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

New iMacs- 20" TN 6-bit panels?

It's clear to me that Apple have permanently dropped the 20" high quality display in favour of a lower cost entry model. Probably targeting casual PC switchers who are used to cheap displays and don't want to pay big bucks for their computer. The mid and high range models are now 24" and those are the machines you should be aspiring to upgrade to if you want a high quality display. I haven't heard anyone complaining about the lack of 15" or 17" iMacs recently?

Sp if you're expecting Apple to put H-IPS panels back in 20" iMacs I would expect an infinitely long wait. It would make as much sense to Apple as re-releasing a 17" iMac.
 
VoodooDaddy said:
Then buy a 24". Is it that hard? How is this stopping you from buying one? Apple offers a low end model, the 20", which obviously used cheaper parts to keep the price down.
Click to expand...

Good god, I can't believe people keep falling back on that "low end" nonsense argument. No computer over $1000 can call itself low end, thus my annoyance that Apple is selling the 20" iMacs for an exorbitant price. They either need to lower the price to match what you get with the low quality display or fix the effing thing already and give people the quality they are presumably paying for.

And you know, I could afford a 24" machine, but it's too big for where it's going and I have no need for a display that large. Still, it's interesting that you have to approach $2000 to get a decent display out of Apple. Doesn't that strike you as something worth complaining about?

VoodooDaddy said:
And they offer a higher end model, the 24. I dont think Apple give a crap how you feel about the TN screens. They are doing just fine if you havent noticed.
Click to expand...

I don't give a rip if they've hit 50% market share with these iMacs. The displays are crap either way. Apple should care how people feel about this, including me. I read/hear complaints about it all over the place. I've seen plenty of people here agree with me as well. Should they all shut up too?

VoodooDaddy said:
Do you complain about EVERYTHING like this? If so, God help the ppl that come in contact with you. Its fine to make your point a few times. But to continually harp on it gets really ***** old.
Click to expand...

You're completely overreacting. I've complained about the glossy screen, the low quality of the display itself and now I've reiterated that as Apple has apparently not fixed the problem with this so-called update. I think if you review my posting history, you'll see I've contributed a lot more to the discussions here than my recent gripes about the iMac.

Seems to me you're likely another Apple apologist and I've just bumped that "Apple did bad" nerve one too many times. Don't like hearing it? Well then let's both hope Apple doesn't put out a sh*t product next time around and price it as if it weren't.
 
Not to add fire to the fuel here but....I'm with inkswamp. I'm kinda dissapointed that Apple can't carry the same quality into their 20" imacs. And I too, am in the market for a 20". The 24" is too large for my purposes and my wallet as well, and I certainly don't want to pay close to 2 grand just to get the same type of display quality.

Obviously, people are complaining about this issue. Not just inkswamp. I mean, the OP made a a whole new thread about it, so yea I think people do care. Its just sad to know that we are in the minority and that we are beyond the ears of Apple at this point. But hey, someone's gotta keep talking or they may just keep it going like this.
 
Depends how you look at it. My new 24" iMac cost roughly the same as my previous 20" iMac. Perhaps I don't really need a bigger display, but it is rather nice.

With only 4 models to choose from and not many custom options, someone will always be unhappy. In this case it is those "traditional" Apple fans who absolutely insist on having a 20" display who are pissed. They see a 20" model for £799 (UK) and expect it to have an H-IPS display just like the £1149 24" model. It's not a realistic expectation. How expensive were the last white 20" iMacs? I'm guessing more than £799, but I could be wrong.
 
i think you're all missing the point ...

i dont think the argument is so much what display should be used, obviously it is to an extent, especially when the issue of price is concerned,

however, to keep on track, i think it is more to do with honesty


look, the information is under the page title of technical specifications, that implies, if not explicitly, that it is details concerned purely with the hardware.

for example, look at all the info surrounding it ... or indeed any other subsection - no mention of any software technique used to enhance the hardware.

