[blakespot]

Was curious for general opinions on this. What would you guys rather have, two Apple 20" Cinema displays or three 19" Dell LCD's? Here's the breakdown:

Two 20" Apple Cinema Displays
- 1680x1050 ea = 3360x1050 total res.
- $1299 ea = $2598 total cost
- photo of such a setup:
http://www.macrumors.com/downloads/darkscreen.jpg

Three 19" Dell 1900FP's
- 1280x1024 ea = 3840x1024 total res.
- $699 ea = $2097 total cost
- photo (3rd screen is a PS job) of such a setup:
http://www.blakespot.com/images/3screens.jpg

Notes:
- The 2 Cinemas together = 90% the pixel count of the 3 Dells
- The 2 Cinemas setup can be controlled by a GeForce 4 Ti AGP (dual head card), which I have, while the 3 Dells would need an additional PCI card for that third screen which would not be Quartz Extreme enabled (Radeon 7000 PCI)

Thoughts?




blakespot

[osxisfun]

2 apple. but wait till the end of the month in case the revamp the case.

[klinux]

Dell. Longer warranty. Brighter screen. Better response time.

Also, 1900FP is only $600 (check techbargains.com or gotapex.com to see when they are on sale).

So, Apple is $2.6k. Dell is $1.8k. I like Apple. it looks better. I am willing to pay more for it. But for 40% more? Not for me.

Either way, I am stil jealous of you.

[mark9939]

Haha I'm jealous too. Yeah go for the triple 19" setup. They're nice screens... and u can brag that you own that.

[Link]

I'd do the 3 19".. but the 19" screens have the same resolution as the 17" screens usually do, higher pixel refresh, and they're uglier.

cinema displays are awesome.. but long.. and working in a twosome will be a pain.

[osxisfun]

its not a pain.

i know.

also, if you can see the dell and the apple in a store. i find it _very hard to believe the dell is a of higher quality.

the apple's are just jawdropping-ly wonderful...


almost forgot. i may be the only one that thinks this but 10.3's expose is going to reduce the need for multiple screens for many people...

[blakespot]

Well,

I'm used to two screens now...

http://www.blakespot.com/list/images/g4_01.jpg

...and so not having a "middle" screen is no bother. And I think the Cinema's (esp. the 20") is going to be a higher quality screen than the Dell's. It's rated perhaps highest of all screens out there.

I am leaning towards the two Cinemas.

Anyway, just installed the GeForce 4 Ti card from Apple, replacing a GeForce 3 so I will have two digital video outs to drive these things. Long card, that GF4 Ti.


blakespot

[Steve]

Get the Dell 1900FP's. They are incredible screens -- better, in every way, than the Cinema displays. Keep your eye out for the different deals that Dell will run (especially through its Small Business unit). IIRC, you could pick up the 1900FP for under $600 a pop

BTW, Dell monitors are regarded (in the PC world especially) as some of the highest quality displays available. They have a 30 day money back guarentee (no questions asked) and a longer warranty (with no extra investment ala Apple). If you think there are too many dead pixels (if there are any at all...) you are free to return the display with no issues. After the 30 days, I believe the dead pixel policy is 3+.

[Steve]

Originally posted by Link:
... and they're uglier.

Are you saying the 1900FP is uglier than the Cinema? ROFL

[blakespot]

Originally posted by Steve:
Get the Dell 1900FP's. They are incredible screens -- better, in every way, than the Cinema displays. Keep your eye out for the different deals that Dell will run (especially through its Small Business unit). IIRC, you could pick up the 1900FP for under $600 a pop

BTW, Dell monitors are regarded (in the PC world especially) as some of the highest quality displays available. They have a 30 day money back guarentee (no questions asked) and a longer warranty (with no extra investment ala Apple). If you think there are too many dead pixels (if there are any at all...) you are free to return the display with no issues. After the 30 days, I believe the dead pixel policy is 3+.

Better in every way than the Cinemas, you say? Well, they are lower resolution and the are smaller and they are not the nice widescreen format, though the last may be a matter of preference. I've seen a number of reports that place the Cinema Display 20" above all other LCD's out there - I believe there's a NEC that comes in 2nd in a few of the reports. I think the Cinema's are higher quality screens than the Dells, though the Dells are excellent screens.

