[thegelding]

ha....

there will be an epidemic of lawsuits of people who's screen fell over and injured their "privates" when they accidently "bump" their new apple displays while viewing porn

"and sir, could you please tell the court how it happened that you injuried both your right hand and your "delicates" on the night of august 18th?"

g

[psmith2.0]

"You see, your honor, my client was merely partaking of some adult-oriented visual stimuli, when the apparatus in question - manufactured by the defendANT - was caused, due to a structural and/or design defect, to fall over on Mr. Williams' penis, hereby caus...your honor, could you order the court reporter to control her laughter...I see nothing funny about the tragedy suffered by Mr. Williams. Let the record indicate my strong objections to the snickering from th...your honor, is laughter from you really appropriate at this juncture? May I remind the cou..".

Lawyers.

[Moogs]

I have a similar concern to Paul and that is, if the aluminum's thickness / rigidity is no different than that of the newer PowerBooks, I won't buy one. That stuff is so easy to dent / deform, it's ridiculous. Hopefully the new ACDs are housed inside something more akin to the handles and panels on a G5. Impervious to destruction!

[Moogs]

^Bump

Just wanted to let you guys know that I spoke to someone from ATI who said dual-DVI cards for the new ACD displays will be available first quarter next year most likely.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by Moogs I have a similar concern to Paul and that is, if the aluminum's thickness / rigidity is no different than that of the newer PowerBooks, I won't buy one. That stuff is so easy to dent / deform, it's ridiculous. Hopefully the new ACDs are housed inside something more akin to the handles and panels on a G5. Impervious to destruction!

Does the Aluminum in the G5 case scratch easily? Have you found it prone to small scratches?

Also, a lot of you mentioned that you're happy that ADC is gone... what about ADC was so bad? just curious..

[BlueRabbit]

Originally Posted by UnixMac Also, a lot of you mentioned that you're happy that ADC is gone... what about ADC was so bad? just curious..

You couldn't plug an ADC monitor into a powerbook without an expensive adaptor. Plus, there were plenty of PC people who would have bought an Apple monitor, but it wouldn't work on their computers.

[porter]

Originally Posted by UnixMac Does the Aluminum in the G5 case scratch easily? Have you found it prone to small scratches?

There's a 2 or 3 small scratches on my G5, but nothing to get angry about. It's not like the whole fiasco with the G4 cube.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by BlueRabbit You couldn't plug an ADC monitor into a powerbook without an expensive adaptor. Plus, there were plenty of PC people who would have bought an Apple monitor, but it wouldn't work on their computers.

I see, so it wasn't performance related, as much as the proprietary nature of the adaptor. Thanks.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by porter There's a 2 or 3 small scratches on my G5, but nothing to get angry about. It's not like the whole fiasco with the G4 cube.

Thanks Porter... the TI was also a bit prone to scratches and chips.

[Moogs]

No the G5's finish is quite durable, and I wasn't kidding when I said the handles and side panels are pretty much "indestructable". I have banged into the side of my G5 by accident when pulling my steel-legged chair up to my desk several times - a couple times hard - and did nothing to it. I wisely re-arranged my under-desk layout and such but the point is, the aluminum on the G5s is the toughest thing ever to grace a Mac IMO.

By contrast I've seen the aluminum cases of PowerBooks get seriously dinged / permanently dented when exposed to relatively minor impacts from books and whatnot.

Hence my hope that the enclosure for the ACD displays is comparable in thickness to the handles / side plates of a G5.

[Frank777]

It will be interesting to see if any third parties copy the new form factor and give us a 17" option.

[Moogs]

Formac maybe...

[psmith2.0]

Give it another two months...

Would like for Apple to give us one, but noooooooo...

[hobbit.2]

Originally Posted by BlueRabbit You couldn't plug an ADC monitor into a powerbook without an expensive adaptor. Plus, there were plenty of PC people who would have bought an Apple monitor, but it wouldn't work on their computers.

Well, the PC people's issue is actually identical to the PowerBook's issue. Both needed the very same adapter (DVI to ADC) to use the screen with their built-in DVI port (as neither PowerBooks nor PCs have ADC ports).