"active-matrix liquid crystal display
Resolution
20-inch models: 1680 by 1050 pixels
24-inch model: 1920 by 1200 pixels
Millions of colours at all resolutions
Typical brightness: 290 cd/m2 (20-inch models); 385 cd/m2 (24-inch model)
Typical contrast ratio: 800:1 (20-inch models); 750:1 (24-inch model)"


and just to end, on the same technical specifications page, i would not say the imac hard drive were capable of 3Tb just because the os had built in some compression software that allowed me to achieve this simulated capacity. it says the actual drive capacity - 250Gb, moreso there is an asterisk informing you the actual formatted capacity is even less.

do you get the idea?
 
foeniox - I see your point, but this kind of smoke and mirrors marketing applies to almost everything you buy. Cars are a great example. That's why you test drive, check independent reviews, speak to other users etc. Anyone who blindly believes all the manufacturers spin is likely to be disappointed.

I was considering buying a new 20" iMac until I read about the TN panels and then went to view one for myself. It's common sense to check these things for yourself before shelling out your hard earned cash. It would be naive of anyone to expect Apple to make a point in stating that their 20" displays are a bit crappy.
 
ukmacmonster said:
It would be naive of anyone to expect Apple to make a point in stating that their 20" displays are a bit crappy.
Click to expand...

they should as long as its the truth, in their website they make it look like both 24" and 20" use the exact same screen. they must mention the differences if any.
i agree with inkswamp, for such price we expect the best, thats what apple is about and thats what make it different from crappy PCs
 
inkswamp said:
Good god, I can't believe people keep falling back on that "low end" nonsense argument. No computer over $1000 can call itself low end, .
Click to expand...

Get a clue dude. Just because it costs a grand, doesnt mean anything. Its APPLES LOW END IMAC, what part of that dont you comprehend? You cannot compare an iMac with a Dell that cost $299, surely you arent that dense.

inkswamp said:
You're completely overreacting. I've complained about the glossy screen, the low quality of the display itself and now I've reiterated that as Apple has apparently not fixed the problem with this so-called update. I think if you review my posting history, you'll see I've contributed a lot more to the discussions here than my recent gripes about the iMac.

.
Click to expand...

Im not overreacting at all, just sick of seeing your bitching and moaning about this in EVERY iMac thread in this forum. There IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE DISPLAY, it works as its designed to. The first step in moving on is accepting that. No amount of complaining by you is going to change anything. Get the 24 and be happy, or get the 20 and deal with it.

inkswamp said:
Seems to me you're likely another Apple apologist and I've just bumped that "Apple did bad" nerve one too many times.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. I dont wash Steve Jobs' balls like alot of ppl around here do. Im just put off by your incessant sniveling over this issue. Ive seen it TOO many times in TOO many different threads. Make your point and move on please. Thats what Im doing, because Im done with you. However Im sure you will carry on and contaminate every other thread about the 20" imacs you can find.

ukmacmonster said:
24" model. It's not a realistic expectation. How expensive were the last white 20" iMacs? I'm guessing more than £799, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...


This is something all the cry babies seem to miss to. Apple DROPPED THE PRICE of the 20" iMac to the cost of the 17". How else do ppl expect them to do something like this without cutting corners in some areas?
 
Bdx33 said:
they should as long as its the truth, in their website they make it look like both 24" and 20" use the exact same screen. they must mention the differences if any.
i agree with inkswamp, for such price we expect the best, thats what apple is about and thats what make it different from crappy PCs
Click to expand...

Expect to be disappointed then with almost everything you buy. They do not state on their website that they use the same screen, they just don't state that the 20" is cheaper or that the 24" is more expensive. If you look at the tech specs, it becomes more obvious that they are different i.e different viewing angle range, different brightness and contrast. What else are you expecting them to say?

As for price, low end iMacs are cheaper than they've ever been and the higher end iMacs are better value. Ok so they're still expensive compared to PCs, but the gap is getting smaller.

If you expect the best, then pay extra for a 24" iMac. If you want cheap, buy a PC or maybe a low end iMac. If you expect price/performance parity with PCs then forget about Macs altogether!
 
VoodooDaddy said:
Im not overreacting at all, just sick of seeing your bitching and moaning about this in EVERY iMac thread in this forum.
Click to expand...

