[Nobody]

There certainly is something to be said about design vs not. Apple is all about top quality design. Dell is not.
The external design is as important as the internal software and hardware workings. The user experience - or zen (Jobs is all about zen) - is also about how the product you work with pleases your eyes. And the sense of touch is as important. Creates positive user energy. The longevity of great design is evident all around us. Poor design gets old quickly. Apple is King. Dell is the jester.
Back to my meditation.
Bjorn

[Nobody]

Yes. And when calibrating a monitor properly for photo, video, art and design, it will not be as intense in 'contrast' and 'light' levels as some of the LCD brands being pushed out there. Apple is also better at not having souped-up the factory settings than most.
kerby74 . . . to add to the calibration scheme, here is an industry leader among the calibration systems vendors:
http://www.gretagmac...ex/products.htm
Bjorn

[kerby74]

I think you are all overestimating the ability of my eyes. I am NOT a pro user and as far as calibration or color management I usually just click the restore to defaults and leave it alone. I am not color blind or anything but red is red and blue is blue etc. I can't tell about shades and blah blah blah.... see I just bored myself right out of the thought.
I have decided that even though I LOVE my Apple stuff, I would rather have a Dell monitor and a new iPod or an AppleTV or whatever than the bragging rights of just owning an Apple monitor. I thank you all greatly for your input, especially the link for the comparison Bjorn which is what made my decision. These are to my needs the same hardware in different packaging at different pricing and the Dell is just good enough.

[mdawson]

Well, back to kerby74s original question, dual or large, it comes down to how you work. moosensquirrel has brought up some of the most valid points. One point that he missed is what you opt to use for your primary input device. If you are a mouse person you can go either way, but if like me you prefer to use a graphics tablet, going dual display can be problematic.
Technically, I could map my Wacom Intuos3 so that I can easily use a dual display set up, but as I only have a 6x8 tablet such mapping would severely reduce the benefits of using the tablet. Even Wacoms newer 6x11 wide tablet would be inadequate to this task. If I could, upgrading to the new 12x19 tablet would overcome the dual display dilemma to some extent, but I do not have $750 to spend on an input device.
Right now I have my tablet mapped to my 22-inch Cinema Display causing me to lose a roughly 1-inch high strip at the bottom of my tablet for use (5x8). Ultimately, that is a minor loss and hardly noticeable under normal usage. Up the ante to two displays and the table would be mapped to a 2- x 8 work area and that is unacceptable. Even on the largest Wacom tablet you are forced to lose roughly 3- of vertical tablet space in a dual display set up.
So, for me, my next move will be to a single 30-inch display.
As to the aesthetics issue, Apples displays are definitely a better match for a Mac Pro than Dells displays. As the old saying goes, You get what you pay for. If you are in the market for a dual display set up or even considering a 30-inch display than short of a status purchase, one could assume that image quality and color correctness is important. The Dell UltraSharps are good in their own rights, but they do not offer that level of quality.
You listed the specs for each display, but comparisons are about more than specs. Specifications cannot tell you that Apples displays are better calibrated for design work out of the box and you missed that Cinema Displays are SWOP certified; not a single Dell display has that distinction. So that decision ultimately comes down to what your needs are.

[Nobody]

OK. Sounds like you went with your gut feeling in the end. Have a good time with your new 20" or 30".
/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Bjorn

[kerby74]

Thank you mdawson for the insight about use. I really hadn't thought about that. I do some work with iMovie and iDVD and the rest is just having multiple apps open like mail, the internet, an iChat and maybe a few office documents. At most for full screen activity is to watch a movie and if big is what I want there I would go to the living room to the 47" TV. I just want to be able to see them all and keep track of things without shrinking them to where I can't read them or have to flip through one at a time.
I have never used nor do I see a need for a tablet so given your description of the way you work I think extended desktop would be the way for me. Cheaper and technically more space which is what I want.

[icu400]

for the record i'd rather buy the apple ones because i couldn't bear to be using my powermac and every day be staring the "Dell" logo in the face...no thanks

[mdawson]

Quote:

---

At most for full screen activity is to watch a movie and if big is what I want there I would go to the living room to the 47" TV.

---

Actually, there is no gain in going to a television from a dedicated computer display. Televisions have no more than the maximum resolution of an HD signal whether it is a 20- or a 70-inch model. Computer displays scale resolution with their screen size and that is why Apples Cinema Display 30, which is intended to be used at normal reading distances1- to 3 fthas a native resolution of 2560 x 1600. The Cinema Display 30 has much more resolution than a 1080p HDTV and most HDTVs currently sold are only capable of 720p/1080i. A computer display sized at 47 inches would require a native resolution of about 4096 x 2560 or 5x the pixel count of a 1080p HDTV. A large screen with a resolution of 1920 x 1080 is fine from across a room, but it is woefully inadequate for any computer display larger than about 24 inches.

Quote:

---

I have never used nor do I see a need for a tablet so given your description of the way you work I think extended desktop would be the way for me.

---

Ironically, while graphics tablets are typically used by the design market niche, most people would benefit from their use from an ergonomic standpoint. The use of a stylus on a pad mimicking the action of pen to paper is less stressful on the wrists and arms than the use of a mouse. Of course the price of a typical graphics tablet is prohibitive for most people and is likely the reason behind Wacoms decision to create its lower-priced Graphire line of tablets. Given that graphics tablets are primarily used in the design market and that dual display configurations, as well as graphics tablets, have their roots in the dedicated CAD workstations of old, I am surprised that wider tablets have not made their way to market. In fact, it has only been in the past year plus that Wacom began making wide versions of their tablets to match the aspect ratios of the growing number of (single) widescreen displays being sold.
Anyway, it seems like dual display would be the way to go for you. Personally, I would like to do the same, but I am no longer a mouse person and when I come home to my Mac from my mouse-tethered PC at work, my wrists thank me. Ideally, I would have a 30-inch display as my primary workspace for CAD, graphic design and data analysis and a second display, most likely a 23-inch model, for the Web, e-mail, iTunes, etc. For now, I will just focus on upgrading to the larger display, but given that my new living arrangements allow for me to get a large graphics tablet, I may eventually go the large tablet/dual display route.
Let us know how things turn out.