But the real issue with ADC, as much as I love the one cable concept, was that the graphics card needed to provide power too. It basically meant that graphic card vendors needed to build Mac specific, and Mac only, graphics card hardware. With the Mac's market share around 3-5% and with the PowerMac market share ca. 1/4 of that, this is not a big enough market.

This was the reason why there are seemingly few graphic cards available and usually introduced many months after the PC variant. If you look at the Apple Store, you will find that Apple offers a whooping 3 (!) different ADC graphic cards, most of them old technology. And that was all the choice we had.

The move back to DVI will hopefully allow many more graphic card vendors to re-enter the Mac market. Or at least allow ATI and nVidia to offer more choices to Mac users.
And the introduction of nVidia's GeForce FX 6800 is a very promising start.

[wyvern]

Other than the plastic bezel, how does the old 20" compare to the new 20"? (Response time, contrast ratio, etc.)

My G4 (QS 2x800) has an ADC port, so if the old ones aren't significantly worse, I might pick up an old one to save a few bucks.

[hobbit.2]

Originally Posted by wyvern how does the old 20" compare to the new 20"? (Response time, contrast ratio, etc.)

OLD 20" Apple Cinema Display:
Resolution: 1680 x 1050 pixel
Pixel pitch: 0.258 mm
Display colors: 16.7 million
Viewing angle: 170 degree horizontal, 170 degree vertical
Brightness: 230 cd/m2
Contrast: 350:1
Response time: 'ideal for full-motion video editing and playback'
Size (HWD): 17.3" x 21.34" x 6.93" (43.9 cm x 54.2 cm x 17.6 cm)
Weight: 18.9 lb (8.6 kg)
Connectors: 2x selfpowered USB 1

NEW 20" Apple Cinema Display:
Resolution: 1680 x 1050 pixel (same)
Pixel pitch: 0.258 mm (same)
Display colors: 16.7 million (same)
Viewing angle: 170 degree horizontal, 170 degree vertical (same)
Brightness: 250 cd/m2
Contrast: 400:1
Response time: 16ms (probably same)
Size (HWD): 16.1" x 18.5" x 6.8" (41 cm x 47.1 cm x 17.4 cm)
Weight: 14.5 lb (6.6 kg)
Connectors: 2x self-powered USB 2, 2x self-powered FireWire 400

[Moogs]

The old 20" ACD was not 16ms. AFAIK, there were no 16ms panels available on the market when it was introduced. Probably it was between 20 and 25, based on what was common at that time.

[hobbit.2]

Originally Posted by Moogs The old 20" ACD was not 16ms. AFAIK, there were no 16ms panels available on the market when it was introduced. Probably it was between 20 and 25, based on what was common at that time.

Whatever. Apple in those days didn't state any speed in ms.

Their PDFs said either 'ideal for full-motion video editing and playback' or their web site said 'Lightning-fast pixel response that supports full-motion digital video playback'.

Point is, if it was good enough for full-motion video then, the new one is surely good enough now. What else would one want?
Whether it's suitable for just full-motion digital video playback or super-douper hyper-fast speed-extreme full-motion digital video-blitz? What's the point?

I put down the information I had for both displays, old and new, so people can easily compare them. But that's that. Nothing more available.

[Moogs]

I'm not trying to say one screen or the other wasn't good enough... just pointing out that a claim of "ideal for puroses x, y and z" doesn't carry any weight legally or otherwise. No one can hold them to anything, because that's just a statement of opinion, where giving a ms rating is a measureable thing people can verify. If verified as something other than what's posted, that's false advertising, etc.

The point is, if the original had a great response time, they would've surely posted it. Apple is never shy about telling us when some aspect of their products has better specifications than the competition.

[hobbit.2]

As you said, false advertising can only ever be claimed if one uses measurable quantities. So it's clear why people want to avoid this.

Although IMHO, not everything needs to be measured. If it says 'poisonous', that's good enough for me. I don't need to know how poisonous, or how many minutes it takes the average man to die from something.

