[MacMaui]

Howzit,

Thinking about getting the 15" FP iMac 800mhz/combo drive ($1299). Have a question about display fonts.

In the Apple Forums there are many complaints about the fonts being fuzzy and hard to read. It appears this is mostly in regards to the 17" model, but I'm not sure.

Could any 15" FP iMac owners be so kind to share your appraisal of the readability of fonts (text) on your unit. Are they sharp and easy on the eyes? Or headache inducing?

Mahalo Plenny!

[Chimpmaster]

I have a 15" 700mhz imac and the fonts are fine.

On lcd monitors, fonts appear differently, but the control panel allows you to optimise settings for lcd.

Most people find it fine on the standard setting, but the special lcd setting offers an alternative, which is called "font smoothing style, medium setting (recommended for lcd monitors).

In terms of the quality of the imacs 15' lcd, its as good as any lcd flat panel out there, and uses the sony trinitron tube.

Its also a digital display - in other words its as good as youll get in its class, but lcd monitors are different and some people dont like them...

[MacMaui]

Originally posted by Chimpmaster:
I have a 15" 700mhz imac and the fonts are fine.

On lcd monitors, fonts appear differently, but the control panel allows you to optimise settings for lcd.

Most people find it fine on the standard setting, but the special lcd setting offers an alternative, which is called "font smoothing style, medium setting (recommended for lcd monitors).

In terms of the quality of the imacs 15' lcd, its as good as any lcd flat panel out there, and uses the sony trinitron tube.

Its also a digital display - in other words its as good as youll get in its class, but lcd monitors are different and some people dont like them...

G'day Mate,

Thanks for the feedback! Makes me feel better.

What's your experience with the arm, does the screen remain level?

[robby818]

After the 17" came out, I saw what a dramatic differnece the extra pixels made in the quality of text and photos. The screen real estate was a nice plus but more importantly pixels are bunched tighter together so that fonts look less fuzzy. Graphics also look much better on the 17" screen. 1024 x 768 in a 15" screen just does not have high enough pixel density to make fonts look good. It is fine for 12" notebook screens and CRTs, but it is noticably bad esp in the OS X environment where everything is anti-aliased. OS X really looks stunning on very high res displays- it seems to have been desgined with that in mind. If Apple continues producing 15" iMacs I hope they at least use higher res screens. As LCD prices continue to drop 15" screens should die out...Apple has already stopped selling the 15" flat panel and I have noticed that many PCs are being bundled with 17" LCDs instead of 15" ones.

Obviously this is all pretty subjective and some may say they even prefer 1024 res bec fonts appear bigger but if you just go to an Apple store and compare the 15 and 17 " iMacs you will see a noticable difference in text quality. BTW, i wouldn't describe text on the 15" iMac as headache inducing but it certainly is NOT sharp and it is just more annoying than anything else bec OS X is such a beautiful OS.

[MacMaui]

Originally posted by robby818:
After the 17" came out, I saw what a dramatic differnece the extra pixels made in the quality of text and photos.

That's interesting. Can see what you're saying about pixel density. However, the complaints at the Apple.com Forums seem to center around the 17" display. I guess it's all subjective!

[robby818]

A lot of the complaints I heard re: the 17" were from people who expected DVD movies to look stunning on that widescreen display and were disappointed when they realized DVDs look a lot better on a good TV than on an LCD display.

[MacMaui]

Originally posted by robby818:
A lot of the complaints I heard re: the 17" were from people who expected DVD movies to look stunning on that widescreen display and were disappointed when they realized DVDs look a lot better on a good TV than on an LCD display.

No doubt, I'd much rather watch a movie on a good TV.

There are several threads with numerous replies on the Apple.com forums under FP iMac/Displays. The posters complain passionately about how bad the fonts appear on the 17" display, and how Apple is ignoring them.

[bradoesch]

Originally posted by Chimpmaster:
In terms of the quality of the imacs 15' lcd, its as good as any lcd flat panel out there, and uses the sony trinitron tube.

Not to be nit-pickety, but not quite. Apple used to use a Sony Trinitron tube in their 21" Studio Display, which was a CRT display. So "tube" means CRT, not LCD.

Sorry if that was annoying.

[robby818]

I took a look at some of those posts on the Apple site and it is not clear if everyone is complaining about the same problem. Some of the complaints sound hardware related- focus getting worse over time and color problems, others sound much more like people just hating the font smoothing effect.

[garetjax]

I have a 15" FP imac, 12" ibook, and 14" pismo. Fonts look the best on the ibook, due to the greater pixel density I presume. Fonts on the 15" imac does tend towards fuzziness compared to the others but certainly not annoying. I can't see how fonts would look worse on the 17" imac with its greater pixel density. I guess I should go to the store and see for myself again.

