Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2009 iMac: Why pick 20" over 24"?

I don't know how much this was touched on but didn't see it early in the thread.

The 20" iMac includes a TN panel which is lower clarity and not as bright. From angles the display will look washed out. This is not a 20" vs 24" argument. If both displays were high quality IPS displays, then anyone could make the argument if you don't need screen size or real estate it doesn't matter.

The deal is the 24" iMac has an IPS display. It is beautiful, the color is amazing, and it is super sharp and clear. This isn't a screen size debate, it's what display do you want to look at for what you do. If you are checking email and writing in Pages/Word, it probably will not matter. If you are watching videos, playing games, or definitely if doing ANY graphics work at all, you will want the IPS panel.

If the 20" iMac had an IPS display, there wouldn't be an "upgrade" path as valid as most feel like 20" is plenty of screen real estate. So Apple is definitely making the 24" its "pro" or "premium" product.

I would much rather look at an IPS display, even if the extra cost gave me the same 20" but with IPS. So, the upgrade is worth it based on value and rewards of owning the nicer quality display, and additionally, the IPS is bigger too.
 
I have the 24" and the display is unreal! The 20" is good but as the others say, it's not in the same league.
 
taxdad said:
Yes, the 24 is great. I get that. Anyone else out there, though, for whom the 20 was the better choice? Why?
Click to expand...

The 24" iMac (2009) has an S-IPS Panel - while the 20" iMac has a standard TFT Panel. The viewing angles and colors on IPS are richer and deeper.

Hope I've helped. :eek:
 
Scottsdale said:
I don't know how much this was touched on but didn't see it early in the thread.

The 20" iMac includes a TN panel which is lower clarity and not as bright. From angles the display will look washed out. This is not a 20" vs 24" argument. If both displays were high quality IPS displays, then anyone could make the argument if you don't need screen size or real estate it doesn't matter.

The deal is the 24" iMac has an IPS display. It is beautiful, the color is amazing, and it is super sharp and clear. This isn't a screen size debate, it's what display do you want to look at for what you do. If you are checking email and writing in Pages/Word, it probably will not matter. If you are watching videos, playing games, or definitely if doing ANY graphics work at all, you will want the IPS panel.

If the 20" iMac had an IPS display, there wouldn't be an "upgrade" path as valid as most feel like 20" is plenty of screen real estate. So Apple is definitely making the 24" its "pro" or "premium" product.

I would much rather look at an IPS display, even if the extra cost gave me the same 20" but with IPS. So, the upgrade is worth it based on value and rewards of owning the nicer quality display, and additionally, the IPS is bigger too.
Click to expand...

Scottsdale, you do know that your MBA has a TN panel? :D
 
Scottsdale said:
I don't know how much this was touched on but didn't see it early in the thread.

The 20" iMac includes a TN panel which is lower clarity and not as bright. From angles the display will look washed out. This is not a 20" vs 24" argument. If both displays were high quality IPS displays, then anyone could make the argument if you don't need screen size or real estate it doesn't matter.

The deal is the 24" iMac has an IPS display. It is beautiful, the color is amazing, and it is super sharp and clear. This isn't a screen size debate, it's what display do you want to look at for what you do. If you are checking email and writing in Pages/Word, it probably will not matter. If you are watching videos, playing games, or definitely if doing ANY graphics work at all, you will want the IPS panel.

If the 20" iMac had an IPS display, there wouldn't be an "upgrade" path as valid as most feel like 20" is plenty of screen real estate. So Apple is definitely making the 24" its "pro" or "premium" product.

I would much rather look at an IPS display, even if the extra cost gave me the same 20" but with IPS. So, the upgrade is worth it based on value and rewards of owning the nicer quality display, and additionally, the IPS is bigger too.
Click to expand...

This is how I feel. 20" of screen might be enough, but since the iMac I am planning on is going to essentially be my TV, the high quality display is more important. It would suck to turn your screen and walk to the other side of the room to watch a movie only to realize that you can't see anything.
 
