Your kidding right? Apple just dropped prices by over $1000.00 on the 23, and cut prices all the way down the line when they did it. I think the prices are totally reasonable for what they are offering - which is the best flat panel displays at the best price available. And they are Cinema wide also.
If anything I'd say Apple will release the 30" for the high end customer priced at what the 23 used to be priced at before the price drops.
Then they will probably phase out the 17" all together, but I'd rather they just made that a Cinema version as well. Some people just don't have the room for that huge panel.
In all reality though. I have no idea when they (Apple) will be releasing anything.
The 23" is worth it, I paid $2500 for my 22" but I wouldn't mind a price drop. LCD prices are still coming down. Seems to be like memory prices, fluctuate as new manufacturers come online.
personally. I think ACD20 just hit the sweet spot. The price and the size is like perfect. Even though a lot of people say bigger the better. I don't think the majority of us really need that extra pixels. ACD20 is just about enough for most user. And it has a nice price too...
I think Apple's first priority should be to update the 17" LCD to a cinema profile. 1280 x 1024 is the spawn of the devil and I refuse to buy a display with such an evil resolution.
I've got a 21inch CRT and a 19 incher that can hit 1600 x 1200 with rock solid refresh.
However, I do lust after Apple's LCD displays. I don't think my new glass table will take the weight of my D2 monitor. It weighs a load.
What's with Apple's displays at 'odd' resolutions. I hate letter boxing on games and such forth. Even the iBook screen gets 1000x700(approx'). I can't understand why the iMac can't have a standard 1200x1000(approx.) I've seen 19 inch LCDs going for £600ish with adjustable swivel Not much bigger at all... No reason it couldn't be hooked up to the iMac. Speaking of which, why not included a cheap 14 inch LCD for the iMac 2 entry model and charge £795 for the entry model. Ways and means to get customers on the Apple ladder.
Formac have a verrrry nice 19 incher. Cheaper than the Apple 20 incher by several hundred I think...and comes with 3 year warranty (no paying extra there folks...) and Formac have gorgeous image quality that push Apple all the way. That's my kind of LCD sweet spot.
I like Apple's displays. I'd like to see the rumoured 30 incher hit for the workstation market (that and a dual 970? Say, 'Heaven!') but I'd like to see further cuts in Apple's LCD line. Specially the 17 incher. Intro' a 19 incher well under a grand. And dip the 20 incher under a grand and squeeze the 23 inch LCD price a little more too.
I'd like to see Apple eak out more resolution/pixels on the 20 and 23 inchers. Standard resolutions...not these weird ones.
I've got a 21inch CRT and a 19 incher that can hit 1600 x 1200 with rock solid refresh.
However, I do lust after Apple's LCD displays. I don't think my new glass table will take the weight of my D2 monitor. It weighs a load.
What's with Apple's displays at 'odd' resolutions. I hate letter boxing on games and such forth. Even the iBook screen gets 1000x700(approx'). I can't understand why the iMac can't have a standard 1200x1000(approx.) I've seen 19 inch LCDs going for £600ish with adjustable swivel Not much bigger at all... No reason it couldn't be hooked up to the iMac. Speaking of which, why not included a cheap 14 inch LCD for the iMac 2 entry model and charge £795 for the entry model. Ways and means to get customers on the Apple ladder.
Formac have a verrrry nice 19 incher. Cheaper than the Apple 20 incher by several hundred I think...and comes with 3 year warranty (no paying extra there folks...) and Formac have gorgeous image quality that push Apple all the way. That's my kind of LCD sweet spot.
I like Apple's displays. I'd like to see the rumoured 30 incher hit for the workstation market (that and a dual 970? Say, 'Heaven!') but I'd like to see further cuts in Apple's LCD line. Specially the 17 incher. Intro' a 19 incher well under a grand. And dip the 20 incher under a grand and squeeze the 23 inch LCD price a little more too.
I'd like to see Apple eak out more resolution/pixels on the 20 and 23 inchers. Standard resolutions...not these weird ones.
Lemon Bon Bon
Formac may be cheaper, but then it is not 'genuine Apple kit'...
They already released a 19" model, but it actually measures 20"! Seriously, I doubt Apple would want a single inch dividing models. Hence the dropping of the 22" once the 20" was ready (had to fill the price gap first)...
Who knows, maybe they will release the 30" monster that is rumored, and either convert the 17" aspect ratio to Cinema (which makes sense, since the 17" PB & 17" iMac2 both use a widescreen aspect component), or just drop it altogether, leaving the 20" as the bottom of the line...
I would guess they will convert the 17" to a different aspect ratio, otherwise the cost of entry into 'full Apple kit' PowerMac-wise gets a bit pricey...
As for a 14" iMac2 screen, I would really doubt this, as most folks don't buy screens that small anymore unless they are on a 'budget' laptop...
