Did anyone notice the 20" display price drop?

H

HateEternal

Mac Metal Head
Don't yell at me if its already been posted, I did a quick search, it didn't find anything.

I just hit the Apple site and looks like the 20" displays dropped from $1299 to $999... making them almost affordable! :)

or maybe I have a problem and they were always $999!
 
Yep, there's been mention of it on various places around the Internet. Still cost 2x as much as the mini. Notice also that there is no more 17" option.
 
yes it was. I remember MDLarson debating over whether to go for a Dell or an Apple monitor. But I think he went with the Apple after the price cuts. So this was some time ago.
 
It happened the same time the 2.3GHZ Xserve was released.
 
Yea, a screen with twice the display ratio as a Apple screen costs half as much, 19" square.

<shaking head>
 
ScottW said:
Yea, a screen with twice the display ratio as a Apple screen costs half as much, 19" square.

<shaking head>
Click to expand...

But LCDs aren't all the same when it comes to contrast rate, brightness and colour precision :)
 
Well, Apple's are 400:1, and many others are 800:1. The larger the number, the better.
 
Oscar Castillo said:
What's the actual height and width of the just the LCD area of the Cinema Displays?
Click to expand...
Well, let's do the math (which is something I've been meaning to do anyway). The Apple monitors have a 16:10 dimensional ratio, which simplifies to 8:5. That means the base is a multiple of 8 while the height is a multiple of 5. Using the ratios of the base and height of a triangle to the hypotenuse, we get a ratio for the diagonal length of 9.43.

Now, the 20" screen is 20" from the top-left corner to the bottom-right corner, but it has a ratio of 9.43 to 1. Dividing 20 by 9.43 gives 2.12; we then multiply the the original ratio by this amount to get 16.96" by 10.60" for the 20" screen, which comes out to 179.77 square inches.

Now contrast this with a regular (not widescreen) 20" display. These displays have a ratio of 4:3, and a diagonal ratio of 5. So a 20" screen is 16x12 inches, or 192 square inches, which is much larger than the widescreen display. This is why I always feel like Apple's screens are too small. ;)
 
Arden said:
This is why I always feel like Apple's screens are too small. ;)
Click to expand...

My Samsung's LCD area measures 17x12.75. I think screen height is more important that width when working with documents. Maybe a 23" CHD? Run the numbers real quick.. How about the 30" while you're at it?
 
Oscar Castillo said:
My Samsung's LCD area measures 17x12.75. I think screen height is more important that width when working with documents. Maybe a 23" CHD? Run the numbers real quick.. How about the 30" while you're at it?
Click to expand...
No no, I've given you the start... now you get to crunch some numbers yourself.

Pengu: it's simple geometry, 4:3 screens have more space than 16:10 screens with the same diagonal length. That's why I'm a little disappointed that the 17" iMac I'll be getting is the same height as my current iMac's screen, while only adding a couple inches to the length. (Fortunately, unlike my current iMac, its screen will extend to the very edge). Sure, widescreen is better for some tasks, but not for everything.

I'm definitely glad it has a higher resolution, however. 1440x900 is not to be taken lightly...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top