Yesterday I had to decide between the 20" and the 24". I went with the 24". The larger screen is really great. It's a little overwhelming at first but I'm coming from a 13" MacBook so there's a lot more to look at now! But I like being able to have several windows and applications open at once and still see them all. I think if I were just doing regular browsing and not also using it for movies/TV then I would've gone with the 20".
 
I own a 2009 24 for work and a 20 2009 for home. The 24 supposedly uses a IPS panel, and the 2009 20 uses TN panel. Looking at them both straight on cannot tell the difference. From the side yes. The contrast shift is minimal on the 20 but it is still there.

There are two manufactures of TN panels for the 20 2009 imac. One is 6 bit the other is 8 bit.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/674462/


Check this thread. Explains in great detail the difference between the two 20 panels.

I personally if I had to do it all over again would go with the 24 and just have bought a new desk. If I would have known that one 20 2009 panel uses a 6 bit panel and one uses a 8 bit panel I don't think I would have even thought twice about getting the 24. Not unless you feel lucky and want to play the panel lottery, I for one would not. Now my 8 bit 20 panel is great. looks as good as the 24 straight on in my opinion.


But I would still get the 24.
 
I owned the first generation of aluminium 20" iMac and I regret buying it. I've since sold it, but really I can't forget how terrible the display was in that computer. Colours would change shade simply by looking up and down.

If you can afford it definitely go with the 24" model. The colours and viewing angle are MUCH better.
 
Thanks for all the great comments so far. Macrumors is awesome.

Yes, the 24 display quality is better. No argument. Never a question there.

Yes, dudeman, I've read the massive thread on 20 inch iMacs that's now pushing 200 posts. You are truly a detailed person and I thank you for that because I love information.

I knew lots of people felt the 24 is better. I was looking for those few who think the 20 is better for some reason. What we have so far:

-24 screen too bright for some
-24 too large on small desks
-new 20 cheaper than new 24
-24 uses more power
-24 has wasted space for those who don't use side-by-side windows often
-20 has same processor and graphics as base 24
-eyes can "take in" the 20 easier
-you move the mouse farther in a 24
-pixel density better in 20?
-20 is thinner than 24
-with 20, can upgrade RAM to 4, get applecare, iWork and still stay under 24 price
-20 was once considered too large
-wives seem to prefer 20 (so size really doesn't matter after all, then?)

The list in favor of the 24 would be much longer probably. In the end it's subjective, not absolute, I guess.
 
I compared the 20" vs. 24" 2.66 GHz models ($300 difference) and opted for the 20" since:

1) I really didn't care if I had a bigger monitor
2) The actual configuration difference is only the presence of 640GB HDD ($75 upgrade in the 20") and 4GB memory ($60 if added after market)
3) so I saved $165 which I spent on a 3 year Apple care plan to protect my new investment from what I imagine will be a buildup of heat over time (similar to a notebook).

When I see the 24" iMacs in the stores, I have a [very] tiny twinge of regret but, overall, I made what I thought was a smart choice for my family...
 
I guess the answer for me is a bit simplistic but the size is why I got it and why I never considered the 20"--the 24" screen is beautiful!
 
trip1ex said:
I got the new 20" and sold my old 24" refurb.

Why?

Wife wanted to go back to the smaller screen. Believe it or not. And you know, I halfway can see the appeal. The 24" can seem a bit overwhelming. You have to move your mouse farther too.
Click to expand...

Cant just let this slip by...

you cant be serious!?
 
The 20 is a darn good screen

taxdad said:
-pixel density better in 20?
Click to expand...

If it helps any I can remove the question mark after this point.

