7 ms·
Apple releases new 27″ LED Cinema Display – comes with a free Mac
- dcurtis 17y agoAmazingly, the new iMacs have s-IPS screens, too! So not only are you getting a free Mac, but you're getting a tremendously higher quality display as well. (Actually, I don't think any other LED-backlit IPS screens exist for sale.)
- DenisM 17y agoDell has a much cheaper U2410 which is also IPS, although not LED.
- quellhorst 17y agoThe dell is 24" and 1920x1200 vs the 27" iMac with 2560x1440
- masklinn 17y agoAre you sure they aren't E-IPS? (also, the 24" Cinema Display uses H-IPS — which is better than S-IPS and E-IPS — and is LED backlit)
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- pmjordan 17y agoToo bad it looks like they still use the glossy finish. Especially on a screen that size, it's got to be tricky to find a geometric configuration in which you get no reflections throughout the day.
- randallsquared 17y agoI have the 24" glossy iMac, and after putting blackout curtains on the windows of the room it's in, I've had no issues. I guess that's not an ideal solution...
- pmjordan 17y agoI already have a hard enough time maintaining a 24-hour sleep cycle, I don't think cutting down on daylight will help that...
- jacquesm 17y agoThat's not a 'not ideal solution' that's not a solution. If you have to remodel your house because the manufacturer of the screen put a mirror on it in stead of a piece of anti-glare glass why bother with it. These 'glossy' screens are the biggest set-back in display technology in years and I really don't get why people put up with them. Even with 'no issues' try looking at a screen that is partially black and partially high intensity (like a terminal screen), you'll still see yourself sitting in it.
- randallsquared 17y agoPerhaps I should have included a smiley. I agree that I would prefer a screen with no glare. However, I prefer the glossy screens with their high brightness and contrast (at least, so it seems to me) over matte screens with lower brightness and contrast. I find that even though I can see the reflections when they're pointed out, in practice I don't notice them any more, partially because they're at a different depth than the data on the screen.
- jacquesm 17y agoThe depth cue is a good one. The interesting thing is that you mention the high brightness and contrast, I'm writing this on a cheapie LG 24" and I have the brightness turned down considerably from the default settings, and in low light I turn it down even further. I noticed that since I started doing that my eyes are a lot less 'tired' after sitting behind the machine for a whole day. It used to be so bad that it simply hurt to work in longer stretches.
- mdemare 17y agoThat's a pretty compelling argument actually - especially since all monitors I can find with comparable resolutions (2560x1440) are over $1000.
- borism 17y agoWhat's so compelling? So Apple got a good deal from LCD panel supplier. Wait a month or two and you'll get the same deal for a display without embedded Mac. Unless you were planning to buy iMac anyway, I don't see what's so exciting about this "deal".
- amichail 17y agoAnyone find it irritating when a company advertises the environmental benefits of a product (e.g., LED displays)? It's sort of like putting words into your mouth, making assumptions about your worldview.
- slyn 17y agoThe benefit of an LED display goes beyond just the environmental benefit. LED backlights don't have a warmup time like CFL backlights, and they provide a more uniform brightness level across the panel. The panel will also be cheaper to run over the lifetime of the device because of its energy savings (lower TCO, to borrow a term from the server community). The fact that they are mercury free is just one of many reasons why LED backlights are considered a marketing point.
- bingaman 17y agoWell, e-waste IS a massive worldwide problem, so you should be considering how you're purchases will be disposed and what effect that will have on the environment. Is that a worldview? If you haven't seen Frontline's Digital Dumping Ground episode, it's worth watching: http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/ghana804/video/video_index.html http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/ghana804/video/vid...
- amichail 17y agoThis is what I mean. These lectures are really irritating and would make me LESS likely to buy a product.
- weaksauce 17y agoI find it funny that you fixate on one part of the overall sales pitch as offensive. Can you imagine a consumer that is thinking to themselves, "I need a laptop that has a 15" screen and is environmentally friendly. I don't really care about the color gamut but I would like to be assured that I am not going to kill the environment."
- 17y ago
- PStamatiou 17y agojust as i was getting happy with the 1920x1200 on my 17-inch MBP (i'm huge fan of high pixel pitch)...
- jac_no_k 17y agoNow if only Apple would get around to putting in a non-glossy 1920x1200 panel in a 15 inch MBP, I would have even less reason to not move on from my aging Dell 8600.
- weaksauce 17y agohttp://store.apple.com/us/configure/MB986LL/A?mco=MTA4MTgyNjQ http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MB986LL/A?mco=MTA4MTgyNj... It's time to move to the other side.... They added the anti glare as an option in the refresh a while back.
- mrshoe 17y agoThis is an interesting perspective, but a 30" display still has about 25% more screen area than a 27" display. Not that absolute screen surface area is the most important metric.
- bonaldi 17y agoIt also has it where it counts: depth. Almost everything I work on is helped by better depth: writing, coding, browsing. After a while, even the 1600 pixels of the 30" seem shallow. The iMac sure is wide, but it only has 1440 pixels in depth. I know why they're doing it -- 16:9 widescreen panels are cheaper because of the demand for TV panels (it's almost impossible to get 4:3 panels these days) -- but I think it's a pity.
