[the_sisko]

I've been using my 17" studio display for OSX, and I have been impressed with its quality at many resolutions. However, I need some more mobility and might not be able to cart around that big heavy display with my G4 cube, so I'm considering getting a 15" flatscreen and selling my 17" monitor.

My question is, with OS X, which is better? I looked at the 15" in a store, and in OS 9 its antialiasing was horrible in anything but its native resolution, which it was very good at. In addition, the refresh rate wasn't as high as I would like.

Has anyone used or seen both with OS X and can offer a recommendation? OS X is my operating system of choice now, so I don't really care much how OS 9 looks on the display. Thanks for the help.

[Angus_D]

There is no refresh rate for LCD displays, they don't "scan" in the same way traditional monitors do and the display is constant...

But OS X is nice on 15" flat panel displays. If it was me and I had the $$ I'd get a 15" flat panel over a 17" studio display ANY day

[PurpleGiant]

If portablility is important to you, then it's a "duh decision", 15" flatscreen. If you need to use any other res than 1024x768 (the 15" native res), go the 17" CRT then, the flatscreen is crap as at lower res.

Personally, i'd stick with the 17" CRT, unless u really need to be portable!! save the money u woulda spent, and save for a new mac next year!! (just think, dual or quad 1ghz g4's, ooh ahh!!)

[SkullMacPN]

Originally posted by the_sisko:
I've been using my 17" studio display for OSX, and I have been impressed with its quality at many resolutions. However, I need some more mobility and might not be able to cart around that big heavy display with my G4 cube, so I'm considering getting a 15" flatscreen and selling my 17" monitor.

My question is, with OS X, which is better? I looked at the 15" in a store, and in OS 9 its antialiasing was horrible in anything but its native resolution, which it was very good at. In addition, the refresh rate wasn't as high as I would like.

Has anyone used or seen both with OS X and can offer a recommendation? OS X is my operating system of choice now, so I don't really care much how OS 9 looks on the display. Thanks for the help.

I've used OS X on an Apple 17" SD and an Apple 15" Flat Screen at CompUSA. They were both great, but the flat screen had this weird trailing effect when you used live window dragging. *shrug* Maybe I'm jsut not used to LCDs.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by SkullMacPN:
They were both great, but the flat screen had this weird trailing effect when you used live window dragging. *shrug* Maybe I'm jsut not used to LCDs.

That does NOT happen at all on my LCD with OSX. I have tested for it a million times.

[booboo]

I love my Apple 15" LCD, I really do. I'm pretty happy with the fact that I'm no longer absorbing X-rays, it has a small footprint, low power consumption, perfect geometry, and high cool factor. I no longer even notice the slight trailing effect, and anyway, I'll gladly accept this small compromise.

However, in OS-X, due to the larger display fonts, Dock, etc., I feel my screen real estate has shrunk and is cramped - if it were a CRT I'd crank it up to 1152, and I'd be subjectively roughly back in OS 9 territory, but as it's an LCD I don't have that option... Anyway, I'm still in OS 9 for my real work and 768*1024 is fine for that...

Perhaps a TiBook would be your perfect solution ;-)

[This message has been edited by booboo (edited 04-22-2001).]

I used a 15 flat panel (with a really low end 466 G4) and OS X and was blown away. It was so sharp. I haven't used a 17in, so I don't know if it gets the same boost from Quartz, but make sure you see both. I get the feeling that high-end LCDs have been made to look awesome with OS X so the low end ones look ok when they go into the Kiva iMacs.
If money is not a factor, and you're not a gamer, then go for the flat panel. If you need to switch resolutions a lot or want to save money, then the 17 is the way to go. Either way, you get a killer monitor.

[Xeo]

Remember:
17" CRT is 16" viewable.
15" LCD is 15" viewable.

It's a matter of preference on what you want. CRT will give you more res choices. LCD will suit your portability needs. Of course, I agree that a TiBook is the ultimate in portability.

I love my 15" LCD Apple Studio Display. It's perfect for my dorm room. It doesn't take up so much desk space. It's also easier to bring home over longer breaks. The 17" CRT is at home, collecting dust.

------------------

[Oneota]

I feel really cramped in OS X when forced to use 1024x768. I have my Apple Studio Display set to 1280x960, and it feels about right.

Princeton Graphics makes a great 17" LCD whose native resolution is 1280x1024, and if the price on those comes down as much as the "experts" say it will this summer, I'd plop down the money for it. Right now it's $899, but some people are saying it could come down to as much as $500 or so within the next 3-4 months.

It's only VGA, not DVI, but unless you do graphics for a living, or are REALLY into games, I don't think you'll notice too much of a difference. The model number is LCD17 (leave it to Princeton Graphics to come up with original names for their products, eh?).

http://www.princetongraphics.com/Pro...D/LCD17p1.html

------------------
Justify my text? I'm sorry, but it has no excuse.