The 20" resolution is 1680 x 1050 = 1,764,000 pixels total.
The area of this screen is 180 square inches.
The pixel density is 1,764,000 / 180 = 9800 pixels per square inch.
(or 99 pixels per linear inch)

The 24" resolution is 1920 x 1200 = 2,304,000 pixels total.
The area of this screen is 259 square inches.
The pixel density is 2,304,000 / 259 = 8896 pixels per square inch.
(or 94 pixels per linear inch)

So the 20" has 10% more pixels per square inch that the 24"

I have measured and calibrated both screens personally using the EyeOne colorimeter and HCFR SW. From the calibrators point of view both screens perform great. I was quite surprised to see they cover almost the exact same gamut. I was expecting the 20 in to be much less (like 76% or so), but both are nearly 100%. The deltaE in both after calibration is around 2, the gamma curves look equally good and contrast ratio on each are pretty close with the 20" being a little higher 800:1 vs 700:1 or so typically. No big deal.

My visual impression is that the 20 looks every bit as good as the 24 during straight-on viewing. Colors are every bit as saturated, sharpness and clarity are almost indistinguishable with perhaps the slightest edge given to the 24". The problem is that it is impossible to look at the entire screen straight-on even in the 20" case at normal viewing distances, so the dock at the bottom may appear less contrasty if you are tilted for viewing the top.

As you begin to look off axis at the screens there is a very noticable drop in performance on the 20" due to the fact that it is TN technology. Because of this physics, the Reds, Greens, and Blues will fade differently at different angles. The 24" IPS does not have this problem anywhere near this extent and is relatively immune to off-axis shifting.

The subjective comparisons above are based only on my own personal experiences with my 6-bit 20" 2007 panel and 8-bit 24" 2008 panel.
 
taxdad said:
It seems the conventional wisdom on these forums and many review sites is that the 2009 24 inch iMacs are better than the 2009 20 inch iMacs in every way except cost.

Anyone out there feel otherwise: you picked the 20 over the 24 for some reason? I'd like to know what advantages you saw in the 20 over the 24.

What reasons might there be to reject the 24 (specifically referring to the base-level 2.66 24" for $1499).

Side note: Currently the 20 vs. 24 decision is driving me a little crazy. The 24" display is awesome, but I'd like to convince myself the 20 is ok, simply because I come from the sub-$1k pc world so even the $1199 (20 inch price) seems like a lot to pay.
Click to expand...

20 inch has a rubbish 6 bit display that only provides the illusion of millions of colours by dithering - very poor choice of display for a machine costing a lot of money.
 
Yep that sums it up.

-24 screen too bright for some (minimum brightness is too bright.)
-new 20 cheaper than new 24
-24 uses more power
-24 has wasted space for those who don't use side-by-side windows often
-20 has same processor and graphics as base 24
-eyes can "take in" the 20 easier
-you move the mouse farther in a 24
-pixel density better in 20
-20 is thinner than 24 (and lighter.)
-20 was once considered too large
-wives seem to prefer 20 (so size really doesn't matter after all, then?)
 
Also with movies the contrast shift isn't noticeable. The big reason is widescreen movies have big black bars on the top and bottom which is where the contrast shift comparison is most pronounced.

I don't notice the contrast shift in photos much either. Probably because a photo has more shades of color than a computer interface and thus a contrast shift doesn't stand out that easily.

In games hardly noticeable either. You're too focused on the game. But I do remember noticing the shift on my old 20" in a game of WoW. And that's because of the interface bar at the bottom which I glanced at often. It's like the Dock. That's where I notice that the 20" gets a bit whited out at the bottom.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)

Sambo110 said:
The 20" is for people like my mum, she plays a few puzzle games, but mainly checks her emails and browses the web a bit. She has no use for all the extra stuff, and the huge screen.
Click to expand...

Oh dear. Have we really reached the point where a 20" screen attached to a 2.66ghz core 2 duo is seen as only appropriate for the proverbial email checker/web surfer? I've seen that claim made about the mini, but this is even worse. Honestly, how many people really need more than that? I'm not saying don't get the 24", but this idea that whatever the low end is currently is only good for the prototypical "consumer" hasn't been true in a great many years.
 
