: Screen Real Estate


pcronin
Jan 4th, 2006, 10:16 PM
I'm going to purchase a new LCD for my desktop (currently Windows/Linux, hopefully be able to get one of the last PPC PMs before they're all gone) and was looking at the 23" Apple Display or getting dual 21"s.

I (honestly) do mostly surfing/chatting/email, but I do some web work a bit, and am thinking/looking for time to do some work in Blender. I'm not sure if the dual display at the lower resolution would be better, or a single higher res.

Obviously with 2x21" I'm getting a lot more than 1x23", but with the resolution differance, would it be worth it?

Price is keeping me from the 30", well that and space.
I'll be (re)building a desk for the new setup anyway, and am hoping to use the mount kits instead of the stands.

Anyone have any thoughts on single high res vs dual slightly lower res?
I used to run dual with a 17" LCD and a 17" CRT, but the CRT died.

I'm loving my iBook 12", and with the spanning hack, have had my current 17" lcd as a good movie screen :D

comprehab
Jan 4th, 2006, 10:19 PM
Have you looked at dell's 24" or 2x dell 20"?

stillmot
Jan 4th, 2006, 10:40 PM
Dell is apparently coming out with a 30" lcd tomorrow or Jan 5th, which might be an option. Otherwise I would grab the dell 23". We work on both the dell and the apple monitors and I think the dell is the better value.

guytoronto
Jan 4th, 2006, 10:54 PM
Just do a calculation of how many pixels you are actually getting. Divide the price by that number of pixels. Find out your price per pixel.

i.e. Apple 30" - $3000 / 4,096,000 = 0.0732421875 cents per pixel
Dell 20" - $700 / 1,920,000 = 0.03645833333 cents per pixel

So you are paying HALF as much per pixel for a cheap Dell.

Z06jerry
Jan 5th, 2006, 09:16 AM
Using Dells to compare; 2x21" = 3.5 million pixels (total) vs 1x24" = 2.3 million pixels. Therefore 2x21" monitors would have more screen real estate and since the 21" monitors also have smaller pixel pitch of .258 vs .27 means that 2x21" have higher total resolution too, would it not?

MacDoc
Jan 5th, 2006, 10:25 AM
The trick with LCDs is there are no options for multisynching so you need to make sure the native resolution is not far off your comfort level ( things can be changed within apps etc )

Given the price of 19s right now 2 x 1.3 million = 2.6 million well under $1000. and the same 2.6 million for 17"s under $800. That's the cheapest space.

The wide screens trim your shape so a 20" gets 1.7 million and in the case of Apple that costs $1000. :eek:

A Dell 24" at native is pretty fine workspace with 2.3 million pixels in the $1,000 range.

Expect a price drop on the Apple 23" next week.

You can't drive a 30 on just any video card and screen redraw can be slow unless you have a good video card.

pcronin
Jan 5th, 2006, 10:10 PM
Thanks everyone for your answers.

for the Dells, I've got major problems with that company. (mostly the rebranding they do)

I'll have to watch for a price drop on the 23", if it's big enough, I might end up with 2x23" :D (oh to dream and drool)

My current set up is a PC soon to be Windows/Linux dual boot, and eventually a PM.

I've never had a screen res higher than 1280x1024, but that is what I"m going for. I've got a Radeon 9600 that has one vga and one DVI port.

I'm still leaning a bit more towards the dual setup, a bit more ipressive I think ;)

MacDoc
Jan 5th, 2006, 11:30 PM
Well you can get 3.8 million pixels as I have for under $1k :D

2 x 21" Trinitrons - just love it :clap:

pcronin
Jan 7th, 2006, 05:34 PM
I've actually found a 21" Gateway that has same resolution as the Apple 20", no firewire, but has multiple inputs.
Found it at FS for $799, minus 3% for it being a floor model.

Thinking about it, have to do a bit of research.

MacDoc
Jan 7th, 2006, 06:02 PM
Gel the Dell - cheaper - same screen as the Apple - forget about a Gateway - you don't know it will synch pm widescreen ( many don't )

pcronin
Jan 7th, 2006, 07:35 PM
Well, I can't *see* a Dell in a store though.

Well, what would make it not sync? I don't understand, it's the exact same resolution and MHz as the Apple & Dell.

ender78
Jan 7th, 2006, 11:40 PM
I have the Dell 24", I have also worked on two 20" in the past. I write this at work on dual 19"'s. The 24" is great for any application that requires a great deal of real estate [IE editing a high resolution image], the dual 20"s are much better for multitaksing.

MacDoc
Jan 8th, 2006, 02:57 AM
You say you have a rebranding problem.
Do you think Apple or Gateway make their own screens. :rolleyes:

The Dell and Apple monitor use the exact same base screen.

