# Displays:  Ok, I have to fume now!



## King Shrek (Jun 28, 2004)

Apple,

Make a new redesigned display like the ones you released today, but is *17-inch* and works with PCs.  I don't think PC users are going to want to fork out $1,299 for a 20-inch model, especially if they don't even need that much screen real estate.  Please Apple.  The current 17-inch studio display is outdated and just isn't going to cut it!   

Furiously,
King Shrek


----------



## cfleck (Jun 28, 2004)

are you saying that apple should make a monitor with specs to suit the pc crowd?  that seems... odd.


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 28, 2004)

If case you haven't noticed, the new 20 and 23-inch displays already support PCs.


----------



## lurk (Jun 28, 2004)

At my local CompUSA they even have one of the now old 20's in the PC section amongst the other PC LCDs displaying windows XP just like the rest of em.  If you are honestly comparing specs even with the ADC adapter they held up well against that competition.


----------



## kendall (Jun 28, 2004)

if you havent noticed, old and new Apple LCDs matched the hardware they were released around.  why would you want one for a PC?  they arent any better than most of the PC LCDs (Sony and ViewSonic actually have better specs/price) and its certainly not worth the price just to spruce up your beige box.


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 28, 2004)

It's not that *I* actually want one; it's that Apple needs to do this so the Macintosh platform will actually become more competitive against the PC world.  ::ha::

You see, Apple has this strategy that by bringing more support for Apple products on the PC platform they can show PC users just how good it can really be and woo more of them over to the Mac platform and increase their market share.  I for one think that this is a great concept!  

But $1,299 for a base size Apple LCD (20") doesn't sound very competitive to me.  Sometimes even for Mac users that is just way too much money for a screen.


----------



## kendall (Jun 29, 2004)

sorry to burst your bubble but selling a LCD is not going to bring people to the Mac platform.

iPods didnt even bring people to the Mac platform, thats why they are universally compatible now.


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 29, 2004)

kendall said:
			
		

> iPods didnt even bring people to the Mac platform, thats why they are universally compatible now.



Can you even confirm that there is any accuracy in that statement?


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 29, 2004)

17inch old cinema is still available including an ADC adapter. Wrap some aluminium foil around the frame and enjoy the new look..


----------



## diablojota (Jun 29, 2004)

King Shrek said:
			
		

> Can you even confirm that there is any accuracy in that statement?



I wish I could find the article for you now, but Steve Jobs even said that they are no longer hoping that the iPod brings switchers.
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/06/18.4.shtml
Found the article!


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 29, 2004)

Well, I still think that Mac users need a cheaper option anyway.  ::angel::


----------



## mdnky (Jun 29, 2004)

There's cheaper options out there made by Sony, Viewsonic, Mitsibishi, NEC, and the other monitor manufacturers.  They'll work just fine with a Mac.

The price of the 30" Cinema display is right where it probably should be.  I'd love to see it cost less of course, but that's not realistic.  If you can find another monitor equal to or better than that one for under $3200, let me know about it.

Apple isn't trying to compete with the PC world.  If they were you'd definitely see a big difference in the quality of the machines and the associated costs.  They're high-end machines in a niche market.


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 29, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> There's cheaper options out there made by Sony, Viewsonic, Mitsibishi, NEC, and the other monitor manufacturers.  They'll work just fine with a Mac.
> 
> The price of the 30" Cinema display is right where it probably should be.  I'd love to see it cost less of course, but that's not realistic.  If you can find another monitor equal to or better than that one for under $3200, let me know about it.
> 
> Apple isn't trying to compete with the PC world.  If they were you'd definitely see a big difference in the quality of the machines and the associated costs.  They're high-end machines in a niche market.



Well, I haven't said anything about the 30".  The 30" is cooler than heck and priced just right.  Even the 20" and 23" screens are priced right.  But Apple still needs to cover the low-end side of things if it really wants to make some money and increase it's market share.

Don't you want to see Apple's market share and profits go up?  Be honest.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 29, 2004)

So what you want is Four monitors in the new lineup, starting with a 17"?