[This message has been edited by Oneota (edited 04-22-2001).]

[the_sisko]

Thanks for all the help! I feel a lot more informed now!

I guess there's one more question that I have and that's, is the 15" LCD really a lot easier on your eyes, or is there not much of a difference between that and the 17" CRT?

[conny]

I have a Cube with the 17" monitor. I was also thinking about the 15" flat monitor. What mad me choose the 17", which I think is the biggest difference, is the resolution of the monitors.
17" has up to 1600x1200 (great). 1280x1024 is best for MacOS X.
15" has 1024x768 (not so great).

[Proxi]

I�m using a G4 and a 15" digital TFT display.

Believe me the advantages of a TFT display are enormous.

- The picture is absolutely stable
- It�s brighter than a CRT
- No problems with screen geometry
- The small size

I have not encountered any problems using MacOS X and I�m using it as my main operating system since March 24.

But of course if you want to use a TFT at a resolution different than its standard resolutiion, the picture quality is not really good.
So if you don�t have to change from the standard TFT resolution (normally 1024x768) very often I recommand the TFT display

[morgan]

oneota, you're right, I've really had to crank up the res to not feel cramped. On my b&w studio monitor for OS9 i'm at 1152 x 870 and in OSX I'm using 1280x1024 and even that seems a little cramped. As soon as I get a new box, I'll be going dual monitor, 17" crt and the apple 15" flatscreen.
On that note, what are people's experiences in OSX with dual monitors?

[JB72]

Originally posted by Xeo:
Remember:
17" CRT is 16" viewable.
15" LCD is 15" viewable.

Looking at the 17 v. the 15 side-by-side, I was surprised at how little difference in actual screen size their was. That 15 is bigger than what I would expect from a 15" monitor. However, I'm still holding out for a slightly larger Apple LCD. Maybe this summer.



------------------
JB71.34.1b

Dock Perverts still rule OK?

[pmcd]

I have a Cube with the 17" Studio Display. It's a really nice monitor but if I had the money I'd get the 15" Apple LCD without a moments thought. "Had" to use one the other day with a Cube. What a joy. I run OSX exclusively and OSX was running on the Cube with the LCD.

What I did find interesting was that the 15" Apple LCD was nicer than any other flat screen I have seen. It was also better in my opinion than the TiBook's screen (though that one is nice too).

Philip

[davidski]

Originally posted by morgan:
On that note, what are people's experiences in OSX with dual monitors?

I use my Pismo with a 21" Apple Studio Display, and it works fine - even at millions of colors. But, Apple hasn't had time yet to build-in all the OS 9 niceties for external monitor support. Of particular importance for notebook users, you can't just put your notebook to sleep and either connect or disconnect the monitor - the system won't detect the change on waking up, so you have to shut down each time. You can't mirror yet, but I always use the extended desktop, so I don't miss that feature. And as a little detail, you have to use the same desktop background on each monitor.

I'm sure all these features will eventually find their way into OS X, so I'm not worried about it. So far it works well for me.

[gorgonzola]

Cinema Display! Cinema Display!

If I were you I'd go to a store and look at them side by side.

------------------
the oddball newsletter
------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything

[Brad Nelson]

I've got a Sony 17" CRT at work. At home I use an iBook with an LCD screen. A huge factor to buying the iBook as opposed to an iMac was that the iBook's LCD is clean, sharp and extremely easy on the eyes. I'm definitely sold on LCD's. Can't imagine a 15" one being anything but great. Now for that 21-incher, no one should own a monitor worth more than my car!

[This message has been edited by Brad Nelson (edited 04-22-2001).]

[Xeo]

Oh I forgot to mention that... and its an important factor! LCDs are MUCH easier on the eyes. Normally, I use B&W G3 with a 15" LCD display, or the iBook sitting next to it. Either way, I'm using an LCD. My friends bring their iMac over when I go home, and I sometimes end up using it. The CRT is so different. The picture isn't nearly as crisp and clean. I can't notice with such little use, but if I were to use it for hours at a time I'm sure I would notice my eyes tiring. That just doesn't happen with the LCD display.

I use OS X at 1024x768. I don't have a problem with it. I use OS 9 at the same resolution. Next time I go home, I'll hook up the 17" CRT and crank up the res. Now that I see others are more comfortable at a higher res, I'll give it a shot and see if it's better for me too. Anyway, I'm sticking to the LCD just because I like it better.

As soon as I am rich I'll get a Cinema Display. That is the ultimate in displays. I've used one before and it only made me drool. The Apple rep stopped me when I was walking out with it...

------------------

[MikeM32]

Well if price was an issue I'd forego any Apple monitor myself. Personally I just feel LCD displays are neat but still only for those that have that kinda $$$$ to "throw away" (not that it's being thrown away mind-you).

