[Macworld]

Post your comments for Apple unveils new 24-inch Cinema Display here

[LSlugger]

What is up with the "vast majority" that prefers glossy displays? They're good for magazine covers and checking your make up. For a computer? Not so much. I don't see myself paying $800 for a 24" monitor in any case, and certainly not for this thing.

[fribhey]

according to apple.com:
"Compatible with MacBook, MacBook Air, and MacBook Pro systems with Mini DisplayPort"
so basically those with macpros who have been waiting YEARS for a new display can't get one because it's only compatible with laptops?
is this a joke? are they seriously not including an adapter for the mini displayport for those who don't have mini displayports?

[tallscot]

MacWorld really needs to edit this story so that it's clear this monitor is only for the laptops.

[tony_d]

Quote:
so basically those with macpros who have been waiting YEARS for a new display can't get one because it's only compatible with laptops?

Steve did say they were putting the new display port in all of their computers, I'm guessing for now there is an adaptor available. Any one know if this is true, because I'm still on a PB and my wife just bought a MacBook this summer. Would love to have this display.

[ZeroGravX]

@LSlugger: I'm with you, I loathe glossy displays. While they look fine in your home at night depending on how bright your lighting is, if you have a room that gets a lot of sun during the day then forget being able to see anything. And forget using your laptop outside if you have glossy on it.
@fribhey: I think this new display has an emphasis on being used to quickly connect with their laptops. A bit crappy for desktop users yes, but it makes sense if that's what they are marketing it towards.

[hayesk]

fribhey said:

is this a joke? are they seriously not including an adapter for the mini displayport for those who don't have mini displayports?

I don't think display port is just a pin configuration - it's a completely different protocol, making an adapter impossible. The MacBooks have cards that output display port, DVI, and VGA, so they can work with any display with an adapter.

[yamagato]

It feels like Apple is snubbing the pros for the consumers' dollars with the glossy display(s). Mind you, I've had no problems with implementing glossy iMacs in a print/web pro environment, but to completely DISMISS the people that are core (pro print and photo users) to Apple's success by not offering a matte display is, to me, a very short shrift. I think the 24" iMac is a beautiful and economical print station, but removing the option of a matte display altogether makes me feel like the hat has tipped for the consumer in Apple's mind, and that makes my career as a Mac consultant that much more difficult for my creative professional clients. Sigh.

[icerabbit]

I have been wanting and waiting to upgrade to bigger second Cinema Display for quite a long time (>1year) but everything current users wanted in a new model (isight, microphone, speakers) is overshadowed by the glossy glass display, lack of firewire and display port connection.

I understand in technology you have to move forward, but this just looks purpose built for macbook consumers. Leaving prosumers and pros in limbo, as we didn't see a change in specs nor price in the regular cinema displays, nor did we hear about other LED models.

I did read SJ said they're going "all glass" ... which just makes me shake my head. I don't care about how "colors pop" or their "market research".

I just want a high quality matte screen without any glare or reflection whatsoever that integrates with Apple products. Like the matte iMac and Cinema Displays.

[palane]

Given that 30" displays are available for under a grand, I don't see much of a need to get an Apple display.
Apple introduced a display to mate with its portable computers. $900 is a lot of money to pay for 24". The ad to the right of this story shows a couple in the $500 range.
BB

[Paddy]

There are adapters mentioned here:
http://www.aeanet.or...10141350AQTU048
Can't get into the Apple Store online right now to check out availability. Odd that there is no mention of it in the description of the new display on the Apple site however.
I agree re: the glossy display. My son's iMac drives me nuts with the reflections, and it's not in a terribly bright room. He doesn't seem to mind though (he's 13 - and doesn't do any photo editing like I do though!)

[mdawson]

Quote

LSlugger wrote:

>

Quote

What is up with the "vast majority" that prefers glossy displays? They're good for magazine covers and checking your make up. For a computer?

People seem to forget that less than a decade ago most people were still using CRT-based displays and lo and behold most of them had reflective screens. People have been dealing with reflection on computer displays since there have been computer displays. Sure, there were higher-end CRTs that had anti-glare coatings and that began to trickle down into the general-purpose display market in the very late-1990s, but such displays did not become the norm for CRTs before LCDs became a de facto standard.

LCDs avoided glare by not using glass and their digital nature allowed for sharper imagery and text as long as they are used at their native resolution. That stated, something about the glossy displays seems to make colors stand out more and I have noticed that on iMacs sitting next to Cinema Displays in the Apple store where neither displays is (fully) calibrated; the iMac?s display is not calibrated, but Cinema Displays do get preliminary factory calibration that earns such displays their SWOP certification. Speaking of calibrated Cinema Displays,

Quote

LSlugger wrote:

>

Quote

I don't see myself paying $800 for a 24" monitor in any case, and certainly not for this thing.

Firstly, Apple ceased making general-purpose displays after the 17-inch Studio Display was discontinued about six years ago. The Cinema Displays, particularly the aluminum versions, are professional-level displays comparable to offerings from Lacie, NEC and Eizo. Apple?s displays are less expensive than the others by the way. The jury is still out on the new display in terms of whether it can be used as a professional display, but even if it is not, the new 24-inch Cinema Display employs LED backlighting.

That type of display technology is new (read: expensive). The same price discrepancy can be seen in Sony?s television line up. Sony?s new OLED TV costs $2,499.99; that is for an11-inch screen with NTSC standard definition resolution. For $200 less, you can get a 40-inch Sony BRAVIA XBR6 1080p HDTV. New technology does not come cheap.

If you are not an early adopter then the new Cinema Display is not for you. If you do not need a professional-level display and find the Cinema Display line too expensive, then Apple?s displays do not target you. Several other companies offer general purpose digital LCD displays that you can use with your Mac for less.

[moose_n_squirrel]

palane said:

$900 is a lot of money to pay for 24". The ad to the right of this story shows a couple in the $500 range.

The price depends what you use it for. I will wait for a review of the display quality. For demanding work, $900 is midrange.

The LED backlight has measurably improved the image quality of the laptops. If the LED in this new Apple monitor lets the image quality of a Cinema Display approach that of the highly regarded 24" NEC 2690WUXI, I'd actually save $300 by buying the Apple.

[Philip Michaels]

tallscot said:

MacWorld really needs to edit this story so that it's clear this monitor is only for the laptops.

Updated. We've got a lot on the plate today, my man.