I can understand that desire. I just found out my job (currently rolling over from contract to contract) is going to "change" ( i have to re-apply for it.. don't ya just love government) and i will effectively double my income. Anywho. Im gonna save as much as i can and hope to get a ( based on current prices/models) dual 2ghz g5 and a 20" lcd. (with the new NVIDIA card, bluetooth and 250gb)

At the moment it looks like it'll be early next year, when I'm guessing we'll have, or be close to having new G5s (one of those rumored XStations would be nice)

So basically, I understand your point, but I don't think it's going to happen. 17" is almost standard now. Admittedly not in LCDs, but CRTs are almost all 17" now, and a lot of places are offering LCDs as default. Apple has always been that one step ahead of the rest of the market. Wireless Networking. DVD-RAM/DVD-R(W). Flatscreen (CRT & LCD), Gigabit ethernet, Firewire, USB. 

Basically, I think Apple ARE competing with the PC offerings. take LCDs (where there is likely to be less technical difference)

I did a quick google search for "20 inch lcd" and found an online store. I found several 20" LCDs for around $1k. however. Only one had a usb hub. none had a firewire hub. and if they are anything like the IBM LCDs we have here at work, the picture quality will be shocking at best. Apple has always been seen as "uncompetitive and overpriced" by people that don't seem to understand why people use macs, or simply want "a mac for a pc price". That isn't going to happen.  A friend of mine bought a PC (AMD XP2500+, 512Mb, 128Mb GForce4FX5600, 120Gb, Combo, 17"CRT) from a dodgy guy for $AU1500. It *seemed* like a good deal. Then we noticed. He didnt have the gigabit ethernet as promised, only 10/100. His modem (a "soft" modem which relies on windows drivers to work) wouldnt work in Linux, and wasn't even recognized by Windows! His monitor had a vertical line in it and steadily had more and more flicker, even at 85Hz. The one he got back, is not flatscreen, and has no EMI (electro-magnetic interference) screening, so it affects the TV/Radio/etc whenever it's on.

The moral of the story: Cheap usually means Cheap & Nasty. I'm happy to spend $AU8000 on a new G5/LCD/etc because I know that it will last. I have a G4 400 with a 17" flatscreen ADC CRT (up to 832Mb, 120+40Gb). It still works. But I want something better now. I will probably use the G4 either as a server, or give it to my parents to use. How many 400Mhz PCs can you tell me that will run XP without problems, and let you burn cds, download from the net and read emails AT THE SAME TIME?

I rest my case.
( i thought that was just an expression... )


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 29, 2004)

Pengu said:
			
		

> Apple has always been seen as "uncompetitive and overpriced" by people that don't seem to understand why people use macs, or simply want "a mac for a pc price".



That's exactly why Apple needs to more aggressively cover the low-end of the business their in.  ::angel::


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 29, 2004)

Pengu said:
			
		

> The moral of the story: Cheap usually means Cheap & Nasty. I'm happy to spend $AU8000 on a new G5/LCD/etc because I know that it will last. I have a G4 400 with a 17" flatscreen ADC CRT (up to 832Mb, 120+40Gb). It still works. But I want something better now. I will probably use the G4 either as a server, or give it to my parents to use. How many 400Mhz PCs can you tell me that will run XP without problems, and let you burn cds, download from the net and read emails AT THE SAME TIME.



And there are many people that don't know or understand the good things about Macs.  Heck, there are so many people that know nothing about them, but if they were able to purchase a cheaper Mac to just try out this platform, they would realize how good of a platform it really is.  Then later they would likely be much more willing to spend the extra $$$ on a high-end machine.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 30, 2004)

eMacs ain't that expensive. The point is, that most of the ppl are attracted by the design on the first sight instead of the technology. And the better the mac looks, the more expensive it is, since it actually includes the most recent technology


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 30, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> eMacs ain't that expensive. The point is, that most of the ppl are attracted by the design on the first sight instead of the technology. And the better the mac looks, the more expensive it is, since it actually includes the most recent technology



