<strong>e) All of the above</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can a moose read, or make sense?
Basically you take your choice, if you have to have Apple branding all over your kit, then go for it. But IMO the 22" Apple display is neither value for money nor cutting edge - any more.
Once upon a time it was, but that was around two years ago.
<strong>An interesting part of the rumours I've heard is that the new monitors will re-instate the height/pan adjustability of the old blue Studio 15" LCD's (in suitable modern silver styling of course).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Vinnie's post is spot on, the old 15" display was all over TV in the UK, and it must have generated plenty of mindshare for Apple. It's also a 100% better and more ergonomic display then anything Apple currently has (bar the iMac).
I think displays are one area where Apple actually charges fair prices. The displays are such high quality and are just the most beautiful flat panels in the world. If I had the money and need for a 23 inch display I would buy nothing other than the Apple brand.
I was always thinking that the iMac's industrial design could be implemented into the new displays...maybe as an upgrade...who knows?
<strong>I think displays are one area where Apple actually charges fair prices. The displays are such high quality and are just the most beautiful flat panels in the world. If I had the money and need for a 23 inch display I would buy nothing other than the Apple brand. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry, but I think you're just stuck in a timewarp.
Neither the 17" nor 22" Apple displays are competitive on cost, performance or features. The only reason the 23" could be said to be so is because no one makes such a large and hi-res display available on the desktop (which is an achievement in itself - as was the 22" at its launch).
Look around, there are cheaper and better monitors at higher resolution than the 22" from several vendors. The 17" sphere is just awash with alternatives.
[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Macintosh:
<strong>I was always thinking that the iMac's industrial design could be implemented into the new displays...maybe as an upgrade...who knows?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can't really see that you can say "the screens are wonderful" and in the next breath "they could do with the iMac screen's versatility".
These things don't go together. The current range of Apple displays is dated and overpriced.
Sorry if thinking different upsets so many of you.
Sorry if thinking different upsets so many of you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
what a world we live in when people can't express a point of view without getting c**p thrown at them... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
you're making the most sense i've heard in a long time on these boards clive.
(how's things? missed you at the conference in Rome last year))
what a world we live in when people can't express a point of view without getting c**p thrown at them... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
you're making the most sense i've heard in a long time on these boards clive.
(how's things? missed you at the conference in Rome last year))</strong><hr></blockquote>
This about the person that jumped-up-and-down and said computer cases can't be welded shut? hmmm...yeah, that made sense.
Apple's prices for smaller displays are so bad that they just had to give up on the 15" altogether. Is it still for sale, even? The 17 is likewise a horrible deal, and nothing too ergonomic either -- no height adjustability and an only limited range of motion. Only the 23" is clearly a good deal, if you're in the market for such a panel, and until recently the 22 was also a good deal, though the waters are slightly muddied by cheap, slightly smaller but higher res 1600x1200 20.1" panels. I still think the 22" acquits itself well if you favor a larger widescreen format, but it loses points (as do all Apple displays) for being ADC only. They chould be ADC/DVI -- ADC if you're using a PM, and DVI if you'r using something else, including powerbooks.
<strong>This about the person that jumped-up-and-down and said computer cases can't be welded shut? hmmm...yeah, that made sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey Little c, if you go back and check that thread you'll see that the person who posted about "welded" shut cases in the first place conceded that they hadn't actually seen the thing and what had been said to them was that the box was "sealed", not welded.
there's a rather large difference there.
Additionally no one in that thread was able to say categorically that they hed seen such a "welded" shut case.
A few people said "ah, but you could solder it" - but soldering isn't welding by any stretch.
And a few said "ah, hi-tech laser-powered Luke Skywalker...", and I still say "bollocks".
I maintain that there are far easier ways to seal cases than "welding" - in any true sense of the word.
So, if you've seen one of these cases, please tell us all about it.
If you know of an easily accessible welding technology, that doesn't blow circuit boards, and which you know to be in Apple's standard arsenal of tools - please point us all at some references to verify your claim.
(And while you're there, can I get you to look up some reference on lose "solder" balls floating around in Apple El Capitan cases a few years ago and allegedly shorting the circuit boards).
I broadly agree with Matsu, except that I don't think the 22" offers decent value with, exactly as you say, slightly smaller but higher res screens are available for around 2/3rds the price.
Put really bluntly: resolution-wise the 22" Apple LCD fits inside several competing screens, with room to spare, but costs 50% more than they do.
The physical size, by my addled brain, of a 22" Apple LCD is approximately 205sq inches at a 16:9 ratio. The physical size of a 20" NEC-Mitsubishi/LaCie is approximately 195sq inches.
In accordingly rough terms that's about 5% difference.
The number of pixels in an Apple 22" is 1,638,400.
The number of pixels in the 20" LaCie is 1,920,000.
ie the Lacie has around 17% more pixels to play with - and is still only around 65% of the price.
So, the question, from my perspective is quite simple: do I pay 50% more to get 5% more screen area, but 17% fewer pixels.
Comments
<strong>e) All of the above</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can a moose read, or make sense?