I have to say that color depth and richness is better on the CRTs than the LCDs. Games look great on CRTs. Some posters have complained about the emac's refresh rate and clarity under max res (1280x960) but I can't confirm that yet. Oh well, guess I have to talk my wife into making yet another trip to the Apple Store.

[robby818]

while you are at the Apple store check out the new 20" cinema display. Beautiful.

oh, i found this info for those interested:
Resolution density:
sqrt(sqr(HorizPixels)+sqr(VertPixels))/DiagInches

ice iBook 12.1" (1024x768): 106 dpi (Virtual 14.2" x 10.67")
New AlBook 12.1" (1024x768): 106 dpi (Virtual 14.2" x 10.67")
iBook 14" (1024x768): 91 dpi (Virtual 14.2" x 10.67")
Old TiBook 15.2" (1152x768): 91 dpi (Virtual 16" x 10.67")
New TiBook 15.2" (1280x854): 101 dpi (Virtual 17.8" x 11.9" )
New TiBook 17" (1440x900): 100 dpi (Virtual 20" x 12.5" )

Apple 15" display (1024x768): 85 dpi (Virtual 14.2" x 10.67")
Apple 17" display (1280x1024): 96 dpi (Virtual 17.8" x 14.2" )
Apple 20" display (1680x1050): 99 dpi (Virtual 23.3" x 14.6" )*
Apple 22" display (1600x1024): 86 dpi (Virtual 22.2" x 14.2" )**
Apple 23" display (1920x1200): 98 dpi (Virtual 26.67"x 16.67")

[MacMaui]

Originally posted by garetjax:
I have a 15" FP imac, 12" ibook, and 14" pismo. Fonts look the best on the ibook, due to the greater pixel density I presume. Fonts on the 15" imac does tend towards fuzziness compared to the others but certainly not annoying. I can't see how fonts would look worse on the 17" imac with its greater pixel density. I guess I should go to the store and see for myself again.

I have to say that color depth and richness is better on the CRTs than the LCDs. Games look great on CRTs. Some posters have complained about the emac's refresh rate and clarity under max res (1280x960) but I can't confirm that yet. Oh well, guess I have to talk my wife into making yet another trip to the Apple Store.

Another trip indeed

Thanks for the info. How would you visually describe your user experience between the 15" FP iMac and your 12" ibook? Are there things that you find the 12" screen to be too small for? Or does the screen size not make much difference due to the same resolution?

What do you prefer to use, the 12" ibook or the imac?

Thanks!

[garetjax]

Originally posted by MacMaui:
How would you visually describe your user experience between the 15" FP iMac and your 12" ibook? Are there things that you find the 12" screen to be too small for? Or does the screen size not make much difference due to the same resolution?

What do you prefer to use, the 12" ibook or the imac?

Thanks!

I actually do most of my work on the Pismo--go figure--because it's my desktop machine. For what I do, it runs fine on OS 10.2.3. The ibook is used in the office to roam on a wireless network running OS 9.2, and my secretary uses the FP imac (so I don't get to use it very much). I like the text resolution on the ibook but under OS X the FP imac is much faster (both have 640mb ram). Surfing the net on the 12" ibook can get fatiguing after a while, with all the scrolling and eye strain. Even though I would much prefer to have a 17" imac desktop to work with on a daily basis, it's more efficient for me to use the pismo as both a desktop replacement at work and home. Plus I'm kind of attached to it because it was my first Mac. Other than an occasional catharsis session with Beach Head 2000, I don't really play games on the macs, and I don't use photoshop or FCP so my experience with these machines will differ with most users on this board. So to answer your question, I would prefer to use the imac, but you can't beat the form factor and convenience of a laptop, ibook or PB.

[ph0ust]

Originally posted by MacMaui:
No doubt, I'd much rather watch a movie on a good TV.

There are several threads with numerous replies on the Apple.com forums under FP iMac/Displays. The posters complain passionately about how bad the fonts appear on the 17" display, and how Apple is ignoring them.

i was at an appe store yesterday. i too noticed some obvious fuzziness on the 17" imac, but only really witht he text on web pages. upon asking an employee she was like "what are you talking about?" since it was obvious that there is a problem she tried to dance around it. i asked if anyone else had made such a comment and she said no way. then i got a mac genius. he said it was due to the low refresh rate and aliasing on the screen. apparently it can be reduced greatly by changing the aliasing for an lcd; after which there was no apparent change.

it does seem to only affect text. the rest of the display was awesome- pictures, etc. were all fine. i am still going to buy one.

i have to say it is rather frustrating that apple tries to put up the facade that everything works perfectly at all times, no matter what. sometimes it is good to just say there is a problem. for god's sake, blame it on the lcd technology... that would quell the situation just fine.