Well, PC users are smarter than that and when they shop for computers they look at the technology.  And if the technology is outdated or they don't feel it's worth the pricetag that's on it, then they most likely won't buy it.  I hate to be so blunt, but that's the truth.  ::ha::


----------



## cfleck (Jun 30, 2004)

yeah right.  go hang out at best buy sometime and just "mingle" around the computer section.  listen to the questions people ask the sales guys and what they end up walking out with.  my take...

they look at the price, the best buy guy says, but you'll be able to see your grandkids' pictures faster on this one, and they walk out with the later.  MOST people don't care.  they just want one that works.  salesmen talk them into "that computer that will still be good in 5 years".


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 30, 2004)

cfleck said:
			
		

> yeah right.  go hang out at best buy sometime and just "mingle" around the computer section.  listen to the questions people ask the sales guys and what they end up walking out with.  my take...
> 
> they look at the price, the best buy guy says, but you'll be able to see your grandkids' pictures faster on this one, and they walk out with the later.  MOST people don't care.  they just want one that works.  salesmen talk them into "that computer that will still be good in 5 years".



I beg to differ.  Go to any Non-Mac message board and ask people what they think.  Most will tell you that Macs suck and that they will never buy one.


----------



## cfleck (Jun 30, 2004)

and you also think most pc users hang out on message boards.  think about 95% of the computer using populous.  most of those people are NOT hanging out in any forums.  its a bit silly to assume that your forum-mates make up for a good sampling of the topics users.


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 30, 2004)

cfleck said:
			
		

> and you also think most pc users hang out on message boards.  think about 95% of the computer using populous.  most of those people are NOT hanging out in any forums.  its a bit silly to assume that your forum-mates make up for a good sampling of the topics users.



Every person that gives their opinion on a specific topic speaks for 1,000 others that don't.


----------



## cfleck (Jun 30, 2004)

whatever you say, ogre


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 30, 2004)

King Shrek said:
			
		

> Well, PC users are smarter than that and when they shop for computers they look at the technology.  And if the technology is outdated or they don't feel it's worth the pricetag that's on it, then they most likely won't buy it.  I hate to be so blunt, but that's the truth.  ::ha::


You don't just buy a computer because of the technology, but the software you want to use. True, if you want to play, you gotta go with the most recent technology. But once it comes to the point you need certain applications, you will go for certain system. Then you might no more compare the eMac to a hightech pc, but compare WinXP to Panther. And when it's just about panther, the eMac is the best choice. This is the other truth


----------



## Pengu (Jun 30, 2004)

If PC users don't buy "outdated" technology, why do PCs still ship with
floppy drives
parallel ports
serial ports
VGA (honestly, isn't it time the PC world went digital???)
and the biggest of all.
WINDOWS


----------



## mdnky (Jun 30, 2004)

Pengu, that hit the nail directly on the head.  

"Floppy drive???  What am I gonna use that for!"


----------



## Pengu (Jun 30, 2004)

Hell. if you're talking old technology. What about BIOS. That hasn't been updated since the 80s. just had hacks applied to it for each new device they stick on the motherboard.

And whats the deal with a P4 3.2ghz having a 200mhz FSB. a comparable g5 (if it existed) would have a fsb or 1.6ghz.do they not understand the word bottleneck? (oh wait. they understood bottleneck when we still had pc-100 in g4s.)

i work with PCs every day. every day there is something making me wish that even I had a mac at work. hell. i might talk to my boss and take my g4 (400 mhz, 832mb, 160gb) in to work when i get a new g5. by then netware 7 should be out (i hope) and it will support macs natively (again).


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 30, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> You don't just buy a computer because of the technology, but the software you want to use. True, if you want to play, you gotta go with the most recent technology. But once it comes to the point you need certain applications, you will go for certain system. Then you might no more compare the eMac to a hightech pc, but compare WinXP to Panther. And when it's just about panther, the eMac is the best choice. This is the other truth



My point is, is that that is NOT the way PC users think.  The way I stated above is the way PC users think when it comes to Macs.  ::evil::


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 30, 2004)

Pengu said:
			
		

> If PC users don't buy "outdated" technology, why do PCs still ship with
> floppy drives
> parallel ports
> serial ports
> ...



