 |
 |
cinema display vs. 17"
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the land of milk and honey
Status:
Offline
|
|
The cinema display has a resolution of 1600x1024.
The 17" has a resolution of 1280x1024.
Who in their right mind would pay an extra $1500 for those 320 pixels? I don't mean to criticize - i mean, if you've got the cash, go for it. I'm definitely interested in desktop real estate, but for the price of the cinema display, I could get TWO Apple 17" LCD's and add an extra video card to my tower - ending up with 2560x1024.
Is there another reason, like the cinema display being brighter, sharper, etc.? I would think that besides size they're the same product.
Cheers.
|
|
calibrated in-phase cylindrical chamber technician
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Actually, according to the specs on Apple's website the 17" is actually brighter and sharper than the 22", not to mention that the 22" doesn't have the cool power "button" like the Cube/15" LCD/17" LCD 
I guess the 22" would be one hell of a nice dvd screen though 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Scotland
Status:
Offline
|
|
I just got a 17" Apple LCD and...well, basically wow! It's great. Perfect size - not too big but still roomy enough to give games an edge and DVD an excellent viewing area.
|
|
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Albert Einstein
----------
iMac G5 17", 2GHZ
G4 1 Ghz iBook
Powerbook G3 Firewire
iPod - 5 gig.
iPod Photo
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<Loggerheads>
|
|
OK, look y'all. I spent yesterday at the McLean Apple store working alternately on the 17 and the 22, trying to come to a decision. I've decided that upgrading my display will make a bigger impact on my computing experience than upgrading my MHz (G4 450).
Anyhow, comparing the two, the 17 just looks great with OS X, and does appear a bit brighter. But the Cinema Display allows me to have my Palm Desktop open all the time while working on a document. Plus, the aspect ratio on the Cinema Display is just perfect for DVDs.
I'm still torn myself, because the $ differential is huge.
Will the 17 be that much bigger than my current Apple 17 CRT?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by <Loggerheads>:
<STRONG>Will the 17 be that much bigger than my current Apple 17 CRT?</STRONG>
I was checking the displays out at the Woodfield store...The 17inch LCD is definitely bigger than my 17inch apple CRT by a significant amount!
The 22inch is beautiful and impressive, but the 17 inch is clearly the price/performance leader!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
With the 22" you can have 2 full pages open side by side at 125%, the 17" can't do that. Big time saver if you do a lot of writing or coding. If that makes a difference, there's your answer.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by silverlode:
<STRONG>The cinema display has a resolution of 1600x1024.
The 17" has a resolution of 1280x1024.
Who in their right mind would pay an extra $1500 for those 320 pixels?</STRONG>
Uhm... just being anal here: The pixel difference is actually 327680 pixels, not 320
I'm pointing this out because you are just a tad bit prejudiced here. People have different needs, and different economics. If those precious pixels translates into better productivity, it also translates into money. It's an investment-thing.
Also, why do people shell out money for bigger and better looking cars than they need? Because 1) They can afford it and 2) They get chicks.
OK, so my analogy is a bit off here, but people tend to buy the latest and greatest if they can afford it just to show off. This is completely unrelated to the first scenario. But my point is: Different markets call for different screens. There obviously is a market for those who wan to shell out and extra $1500 for the cinema display. And to think, they might even be in their right minds to do so...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the land of milk and honey
Status:
Offline
|
|
OK, ok, ok....
I meant 320 pixels LATERALLY, alright? 
I don't mean to propose that no one would ever have a use for the cinema display. Yes, if you need to see two pages side by side, or if you're editing video, etc., the cinema display makes sense if you can afford the expense.
My main point was that, for the price of one cinema display, you could get 2560x1024 on two 17" displays and the needed video card (albeit broken by having it on two displays), and if what you're really needing is desktop real estate, it seems like the way to go.
I openned this thread to see if there were other differences between the two that would compell people to go cinema, but it appears not.
Thanks for the input, everyone!
|
|
calibrated in-phase cylindrical chamber technician
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
buy 2 17inch displays. even with an extravid car and a dviator it is less.... and more screen real estate.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Boston, MA USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
My main point was that, for the price of one cinema display, you could get 2560x1024 on two 17" displays and the needed video card
Just to clarify... there is no way to connect two Apple flat panel displays to the same Mac directly. As far as I know, doing so would require a whole bunch of expensive converters to go from VGA to the Apple Display Connector. The reason for this is that with the ADC the Mac must provide power and USB to the monitor, and there is not enough power on the motherboard to support two displays at once.
You could buy a 3rd party flat panel with a VGA connector and connect it to a PCI video card, but this would not look as good (the Apple flat panels use a digital signal, not VGA), nor would it match the Apple decor, and the price would probably be a lot more for a comparable display, AFAIK.
- Ross
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Boston, MA USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
My main point was that, for the price of one cinema display, you could get 2560x1024 on two 17" displays and the needed video card
Just to clarify... there is no way to connect two Apple flat panel displays to the same Mac directly. As far as I know, doing so would require a whole bunch of expensive converters to go from VGA to the Apple Display Connector. The reason for this is that with the ADC the Mac must provide power and USB to the monitor, and there is not enough power on the motherboard to support two displays at once.
You could buy a 3rd party flat panel with a VGA connector and connect it to a PCI video card, but this would not look as good (the Apple flat panels use a digital signal, not VGA), nor would it match the Apple decor, and the price would probably be a lot more for a comparable display, AFAIK.
- Ross
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the land of milk and honey
Status:
Offline
|
|
Actually, the Dr. Bott DVIator breaks out usb and power, so you wouldn't be drawing power from the motherboard for more than one display. All you'd need is a vid card with DVI out, and this adapter, and you could power two Apple LCD's.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPL...N/2.3.0.3.30.1
|
|
calibrated in-phase cylindrical chamber technician
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
not sure about that. the dviator may use the dvi connect which you could then buy a radeon which has a dvi connector. not sure though.
you should check out drbott.com to be sure.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top