The base must be filled with lead or something. Pretty impressive piece of design!
Damn, it does look nice... and btw, Messiah: you've got a 23"HD display, I thought everything in comparison would be a distant second! (Nonetheless, that's good praise for the 20"iMac screen, I guess.)
Damn, it does look nice... and btw, Messiah: you've got a 23"HD display, I thought everything in comparison would be a distant second! (Nonetheless, that's good praise for the 20"iMac screen, I guess.)
Sorry - quite a lengthy post!
Well now, Mac+, there's an interesting thing. I've been thinking about this a lot recently.
I was blown away by the difference between the 20" and the 23" when I first got it. There was nothing like it at the time, and the 20" screen was indeed a distant second. In fact, I had actually owned a 20" briefly and returned it for the 23" that I have now. But the problem is, that you get used to the 23" and start taking it for granted.
When I used to use a 21" CRT monitor, I ran the Finder with the icons set at 32px (same as OS 9). If you set the 23" ACD at 32px, the desktop can display a whopping 140 icons comfortably. But, the problem is that it isn't very comfortable on the human eye, and it takes you forever to find what it is you are looking for. Because of the pixel density being so high, the icons are pretty hard to make out so you either end up squinting, or bringing the monitor closer to your face (which kind of defeats the old flat panel/desk space benefits). So you have to ask if you are actually buying more "usable" screen area at all.
It's not simply a case of setting the 17", 20" and 23" ACDs at 32px and then sitting them side by side and marvelling at how much more you can cram on the 23". That is how I originally compared the screens, but it turns out it's not as simple as that. You'll find that running such a high res. actually starts to slow you down.
As a result, I've set up OS X so that all the icons are either 48px or 64px. At 48px you still get 120 icons, and at 64px you get 100 - still pretty impressive. It means I can quickly identify images and files from their icon previews, but it also means that I am effectively reducing the usable screen area. Now, nobody in their right mind would keep 140 icons on the desktop, but even with 20 or 30, the effect is the same. It still takes you a second or two to find what it is you are looking for. So you have to ask yourself the question - do you really need such a big desktop if you're never going to use it?
On a daily basis, I use a 22" ACD at work, and I also have access to a 20" ACD. The 20" actually has more usable space than the 22". I haven't tried playing around with the icon settings, but I bet you if I were to set the icons to 48px on the 20", I wouldn't notice much difference in effective screen area to the 23" with 64px icons.
The only benefit is that all the palettes are smaller, which is a great help in apps like Illustrator. The page you're working on is no longer hidden behind layers of palettes, and you can quickly scoot around.
I'm not sure if the 20" iMac uses the same screen as the 20" ACD, but what I can tell you about the 20" ACD is that it is definately brighter than the other ACDs and the pixel response rate is far higher. It is without doubt the best "quality" screen I have ever experienced - by a long shot.
But the real benefit that the iMac's 20" screen has over the other ACDs, is that you can adjust it's height. At 6'4" I really appreciate that.
I truly think the 20" iMac is an unbeatable package. It's tremendous value for money for what you are actually getting. For another £150, I could have bought a complete system with SuperDrive instead of just the 23" display on it's own. The 23" isn't that much better!
When somebody with a 23" ACD and a 1.8GHz G5 looks at the 20" iMac and is blown away, you know it's got something going for it!
As for the fact that the 20" iMac doesn't fall over - it's just more proof that they [Apple] are drip feeding us. They obviously had the ability to stick a 20" panel on it from day one, and they've simply been milking the market. They've managed to get the sales from two or three waves of top end buyers (the original 15", then the 17" and now the 20") rather than just release the 20" on day one.
Here are some pictures I found. Note how much thicker the display is!
I tell you what I don't get. I noticed it as soon as I saw the 20", but didn't think anything of it. If you look at Apple's pictures of the 20" iMac, the screen is the same width as the new style keyboard - but if you look at the 20" in real life, it's actually wider than the keyboard!
Surely they'd want the screen to look it's full size? I wonder why have they shrunk it?
I tell you what I don't get. I noticed it as soon as I saw the 20", but didn't think anything of it. If you look at Apple's pictures of the 20" iMac, the screen is the same width as the new style keyboard - but if you look at the 20" in real life, it's actually wider than the keyboard!
