<strong>Do you think the rotate feature is still valid today, though?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at all.
Cheap multisync monitors pretty much killed that concept off. Today, the people that really need huge resolution (medical imaging, stuff like that) can afford the custom monitors that are produced for those markets.
A 17" LCD is a MUCH better idea for the iMac. The pivot thing might be nice for a few users, but it'd just be a few, and Apple shouldn't put more than a trivial amount of money in to developing such a thing. It's akin to dual headphone jacks on the education machines - even in education it's not a huge request, but some people do want it. So if it's cheap and easy, why not.
Cinder, go out and buy yourself some clues. I have never in my life heard anyone claim to be a designer and be as format illiterate as you obviously are.
There's no issue here of buying two large LCDs to stick side by side to get two portrait pages on screen. The issue is - given budget contraints what is a good compromise.
If you can't see the benefit of having a portrait screen maybe you should ask yourself why it is that almost all books have portrait pages (also maybe ask yourself if you're in the right job?). It isn't because it "just happened that way" portrait offers a natural economy when dealing with text - nothing to do with seeing a double page spread (where's the benefit of that in a novel or a telephone directory?).
Just because you've never seen one means *nothing*. As other's hve pointed out the reasons portrait monitors and rotating monitors came about was because of the economic decisions that had to be made. 17" monitors were *well* over $1,000, 20" were well over $3,000. See the analogy here - the sizes and prices back then for CRTs are pretty close to those of LCDs now.
When you're editing text on a page you would prefer to see a whole galley of text, not a view through a letterbox. A portrait monitor allows that where a landscape monitor of the *same size* does not. That's why such monitors were popular in editorial work and typesetting.
The issue now, as then, is "how can I see this page better, without spending more money". The answer is to pivot the screen. Clearly spending $100 extra for a pivoting screen is a lot cheaper than spending $1000+ to get the same screen height.
It's still valid because we're talking about the same price reasons but different tech. Then it was CRT, now it's LCD. The vendors aren't making pivoting LCDs just for the fun of it.
If I wanted an LCD, and was stuck budget-wise I'd see a pivoting screen as a way in - for exactly the same reasons you cite for the portrait CRTs back in the early 90s.
It's still valid because we're talking about the same price reasons but different tech. Then it was CRT, now it's LCD. The vendors aren't making pivoting LCDs just for the fun of it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But the vendors aren't putting those in low-end AIO units that are price sensitive. Graphic artist aren't demanding LCDs - in fact they are one of the few remaining markets for CRTs. And besides, the cost issues are totally different now. 18 months ago was the time for the pivot when the delta from 15" to 17" was $500 or more. Now it's $200 or so. You can get a 17" LCD that does 2 page natively for $600, so the added cost isn't high enough to justify the cost involved in the pivot technology.
A 17" monitor on it's side is pretty tall, so I don't think too many people are going to be looking at portrait 19" or 23" LCDs. At least nobody who isn't willing to pay $20k+ for the setup.
Basically, the economics really aren't there. 17" LCDs will probably come down another $150 over the next 12 months and 19" down as much as $400. 10 years ago it took 36+ months for that to happen. The investment in a new approach had time to pay off. Now it doesn't, now it's pretty common for the economics to solve the problem faster than the innovation can and I think that's true in LCDs now.
But the vendors aren't putting those in low-end AIO units that are price sensitive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
C'mon, iMac != low end AIO. it's a premium brand/cost item
[quote]
<strong>Graphic artist aren't demanding LCDs - in fact they are one of the few remaining markets for CRTs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not sure, I'd say that they are beginning to. Who do you think's buying Apple's 22 & 23" Cinema displays? I've seen a few around in studios, and most of my friends have them (I'm a cheapscate with a 22" CRT!).
