd say lots of power users. Keep track of more things at once. Drawing takes one screen, various documentation and notes on the other screen. Program execution one screen, debug panels on the other screen. Video feed one screen, work on the other screen. Heck, take a look at the SpaceX mission control room. Every station has three screens.

    700

    Full time investment junkies are known to have four or more screens going.
  • Reply 28 of 36
    meshopemeshope Posts: 14member
    I'd wish a 24" display back, the 27" is by far to large for an ordinary office desk. I never understood why Apple dropped it. Would be a good range of sizes, 21.5" iMac - 24" display, and 27" iMac and display.
  • Reply 29 of 36
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    meshope wrote: »
    I'd wish a 24" display back, the 27" is by far to large for an ordinary office desk. I never understood why Apple dropped it. Would be a good range of sizes, 21.5" iMac - 24" display, and 27" iMac and display.

    What size is your idea of an ordinary office desk?
  • Reply 30 of 36
    meshopemeshope Posts: 14member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    What size is your idea of an ordinary office desk?


    Certainly too small for a 27" or 30" external display, I bought a 24" Eizo instead.

  • Reply 31 of 36
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    meshope wrote: »
    Certainly too small for a 27" or 30" external display, I bought a 24" Eizo instead.

    Dimensions, please. I can take your meters.
  • Reply 32 of 36
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

    Dimensions, please. I can take your meters.


     


    Take this out of context and… image


     


    My current desk is 42"x22.5" and I have a 27" Cinema Display sitting on it in the middle. There's enough room to the sides to have my iPad Keyboard Dock sit comfortably on one and my 'going out' stuff or current work on the other. Not to mention space for my iPhone+Dock and extra Apple Battery Chargers underneath the display itself.


     


    So I can't imagine any meaningful desk size being too small for a Cinema Display.

  • Reply 33 of 36
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Take this out of context and… :p

    Oops.

    My current desk is 42"x22.5" and I have a 27" Cinema Display sitting on it in the middle. There's enough room to the sides to have my iPad Keyboard Dock sit comfortably on one and my 'going out' stuff or current work on the other. Not to mention space for my iPhone+Dock and extra Apple Battery Chargers underneath the display itself.

    So I can't imagine any meaningful desk size being too small for a Cinema Display.

    Anyone that doesn't have space now for a TBD, I just wonder how they got along in the CRT years. In my opinion, a 27" TBD would fit much better than a CRT of just about any size, just because of the monitor behind the monitor. Sure, it's wider, but the reality is that the screen is increasingly becoming your actual desktop, instead of paper documents, it's electronic. It's a no-brainer trade as far as I'm concerned. For every unit of area "lost" by a wider display, you get at least double back in usable screen area.
  • Reply 34 of 36
    meshopemeshope Posts: 14member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    Oops.

    Anyone that doesn't have space now for a TBD, I just wonder how they got along in the CRT years. In my opinion, a 27" TBD would fit much better than a CRT of just about any size, just because of the monitor behind the monitor. Sure, it's wider, but the reality is that the screen is increasingly becoming your actual desktop, instead of paper documents, it's electronic. It's a no-brainer trade as far as I'm concerned. For every unit of area "lost" by a wider display, you get at least double back in usable screen area.


    Maybe, but the CRTs for office use had sizes of 15-17-19". And why is Apple offering a 21.5" iMac ? Because there are lot's of people who are simply over-challenged with this large displays, both by price and size. I assume that's the reason for Samsung, LG and others to offer best compromises like 23-24". Honestly I'm a bit annoyed by Apple, I'd far prefer a Cinema display.

  • Reply 35 of 36
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    meshope wrote: »
    Maybe, but the CRTs for office use had sizes of 15-17-19".

    You do realize I was saying that most of the size of a CRT is in its DEPTH, right? And CRTs then cost a lot. A 19" CRT takes more desk space than a 27" LCD, and I had zero trouble making a 19" CRT work on a dorm desk.

    And why is Apple offering a 21.5" iMac ? Because there are lot's of people who are simply over-challenged with this large displays, both by price and size. I assume that's the reason for Samsung, LG and others to offer best compromises like 23-24". Honestly I'm a bit annoyed by Apple, I'd far prefer a Cinema display.

    You're repeating the size issue without really explaining why it's really a problem, you haven't even noted the dimensions of your desk. Repeating an assertion without backing it up when asked is pointless. Why is a 24" LCD fine and a 27" not? It's only 12% more desk space, and in return, you get 26% more screen space.

    I'm guessing that the smaller iMac stays because it's still profitable. There used to be three sizes of Apple displays, but that was when the 30" was $2000-$3000 US, I think the 20" ACD was $999 US. The selection whittled to one, now it's a 27" at $999, with an added speaker pair, camera, mic and breakout ports for port replicating a laptop, or adding more ports to a desktop.
  • Reply 36 of 36
    meshopemeshope Posts: 14member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post



    You're repeating the size issue without really explaining why it's really a problem, you haven't even noted the dimensions of your desk. Repeating an assertion without backing it up when asked is pointless. Why is a 24" LCD fine and a 27" not? It's only 12% more desk space, and in return, you get 26% more screen space.


    Physical size is the one point, resolution the other one. The onboard graphics of 13" MBP and MB Air isn't made for the resolution of a 27" display, the chip operates at it's limit, get's hot, fan works at limit too and becomes loud. Best choice for a 13" MBP is a 23/24" display with 1920*1080 resolution, 16:10 with  1920*1200 works fine too.


    15" MBPs obviously do not have limitations due to it's dedicated graphics.

Sign In or Register to comment.