It has nothing to do with that at all.  It has to do with the processor, the memory, the motherboard, the bus speed, etc.  It's overall system performance that matters to them.


----------



## King Shrek (Jun 30, 2004)

Pengu said:
			
		

> Hell. if you're talking old technology. What about BIOS. That hasn't been updated since the 80s. just had hacks applied to it for each new device they stick on the motherboard.
> 
> And whats the deal with a P4 3.2ghz having a 200mhz FSB. a comparable g5 (if it existed) would have a fsb or 1.6ghz.do they not understand the word bottleneck? (oh wait. they understood bottleneck when we still had pc-100 in g4s.)



It's an 800MHz bus; not 200MHz.

And I don't think that average PC users care much about BIOSes.  Heck, many know nothing about it or even what it's for.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 1, 2004)

Shrek, you are a typicall pc user from what I read by now. You are pretty much obsessed with numbers. I would suggest you to pick certain applications and try them on macs and pcs. You will then understand why Macs are so  much spread in the professional and educational field.


----------



## Pengu (Jul 1, 2004)

King Shrek said:
			
		

> It's an 800MHz bus; not 200MHz.
> 
> And I don't think that average PC users care much about BIOSes.  Heck, many know nothing about it or even what it's for.


 OK. What part of "FSB 	200MHz" means 800mhz? I mean, I don't pretend to understand all the little idiosyncrocies of Voltages vs mhz vs Clock cycles vs watts vs ohms, but i can read english, and that sure as hell looks like 200.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040414/geforce_6800-22.html


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 1, 2004)

natively the fsb is set at 200Mhz but after the multiplier it is like 800Mhz.


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 1, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Shrek, you are a typicall pc user from what I read by now. You are pretty much obsessed with numbers. I would suggest you to pick certain applications and try them on macs and pcs. You will then understand why Macs are so  much spread in the professional and educational field.



Thank God I actually do look at the numbers and too many Macheads just don't understand that not everything Apple tells them about it's products is necessarily true.  They often greatly exaggerate what their products can do just to make it sound good when they market them.  ::alien::


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 1, 2004)

Pengu said:
			
		

> OK. What part of "FSB 	200MHz" means 800mhz? I mean, I don't pretend to understand all the little idiosyncrocies of Voltages vs mhz vs Clock cycles vs watts vs ohms, but i can read english, and that sure as hell looks like 200.
> 
> http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040414/geforce_6800-22.html



Click Here


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 1, 2004)

King Shrek said:
			
		

> Thank God I actually do look at the numbers and too many Macheads just don't understand that not everything Apple tells them about it's products is necessarily true.  They often greatly exaggerate what their products can do just to make it sound good when they market them.  ::alien::


I disagree. Every new technology introduction of course tends to exaggregate. But once you test the software, there is no other prove that is needed. If my software runs much better on my mac eventhough it can't compete the pc box by the clock speed and cache size, it would be darn stupid to still go for the number hype. I find it very obtuse to just believe in those numbers. PR marketing if you ask me.


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 1, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> I disagree. Every new technology introduction of course tends to exaggregate. But once you test the software, there is no other prove that is needed. If my software runs much better on my mac eventhough it can't compete the pc box by the clock speed and cache size, it would be darn stupid to still go for the number hype. I find it very obtuse to just believe in those numbers. PR marketing if you ask me.



It matters not how well they run.  The numbers do matter because you are only referring to performance of specific applications, while I am talking about overall system performance with ANY application.

What are you trying to do anyway?  Get me to consider buying a G3 or G4 system?  It's not worth it.  I already made up my mind about a year ago; I'm going to buy an affordable G5 system and that's that.  ::ha::


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 1, 2004)

You won't find a system that is outperforming others in ANY application. You always need to ask yourself why you need the computer and what you gonna do with it. I am not talking you into G3 or G4 macs. My point is that currently there is no gap in performance and price in apples stores. If you want a fast system for developing games and the G5 powermac is too expensive, then a Dual G4 should do. You know, ppl developed good games in <2003 as well, where there was no G5 yet. So, thinking G5 is the only option is not really based on good research.. (also see other thread).
It's annoying to see ppl making sure statements which are based on very disoriented arguements. ::angel::
But congrats for your decission. I hope it was the best.