Finally (!), towards the 'standard resolutions' comment... Wouldn't most 'standard resolutions' fall into the 4:3 aspect ratio formula?!? Which would negate the whole Cinema (aka widescreen) thingie...
Not busting on you LBB, just pointing out some of my thoughts...
As for your dream of a 30" ACD & a dual 970 3d workstation, the line forms behind me! No, wait, my line is the one for the quad 970s!
I wouldn't bet dollars or donuts that Formac will be around 3 years from now.
Apple has built the best LCD on the market. The 20" is in a sweet spot of quality and price. I look at lcds all the time at frys. and yes you do save a few hundred bucks. and it looks like it too.
remmeber, this is the thing you have to stare at for 10 hours a day. don't get cheap on the monitor.
I bought 2 20" lcds and am still amazed and happy with my purchase. i would NEVER use crts or non letterbox displays again.
Of course if apple ships a 30' with the 970 then,,.,,
I don't know anyone in the professional photo community here in New York that owns the 20", it's too squat, so a 17" version would be next to useless.
Everyone uses multiple 23"ers or the combination of 23" + 17" for palettes/tools. A 4:3 display that swivels to portrait mode and works in OSX would be even better since most magazines are vertical.
Formac have a verrrry nice 19 incher. Cheaper than the Apple 20 incher by several hundred I think...and comes with 3 year warranty (no paying extra there folks...) and Formac have gorgeous image quality that push Apple all the way. That's my kind of LCD sweet spot.
Lemon Bon Bon
Well. The new 20" Oxygen series only comes with one year warranty (paying extra for 3 year service)....and the Gallery series comes with 3 year but the backlight is only covered for one year.
A 4:3 display that swivels to portrait mode and works in OSX would be even better since most magazines are vertical.
Hmmm. I've always been slightly irritated by the horizontal screen. This seems more of a TV legacy if you think about it.
Print is largely vertically orientated. So I'd prefer a vertical screen. Quark documents. Word processing. A4 portrait. Landscape is great for watching your DVDs though.
It would be nice to have a 'swivel' mode if you know what I mean...for vertically viewed docs.
As for the Formacs. I had a Formac graphic card. It was the Dog's ******** for Photoshop.
And in real life viewing, it's my 'view' that their LCDs match Apple pixel for pixel (comparing both 17 inchers...). (I can't speak for Formac users who haven't had warranties honoured or whatever's implied here...) In the flesh, Formacs look loads better than on the web-site or the print ads.
You don't get the Apple badge though...
It will be interesting where the LCDs go with the 970 launch. 30inches me-hopes.
I don't know anyone in the professional photo community here in New York that owns the 20", it's too squat, so a 17" version would be next to useless.
Everyone uses multiple 23"ers or the combination of 23" + 17" for palettes/tools. A 4:3 display that swivels to portrait mode and works in OSX would be even better since most magazines are vertical.
Well, not everyone is IN the "professional photo community", so...
I'm thinking home users and people like me who don't equate bigger with necessarily better (in all arenas).
The wide 17" on the iMac and PowerBook SEEMS to be quite popular and a nice size/resolution for 89% of the computer-using public.
Also, all this talk about "vertical orientation" and all, sure. Sounds cool. But is that VIEWING documents or DESIGNING them? Seems to me that a horizontal (even widescreen) layout is preferable...so you have a place for your palettes and toolbars!
I couldn't imagine designing vertical pages on a vertical monitor because all my palettes would be on my document (no room on the sides for them to reside).
IBM have a super hi res display, it uses 4 dvi connections to get the signal through. Windows treats it as if it were 4 monitors. Apparently it causes problems becuase the output from consumer video cards ( nvidia, ati ) dual displays isnt synced, so you get the 4 screens updated at different times. nVidia are fixing it just for IBM.
The display setup I want is one cinema and one normal display, designed so that they have the same vertical height and resolution. eg: something like a 17" wide paired with a 15" square, or a 20 with a 17. Get the best of both worlds.
Having owned an A4 monitor, it was a huge step up over my 640x480 display, but the reason for its existence in the market was that it was a cheap way to get a 'big' screen, much cheaper than a dual A4 ( 21" ). The market for vertical screens is purely a price driven one, and given the modern cost of screens, it should no longer be a consideration for a 'professional'. They should be able to get a big screen. The 20" is 1680x1050, thats plenty big enough to view two A4 pages side by side, and have space left over for palettes. The original dual A4 monitors for macs were 1152x864, and I never heard anybody complaining that they werent big enough.
Comments
Originally posted by onlooker
Your kidding right? Apple just dropped prices by over $1000.00 on the 23, and cut prices all the way down the line when they did it. I think the prices are totally reasonable for what they are offering - which is the best flat panel displays at the best price available. And they are Cinema wide also.