The Dell 19" screens are 1280x1024 each. That is the res of Apple's 17" LCD. I'm not a fan of lower DPI, generally. The first Cinema display, 22", for instance - 1600x1024, lower res than the 20" Cinemas.



blakespot

[schalliol]

I personally have a pair of 1900FPs and love them in the setup, the smaller bezels and taller aspect ratio will make it better in my opinion. If you search for me you'll see my setup in the PowerMac Picture page and the QTVR page. I echo others' comments on the setup.

[Link]

I move both ways.. personally I think 3 regular monitors would be more useful.. the one thing that you need to do though is get NEC 1760NXes or samsung 172ts instead of those 191s...

They're smaller, sleeker, have a higher DPI, and much better response times.

I myself have a 22" cinema and would find it very hard to have 2 of them.. 1 is enough and because of that I almost never use my PC (maybe just because it's a pc) or it's monitor as a second.

The cinema might be old and lousy to you but good to me.. I really would love 3 NEC 1760s though and at the price I might sell my 22" to get them.. they're cheap and VERY nice.

But not as 'awesome' I think.. although 3 cool LCDs might equal one awesome humongous one.

Anyway.. I have somewhat lousy vision.. I'm near sighted and while my vision is better than many.. I find it hard to sit more then 2.4' or so from my cinema.. imagining a higher DPI display would be hard, although I didn't really have problems with them.

The 20".. well.. yeah. I think 2 of those might be easier to stomach then 2 22"ers

Since it seems you're a fan of high DPI screens I'd look into 17" 1280x1024 monitors

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by schalliol:
I personally have a pair of 1900FPs and love them in the setup, the smaller bezels and taller aspect ratio will make it better in my opinion. If you search for me you'll see my setup in the PowerMac Picture page and the QTVR page. I echo others' comments on the setup.

I feel just the opposite. I have the Dell 1800FP and although the brightness and color are pretty good, I'm less than impressed with the native res. and dearly wish I'd gone WS (1280x1024 is too low for an 18 or 19" LCD), it also seems to have more "ghosting" than other displays I've seen of it's type and size.

4x3 is dead, or very soon to be. I do a decent amount of video work and it would have been nice to setup two full size windows side by side on the same display, while leaving my PB display for OS functions or web browsing, etc. Oh well.

My vote is to go with the 2 20" Cinemas, would make a beautiful and very useful setup.

[osxisfun]

Better in every way than the Cinemas, you say? Well, they are lower resolution and the are smaller and they are not the nice widescreen format, though the last may be a matter of preference. I've seen a number of reports that place the Cinema Display 20" above all other LCD's out there - I believe there's a NEC that comes in 2nd in a few of the reports. I think the Cinema's are higher quality screens than the Dells, though the Dells are excellent screens.

The Dell 19" screens are 1280x1024 each. That is the res of Apple's 17" LCD. I'm not a fan of lower DPI, generally. The first Cinema display, 22", for instance - 1600x1024, lower res than the 20" Cinemas.



Agreed. Double agreed. Triple Agreed.


And of course they look ab-fab beautiful IMO.

and I'd rather be starting at two apple logo then dell logos.

[blakespot]

Originally posted by schalliol:
I personally have a pair of 1900FPs and love them in the setup, the smaller bezels and taller aspect ratio will make it better in my opinion. If you search for me you'll see my setup in the PowerMac Picture page and the QTVR page. I echo others' comments on the setup.

But the 1900FP's aren't actually of a taller aspect-ratio. Pixels on both the 20" Apple Cinema Display and the 1900FP are similarly square, it's just that the Cinemas has more pixels on the horizontal. The res of each:

Apple Cinema 20": 1680 x 1050
Dell 1900FP: 1280 x 1024

...so the Cinema Display actually has more pixels on the vertical than the Dell.



blakespot

[tooki]

Aspect ratio doesn't refer to the shape of the pixels, but to the relative dimensions of the entire screen.

Cinema Display has an aspect ratio of precisely 16:10

Any 1280x1024 LCD has an aspect ratio of precisely 4:3.2

So the Cinema Display has a "wider" aspect ratio, while the Dell has a "squarer" aspect ratio. Both use perfectly square pixels (but that's irrelevant, since pixel shape has nothing to do with it... in film one also refers to aspect ratio, and it doesn't use pixels at all).

tooki

[blakespot]

Originally posted by tooki:
Aspect ratio doesn't refer to the shape of the pixels, but to the relative dimensions of the entire screen.