Gee, I'm either sleep-posting or you have an extremely overactive imagination. I kinda doubt I'm posting to every iMac thread as you claim. I admit I've posted a lot lately about the shortcomings of the iMac and Mini but that's because Apple has made some ridiculous missteps with both of them and I want them to rectify that. But you certainly are overreacting because I am not posting to every iMac thread. I'm not even coming close to that, and a majority of my posts are in response to people coming back with illogical, apologist nonsense (you know, like saying a $1000+ computer is "entry level.")

Anyway, if seeing me post strong opinions about the iMac really bothers you I would suggest you do what you hinted at in your previous post and just put me on your ignore list. It's usually best to avoid things that upset you, and I have no intention of moderating my opinion on the flaws in the current Mac line-up until the day comes that Apple addresses them appropriately.

You may want to avoid reading the news too as it would appear that others have noticed problems with the iMac displays as well.
 
inkswamp said:
I admit I've posted a lot lately about the shortcomings of the iMac and Mini but that's because Apple has made some ridiculous missteps with both of them and I want them to rectify that.
Click to expand...

Well, from a business perspective, Apple has not made any missteps, especially after posting record sales.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
Well, from a business perspective, Apple has not made any missteps, especially after posting record sales.
Click to expand...

True, but from a business perspective, Microsoft has made very few missteps lately too.

I've always liked Apple's products because they're very careful about the design, not just how it looks, but how it works and the quality of the parts. Everything really worked together nicely and there was a great deal of care put into every aspect of the machine, even the so-called "low end" machines. I own a G4 iMac at home that has been humming along for 6 years now, everything working together the way they should. The display has been a thing of beauty from day one. And this was the "low end" iMac at the time I bought it. Back then, the iMacs were all pretty much the same machine. The price difference brought you a better graphics card, faster processor, a bigger screen, combo/superdrive or more RAM. It wasn't a matter of trading off quality of the components for the lower price.
 
inkswamp said:
I own a G4 iMac at home that has been humming along for 6 years now, everything working together the way they should. The display has been a thing of beauty from day one. And this was the "low end" iMac at the time I bought it.
Click to expand...

The G4 iMac, which my daughter also has, uses TN film panel.

Back then, the iMacs were all pretty much the same machine. The price difference brought you a better graphics card, faster processor, a bigger screen, combo/superdrive or more RAM. It wasn't a matter of trading off quality of the components for the lower price.
Click to expand...

Mmm, so you have no problems with better graphics card, but not better screen?
 
VoodooDaddy said:
Hello Vista? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Exactly! Vista is a lousy OS and yet Microsoft still makes loads of money. So from a business perspective, they have made no missteps. But we all know better than that, right? That's exactly the sort of behavior I think Apple should avoid. There's no reason to start taking shortcuts on quality on the "low end" iMacs, even if, from a business perspective, that isn't considered a misstep. From the perspective of many customers, it is a misstep.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
The G4 iMac, which my daughter also has, uses TN film panel.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was what... 6 years ago. Apple's quality is slipping back to what they sold 6 years ago. And from all the G4 iMacs I've seen, I've never seen color or gradient problems with the displays and there were no class action lawsuits about the displays. Seems clear that Apple is letting the quality slip.

JayLenochiniMac said:
Mmm, so you have no problems with better graphics card, but not better screen?
Click to expand...

Because it's clearly stated exactly what kind of GPU you get. The customer knows beforehand what they're buying. It just looks to me like Apple has attempted to obfuscate this on their website. They point out some minor differences, but nowhere on the site does it explicitly say that the displays are different types. And the "millions of colors" thing is especially damning. That should have a footnote explaining how that applies to the 20" model.
 
inkswamp said:
Personally, I wouldn't consider any form of dithering to be a suitable replacement for the ability to actually display colors.
Click to expand...

In that case, you are stuck. There is no display technology that doesn't use dithering. An eight bit panel can display 766 different colours, not more. The "millions of colours" are created by dithering. Your printer uses dithering. Even good colour printers have only six colours and use dithering to produce the rest.
 
Bdx33 said:
they make it look like both 24" and 20" use the exact same screen.
Click to expand...

Exactly the same? Really? This word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

vizzini.jpg
 
Bdx33 said:
... they make it look like both 24" and 20" use the exact same screen.
Click to expand...

keywords: "make it look like," as opposed to "came out and said directly." I was frustrated about this when I bought my imac, but I really could care less now. The display is fine for most people, really.
 
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