If anything I'd say Apple will release the 30" for the high end customer priced at what the 23 used to be priced at before the price drops.
Then they will probably phase out the 17" all together, but I'd rather they just made that a Cinema version as well. Some people just don't have the room for that huge panel.
In all reality though. I have no idea when they (Apple) will be releasing anything.
The 23" is worth it, I paid $2500 for my 22" but I wouldn't mind a price drop. LCD prices are still coming down. Seems to be like memory prices, fluctuate as new manufacturers come online.
You do realise that LCD monitors at this res arent 4:3?
They have square pixels, and are about 6:5
To be honest Id much prefer a 1600x1024 screen,
a redux of SGI's 1600SW would fit me to a tee.
The 23" cinema display is enough for anyone!
I've got a 21inch CRT and a 19 incher that can hit 1600 x 1200 with rock solid refresh.
However, I do lust after Apple's LCD displays. I don't think my new glass table will take the weight of my D2 monitor. It weighs a load.
What's with Apple's displays at 'odd' resolutions. I hate letter boxing on games and such forth. Even the iBook screen gets 1000x700(approx'). I can't understand why the iMac can't have a standard 1200x1000(approx.) I've seen 19 inch LCDs going for £600ish with adjustable swivel Not much bigger at all... No reason it couldn't be hooked up to the iMac. Speaking of which, why not included a cheap 14 inch LCD for the iMac 2 entry model and charge £795 for the entry model. Ways and means to get customers on the Apple ladder.
Formac have a verrrry nice 19 incher. Cheaper than the Apple 20 incher by several hundred I think...and comes with 3 year warranty (no paying extra there folks...) and Formac have gorgeous image quality that push Apple all the way. That's my kind of LCD sweet spot.
I like Apple's displays. I'd like to see the rumoured 30 incher hit for the workstation market (that and a dual 970? Say, 'Heaven!') but I'd like to see further cuts in Apple's LCD line. Specially the 17 incher. Intro' a 19 incher well under a grand. And dip the 20 incher under a grand and squeeze the 23 inch LCD price a little more too.
I'd like to see Apple eak out more resolution/pixels on the 20 and 23 inchers. Standard resolutions...not these weird ones.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Hmmm. Scratches head.
I've got a 21inch CRT and a 19 incher that can hit 1600 x 1200 with rock solid refresh.
However, I do lust after Apple's LCD displays. I don't think my new glass table will take the weight of my D2 monitor. It weighs a load.
What's with Apple's displays at 'odd' resolutions. I hate letter boxing on games and such forth. Even the iBook screen gets 1000x700(approx'). I can't understand why the iMac can't have a standard 1200x1000(approx.) I've seen 19 inch LCDs going for £600ish with adjustable swivel Not much bigger at all... No reason it couldn't be hooked up to the iMac. Speaking of which, why not included a cheap 14 inch LCD for the iMac 2 entry model and charge £795 for the entry model. Ways and means to get customers on the Apple ladder.
Formac have a verrrry nice 19 incher. Cheaper than the Apple 20 incher by several hundred I think...and comes with 3 year warranty (no paying extra there folks...) and Formac have gorgeous image quality that push Apple all the way. That's my kind of LCD sweet spot.
I like Apple's displays. I'd like to see the rumoured 30 incher hit for the workstation market (that and a dual 970? Say, 'Heaven!') but I'd like to see further cuts in Apple's LCD line. Specially the 17 incher. Intro' a 19 incher well under a grand. And dip the 20 incher under a grand and squeeze the 23 inch LCD price a little more too.
I'd like to see Apple eak out more resolution/pixels on the 20 and 23 inchers. Standard resolutions...not these weird ones.
Lemon Bon Bon
Formac may be cheaper, but then it is not 'genuine Apple kit'...
They already released a 19" model, but it actually measures 20"! Seriously, I doubt Apple would want a single inch dividing models. Hence the dropping of the 22" once the 20" was ready (had to fill the price gap first)...
Who knows, maybe they will release the 30" monster that is rumored, and either convert the 17" aspect ratio to Cinema (which makes sense, since the 17" PB & 17" iMac2 both use a widescreen aspect component), or just drop it altogether, leaving the 20" as the bottom of the line...
I would guess they will convert the 17" to a different aspect ratio, otherwise the cost of entry into 'full Apple kit' PowerMac-wise gets a bit pricey...
As for a 14" iMac2 screen, I would really doubt this, as most folks don't buy screens that small anymore unless they are on a 'budget' laptop...
Finally (!), towards the 'standard resolutions' comment... Wouldn't most 'standard resolutions' fall into the 4:3 aspect ratio formula?!? Which would negate the whole Cinema (aka widescreen) thingie...
Not busting on you LBB, just pointing out some of my thoughts...