Surely they'd want the screen to look it's full size? I wonder why have they shrunk it?
Yeah, but remember that the screen sits in front of the foot, directly over the keyboard. I don't think that perspective would have that much effect. Look at the photos that were posted, they're shot from the front as well, surely they would be effected by perspective as well?
Not in the picture on Apple's web site. The screen is at 90º right over the base, and the photo is shot from lower than eye level, so that the keyboard looks the same width as the screen. Probably done purely for aesthetic reasons. No big scandal.
I was able to see the 20" in person yesterday; the screen is truly immense, and truly beautiful to boot. The problem is what it does to the 15" iMac; it really looks all wrong now that there are the 17" and 20" iMacs right next to it.
I was able to see the 20" in person yesterday; the screen is truly immense, and truly beautiful to boot. The problem is what it does to the 15" iMac; it really looks all wrong now that there are the 17" and 20" iMacs right next to it.
i think the 15" iMac might be discontinued by MWSF. further i think that there is a chance that the eMacs will be replaced by 15" 2nd generation iMacs.
This is getting off topic but it would be a mistake to discontinue the eMac without something to replace it in the $799 range. I don't think this will happen. The iMac with its flexible arm will never be that cheap.
This is getting off topic but it would be a mistake to discontinue the eMac without something to replace it in the $799 range. I don't think this will happen. The iMac with its flexible arm will never be that cheap.
ok. what if the rumored new iMac form factor is just a new eMac(!) form factor ... the result could be a tft replacement for the current eMac line. 15" at $799. and the next-gen iMac(!) could still be only 17" and 20".
edit: apple's statement on crt-displays last year was that they would cut all crt products. i think in 2004 this will come true. 15"-displays are starting at what - $300? why not produce a 15" $799 all-in-one?
Could be, I suppose. I think Apple would find it difficult to sell an eMac-like computer with a LCD for the same prices as current eMacs, and maintain the same margins. Margins seem to be crucial to Apple.
Comments
Originally posted by Messiah
Nice find TWinbrook46636!
The base must be filled with lead or something. Pretty impressive piece of design!
Damn, it does look nice... and btw, Messiah: you've got a 23"HD display, I thought everything in comparison would be a distant second!
Originally posted by Mac+
Damn, it does look nice... and btw, Messiah: you've got a 23"HD display, I thought everything in comparison would be a distant second!
Sorry - quite a lengthy post!
Well now, Mac+, there's an interesting thing. I've been thinking about this a lot recently.
I was blown away by the difference between the 20" and the 23" when I first got it. There was nothing like it at the time, and the 20" screen was indeed a distant second. In fact, I had actually owned a 20" briefly and returned it for the 23" that I have now. But the problem is, that you get used to the 23" and start taking it for granted.
When I used to use a 21" CRT monitor, I ran the Finder with the icons set at 32px (same as OS 9). If you set the 23" ACD at 32px, the desktop can display a whopping 140 icons comfortably. But, the problem is that it isn't very comfortable on the human eye, and it takes you forever to find what it is you are looking for. Because of the pixel density being so high, the icons are pretty hard to make out so you either end up squinting, or bringing the monitor closer to your face (which kind of defeats the old flat panel/desk space benefits). So you have to ask if you are actually buying more "usable" screen area at all.
It's not simply a case of setting the 17", 20" and 23" ACDs at 32px and then sitting them side by side and marvelling at how much more you can cram on the 23". That is how I originally compared the screens, but it turns out it's not as simple as that. You'll find that running such a high res. actually starts to slow you down.
As a result, I've set up OS X so that all the icons are either 48px or 64px. At 48px you still get 120 icons, and at 64px you get 100 - still pretty impressive. It means I can quickly identify images and files from their icon previews, but it also means that I am effectively reducing the usable screen area. Now, nobody in their right mind would keep 140 icons on the desktop, but even with 20 or 30, the effect is the same. It still takes you a second or two to find what it is you are looking for. So you have to ask yourself the question - do you really need such a big desktop if you're never going to use it?