My thought is that the better model is the one that will best suit your needs and wants. What I need in a computer may not be what you need; therefore, what I consider the better choice may not align with your qualifications.

For me, I wanted a computer that:

- Wasn't too large because I have space restrictions (small office area with a small/medium sized desk space)

- Was more affordable for my price range and financially made sense (see below)

- Had the appropriate specs for my needs as it would be my home computer and would only occasionally do hardcore work stuff (I try to keep work at work and home at home). So, I didn't need a 640 GB HD or 4 GB RAM. And because I would not need it, it didn't make sense to get it - perhaps like getting a car that has a 6 CD changer when you'll only ever plug in your iPod.

Based on what I was looking for, the 20 inch suited me just fine. The 24 inch would have been too large for my space, and I'm not even making a dent in my RAM or HD space I have now.

So, I think that there's no hard fast reason why to pick one over another. It depends on what you want/need in your computer. How much memory do you think you'll need? What kind of applications do you use? If you'll expect to do work with lots of visual stuff (photos, video, etc) think about if you'll enjoy having a bigger screen. Stuff like that. :)
 
For me, it came down to a few things:

I pulled up what I regularly use on the 20": 2 Word windows, Firefox, and NetNews Wire. I will sometimes work with 3 or more documents and presentations open at a time. Plus, I watch Hulu or TWiT Live while I'm working. The 20" just seemed cramped to me, I often have issues with my Air's 13" screen being too small to move windows around. I'll also be video editing, creating podcasts, and creating a website on this machine.

Same thing on the 24 gave me more freedom. Plus, the previous gen 24" was too good of a deal not to go with considering I had space. I tried to love the 20", but it wasn't happening for me.

For what it's worth, I think the 20" has a nice screen, I've seen worse. If you use the 2.2 gamma on the 20", it looks great, especially the blacks. It does have some contrast shift, but nothing like the cheap monitors you can pick up in the $100-200 range.

Take into consideration budget, space, and what you'll be doing. I think both machines serve a purpose, but both are capable in their own right.
 
Consumer Reports gave the display of the 20" iMac its highest rating - excellent. The 20" iMac also received CR's recommendation for best all-in-one which takes into account overall score in testing and price/value.

It did not test the 24" iMac.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
Scottsdale, you do know that your MBA has a TN panel? :D
Click to expand...

No way. I learn something new every day. Obviously, I am smart enough to know that but I certainly don't know everything. My MBA was stolen, but how about you tell me if the 24" LED backlit ACD is TN - obviously I know a little something as the ACD I used with my MBA was an IPS panel. Actually it's too bad the iMacs didn't get the LED backlit display like the new 24" ACD.

The 24" iMac does have a beautiful display. While the MBA isn't IPS, it is LED backlit which makes it deep and rich. No matter what, I will take IPS over TN even if I have to suffer with four more inches. Ha ha.
 
Well... I myself think that the 20" screen is a better size. But apple certainly don't want us to buy it since they put only crappy hardware in it and an inferior display panel. So no I would never buy the 20" with those specs... but would if it had the same quality display and same hardware (2.93, 4850, etc).
 
UrFatMom said:
Well... I myself think that the 20" screen is a better size. But apple certainly don't want us to buy it since they put only crappy hardware in it and an inferior display panel. So no I would never buy the 20" with those specs... but would if it had the same quality display and same hardware (2.93, 4850, etc).
Click to expand...

A possible option for people in this category (those who don't want a 24 inch screen but who don't want the 20 inch iMac either): An upgraded mac mini with a display from the manufacturer of your choice. This is an option I gave serious consideration to. Consider the Dell 2209WA, a 22 inch IPS display, that is IPS like the iMac 24 display. This display has the 178 viewing angle that the 24" iMac has.
http://accessories.dell.com/sna/pro...l.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=dhs&cs=CADHS1&sku=320-7825
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back