I've got two 17" CRT Monitors on my Beige G3/266 Desktop, One is a Viewsonic E771 est. street price when I purchased it over 1 yr ago was $250.00, get's up to 1152 x 870 which is the max I'll go on a 17" before buying a larger monitor. The other is a 4 yr old Packard Bell 17" monitor from my old (now dead) Packard Bell Platinum 200 MMX, max res of 1024 x 768.

I really don't like going much higher in resolution on a 17" than 1152 x 870 as I do mostly graphics work things seem far too tiny to work with reasonably. And 1024 x 768 is far too high for a 15" in my opinion.

Right now with my dual monitor set-up I'm great for years to come. I may go to a 19" CRT or 21" when I decide what my next Mac will be (I'm stuck between whatever new/recent G4 Cube will be out when the time comes or a low end new/recent G4 Tower). If I get the tower I'll probably just swap out my Rage Orion card and keep my current dual monitor set-up.

But with only 2 1/2 yrs under the hood I'll not even be looking at a new Mac for at least another year or more.

Mike

------------------


[This message has been edited by MikeM32 (edited 04-22-2001).]

[JLannoo]

Originally posted by MikeM32:


...The other is a 4 yr old Packard Bell 17" monitor from my old (now dead) Packard Bell Platinum 200 MMX, max res of 1024 x 768....

I hope your only experience with a PC wasn't that Packard Hell,Man when they were around they made some terrible Computers. LOL Yes I had one years ago as well.

------------------
-JLannoo
G4 Cube 450 320MB RAGE 128 Pro
Athlon 800 256MB GeForce 2 GTS

[Sven G]

CRT (or "Classic") vs. LCD (or "X"): no doubt that LCD is the future!

Personally, I recently "upgraded" from a 17" (1999) Studio Display CRT to a LaCie electron22blue II CRT: of course, you get more screen real estate, but text is really tiny at 1600x1200, so I must use it at "only" 1280x1024 (by the way, does someone know why 4:3 screens have this 5:4 resolution, and always at a higher refresh rate than the "native" 4:3 1280x960?!?); and, even if formally the newest CRTs are "naturally flat", in real life there is a quite noticeable distortion and curvature towards the edges of the screen (at least in Mitsubishi's implementation - also used in Apple's new 17" (2000) CRT, - where the inner surface of the display is still curved, in order to compensate for the concave image effect).

On the contrary, LCDs are totally flat and distortion-free, besides being radiation-free (no strong magnetic fields and X-rays!): I really hope prices will fall during this year.

Speaking about large LCD monitors, besides Apple's excellent Cinema Display (which, together with the Studio Displays, can be found at http://www.apple.com/displays), there are, IMO, at least two more very interesting displays: LaCie's new photon18blue (18.1", 1280x1024, DVI/ADC & VGA, landscape and portrait modes, color-enhancing hood: http://www.lacie.com/scripts/color/p...blue_final.cfm) and Eizo's FlexScan L771 (19.6", 1600x1200, 2 VGA, 4-port USB hub: http://www.eizo.com/products/lcd/index.html) - they both seem to be some very good Cinema Display "competitors", but are still far too costly!

One last consideration: Apple's new ADC connector. It's certainly a very good improvement (1 cable instead of 2, 3 or 4!), but, then, it should also soon have to be widely adopted in the rest of the PC world; and, most important, Apple should solve the problems of being unable to connect the new monitors to "old" G4 Power Macs (DVI-only) and to analog outputs (see iMacs and PowerBooks): there is now a solution for the first problem (Gefen's *very* pricey and boxy "DVI to ADC" conversion device: http://www.gefen.com/products/extendit/new_kvm_usb_extenders_switches/dvi_to_adc/in dex.html), but it should indeed have been Apple itself to provide something more stylish and integrated in its product line (� la AirPort Base Station, a real beauty in comparison to its PC counterparts: http://www.apple.com/airport)...

[This message has been edited by Sven G (edited 04-23-2001).]

[cacarr1]

Though I'm using the 17" Studio monitor, I just used the 15" display yesterday for the first time. Wow! I was under the impression that it would be something like 13.5" viewable and of course it's not. There is very little difference between the two. So, if you have the cash, go with the15". I am very happy with the 17", but I was blown away by the 15". My two cents...

[cla214]

Gotta go LCD. I've got a 15" and I love it. I'll probably upgrade to a 17" flat panel this summer, as the prices are dropping. 1024 x 768 is okay for OS X, I use it full time, and have been since the 24th.

c

[vmpaul]

Go with the 15" flat-panel. I've used one for over a year now and it's been great.

Low eye strain and the size/ weight is really handy. Only con is I wish I had a choice of a higher resolution.

OS X still looks great on it.