[quote]
<strong>And besides, the cost issues are totally different now. 18 months ago was the time for the pivot when the delta from 15" to 17" was $500 or more. Now it's $200 or so. You can get a 17" LCD that does 2 page natively for $600, so the added cost isn't high enough to justify the cost involved in the pivot technology.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's put it this way, as I wrote before, trying to save a few pennies a swivelling LCD would be attractive to me. A 15" iMac is of no interest to me, a 15" with a swivel might just make it. Whereas a 17" would be too expensive IMO.
Macwarehouse has 15" LCDs from $399, a 17" is around $600, Apple's 17" is $994, 18" start from around $799. Most of the 17-19" are 1280*1024. The next res up, 1600*1200 starts at around £1399.
Seems to me that there's some pretty big gaps in there between what you want to quote as a basic 15" to Apple's idea of a 17" and from a 17" basic up to the next step up in resolution (size doesn't matter, only pixels matter. :-)).
[quote]
<strong>Basically, the economics really aren't there. 17" LCDs will probably come down another $150 over the next 12 months and 19" down as much as $400.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if you noticed, but LCDs went up by around 25% in the last year.
I wasn't picking on you either btw... but as you say not many people who desire a 23"hdcd can actually afford one (I wish I could) so a pivot (keeping this thread on subject) might be beneficial. Agreed the cost in R&D might be a bit but as I said before it is all an answer to the previous question and in that context a pivot would be handy. My first mac a work was a se30 with dual monitor support and a 21" tube external which we used for cad, at times with that a portrait would have be better than landscape for electrical schematics.
C'mon, iMac != low end AIO. it's a premium brand/cost item
It's not a pro item. No PCI slots, no 21" hooded displays. Even what a graphic artist would buy in the Wintel space, it's pretty inexpensive.
Not sure, I'd say that they are beginning to. Who do you think's buying Apple's 22 & 23" Cinema displays? I've seen a few around in studios, and most of my friends have them (I'm a cheapscate with a 22" CRT!).
I see more with the video and 3D set than with the A4 guys. Print publishing has always been a little conservative, though.
Macwarehouse has 15" LCDs from $399, a 17" is around $600, Apple's 17" is $994, 18" start from around $799. Most of the 17-19" are 1280*1024. The next res up, 1600*1200 starts at around £1399.
Seems to me that there's some pretty big gaps in there between what you want to quote as a basic 15" to Apple's idea of a 17" and from a 17" basic up to the next step up in resolution (size doesn't matter, only pixels matter. :-)).
Well, I'm assuming that Apple will correct the price disparity in their lineup. I can't justify the $400 jump in Apple's LCD group from 15 to 17. $150 I could see, but $400 is out of line. I think a pivot 15" LCD would not come in that much cheaper than a rationally priced 17" LCD. And certainly I think in 3-6 months, that gap will largely disappear.
LCD prices did go up, but they are again going down. It depends on what size LCD we are talking about though. The 17" seems to have seen the strongest price decline of the lot.
I liked it, but mainly for the portrait mode. Back then, with something like 806 x 648 resolution, widescreen mode just wouldn't fit much of a page at once. Also, my grill was a little off, so widescreen was fuzzy. This obviously wouldn't apply to a swiveling LCD
Frankly I've never understood why computer screens have usually been wider than they are tall. I suppose now with DVD drives it makes a bit more sense. But from word processing to emailing to web browsing, most of what we do involves long vertical documents. I'd love a screen that was 1.5 or two pages long.
if i remember correctly, something that is horozontal (longer and not as tall)is more appealing to the human eye than vertical (taller and not as long)....it's not as strainful. that's just they way eyes work.
i believe that's why movies are formatted as they are and we're starting to see more widescreen TVs.
of coarse, i could be completely wrong...better wait and see if someone backs me up
AFAIK there's a real difference between films and the printed page. As I was specifically discussiing the benefits of portrait monitors with reference to text editing you'll have to assume I'm talking about the printed page.
