Do Cheaper Screens mean Cheaper Screens?

[sabunab]

In a recent article posted on OSNews reviewing the new 12" powerbook,
there was some information about the Apple displays that alarmed me:

"For those who didn't know, Apple is using two different models on
their LCD products, one great quality (older powerbooks, Cinema
Displays) and one crappy/cheap one (imac, ibooks, 12" powerbook and
the new 20" Cinema Display (that's why it is so cheap and it even
competes price-wise with the PC LCD monitors in the range)). "
(http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2776)

Is this true? I was excited about he 20" Cinema Display being
affordable, but now I'm not so sure. I examined the specs posted on
the apple webpage, but couldn't tell that the 20" display was
necessarily "crappy". If anyone could provide anymore information
about this, I would appreciate it.

[weaselworld]

I don't want to shove in on your post here, but while we're on the subject... does anyone know whether the 17" PB uses the "good" display, or the "bad" one?

[symphonix]

This is rubbish. The reason for the "cheap-ness" of some of Apple's newer LCD displays is a production agreement with LG. Apple basically agrees to pay LG's expenses for researching and developing new screen technologies, and in return LG will provide the displays at an agreed price.
There was a similar drop in price a few years ago when Apple formed a partnership with Samsung's LCD production division.

The 20" is the newest display to come out of the partnership, and has a higher brightness, colour definition and viewing angle than any display before it.

[jeb1138]

Also the CinemaHD beats any display in its class pricewise, so does that mean it's poor quality too? No, like symphonix said, they recently got a real slick deal goin' on with the manufacturer.

[Brad in TX]

Just after I ordered my 12" Powerbook I started seeing this cheap-screen stuff and got pretty worried. Then my little honey got here and the screen is wonderful-- and I am VERY critical about screen quality. Best display is still a hot tube (my older 20" Mitsubishi Diamondtron is very good -- compare yellows on CRTs and LCDs sometime) but when I show the 12" PB to people they get jealous. Life is good.

[wyvern]

LCD's are nice, but they're not good for gaming.

My Sony refreshes at 125hz if I tell it to do so. No LCD that I've used looks smooth when gaming; there's an odd motion-blur effect. Nice if you want your eyes destroyed, but otherwise it's a pain in the eye.

For most general use LCD's work fine though.

[Arden]

Originally posted by wyvern
LCD's are nice, but they're not good for gaming.

My Sony refreshes at 125hz if I tell it to do so. No LCD that I've used looks smooth when gaming; there's an odd motion-blur effect. Nice if you want your eyes destroyed, but otherwise it's a pain in the eye.

For most general use LCD's work fine though.

Sounds like a motion refresh problem.

What rate do your resolutions refresh at? I know LCD's refresh differently than CRT's, but it shouldn't make a difference in your Monitors control panel or Display preference. If LCD's are bad for gaming, they are sure to be bad for other kinds of motion, like Quicktime movies, 3D animation, etc.

[chevy]

The main difference for games is that LCD have real pixels and the image doesn't blur over 2-3 pixels. Whereas on a CRT, you can have a resolution higher than the number of pixels as long as you don't try to read small text. So CRT look better for iPhoto or movies or games.

Text is much better on an LCD.