----------



## Randman (Jul 1, 2004)

Affordable G5 system? That's bare bones. Instead of waiting on and on and getting all antsy, get a decent system now with enough ram and quit bellyaching.


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 1, 2004)

Randman said:
			
		

> Affordable G5 system? That's bare bones. Instead of waiting on and on and getting all antsy, get a decent system now with enough ram and quit bellyaching.



No.  Affordable to me would have be a G5 iMac, which knowing Apple it should come in at a modest midrange computer price.


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 1, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> You won't find a system that is outperforming others in ANY application. You always need to ask yourself why you need the computer and what you gonna do with it. I am not talking you into G3 or G4 macs. My point is that currently there is no gap in performance and price in apples stores. If you want a fast system for developing games and the G5 powermac is too expensive, then a Dual G4 should do. You know, ppl developed good games in <2003 as well, where there was no G5 yet. So, thinking G5 is the only option is not really based on good research.. (also see other thread).
> It's annoying to see ppl making sure statements which are based on very disoriented arguements. ::angel::
> But congrats for your decission. I hope it was the best.



You truly are a typical Machead, biased in everything you have to say about Macs.  ::alien::


----------



## Randman (Jul 1, 2004)

King Shrek said:
			
		

> You truly are a typical Machead, biased in everything you have to say about Macs.  ::alien::


Actually, I've found Z-S to be pretty fair in his assessments. And I think his advice is pretty sound for the bast majority of the time. Certainly far better than the weak arguments you're throwing up in this return to Trollville.


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 1, 2004)

Randman said:
			
		

> Actually, I've found Z-S to be pretty fair in his assessments. And I think his advice is pretty sound for the bast majority of the time. Certainly far better than the weak arguments you're throwing up in this return to Trollville.



Weak?  I'm the one that's being neutral and you guys are the one's that are biased.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 1, 2004)

King Shrek, I am opened to any critics. In which points couldn't you follow my arguments? 
You spent almost two years in this forum. I am really surprised you didn't get the point of the pc-mac comparisons yet. Values say nothing.. Our software is the reason why we buy computers. And this is what many ppl confuse, including you.


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 1, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> King Shrek, I am opened to any critics. In which points couldn't you follow my arguments?
> You spent almost two years in this forum. I am really surprised you didn't get the point of the pc-mac comparisons yet. Values say nothing.. Our software is the reason why we buy computers. And this is what many ppl confuse, including you.



Zammy-Sam, you make way too many incorrect assumptions.  I did NOT spend two years in this forum doing research.  In fact, I've only posted here on rare occasions in the past two years or so and only to give advice to Apple in this 'Opinions, Reviews and Open Letters' forum.  

The site where I really go to get most of my Mac News and Rumors is http://www.macrumors.com/, although I don't really do all my "homework" there.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jul 1, 2004)

You actually picked the least meaningful line of my previous post, King Shrek. I don't actually care how long you've been posting in here and what sites you used to make some posts. My point was that the clock speeds and other details you seem so obsessed about say "nothing". 
And I still haven't seen you mention any of my "biased points"..
But man, I am getting tired of this. Didn't want to get into such a discussion but just underline some points.


----------



## King Shrek (Jul 1, 2004)

*And about Macrumors:*  I only use the site as a starting point in getting my information.  But the thing I like about Macrumors is that the site administrators do apply a certain amount of scrutiny to any news and rumors that do come out, while at the same they give positive feedback to anything that stands up to their scrutiny.  They do strive to get the truth out about what's really going on in the Apple/Macintosh world.  They are the Fox News of the Apple/Mac World--fair and balanced!  ::angel::

GO MACRUMORS!!!


----------

