17" Cinema Display, now that iMac is widescreen?

in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Apple will introduce a 17" Cinema Display soon

How can they not, now that the iMac has a widescreen option?

I love my 15" Studio Display (old school--with the E.T. neck stand), but the resolution is just not enough to have BBEdit open with a page and the glossary, or FireWorks MX and it's "Panels."

A 17" CD would be perfect.


  • Reply 1 of 15
    sizzle chestsizzle chest Posts: 1,133member
    I bet we'll see...

    15" & 17" standard

    19" & 23" wide

    Remember that if they change the 17" standard to a 17" widescreen, the display area actually DECREASES.
  • Reply 1 of 15
    bodhibodhi Posts: 1,424member
    Or a 22" Cinema Display with more pixels.
  • Reply 3 of 15
    I'd like to see a 19" too...

    But the *business* side of me sees that i only *need* at 17" CD.

    It would be significantly less expensive, and would have just the right resolution for my needs, as a web developer.

    Print people need more res, and Apple ought to accomodate them as well.

    We had to get a 17" Studio Display for our print guy when we handed his 21" CRT off to the new girl, because the 22" is just to darn much money.

    Ifn' there was a 19" CD, we'd prolly have gotten that.

    And if'n there was a 17" CD, we'd be gettin' me that, when it comes time to get me a new machine.

    Unless, of course, we just get me that new iMac...
  • Reply 4 of 15
    macroninmacronin Posts: 1,174member
    I think Apple needs to move everything over to widescreen flat panels...

    I understand the eMac, you just cannot put a decent LCD into a lower priced computer... As George Sr. would say, "wouldn't be prudent...!"

    But those HD Cinema Displays just ruin ANYTHING else for me...!

    Two, please!
  • Reply 5 of 15
    sizzle chestsizzle chest Posts: 1,133member
    It doesn't make sense to me that Apple doesn't have a display between $999 and $2499. That's a pretty big gap! And while I long for an LCD, and want something bigger than 17", I'm not sure I feel comfortable jumping all the way to $2500 for a display.
  • Reply 6 of 15
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    1600x1200 19" panels priced at 999USD should be available by X-mas. LCD makers have stated this, whether or not Apple makes such an offering remains to be seen.
  • Reply 7 of 15
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    A 17" and 19" widescreen Studio (or is it Cinema? Anyway...) Display would be a great one-two punch addition to the line.

    Actually, perhaps they could even ditch the 15"? If they could get that 17" down to the $600-750 range, people would probably buy that in droves!

    But he's right: the jump from $999 to the mid-$2000 range IS quite a leap, with nothing in that nice 19", mid-$1000's range.

  • Reply 8 of 15
    brunobruinbrunobruin Posts: 552member
    Clearly the cost difference between the 15- and 17-inch displays has narrowed to the point where Apple can do the 17-inch iMac for $200 more than the 15. Maybe what helps is that they're buying them in sufficient bulk and planning to offer a standalone 17 for the towers. They could dump the current 15 and offer 17 for, say, $699 and 19 for maybe $1,299 or so. A 19-inch widescreen display would be sweet.
  • Reply 9 of 15
    jerkjerk Posts: 8member
    [quote]Originally posted by sizzle chest:

    <strong>Remember that if they change the 17" standard to a 17" widescreen, the display area actually DECREASES.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Exactly! I just don't understand why people how such a desire for those, do they want to lie down and watch? They shouldn't be called "widescreen", the name should be


    In apple's case, it is just plain silly paying more for special sized LCD screens (which I presume they have to, and the end users too, of course).
  • Reply 10 of 15
    [quote] From Apple

    But here?s the really big news: The iMac with the 17-inch widescreen flat-panel LCD screen delivers nearly 65 percent more screen area than the 15-inch.<hr></blockquote>

    But I don't want to *pay* for the screen area that would be bigger than a normal ratio 17".

    Remember, I like my 15", but there's not enough room for pallettes and stuff. A wider screen would take care of this for me.

    Of course if you have two monitors, both 17" wide, and one is widescreen, it will have less pixels--but you'll still have more than the 15" that it's likely to be as tall as.

    It sounds to me like you want a 19"
  • Reply 11 of 15
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    The actual pixel count difference between the iMac's 16:10 widescreen and the 17 SD's 5:4 screen is less than 1% (in favor of the Studio display)

    As displays get bigger, ratios in the 3:2, 16:10 and 16:9 range are actually more ergonomic since they closely mimic your field of view, which depending on the shape of your eyes and their position in your skull is approx 160 degrees horizontally and 90-100 degrees vertically. However, given the size of most computer displays and the users position, none of them would fill your field of view either horizontally or vertically, so unless you're using a 22"/23" cinema display and sitting up close, this cannot be the main factor.

    It's probably just that people generally find these ratios more appealing and that video and broadcasting is going in this directio too. So in the interests of display consistency, many displays (both computer and TV) will migrate to a wider ratio.
  • Reply 12 of 15
    I think that you'll see a pixel bump on the 17" and maybe a price drop...
  • Reply 13 of 15
    cobracobra Posts: 253member
    I say there will be new 17" and 19" widescreen cinema displays to go with the new towers.

    Of course, we will see the existing 22" and 23" displays as well.

    I do not see Apple coming out with a separate 15" display anymore.
  • Reply 14 of 15
    spiritspirit Posts: 10member
    [quote]Originally posted by sizzle chest:

    <strong>I bet we'll see...

    15" & 17" standard

    19" & 23" wide

    Remember that if they change the 17" standard to a 17" widescreen, the display area actually DECREASES.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    How is this? I'm considering a 17" imac. Wouldn't the display area increase with widescreen?
  • Reply 15 of 15
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    It will increase 65% over the 15" iMac LCD. The pixel count of the 17" widescreen is about the same as the pixel count of the 17"LCD studio display.

    iMac, 1440x900=1296000

    17" studio display, 1280x1024=1310720

    About the same thing.

    For a given diagnal a squarer display will have a larger surface area, but different aspect ratios are more pleasing for video and could be better for different kinds of work.
Sign In or Register to comment.