[Dr.G.]

RG, does this screen do the "stretch mode" as is on the 17" iMac??? I am surprised that they would let a rubber gorilla near an iMac. Maybe if you were a real gorilla, they might be concerned. Kudos on being the first person in ehMacLand to have this iMac experience.

 

[Heart]

I have a couple of questions...

Is the neck bigger, or stiffer? I guess strength is my biggest concern.

 

[Dr.G.]

Good question, Heart. I would wonder if the ease of movement is still there, and if the screen stay in place.....or would stay in place after a long period of use and adjustments. I was amazed at the clarity of an 800 X 600 resolution on a 17"iMac in the "stretched mode", which is why I asked about this feature in the 20" iMac.

 

[The Doug]

I'm also wondering if Apple solved the tilted screen issue on the latest iMacs, where the right side of the screen could be 1/4" lower than the left. As far as I remember it was an minor issue with the top joint of the display arm in most cases. I think with a 20" screen, such a tilt would be more pronounced.

My 15" iMac display had a wee bit of a tilt, but it could be set level again by careful movement & placement. Still, it didn't affect my enjoyment of my iMac - such an engaging & reliable computer... tiny compared to my G5 & Cinema Display.

 

[Dr.G.]

Doug, if you own the 20" Cinema display, are you able to replicate an 800 X 600 resolution in the "stretched mode", if this exists on this display? Being visually impaired, this was an ideal resolution for me on the 17" iMac.

 

[The Doug]

Dr. G., my 20" Cinema Display can't do 800 x 600. You have a choice of 1680 x 1050, 1280 x 800, and 1024 x 640.

1680 x 1050 is "optimum" - the other settings look absolutely lousy... one of the drawbacks with LCD displays as I understand. They look best at their native resolution, while other resolutions are fuzzy and hard to tolerate even if the displayed text is larger.

 

[Dr.G.]

Doug, thanks for the feedback. Fuzzy text does not matter to me as much as the size of the text. My whole world is somewhat blurry and fuzzy (vision-wise). I saw the specs on the Apple website and they talk of a 4:3 resolution sizing vs the native sizing, and I believe that there was an 800 X 640 resolution in the 4:3. I would love to do video editing on a screen that size.

 

[RubberGorilla]

Wow. I's absolutely beautiful. Wish I could take some pics.

I'm in Santa Monica CA on business and have been checking the Apple Store the last couple of days. They finally set it up.

This full-sized Safari window isn't even taking up half the horizontal screen real estate.

It DOES NOT look like a 20" Cinema Display slapped onto an iMac, it looks great.

 

[RubberGorilla]

OK, I'm back @ the Apple Store.

The Base looks to be the same, and so is the pole. There is a bit of "give" to the monitor if you adjust it at the ends. It will tip just a bit.Looks to be level, though.

The screen is enormous.

 

[Dr.G.]

RG, so there was no additional weighting of the base to create a different center of balance?

 

[CubaMark]

Hey Dr. G., I'm assuming you've already explored the use of Apple's assistive technologies for sight impairment, namely, the Zoom feature of OS X ?

M

 

[RubberGorilla]

Dr. G,

I didn't pick it up.

It's an extra 17 Lbs over the 17", so I would assume so.

 

[Dr.G.]

CubaMark, Chealion explained how to utilize the Zoom feature. Thus, when I am typing to ehMac, I enlarge the text box to fill up the entire screen. What a relief for these tired eyes.

 

[The Doug]

Hey, wait a minute - the resolutions I mentioned in my post above are the ones listed on Apple's website; that's where I got the info while I composed the post at the office this morning. Now at home, using my G5/Cinema Display, I wonder why the following resolutions appear in my Displays > Resolutions pane - many more choices appear than are listed on Apple's website:

800 x 500
800 x 600
800 x 600 (stretched)
1024 x 640
1024 x 768
1024 x 768 (stretched)
1280 x 800
1344 x 840
1680 x 1050

All but 1680 x 1050, the native resolution, are fuzzy of course.

 

[Dr.G.]

Doug, "800 x 600 (stretched)" = BINGO. Thanks for looking this up for me on your machine. Fuzzy is one thing I don't mind, at least when it comes to text. Merci, mon ami.

 

[The Doug]

Dr. G., just a thought - if you want, give me your e-mail address by PM and I'll send you screen-shots of my desktop @ its native 1680 x 1050, and another @ 800 x 600 (stretched) so you can compare.

 

[Lawrence]

I don't understand why Apple made a 20" monitor iMac,
Why didn't they just give the consumer an iMac with an LCD
projector built right in and a bucket of white paint to paint
the wall with.

That'd be an interesting idea actually,
Then you could point it at the ceiling while lying in bed.

Dave

 

[iLabmAn]

You know. I have to agree with Dolawren.

We have a 17" iMac at school and, although it's very nice to work on, it looses a bit of the overall balance-look to it compare to the 15". It's becoming very....very....top-heavy.

 

[Dr.G.]

Many thank, Doug. I sent you a PM re this matter. It would still be interesting to know if the iMac has any additional weighting in the base to keep everything from tipping over. Je ne sais pas.

 

[The Doug]

Dr. G. - done!

I'm sure the 20' iMac must be properly weighted & balanced. The existing display arm was more than a match for the 15" and 17" displays, and I'm sure it didn't take much for Apple to configure the display arm for the 20". One question none of us can answer (yet) is whether or not there is extra weighting in the base of the dome...