Yes, I agree, but Schalliol was saying that the Dell's "taller aspect ratio" (4:3 vs. 16:10) made it better. The pixels come into play when you look at their respective resolutions and realize that the Cinema is effectively a Dell or 1280x1024 screen with "extra" on the sides. Contained within the Cinemas is the Dell's pixel area. "Taller aspect ratio" as an advantage to Dell might make sense if it had more vertical pixels than the Cinema, like maybe if it was 1280x1200 or something.

See where I'm going here?



blakespot

[osxisfun]

4X3 is soooo last century...

[kennedy]

So, here's my summary:

For pure pixel count/$$, Apple's displays lose. And for "coolness", three side-by-side matching monitors with thin frames have as much "coolness" as the just-amazing-by-themselves Apple displays. But there's much more to consider...

The best answer depends upon what *you* want to do!!

If you are editing movies, you don't want your movie split across two screens... and since movies are wide... two Apple Cinemas are a much better solution than regular displays. But there's also the option of lower-cost wide-screen models, if perfect color reproduction is not critical to your film making.

If you are editing Word documents, letters, books, and what-not... then 3 more vertical monitors would likely work better... one with Mail up, and the other two allowing you to see two docs at once. In fact, given those documents are vertical, it would be nice if we could get 3:4 monitors (rather than 4:3) or turn our 4:3 monitors on their side.

If you are editing PowerPoint for presentations, you'll probably be targeting 4:3... that's what the vast majority of conference room projectors are giving you... XGA in most cases. Thus, again, the three 4:3 monitors is probably best... one with Mail and the other two showing two presentations or one presentation with speaker notes on one and the slideshow on the other.

If you are using typical database apps or similar computer-targetted documents or webpages... which are designed for the typical VGA and XGA screens... then 3 standard monitors is surely best... a FileMaker app on your left, a web page on your right, and your Excel doc in the middle.

If you are doing serious graphical work where color reproduction is critical, then high-quality Cinema displays might make sense... but then, for color fidelity, I hear that CRTs are often still the best choice (but that's out of my league).

Did I get that right?

Sooo, what do *you* want to do?

[osxisfun]

I just have to add, if at all possible, do not purchase an LCD unless you see them in person.

that's the only way to do either of your choices justice...

[kennedy]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
I just have to add, if at all possible, do not purchase an LCD unless you see them in person.

that's the only way to do either of your choices justice...

I think that's probably solid advice, BUT...

But I've been looking at monitors and either much of the advice here is unsound or the monitors at the stores aren't fairly adjusted. The worst monitors based on clarity and color are the highly recommended Samsung monitors. Spending a few minutes making adjustments has greatly improved them, but not beyond mid-pack.

Of course, reading reviews isn't any better. Other than the Apple displays which seem to consistently top people's lists, the other monitors are all over the place... the Samsung in particular can be anywhere from the bottom third to the top third.

Either quality of output is shifting over time, or monitor-to-monitor quality is highly variable. In my case, I am looking for a mate to my new PB12... so Apple displays are not an option... and I can't figure out how to decide among the rest. :frustrated:

[schalliol]

Originally posted by blakespot:
Yes, I agree, but Schalliol was saying that the Dell's "taller aspect ratio" (4:3 vs. 16:10) made it better. The pixels come into play when you look at their respective resolutions and realize that the Cinema is effectively a Dell or 1280x1024 screen with "extra" on the sides. Contained within the Cinemas is the Dell's pixel area. "Taller aspect ratio" as an advantage to Dell might make sense if it had more vertical pixels than the Cinema, like maybe if it was 1280x1200 or something.

See where I'm going here?
blakespot

I do indeed see where you're going. If you have two widescreen displays next to each other it'll be REALLY wide, whereas if you have two standard displays side-by-side you'll get a taller setup that will certainly be still wide, just not AS wide.

What I am saying is that yes a Cinema display has all of the vertical res, but overall you're paying more and it's so wide that you're not getting as much of your vertical vision in.