- zokier 17y agoI seriously doubt that 16:9 panels would be cheaper because of TVs. First of all, TVs are usually somewhat larger. Secondly TVs have a lot worse resolution. Because of these factors, I don't believe that manufacturing panels for TVs affects the manufacture of computer display panels directly. On a unrelated note, most people refer the other dimension as height, not depth.
- bonaldi 17y agoNeither of those factors play a role: there are plenty of 27" televisions, and it's not the resolution that matters, it's cutting the glass. The official Lenovo blog talks more about this: http://lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/?p=220 http://lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/?p=220 Apols for the depth thing, don't know where that came from. Possibly reading about bit-depth, another traditional area of Apple cost-cutting.
- jrwoodruff 17y agoActually, if you read the Lenovo post, TVs are precisely why the 16:9 ratio is being pushed by screen manufacturers: there's more TVs made (at 16:9), therefore, if they maintain the same aspect ratio for all screens they manufacture, there's less waste in the glass cutting process, which means 16:9 screens will be cheaper than custom-ratio screens like 16:10..
- neovive 17y agoDid they specify the dot pitch on the 27" screen? I recall testing the 17" MBP @ 1920X1200, but the text felt a bit small. Considering the old 24" was only 1920 pixels wide, packing 2560 pixels across into 27" seems tight.
- blackguardx 17y agoSmaller dot pitch is better. If the text is too small, increase the font size.
- there 17y agonot a good idea for designers and people that need to ensure what they see on their screen is what everyone else sees.
- zokier 17y agoThats why we have PDF. 1 inch on a PDF is on 1 inch on my screen. And it will be 1 inch on all properly configured readers. And as a bonus point it will still be 1 inch when I print it out. Yes, techically HTML/CSS should be as scalable when used in a scalable way, but I'm not sure of current web browser situation. If someone has better info please reply.
- blasdel 17y ago1 inch on a PDF is on 1 inch on my screen. And it will be 1 inch on all properly configured readers. Not on your life. Despite pretensions to the contrary, DPI has been completely meaningless on the screen for several decades. If you're writing an application, never pay attention to DPI metadata unless you're placing the item on a printed page, and never add DPI metadata to files unless they came from a scanner. it will still be 1 inch when I print it out This is true in an ideal setting. Unfortunately, there's a lot of shitheads out there that think '72 DPI' or '96 DPI' on files is meaningful because that's what the platform uses. I hope their heads fall off.
- imtotallygay 17y agoApple makes an LED? Can I use this for lighting? What is the heat output? When does Jesus come back? Do you do anal?
- codyrobbins 17y agoBut when are they going to finally release actual new Cinema Displays, sans iMac? The Dell 3008WFP is such an ugly piece of plastic crap, in my opinion.
- barredo 17y agoIt's not crap. It's expensive. But it's not crap.
- zefhous 17y agoI'm sure he's talking about the design and aesthetic, not the actual display quality.
- codyrobbins 17y agoYeah, that's exactly what I meant. I can't comment on the actual display itself, but the thought of spending $1,300 on something that comes in such a poorly designed faux-futuristic plastic housing is an instant deal-breaker for me. I don't mean to knock anyone who has one. I know the function is what matters, but I can't help caring about the form too. It's just not something I could be happy with on my desk.
- elq 17y agoYes. I have a 3008 and I'm constantly distracted by the horrible plastic. I can't imagine how I use it daily... Now without the sarcasm - The monitor is fantastic. It's been fantastic for over a year. I really couldn't care less how the non-glowing part of the display looks.
- codyrobbins 17y agoLet me guess, you use one of those pressboard corner computer hutches with fifteen hundred shelves and hidden compartments, complete with printer cart on casters and CD rack, as your desk; and a folding chair you picked up at a rummage sale to sit on? Sorry, I couldn’t resist ;) Snarkiness aside, I do care about what the non-glowing part looks like. The aesthetics of the space I’m in materially effect my general mood and productivity level, and having control over that environment is one of the reasons I’m self-employed, because I can’t stand being surrounded by plastic, linoleum, and carpeted cubicle walls. Objectively, it looks no different than any other piece of consumer electronics. But that’s the general problem I’m lamenting. If I’m spending $1,300, can’t they spend some money on the product design and make it look sleek, sexy, and expensive? For $1,300 I want to be proud to have it on my desk! Of course, since most people don’t care what the housing looks like, that’s exactly why they don’t, so I don’t blame them.
- dkasper 17y agoThe Mac Pro looks like a horrible deal now, hopefully that means more good upgrades are coming.
- pwbailey 17y agoI am waiting with baited breath for a 27-inch stand-alone LED display based on the new iMac's display. As my eyes age, I appreciate more and more large-format displays. I am using a Dell 2709WFP on a 13" Macbook Pro 2.53. The very beautiful (both aesthetically and technically) Apple 24" LED-backlit display is somehow too small after seeing a 27" with the same content. (How're you gonna keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paree?") I am actually one of those liberal, Obama-voting hybrid Mac users who has used Macintoshes since the first Bloom-County classic Mac in 1984. I also have always had to use both platforms, because as much as I would like it to be otherwise, business runs on Windows, very probably because of the misguided belief that cheap hardware makes their IT solutions cost-effective. Every single day of my life I have had some unwelcomed anomaly happen on my Windows computer. This is great for those in IT who make a living chasing Windows bugs, but is false economy for business in general. Even to this day, Microsoft Word runs better under Windows that it does on OSX. Too bad.