To demonstrate to yourself why portrait is better than landscape for text just do the following (only good if you have a screen wider than about 800px):
Open your browser up to the full window width, so that the text contained therein spans virtually from one side to the other. Now notice that the wider the "measure" (width) of the text column the less readable it becomes.
The simple fact is that there is a very narrow range within which text in columns is readable, in English this is approximately 7-13 words per line. Columns narrower or wider than this become ver difficult to read, especially as the total length of the text becomes longer.
Text is more economical in portrait for this very reason. You can argue against this if you like, but visit any library to see why you are wrong.
<strong>It's not a pro item. No PCI slots, no 21" hooded displays. Even what a graphic artist would buy in the Wintel space, it's pretty inexpensive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think there's a world of difference between what we're discussing. If someone is going for the high-end colour managed route then yes, an iMac isn't the thing.
If I want something for home, or to put on a secretary?s desk, then the criteria is a bit different. I personally think that portrait monitors are a benefit (I think we both agree on that), and I can see that they'd be a selling point on an iMac.
Where we seem to disagree is what are the price points at which this becomes a real benefit? If a swivelling screen added $150 to the price of a 15" iMac then that would probably not be a good thing. If there was an optional build, swivel or not, then that would probably be a good thing. If the cost were less than $50 (why should it really be any more), then i think they should just do it).
Once you get up to 17" the issues are different, but i think there's still a benefit here.
One of my friends has a PB G4. We were talking about monitor purchasing recently and having a machine for home. I said I'd probably get a PB for that purpose. His comment was that he personally could not stand working on his PB due to the screen res/orientation. We discussed portrait screens, he seemed to think that at the same res a portrait screen would make a difference.
Anyway, he ended up buying a 22" Cinema Display. :-\\
No doubt about what you're saying, Clive -- 'reading' and 'viewing' are two very different activities. If you want to read fast, a narrow column is best, absolutely. I suspect a few factors come into play here. Memory, visual and cognitive factors all make 'reading' tall documents easier than 'reading' wide ones.
I have the NEC 2010x pivoting display. It is ABSOLUTELY WONDERFULL surfing the web in portrait mode. You would have to see it to believe it. I hope this rumor is true as Portrait Software, who makes mostly windows drivers, but has the Macportrait software for OS 9 has replied to my recent inquiries that they will NOT be supporting OSX! They gave real lame reasons for it. This will leave NEC/Viewsonic with many pivoting monitors and no way to pivot them in OSX.
<strong>No doubt about what you're saying, Clive -- 'reading' and 'viewing' are two very different activities. If you want to read fast, a narrow column is best, absolutely. I suspect a few factors come into play here. Memory, visual and cognitive factors all make 'reading' tall documents easier than 'reading' wide ones.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually the key to it is really the mechanics of reading, with "perfect" length lines reading is fairly continuous and it's easy to find the start of the next line.
At the extremes with short lines you spend more time looking for the start of the next line than you do reading, and what you're reading becomes womewhat broken up and diffucult to comprehend. With long lines your eyes seem to become tired/bored scanning along the line, so you lose your place, and it's really difficult to find the beginning of the next line.
A cool thing about a widescreen display is that you can have TWO word documents displayed side by side. Portrait displays could maybe display two documents vertically, but then it's not as easy to go back and forth between them.
Widescreen also is better for multimedia.
I think this is why portrait displays never caught on. I remember one being available for Macs before (maybe even sold by Apple?), it was designed for displaying a single page in full size, but I never saw anyone who had bought one.
Rotating displays are IMO gimmicks. The extra expense is better spent on buying a larger display instead of paying for a swivel mechanism.
Also, for websurfing, I like that my 19" CRT can display two browser windows side by side. A portrait display can show one long browser window, but that's not as useful.
<strong>I think this is why portrait displays never caught on. I remember one being available for Macs before (maybe even sold by Apple?), it was designed for displaying a single page in full size, but I never saw anyone who had bought one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, Apple made one. I bought one along with an LCIII as my first Mac. Very cool. As I recall, the monitor itself had a fan. Strange.