I would rather have 3840x1024 than 3360x1050 in that meaning if we're talking three 1900FPs vs. 2 cinemas, BUT normally we're talking 2 1900FPs (like mine) against a single cinema (20, 22 or even 23HD), where the res of a pair of 1900FPs make more sense. When I compared displays I liked the 1900FPs display MUCH MUCH better than the 23" HD or 22" (20 wasn't available).

Here's where it makes the difference in my opinion:

* Better quality display (compared to 22 & 23 HD, dunno about 20)
* TINY bezels in the 1900FPs, which is much nicer than the huge gap you get with Apple's
* Vertical Height: This I'm not sure about since I haven't measured the 20's height vertically or done the aspect ratio math), but my impression was that the vertical viewable height on the 1900FP is taller than the 20"'s vertical height (the thing I was REALLY talking about why the aspect ratio is better), which makes sense given that the 20" is widescreen and the 19" is only one inch smaller and is not. So what happens is that you have a larger vertical image, maybe not as high res I guess.

[striker100]

I recently read about new monitors from either Samsung or Viewsonic which have very this bezels & they are designed for using 2 or 3 monitors side by side.

[schalliol]

The 1900FP is a Samsung, they are very thin and great for multimonitor setups.

I'd like to add that a 3 setup would be nice because you won't be staring at a bezel, but rather a full open display.

[blakespot]

There still seems something more "elegant" about the dual Cinema solution vs. the three Dells. And a definite win in watching video, being widescreen. I see Apple just lowered the 20" Cinema display by 50 pounds in the UK - hopefully will lower in the US as well.



blakespot

[schalliol]

Originally posted by blakespot:
There still seems something more "elegant" about the dual Cinema solution vs. the three Dells. And a definite win in watching video, being widescreen. I see Apple just lowered the 20" Cinema display by 50 pounds in the UK - hopefully will lower in the US as well.
blakespot

I just looked at the sample images you provided.
For movie watching you can get a larger image with the cinemas, which is nice. However. thinking about having the displays as more of a wall with one display RIGHT in front of you, I think you'll find it easier to managa the multiple monitors. The cinema image shows them in that V setup, I don't see ANY way you could view between monitors and you'd have to treat as two separate ones. Should you go with the Dells, here's a thought: I know that the bezels on the Dell are small, but with 3 you could position the middle display behind the other two and reduce the bezel width to 1/2 of what it would be. That would also give that surrounding video effect with the angle of the displays. Just a thought (Dell doesn't give me a kick back, really!)

[osxisfun]

There still seems something more "elegant" about the dual Cinema solution vs. the three Dells. And a definite win in watching video, being widescreen. I see Apple just lowered the 20" Cinema display by 50 pounds in the UK - hopefully will lower in the US as well.



Ditto.


I have 2 and they look ab-fab wonderful on my desk...to think of 3 dells instead of them makes me cringe.

nothing elegant about them...

ps- you might want to wait till paris expo. apple may update the monitors.. given the isight and g5 new look and all...

[schalliol]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
to think of 3 dells instead of them makes me cringe.

Yeah yea, remember, they're Samsung monitors, they're cheaper, have a larger viewable image size and more resolution when paired as such (oh, no need to buy silly ADC adapters either.

[0kama]

Originally posted by blakespot:
Well,

I'm used to two screens now...

http://www.blakespot.com/list/images/g4_01.jpg

...and so not having a "middle" screen is no bother. And I think the Cinema's (esp. the 20") is going to be a higher quality screen than the Dell's. It's rated perhaps highest of all screens out there.

I am leaning towards the two Cinemas.

Anyway, just installed the GeForce 4 Ti card from Apple, replacing a GeForce 3 so I will have two digital video outs to drive these things. Long card, that GF4 Ti.


blakespot

I have the same mouse

[osxisfun]

prettier things cost more

[schalliol]

Originally posted by 0kama:
I have the same mouse

Looks nice. Since there are pics of my system up here I thought I'd indicate the mouse I've replaced mine with the following and LOVE IT: http://www.kensington.com/html/2200.html

[osxisfun]

i had their silver trckball. it was great except the front was too high and my wrist hurt. i looked into a pad but eneded up going with the m$ explorer wireless mouse...

do you know if the "front" of this new trackball has been lowered?

thanks

[schalliol]

I think the front is lowered, but they include the custom wrist rest, which makes it very comfy for my work allnighters. Seems better by far than my ExpertMouse Pro I had or older ADB TurboMouse. Plus the optical mechanism is even smoother than before, I know it's almost not possible to be smoother than the previous gen, but it is!! A+++ in my book

[osxisfun]

i may have to switch back.

i need windows compatiblity though which i am sure it has. i always admired the mouseworks software...

need to get my set up ready for Exposé!

click click click

[klinux]

Originally posted by blakespot:
There still seems something more "elegant" about the dual Cinema solution vs. the three Dells. And a definite win in watching video, being widescreen. I see Apple just lowered the 20" Cinema display by 50 pounds in the UK - hopefully will lower in the US as well.



blakespot

Seems to me you have already made up your mind.

