4 ms·
I was freaked out for a second when I saw the oddball screen sizes on the iMacs and the "16:9!" blurb -- usually that means that you just get a shittier lower-r
by blasdel 17y ago
I was freaked out for a second when I saw the oddball screen sizes on the iMacs and the "16:9!" blurb -- usually that means that you just get a shittier lower-res panel in a larger size.
Instead, they switched back to S-IPS panels, and increased the resolutions substantially -- 21.5 is 1920:1080, the 27 is 2560:1440.
- ugh 17y agoThe Apple page only refers to “IPS technology”. Is it really S-IPS or just E-IPS (or something else entirely)? Do you know? What’s your source?
- MikeCapone 17y agoIs there a big difference between S-IPS and E-IPS?
- ugh 17y agoI really don’t know. E-IPS panels seem to be much cheaper which would suggest that they are worse. Not as bad as TN, but worse.
- wtallis 17y agoThey've said it's the best iMac display yet, and I doubt they could claim that the LED backlighting more than makes up for any deficiencies of E-IPS compared to the S-IPS they used to use.
- spazmaster 17y agoRather disappointing Apple is going along with this trend, HD-ing resolutions of screens. I mean it's great for watching movies, but most people will be word processing, e-mailing or surfing the web on iMacs, and that's when you'll miss those 120 vertical pixels. (HD, 16:9 has 1080 vertical pixels, and 16:10 has 1200 vertical pixels.)
- GHFigs 17y agoNeither model has lost any pixels. These displays are higher resolution in both dimensions for both models. The smaller model has gone from 1680x1050 to 1920x1080 (+30 vertical pixels) and the larger from 1920x1200 to 2560x1440 (+240 vertical pixels).
- stcredzero 17y agoIf Apple came out with an iMac with a 4:3 screen of the same width, I would not mind.