Bring back the 9 inch Macs! I'd like to see a Mac Classic with a G4 processor and color 9 inch screen. That would be cool. Either that or bring back the G4 cube, whatever happened to that?
Comments
<strong>Do you think the rotate feature is still valid today, though?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at all.
Cheap multisync monitors pretty much killed that concept off. Today, the people that really need huge resolution (medical imaging, stuff like that) can afford the custom monitors that are produced for those markets.
A 17" LCD is a MUCH better idea for the iMac. The pivot thing might be nice for a few users, but it'd just be a few, and Apple shouldn't put more than a trivial amount of money in to developing such a thing. It's akin to dual headphone jacks on the education machines - even in education it's not a huge request, but some people do want it. So if it's cheap and easy, why not.
<strong>ok, Mame isn't illegal. sorry.
Lots of graphic designers started with pivots until they could afford the two-page (21+ inch) displays.
Well, I've only been around it since ~97 or so - but I'll repeat that I have never seen one, nor ever heard of anyone owning one . . .
I'm not saying no one had one, I'm just saying that I don't think they were as popular as you claim.
I'm not saying more screen real estate isn't important - it is. I'm saying rotating the format isn't.
Still, benefit/cost is not great enough to warrant the possibly great pains of engineering it into the iMac.
and I think you'll find that a very, very small minority of design firms can afford dual 21" or a 23" LCD display for their designers.
LCDs are still kind of 'no nos' for pre-press.
Not to mention, that for the most part, us designers are viewing double page spreads.
[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: cinder ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cinder, go out and buy yourself some clues. I have never in my life heard anyone claim to be a designer and be as format illiterate as you obviously are.
There's no issue here of buying two large LCDs to stick side by side to get two portrait pages on screen. The issue is - given budget contraints what is a good compromise.
If you can't see the benefit of having a portrait screen maybe you should ask yourself why it is that almost all books have portrait pages (also maybe ask yourself if you're in the right job?). It isn't because it "just happened that way" portrait offers a natural economy when dealing with text - nothing to do with seeing a double page spread (where's the benefit of that in a novel or a telephone directory?).
Just because you've never seen one means *nothing*. As other's hve pointed out the reasons portrait monitors and rotating monitors came about was because of the economic decisions that had to be made. 17" monitors were *well* over $1,000, 20" were well over $3,000. See the analogy here - the sizes and prices back then for CRTs are pretty close to those of LCDs now.
When you're editing text on a page you would prefer to see a whole galley of text, not a view through a letterbox. A portrait monitor allows that where a landscape monitor of the *same size* does not. That's why such monitors were popular in editorial work and typesetting.
The issue now, as then, is "how can I see this page better, without spending more money". The answer is to pivot the screen. Clearly spending $100 extra for a pivoting screen is a lot cheaper than spending $1000+ to get the same screen height.
<strong>
Not at all.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's still valid because we're talking about the same price reasons but different tech. Then it was CRT, now it's LCD. The vendors aren't making pivoting LCDs just for the fun of it.
If I wanted an LCD, and was stuck budget-wise I'd see a pivoting screen as a way in - for exactly the same reasons you cite for the portrait CRTs back in the early 90s.
<strong>
It's still valid because we're talking about the same price reasons but different tech. Then it was CRT, now it's LCD. The vendors aren't making pivoting LCDs just for the fun of it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But the vendors aren't putting those in low-end AIO units that are price sensitive. Graphic artist aren't demanding LCDs - in fact they are one of the few remaining markets for CRTs. And besides, the cost issues are totally different now. 18 months ago was the time for the pivot when the delta from 15" to 17" was $500 or more. Now it's $200 or so. You can get a 17" LCD that does 2 page natively for $600, so the added cost isn't high enough to justify the cost involved in the pivot technology.