On a daily basis, I use a 22" ACD at work, and I also have access to a 20" ACD. The 20" actually has more usable space than the 22". I haven't tried playing around with the icon settings, but I bet you if I were to set the icons to 48px on the 20", I wouldn't notice much difference in effective screen area to the 23" with 64px icons.
The only benefit is that all the palettes are smaller, which is a great help in apps like Illustrator. The page you're working on is no longer hidden behind layers of palettes, and you can quickly scoot around.
I'm not sure if the 20" iMac uses the same screen as the 20" ACD, but what I can tell you about the 20" ACD is that it is definately brighter than the other ACDs and the pixel response rate is far higher. It is without doubt the best "quality" screen I have ever experienced - by a long shot.
But the real benefit that the iMac's 20" screen has over the other ACDs, is that you can adjust it's height. At 6'4" I really appreciate that.
I truly think the 20" iMac is an unbeatable package. It's tremendous value for money for what you are actually getting. For another £150, I could have bought a complete system with SuperDrive instead of just the 23" display on it's own. The 23" isn't that much better!
When somebody with a 23" ACD and a 1.8GHz G5 looks at the 20" iMac and is blown away, you know it's got something going for it!
As for the fact that the 20" iMac doesn't fall over - it's just more proof that they [Apple] are drip feeding us. They obviously had the ability to stick a 20" panel on it from day one, and they've simply been milking the market. They've managed to get the sales from two or three waves of top end buyers (the original 15", then the 17" and now the 20") rather than just release the 20" on day one.
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
Here are some pictures I found. Note how much thicker the display is!
I tell you what I don't get. I noticed it as soon as I saw the 20", but didn't think anything of it. If you look at Apple's pictures of the 20" iMac, the screen is the same width as the new style keyboard - but if you look at the 20" in real life, it's actually wider than the keyboard!
Surely they'd want the screen to look it's full size? I wonder why have they shrunk it?
Originally posted by Messiah
I tell you what I don't get. I noticed it as soon as I saw the 20", but didn't think anything of it. If you look at Apple's pictures of the 20" iMac, the screen is the same width as the new style keyboard - but if you look at the 20" in real life, it's actually wider than the keyboard!
Surely they'd want the screen to look it's full size? I wonder why have they shrunk it?
Perspective...
Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes
Perspective...
Yeah, but remember that the screen sits in front of the foot, directly over the keyboard. I don't think that perspective would have that much effect. Look at the photos that were posted, they're shot from the front as well, surely they would be effected by perspective as well?
Originally posted by Republic
I was able to see the 20" in person yesterday; the screen is truly immense, and truly beautiful to boot. The problem is what it does to the 15" iMac; it really looks all wrong now that there are the 17" and 20" iMacs right next to it.
i think the 15" iMac might be discontinued by MWSF. further i think that there is a chance that the eMacs will be replaced by 15" 2nd generation iMacs.
so that we'll have:
3rd generation iMac G5. 17" and 20"
2nd generation iMac G4 15" to replace eMac lineup
Originally posted by iDave
This is getting off topic but it would be a mistake to discontinue the eMac without something to replace it in the $799 range. I don't think this will happen. The iMac with its flexible arm will never be that cheap.
ok. what if the rumored new iMac form factor is just a new eMac(!) form factor ... the result could be a tft replacement for the current eMac line. 15" at $799. and the next-gen iMac(!) could still be only 17" and 20".
edit: apple's statement on crt-displays last year was that they would cut all crt products. i think in 2004 this will come true. 15"-displays are starting at what - $300? why not produce a 15" $799 all-in-one?
Is it me, or is there a pinkish hue on the 20" iMac's LCD in comparison to the others (15", 17")? Maybe it's my LCD playing tricks on me.
Originally posted by Patchouli
Is it me, or is there a pinkish hue on the 20" iMac's LCD in comparison to the others (15", 17")? Maybe it's my LCD playing tricks on me.
Yeah it shows in the first picture. I guess it just needs to be calibrated.
But the machine is still sloooooooooooooooow.....
Well....I am so used to the Dual G5 that maybe why
My 17" with 768MB of MB of RAM is awesome. I never even give speed a second thought.
Originally posted by murbot
My 17" with 768MB of MB of RAM is awesome. I never even give speed a second thought.
Not me, you retard