Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iMac family gallery - 17, 20 and 24" on one table
- Thread starter maler
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That helps me a lot 
I don't have an Apple store near me, and the campus reseller doesn't have the 24'', so seeing the size is hard for me.
I don't have an Apple store near me, and the campus reseller doesn't have the 24'', so seeing the size is hard for me.
oooh, I could sooo get used to that 24" model.
Need to find me a new contract for next year to afford it though...
Need to find me a new contract for next year to afford it though...
What fabulous pics! Thanks a bunch! (You just got me gagging for one and wanting to throw out this crappy Dell I'm still using, running Micro$lop).
dcv said:
How many people will have all 3 at home? There's a good few around comparing the 24" with another iMac at home though. At least this picture gives a real world picture, from multiple angles, on how the iMacs look. Why does it matter if it's in a store, on a desk, rather than in a home, on a desk. It'll look exactly the same.
Certainly gives me a good feel for what my wife is sitting in front of right now, as I've only thus far seen the 20" and 17" in person.
enda1 said:
Do you know what proportionally means?
If you take the height of the chin on the 17" iMac and divide it by the height of the screen, then you get a fractional representation of how much space, the chin takes up relative the the size of the screen. Do the same with the 24" and you'll get a smaller fraction. This compares how the screens are proportionally.
What you've just written above is bad English, and what you meant to say is proportionally smaller, because that's what you are trying to explain.
A 24" iMac chin is proportionally smaller relative to a 17" iMac chin. That's the same as saying that an 24" iMac chin is proportionally smaller than a 17" iMac chin, but is NOT the same as saying that a 24" chin is relatively smaller than a 17" chin, which is just bad English.
enda1 said:
So the 24" iMac is too big, but a screen of the same size + a bigger box sitting beside it is not too big? Excellent logic.
MovieCutter said:Yup, it's definitely just you...
lol add me to the list. i passed by the apple store and the screen is just way too big. most users sit about 1-2 feet away from the screen (unless ur watching a movie). having a 2' screen right in front of u might make u dizzy after a while.
wchong said:
Surely most people have a desk that's about 2 feet deep. So already, before even factoring in the distance you sit from the desk, on a chair, you are already at least 2 feet away from the screen.
Also, unlike a movie, you don't need to see ALL the screen at the same time. You focus on just part of the screen, probably equivalent to that of a 19" 4:3 screen, looking at the window you are interested in. Except, unlike on a smaller screen, instead of having to shuffle windows around if you are working on more than one window, you just merely pan your view over to the other window.
Everyone oohs and ahhs over 30" ACDs and 23" ACDs, knowing they can't afford one. Then out comes a 24" iMac that's within most peoples grasp and you get all these people who don't have either a >23" ACD or a 24" iMac suddenly saying, ooh it's too big. Personally I find that a load of, how did someone put it yesterday?, moose testes.
The people who think it's too big are the people who don't have one, have never used one, and aren't currently in a postion to have one. Everybody has a use for screen real-estate. Many people have two monitors and switch from one to the other. This is no different, except the monitors are infact just blended into one. You look at the portion of the screen you are interested in, not the whole damn thing. When you want to watch a movie, you just move back, stick your feet up, pick up the remote and press play and watch the whole screen from a distance thats comfortable for the whole screen. Then you get an email, you go back to the desk, look at the email window which is on a small portion of the screen, and find that sitting 2 feet away is just fine for looking at that window.
Of course, if you stubbornly refuse to look at windows, and maximise everything to fill the screen then you'll be too close to comprehend things comfortably. But then that's a total misuse of the technology. People who know how to make use of these screens are the exact same people who are buying them.
I find a 1280x 1024 screen resolution way to constrictive. Having 1400x1050 on my laptop is OK, but I still find myself wanting more space to work with. Upping the resoltion, and keeping the screen size small just makes everything too tiny.
At work I run two 19" monitors at 1280x1024. At home I run one monitor at 1900x1200. It's more or less the same solution without an air gap between them, which makes it easier to work with multiple windows and applications, which is why the >23" ACDs came about in the first place, and why the 24" iMac exists. Not everyone expands every window to fill the screen. Instead they have several windows open at once, side by side. On a 24" iMac you can do that and have each window at a comfortable size to view. You don't read them all at once, just one at a time. I really don't understand where all this "ooh it's too big to focus on" nonesense comes from. Because in reality you just plain don't have to focus on the whole thing at once. That's not the point, as anyone working with large monitors will tell you. It's not about making things bigger, it's about having more things on screen at the same size.
zerolight said:
well it's different when you have more than one monitor since by shifiting your eyes to the window you only move SIDEWAYS. with 24" you need to look up and down and with prolonged use it may put stress on your neck.
it's not appreciated when you come in here and start implying how half of the people who don't own a 30" ACD or a 24" iMac can't afford one. it all boils down to preference.
I think zerolight is absolutely right. He makes some very valid points, yet you seem to focus on the only one you could possibly take negatively. Shame.
While it may be bad taste to say it, that certainly doesn't preclude it from being true in some instances.
While it may be bad taste to say it, that certainly doesn't preclude it from being true in some instances.
MBHockey said:
that is because i find the other points to be valid
i don't like looking up at a screen. i prefer moving sideways (like i said better for my neck, especially if you're in front of the monitor a big chunk of the day). besides i still do not like how he semi-bashed others with an assumption.
Well, I could really use the screen size. And eventually be wanting to get a 30". It's just something that can always be used. And I don't know why anyone would say that it is too big. I've been reading that a lot lately. I can't remember anyone saying that the 30" ACD is too big. It just seems odd.