Basically you take your choice, if you have to have Apple branding all over your kit, then go for it. But IMO the 22" Apple display is neither value for money nor cutting edge - any more.
Once upon a time it was, but that was around two years ago.
<strong>An interesting part of the rumours I've heard is that the new monitors will re-instate the height/pan adjustability of the old blue Studio 15" LCD's (in suitable modern silver styling of course).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Vinnie's post is spot on, the old 15" display was all over TV in the UK, and it must have generated plenty of mindshare for Apple. It's also a 100% better and more ergonomic display then anything Apple currently has (bar the iMac).
Troll on, stroll on...
I was always thinking that the iMac's industrial design could be implemented into the new displays...maybe as an upgrade...who knows?
<strong>I think displays are one area where Apple actually charges fair prices. The displays are such high quality and are just the most beautiful flat panels in the world. If I had the money and need for a 23 inch display I would buy nothing other than the Apple brand. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry, but I think you're just stuck in a timewarp.
Neither the 17" nor 22" Apple displays are competitive on cost, performance or features. The only reason the 23" could be said to be so is because no one makes such a large and hi-res display available on the desktop (which is an achievement in itself - as was the 22" at its launch).
Look around, there are cheaper and better monitors at higher resolution than the 22" from several vendors. The 17" sphere is just awash with alternatives.
[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Macintosh:
<strong>I was always thinking that the iMac's industrial design could be implemented into the new displays...maybe as an upgrade...who knows?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can't really see that you can say "the screens are wonderful" and in the next breath "they could do with the iMac screen's versatility".
These things don't go together. The current range of Apple displays is dated and overpriced.
Sorry if thinking different upsets so many of you.
<strong>
Sorry if thinking different upsets so many of you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
what a world we live in when people can't express a point of view without getting c**p thrown at them... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
you're making the most sense i've heard in a long time on these boards clive.
(how's things? missed you at the conference in Rome last year))
<strong>
what a world we live in when people can't express a point of view without getting c**p thrown at them... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
you're making the most sense i've heard in a long time on these boards clive.
(how's things? missed you at the conference in Rome last year))</strong><hr></blockquote>
This about the person that jumped-up-and-down and said computer cases can't be welded shut? hmmm...yeah, that made sense.
<strong>
This about the person that jumped-up-and-down and said computer cases can't be welded shut? hmmm...yeah, that made sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
er, didn't we all agree that they couldn't....
i think we did
----------
RosettaStoned
<strong>(how's things? missed you at the conference in Rome last year))</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cute, you've sussed me, but now I've got to work out who "othello" is!?
<strong>This about the person that jumped-up-and-down and said computer cases can't be welded shut? hmmm...yeah, that made sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey Little c, if you go back and check that thread you'll see that the person who posted about "welded" shut cases in the first place conceded that they hadn't actually seen the thing and what had been said to them was that the box was "sealed", not welded.
there's a rather large difference there.
Additionally no one in that thread was able to say categorically that they hed seen such a "welded" shut case.
A few people said "ah, but you could solder it" - but soldering isn't welding by any stretch.
And a few said "ah, hi-tech laser-powered Luke Skywalker...", and I still say "bollocks".
I maintain that there are far easier ways to seal cases than "welding" - in any true sense of the word.
So, if you've seen one of these cases, please tell us all about it.
If you know of an easily accessible welding technology, that doesn't blow circuit boards, and which you know to be in Apple's standard arsenal of tools - please point us all at some references to verify your claim.
(And while you're there, can I get you to look up some reference on lose "solder" balls floating around in Apple El Capitan cases a few years ago and allegedly shorting the circuit boards).
In other words, put up, or shut up.
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: Clive ]</p>
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: Clive ]</p>
<strong>
Cute, you've sussed me, but now I've got to work out who "othello" is!?</strong><hr></blockquote>
sussed you ages ago, by the reference to your mustang in your sig...
Put really bluntly: resolution-wise the 22" Apple LCD fits inside several competing screens, with room to spare, but costs 50% more than they do.
The physical size, by my addled brain, of a 22" Apple LCD is approximately 205sq inches at a 16:9 ratio. The physical size of a 20" NEC-Mitsubishi/LaCie is approximately 195sq inches.
In accordingly rough terms that's about 5% difference.
The number of pixels in an Apple 22" is 1,638,400.
The number of pixels in the 20" LaCie is 1,920,000.
ie the Lacie has around 17% more pixels to play with - and is still only around 65% of the price.
So, the question, from my perspective is quite simple: do I pay 50% more to get 5% more screen area, but 17% fewer pixels.
Or (well you can work it out)...
<strong>sussed you ages ago, by the reference to your mustang in your sig...
Aren't you going to give me a clue then!?
<strong>
Aren't you going to give me a clue then!?</strong><hr></blockquote>
ok...
i've had something to do with the new website for the organisation behind the conference.
easy! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>i've had something to do with the new website for the organisation behind the conference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, well that was my first guess Mark.
<strong>
Ah, well that was my first guess Mark.</strong><hr></blockquote>
nope! he's too obsessed with his PC...
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
nope! he's too obsessed with his PC...
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, wrong M, sorry Matt, next time. <img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0">
---------
RosettaStoned