A 17" monitor on it's side is pretty tall, so I don't think too many people are going to be looking at portrait 19" or 23" LCDs. At least nobody who isn't willing to pay $20k+ for the setup.
Basically, the economics really aren't there. 17" LCDs will probably come down another $150 over the next 12 months and 19" down as much as $400. 10 years ago it took 36+ months for that to happen. The investment in a new approach had time to pay off. Now it doesn't, now it's pretty common for the economics to solve the problem faster than the innovation can and I think that's true in LCDs now.
<strong>
But the vendors aren't putting those in low-end AIO units that are price sensitive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
C'mon, iMac != low end AIO. it's a premium brand/cost item
[quote]
<strong>Graphic artist aren't demanding LCDs - in fact they are one of the few remaining markets for CRTs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not sure, I'd say that they are beginning to. Who do you think's buying Apple's 22 & 23" Cinema displays? I've seen a few around in studios, and most of my friends have them (I'm a cheapscate with a 22" CRT!).
[quote]
<strong>And besides, the cost issues are totally different now. 18 months ago was the time for the pivot when the delta from 15" to 17" was $500 or more. Now it's $200 or so. You can get a 17" LCD that does 2 page natively for $600, so the added cost isn't high enough to justify the cost involved in the pivot technology.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's put it this way, as I wrote before, trying to save a few pennies a swivelling LCD would be attractive to me. A 15" iMac is of no interest to me, a 15" with a swivel might just make it. Whereas a 17" would be too expensive IMO.
Macwarehouse has 15" LCDs from $399, a 17" is around $600, Apple's 17" is $994, 18" start from around $799. Most of the 17-19" are 1280*1024. The next res up, 1600*1200 starts at around £1399.
Seems to me that there's some pretty big gaps in there between what you want to quote as a basic 15" to Apple's idea of a 17" and from a 17" basic up to the next step up in resolution (size doesn't matter, only pixels matter. :-)).
[quote]
<strong>Basically, the economics really aren't there. 17" LCDs will probably come down another $150 over the next 12 months and 19" down as much as $400.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if you noticed, but LCDs went up by around 25% in the last year.
<strong>ok, Mame isn't illegal. sorry.
[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: cinder ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't picking on you either btw... but as you say not many people who desire a 23"hdcd can actually afford one (I wish I could) so a pivot (keeping this thread on subject) might be beneficial. Agreed the cost in R&D might be a bit but as I said before it is all an answer to the previous question and in that context a pivot would be handy. My first mac a work was a se30 with dual monitor support and a 21" tube external which we used for cad, at times with that a portrait would have be better than landscape for electrical schematics.
It's not a pro item. No PCI slots, no 21" hooded displays. Even what a graphic artist would buy in the Wintel space, it's pretty inexpensive.
Not sure, I'd say that they are beginning to. Who do you think's buying Apple's 22 & 23" Cinema displays? I've seen a few around in studios, and most of my friends have them (I'm a cheapscate with a 22" CRT!).
I see more with the video and 3D set than with the A4 guys. Print publishing has always been a little conservative, though.
Macwarehouse has 15" LCDs from $399, a 17" is around $600, Apple's 17" is $994, 18" start from around $799. Most of the 17-19" are 1280*1024. The next res up, 1600*1200 starts at around £1399.
Seems to me that there's some pretty big gaps in there between what you want to quote as a basic 15" to Apple's idea of a 17" and from a 17" basic up to the next step up in resolution (size doesn't matter, only pixels matter. :-)).
Well, I'm assuming that Apple will correct the price disparity in their lineup. I can't justify the $400 jump in Apple's LCD group from 15 to 17. $150 I could see, but $400 is out of line. I think a pivot 15" LCD would not come in that much cheaper than a rationally priced 17" LCD. And certainly I think in 3-6 months, that gap will largely disappear.
LCD prices did go up, but they are again going down. It depends on what size LCD we are talking about though. The 17" seems to have seen the strongest price decline of the lot.