You come for advice then don't listen - resolution means nothing if it won't synch with the video cards and many widescreens will not synch at wide resolutions with the Apple cards.
I'm not speculating I'm talking from experience on this.

We KNOW the Dells will. We also know the Dells come set oversaturated so that needs to be knocked down.
The Apple out of the box will likely look better on a Mac as it hooks up with the card well - whether that is worth $400 to you is your call.

You also can't tell diddly squat from a casual look at a screen in a store. Lighting is wrong and you have no idea of the video card driving it which makes a huge difference.

Photographers generally have approved of the Apple screens over the last couple of years while print pros still prefer CRT tho that is showing some change.

Casual users are well served by Apple OR Dell which is cheaper with the same fundamental screen.

LaCIe 10 bit screen are perhaps better than both and their 19" is not badly priced now at $599 but does not give the workspace.

Personally I'm not wild about LCDs tho some I now find "tolerable" tho they still can't do blacks worth a damn.

pcronin
Jan 8th, 2006, 10:11 AM
I realise that there are only a few actual manufactures of the LCD pannels, what I ment by the Dell rebranding is more toward other items, such as the printers that are exact epson/lexmark printers except for something Dell did to make it so you have to buy cartridges from them.

Don't think I'm not listening to your advice, I just can't wrap my head around why a modern monitor wouldn't work with any modern computer.
It just doesn't seem logical to me that I can't take monitor "A" or "B" which are essentially the same inside and one not work on the same machine.

Do you have any kind of list showing what will and won't sync?

btw I found this article while looking for info on LCDs.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/27/anandtech-dell-2005fpw-vs-apple-cinema-display-20-inch/

The Dell 2005FPW and the Apple 20 are *exactly* the same except for inputs/outputs and Dell's on screen menus. (and Dell being cheeper)

You're right about the conditions in stores as far as viewing goes, but it gives you a heck of a lot better idea than the promo photoshoped pics from the web sites. As far as knowing what vid card and such, I did. It was hooked up to an Nvidia card that was running it at native. and I ran many different tests on it for readability, video, and put up a few different pictures.

I know there's still a lot of people that don't like LCD for one reason or another, but I've had a Samsung 17" for a number of years and I'll never go back to CRT now. And like I stated at the begining of the thread, this is primarily for surfing, a bit of coding here and there, video playback, and occasionaly some light 3D work with Blender. I'm by no means at a level as the print/photo people that might not like LCD for whatever reason.

I bought my iBook online, but only because I qualified for the Educational discount, and no retail outlet around here can give that pricing. Everything else I buy, I need to actually see it before I plunk down the coin. I don't know, maybe it's just me ;)

Just because I don't follow your advice explicitly, please don't think it's been a wasted effort, I do appreciate it greatly. It has made me realize that I don't have to get the Apple screen because there are many others around that are as good/better depending on what features you will be using/want for future.

I thank everyone that posted to this thread.

soon2bemac
Jan 8th, 2006, 10:44 AM
Don't think I'm not listening to your advice, I just can't wrap my head around why a modern monitor wouldn't work with any modern computer.
It just doesn't seem logical to me that I can't take monitor "A" or "B" which are essentially the same inside and one not work on the same machine.


Since when has Apple ever been known for compatibility? :) I've got 2 LG 17" CRTs, a 20" Viewsonic LCD, and a 19" NEC LCD all of which work fine on any of the 3 XP boxes I have, and none of which work properly on the Mini. Some poor souls even have Apple's OWN 23" LCD that won't work with the mini but there is of course no issue according to Apple.
http://www.freewebs.com/themagius/macintoshmini.htm

My only suggestion would be to see if you can find others running the displays you ultimately decide on in a similar configuration before you actually purchase.

pcronin
Jan 8th, 2006, 01:01 PM
Lol, well yes, I supose Apple wouldnt' change that much. It was just that the big sales pitch of the mini is that it will work with your "existing PC hardware" *sigh*

Seriously though, thank you for the link with that chart. I might end up getting a 2005FPW, talking to a friend who has one, and since it's the exact same monitor for less money, after getting a good look at his, I might order it.

pcronin
Jan 10th, 2006, 02:59 PM
Well, I bought the Gateway, and it looks amazing. First thing I did was to plug it in to my iBook thru the iBook's VGA adapter dongle, and it went straight to native 1680x1050. This makes me very confident that it will head right to a mini or PM with no trouble.

For now though, it's on my PC, if I had a DVI cable, I could PIP the PC and the iBook on it, which would be intersting :D

Thanks everyone for your advice and links, and I am glad that you all steered me off the cinima display, as I found that it's overpriced, and has only a brightness control on it.

As soon as I manage to get my desktop mac, I'll report on performance.