As for your dream of a 30" ACD & a dual 970 3d workstation, the line forms behind me! No, wait, my line is the one for the quad 970s!
Cheers!
;^p
Apple has built the best LCD on the market. The 20" is in a sweet spot of quality and price. I look at lcds all the time at frys. and yes you do save a few hundred bucks. and it looks like it too.
remmeber, this is the thing you have to stare at for 10 hours a day. don't get cheap on the monitor.
I bought 2 20" lcds and am still amazed and happy with my purchase. i would NEVER use crts or non letterbox displays again.
Of course if apple ships a 30' with the 970 then,,.,,
Everyone uses multiple 23"ers or the combination of 23" + 17" for palettes/tools. A 4:3 display that swivels to portrait mode and works in OSX would be even better since most magazines are vertical.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Formac have a verrrry nice 19 incher. Cheaper than the Apple 20 incher by several hundred I think...and comes with 3 year warranty (no paying extra there folks...) and Formac have gorgeous image quality that push Apple all the way. That's my kind of LCD sweet spot.
Lemon Bon Bon
Well. The new 20" Oxygen series only comes with one year warranty (paying extra for 3 year service)....and the Gallery series comes with 3 year but the backlight is only covered for one year.
Sorry to burst your bubble but I really have to
A 4:3 display that swivels to portrait mode and works in OSX would be even better since most magazines are vertical.
Hmmm. I've always been slightly irritated by the horizontal screen. This seems more of a TV legacy if you think about it.
Print is largely vertically orientated. So I'd prefer a vertical screen. Quark documents. Word processing. A4 portrait. Landscape is great for watching your DVDs though.
It would be nice to have a 'swivel' mode if you know what I mean...for vertically viewed docs.
As for the Formacs. I had a Formac graphic card. It was the Dog's ******** for Photoshop.
And in real life viewing, it's my 'view' that their LCDs match Apple pixel for pixel (comparing both 17 inchers...). (I can't speak for Formac users who haven't had warranties honoured or whatever's implied here...) In the flesh, Formacs look loads better than on the web-site or the print ads.
You don't get the Apple badge though...
It will be interesting where the LCDs go with the 970 launch. 30inches me-hopes.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by BJNY
I don't know anyone in the professional photo community here in New York that owns the 20", it's too squat, so a 17" version would be next to useless.
Everyone uses multiple 23"ers or the combination of 23" + 17" for palettes/tools. A 4:3 display that swivels to portrait mode and works in OSX would be even better since most magazines are vertical.
Well, not everyone is IN the "professional photo community", so...
I'm thinking home users and people like me who don't equate bigger with necessarily better (in all arenas).
The wide 17" on the iMac and PowerBook SEEMS to be quite popular and a nice size/resolution for 89% of the computer-using public.
Also, all this talk about "vertical orientation" and all, sure. Sounds cool. But is that VIEWING documents or DESIGNING them? Seems to me that a horizontal (even widescreen) layout is preferable...so you have a place for your palettes and toolbars!
I couldn't imagine designing vertical pages on a vertical monitor because all my palettes would be on my document (no room on the sides for them to reside).
22 inch size
9.2 million pixels
3840 x 2400
204ppi
235 cd/m2 luminence
It was pretty amazing. They had a magnifying glass mounted in front of it so you could see the pixels.
I did a quick google search and saw a reference to a 20 inch OLED display by the same company. I couldn't open the link as it required a pass word.
IDTech (perhaps with IBM) has been making the highest resolution LCD displays. I saw one at MacWorld Tokyo last year with the following specs:
How much?
200 dpi. Wow.
I'd heard of them. I wonder how long until they hit the Apple mainstream...
Lemon Bon Bon
The display setup I want is one cinema and one normal display, designed so that they have the same vertical height and resolution. eg: something like a 17" wide paired with a 15" square, or a 20 with a 17. Get the best of both worlds.
Having owned an A4 monitor, it was a huge step up over my 640x480 display, but the reason for its existence in the market was that it was a cheap way to get a 'big' screen, much cheaper than a dual A4 ( 21" ). The market for vertical screens is purely a price driven one, and given the modern cost of screens, it should no longer be a consideration for a 'professional'. They should be able to get a big screen. The 20" is 1680x1050, thats plenty big enough to view two A4 pages side by side, and have space left over for palettes. The original dual A4 monitors for macs were 1152x864, and I never heard anybody complaining that they werent big enough.
Unfortunately the 17" is a slightly lower vertical resolution than the 20" ( 1024 v 1050 ). Maybe the panel size is smaller.
Anyone care to check?
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
How much?
200 dpi. Wow.
I'd heard of them. I wonder how long until they hit the Apple mainstream...
Lemon Bon Bon
I don't recall the price. It was so high that it didn't matter. Perhaps like $8,000.