I liked it, but mainly for the portrait mode. Back then, with something like 806 x 648 resolution, widescreen mode just wouldn't fit much of a page at once. Also, my grill was a little off, so widescreen was fuzzy. This obviously wouldn't apply to a swiveling LCD
Frankly I've never understood why computer screens have usually been wider than they are tall. I suppose now with DVD drives it makes a bit more sense. But from word processing to emailing to web browsing, most of what we do involves long vertical documents. I'd love a screen that was 1.5 or two pages long.
i believe that's why movies are formatted as they are and we're starting to see more widescreen TVs.
of coarse, i could be completely wrong...better wait and see if someone backs me up
To demonstrate to yourself why portrait is better than landscape for text just do the following (only good if you have a screen wider than about 800px):
Open your browser up to the full window width, so that the text contained therein spans virtually from one side to the other. Now notice that the wider the "measure" (width) of the text column the less readable it becomes.
The simple fact is that there is a very narrow range within which text in columns is readable, in English this is approximately 7-13 words per line. Columns narrower or wider than this become ver difficult to read, especially as the total length of the text becomes longer.
Text is more economical in portrait for this very reason. You can argue against this if you like, but visit any library to see why you are wrong.
<strong>It's not a pro item. No PCI slots, no 21" hooded displays. Even what a graphic artist would buy in the Wintel space, it's pretty inexpensive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think there's a world of difference between what we're discussing. If someone is going for the high-end colour managed route then yes, an iMac isn't the thing.
If I want something for home, or to put on a secretary?s desk, then the criteria is a bit different. I personally think that portrait monitors are a benefit (I think we both agree on that), and I can see that they'd be a selling point on an iMac.
Where we seem to disagree is what are the price points at which this becomes a real benefit? If a swivelling screen added $150 to the price of a 15" iMac then that would probably not be a good thing. If there was an optional build, swivel or not, then that would probably be a good thing. If the cost were less than $50 (why should it really be any more), then i think they should just do it).
Once you get up to 17" the issues are different, but i think there's still a benefit here.
One of my friends has a PB G4. We were talking about monitor purchasing recently and having a machine for home. I said I'd probably get a PB for that purpose. His comment was that he personally could not stand working on his PB due to the screen res/orientation. We discussed portrait screens, he seemed to think that at the same res a portrait screen would make a difference.
Anyway, he ended up buying a 22" Cinema Display. :-\\
<strong>No doubt about what you're saying, Clive -- 'reading' and 'viewing' are two very different activities. If you want to read fast, a narrow column is best, absolutely. I suspect a few factors come into play here. Memory, visual and cognitive factors all make 'reading' tall documents easier than 'reading' wide ones.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually the key to it is really the mechanics of reading, with "perfect" length lines reading is fairly continuous and it's easy to find the start of the next line.
At the extremes with short lines you spend more time looking for the start of the next line than you do reading, and what you're reading becomes womewhat broken up and diffucult to comprehend. With long lines your eyes seem to become tired/bored scanning along the line, so you lose your place, and it's really difficult to find the beginning of the next line.
JUST MAKE THE D@MN MONITORS SQUARE!!!
there. my work is done.
Widescreen also is better for multimedia.
I think this is why portrait displays never caught on. I remember one being available for Macs before (maybe even sold by Apple?), it was designed for displaying a single page in full size, but I never saw anyone who had bought one.
Rotating displays are IMO gimmicks. The extra expense is better spent on buying a larger display instead of paying for a swivel mechanism.
Also, for websurfing, I like that my 19" CRT can display two browser windows side by side. A portrait display can show one long browser window, but that's not as useful.
<strong>I think this is why portrait displays never caught on. I remember one being available for Macs before (maybe even sold by Apple?), it was designed for displaying a single page in full size, but I never saw anyone who had bought one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, Apple made one. I bought one along with an LCIII as my first Mac. Very cool. As I recall, the monitor itself had a fan. Strange.