[kerby74]

True, my HDTV is only 1080i capable... but, even except for the few channels of HD I get on my direct dish everything I watch is not HD. My DVD's even through component are only capable of 480p which to be honest is just fine for most movies. Only really good content seems to deserve HD to me and there seems to be very little good coming from Hollywood these days. Also there is that whole recliner vs. desk chair thing. And the computer is in my office which if I spend too much time in there and not enough time with the family I hear about it... a lot!
Thanks for the info regarding the graping tablets. I have always preferred the touchpad on my iBook to a regular mouse except for the scrolling but just never thought of tablets except for designer use. I may look into a cheaper tablet or a used one and try that out from the ergonomic point. I work in IT (Windows unfortunately) and am on a mouse all day so would probably get quite an advantage out of improving my ergomics at home.

[mdawson]

Quote:

---

True, my HDTV is only 1080i capable... but, even except for the few channels of HD I get on my direct dish everything I watch is not HD. My DVD's even through component are only capable of 480p which to be honest is just fine for most movies.

---

Very correct. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that the vast majority of content, some 100+ years of it taking the earliest cinema into consideration, is no better than NTSC, now referred to as standard definition, and therefore only requires 480i. At 480p, the parallel of VGA (640x480) on computer displays, you get a crisper image and on up-converted DVDs this can look spectacular on a low-resolution digital television. Of course, one does have to consider that the resolution of a DVD image is 480i as the technologys development predates the introduction and adoption of HDTV; DVDs were developed to compliment the NTSC standard in the US. On the other hand, when DVD signals are up-converted to 720p, and especially 1080p, digital artifacts that are otherwise unperceivable are exaggerated. That reality was the grounds for the development of the high definition disc formats of HD DVD and Blu-Ray.

Quote:

---

Only really good content seems to deserve HD to me and there seems to be very little good coming from Hollywood these days.

---

While I can agree with this statement, in the next few years, pretty much all new content will be HD. The type of HD will be dividing line. Movies, particularly theatrical releases, sporting events and the like will very likely be of the 1080i/p variety. I would think that most other content, like prime time network ilk, daytime television, local news, etc., would be primarily 720p. I see 480p being reserved mostly for pre-digital NTSC content converted to a digital format; 480p is classified as enhanced definition television (EDTV), whereas 720p is the minimum requirement to be considered high definition. Unless the date is again pushed backwhich is a real possibility given the very large segment of the population that cannot afford to upgrade their televisions to digital models, at some point in 2009, or later, all broadcasts in the US will be digital.

Quote:

---

I work in IT (Windows unfortunately) and am on a mouse all day so would probably get quite an advantage out of improving my ergomics at home.

---

Funnily enough the widest variety of graphics tablets have and still are available for Wintel PCs. While Macs have traditionally had a lock on the graphic design and desktop publishing markets Windows has the monopoly one key player where the traditional use of graphics tablets is concerned: AutoCAD. As I mentioned earlier, graphics tablets were historically tied to the CAD market and with the industry standard, AutoCAD, as well as the other large CAD player, MicroStation, being Windows-only products the niche tablet market is still heavily skewed toward the PC side. Until very recently, Wacom was pretty much the only company producing Mac-compatible graphics tablets. The mass adoption of USB has made cross-platform development of graphics tablets more practical for tablet manufacturers, but Wacom is still the major player where Macs are concerned; you would be surprised at how many PC-only tablets are still using RS-232c serial for connecting to computers.
Given their ergonomic benefits, I find it surprising that graphics tablets are not being pushed more for general use. Granted, in certain environments (e.g., public computer labs where the styli will disappear) tablets are impractical, but for the individual user there are clear benefits. Of course, just like the Mac vs. PC scenario, mice are a dime a dozen and can be had on the cheap. Even Wacoms more affordable Graphire graphics tablets will set a prospective buyer back anywhere from $100 for a 4x5 tablet to $200 for a 6x8. As increased computer usage amongst the masses drives up the number of carpal tunnel cases perhaps more people may be willing to spend a few extra dollars to minimize the physical risks associated with extended mouse usage.

[Philbert]

mdawson -
Have you fully investigated what can be done with a Wacom tablet? I'm not sure why you feel they're "limiting" when using dual displays. I've used a 6x8 Wacom for the last 10 years with two screens and I certainly don't feel limited. If in "Mouse" mode, you simply use it like a mouse - if you run out of room (screen or tablet), pick up the stylus and set it down again.
If in "Pen" mode, the 6x8 surface is mapped exactly to the real-estate of the screens. Right now I'm using two CRTs - different sizes and resolutions. If I place the stylus at the top right corner of the tablet, the cursor jumps to the top right corner of the right-hand screen. Move the stylus to the bottom left, and the cursor is moved to the bottom left of the left-hand screen.
I use the pen mode only for painting/drawing - the mouse mode for everything else.

[mdawson]

I completely forgot about mouse mode, as in my 6+ years of using a graphics tablet, I have always used pen mode. So, yes you are correct in that a person that is using a tablet as a mouse replacement could very well use a graphics tablet as a relative input device as opposed to an absolute one.