[Titanium Man]

I was really lusting after the rumored upcoming 30" ACD, but after finally coming to my senses, I realized it would never fit in my workspace. So it's back to the 23". Can anyone post the measurements of the viewable area? I'd like to compare them with a 20" conventional LCD. The 1050 vertical resolution of the 20" ACD is too low, but if the 23" is much shorter than a regular 20", then I can't deal with the smaller picture.

[chaldean oracle]

These are some back-of-the-envelope calculations I made while looking at monitors. They're not exact -- I just worked out the Pythagorean theorem, from the diagonal length, and the aspect ratio.

Code:
Dimensions of Apple 20" 1680x1050:
	width: 16.95"
	height: 10.6"
	dpi: 99

Dimensions of 20" 16x12:
	width: 16"
	height: 12"
	dpi: 100

Dimensions of 21" 16x12:
	width: 16.8"
	height: 12.6"
	dpi: 95.2

Dimensions of 23" 1920x1200:
	width: 19.50"
	height: 12.2"
	dpi: 98

[aabbas]

Originally posted by Titanium Man:
Can anyone post the measurements of the viewable area?

Mine is 494 x 309 mm viewable area measured with a ruler.

[Landos Mustache]

The 20" has a better screen then the 23"

[k2director]

For the record: I remember reading comments like "the 20" screen is better than the 23" screen" when I was shopping for a Cinema Display.
I ended up getting 2 23" displays, and couldn't be happier. I have NO complaints about these screens. I stare at them all day long, and have never thought "I wish they were brighter, or crisper". It be nice if they came in enclosures that matched my G5 a bit better but as for functionality, no complaints.