[blakespot]

Or I could get two of these instead, I suppose...


blakespot

[hyteckit]

Here is a excellent suggestion. I'm doing it myself.


Get 1 20" Cinema display
and 2 19" Dells.

This kicks ass. Cinema display in the center with two Dells on the side.

[schalliol]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Here is a excellent suggestion. I'm doing it myself.


Get 1 20" Cinema display
and 2 19" Dells.

This kicks ass. Cinema display in the center with two Dells on the side.

Ooohh Make sure you post some pics when you've got the displays!!

[blakespot]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Here is a excellent suggestion. I'm doing it myself.


Get 1 20" Cinema display
and 2 19" Dells.

This kicks ass. Cinema display in the center with two Dells on the side.

Sounds pretty slick. Still - I'm feeling more and more that the pure Cinema display solution is the more elegant approach. I think this is what I have decided to go with.


blakespot

[schalliol]

Originally posted by blakespot:
Sounds pretty slick. Still - I'm feeling more and more that the pure Cinema display solution is the more elegant approach. I think this is what I have decided to go with.

blakespot

Well, then, if that's what everyone decided, I hope you both will post your system pictures.

[hyteckit]

Just got my 20" Cinema Display! Yeah. Too bad I can't use it cause I'm still waiting for my PowerMac G4. The damn G4 is taking longer than the G5.

Anyway, I'm going to set it up with 2 18" Dells, not 19" Dells like I previously stated. The 18" Dells line up so well with the 20" Cinema Display. Same screen height, both 11".

[schalliol]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
JAnyway, I'm going to set it up with 2 18" Dells, not 19" Dells like I previously stated. The 18" Dells line up so well with the 20" Cinema Display. Same screen height, both 11". :-D

I understand that, I was wondering. As for my earlier comments about screen height, this is what I'm refering to, the vertical view should be taller on the 19" Dell/Samsung than the 20" Apple.

[Cadaver]

I had been using two Apple 17" LCD studio displays, and both screens were wonderfully bright and sharp. I'm much happier, however, with the 22" Cinema Display I replaced them with. No seam down the middle, dock centered on the screen (instead of off center at the bottom of one), no longer have to go from one screen's window all the way to the other's menu bar, etc.

While dual monitor setups are nice, I now personally prefer a single wide-screen display.

[Super Glitcher]

I use two cinema displays and wouldn't trade them for anything in the entire universe

[Mithras]

Here's a (fuzzy) photo of 3x191Ts, from the ArsTechnica forums:



whoa.

[blakespot]

Here's another picture of my friend's dual 20" Cinema Display setup (Arn who runs MacRumors.com). Good stuff.



blakespot

[osxisfun]

I'd be happy with a PCI card that could drive a 3rd apple lcd. alas.........

I ordered a compu-cable AB dvi/adc KVM for my pc with dvi and one of my apple LCDs. will let you how it goes next week.

[blakespot]

Well, the Radeon 7000 PCI has a DVI output and will drive an Apple display with a DVI->ADC converter. The above photo of the dual Cinemas on that G4 is being driven by a GeForce 3 and a Radeon 7000 PCI with converter.


blakespot

[hsl]

I would go for the 3 samsungs!!

i've got 2 19" lacie's (CRT) and i would really hate to have more than 2" between my screens! thinner bezels are better, and those samsungs are SWEEEEEET.

I would hate to sit in the corner just as your friend sits!!

but it seems you already made up you're mind!

HSL

[Steve]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Here's a (fuzzy) photo of 3x191Ts, from the ArsTechnica forums:



whoa.

:o

That is an insane setup. All of the A/V equipment to both sides, PLUS the 3 191Ts...