And not everything that can be measured makes sense to measure. For example while it makes sense to measure HD access times in ms, because faster access means faster transfer times, this doesn't work like that for displays. Once they are fast enough for full-motion video, that's it. Or would you want your DVDs to play faster, just because the screen can display them faster? Great, let's pump more frames per second to the screen so we can watch Titanic in just under 20 minutes! And hey, we didn't even skip a single frame of the whole movie!

But seriously, I think screens weren't measured in ms in those days. That's a new thing, and hence I believe Apple didn't give those numbers in previous display infos. Not because they had anything to hide.
If you look at the brightness or contrast figures they are almost identical between old and new. I expect the response times to be similarly close to each other.

[Moogs]

There were many screens which carried response time specs, listed with a ms rating, when the 20" first came out. Most of the good LCDs around that time hovered around 20ms if I recall correctly. And while this was good for video and movies, it wasn't always good enough for gaming. Many people would complain that while their screen had great color and good DVD performance, they would experience ghosting problems when playing 3D video games.

Hence the ms rating is mostly aimed at gamers and letting them know how likely it is a given screen will perform when used with certain types of game titles.

[hmurchison]

Moving to VESA mounting was a great idea. LCDs are great but they don't always take up less space because most people tend to have the monitor 12-18 inches from their face. There's a bunch of empty room behind the LCD now. That's why i'm getting one of these



Now I'll get my desktop space back and the benefits of the iMac screen without the limitations (teehee).

[Barto]

Originally Posted by Moogs There were many screens which carried response time specs, listed with a ms rating, when the 20" first came out. Most of the good LCDs around that time hovered around 20ms if I recall correctly. And while this was good for video and movies, it wasn't always good enough for gaming. Many people would complain that while their screen had great color and good DVD performance, they would experience ghosting problems when playing 3D video games. Hence the ms rating is mostly aimed at gamers and letting them know how likely it is a given screen will perform when used with certain types of game titles.

Although of course most "gamers" bragging about their display's response time bought the display for the wank factor, not how good it is.

I saw a $5000 CRT the other day... the owner obviously wanted CRT colour accuracy and response with LCD sharpness. More money than brains, it didn't come close to LCD sharpness.

[Moogs]

Anyone who spends more than the $1500 or so required for a Sony Artisan (CRT), is certifiably insane IMO. The difference between that monitor and the Barco monitors or other status brands is not perceptible with the finished product (on screen or paper), let's put it that way. It's like people who buy drum scanners now... you'd have to be retarded almost, given how good Imacon's (and even Nikon's) scanners are.

[Koodari]

Originally Posted by Barto Although of course most "gamers" bragging about their display's response time bought the display for the wank factor, not how good it is.

I wonder... very, very small differences in screen refresh or network lag can be significant in FPS games when they are played on a sufficiently high level. I'm not a competetive player myself but I have played enough to tell some of the difference. Players I know tend to be serious about gaming.

Since the response times are almost invisible to anyone except the owner... I think the "wank factor" buyers are better off buying a larger display than a faster one.

[Moogs]

Yah, if you don't play games much there's no reason not to opt for a bigger screen, all other specs being equal (contrast ratio, brightness, dot pitch, etc.)

[Moogs]

Here's the ADC-to-DVI dongle that was missing from the Apple Store when these displays were first announced... I wonder if this means they won't ship one with each monitor.

dongle

[psmith2.0]

Well guys, according to apple.com and all the usual Mac news sites, the 20" and 23" are now shipping! Yay! Any of you receiving one are expected to entertain us all with a photo essay of the unpacking and setting up of your new display, including lots of nice "from all angle" shots and perhaps even including a shot or two with some common, well-known objects beside the display so we can all get a sense of scale/size (can of Coke, a CD jewel case, loaf of bread, etc.).

Deal?

[MacUsers]

I called up the Lenox Square store they said they would have them by next week.

[psmith2.0]

I called them yesterday morning (Lenox AND Alpharetta) and they both said they expect them THIS week, for the weekend. I was actually planning a trip down on Sunday (lunch with the old man, a movie and an Apple store visit).



Guess I'll call Saturday evening to get the latest...