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.
New iMacs- 20" TN 6-bit panels?
- Thread starter xtwentyseven
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So i just got a chance to play with one of the new 20" 2.66GHz models and i can confirm its the exact same screen as the previous gen...at least both model numbers were 9C6A which means the exact same issues. Calibration might mitigate a little but overall...sub-par display
In terms of other features...it is fast. Maybe because its Leopard though (im still on Tiger) or due to it being a fresh machine but things were zippy and its even quieter
I think its safe to say if you're buying an iMac now you're better off getting the 24" model
In terms of other features...it is fast. Maybe because its Leopard though (im still on Tiger) or due to it being a fresh machine but things were zippy and its even quieter
I think its safe to say if you're buying an iMac now you're better off getting the 24" model
That's the second wrong analogy you've drawn up now. This is not akin to you just complaining your car doesn't get 100mpg. It's akin to you complaining that your car 6 months ago would have cost the same, and done 100mpg, yet now it costs the same and does 50mpg (Just comes in a different shell). You're loosing 50mpg for erm, what? So a company can skim a little more off the top. Good for the shareholders (In the short term at least) not so brilliant for us.
Let me put it another way.. Would you not have been the slightest bit peeved if you'de scrimped and saved for a new 20" iMac knowing it came with the IPS screen, it had been refreshed, and then it didn't have one anymore? Maybe you're just too easy going, but i would have! Not all people like refurbs and second hands either.
Actually you missed the point of that. What I was saying was no matter how much I complain its not going to change the MPG my car gets. So why complain about it? If I want better MPG get a car that gets better MPG. And if you want a better screen get the 24 and quit bitching.
Yes; however, no amount of daily whining by the likes of Leon, inkswamp, et al. is going to change that. Those of us who've been scrimping and saving for a new 24" with a matte screen and a high-end graphics card also got screwed when the first generation Alu iMac debuted. The vast majority of customers aren't going to notice a difference and that's all Apple cares about. I've been telling everyone here to get the Alu if they go for the 24" and a refurb white 20" if they go the 20" route.
I think these are very interesting observations, because they show how 2 people with 2 different biases can look at the same information in very different ways. Actually, I think this entire thread, and that other one on the bleeding issue, are both evidence of that. From my perspective, Apple dropped the 17" unit and kept the price point on the entry into the iMac at the exact same spot. But they also:
* Knocked $300 off of the entry 20" iMac from $1499 to $1199.
* On the mid-range iMac, upgraded the HD, doubled the video memory, upgraded the processor (an upgrade that they previously charged $250 for) and kept the price the same at $1499.
* Made upgrades to the 24" iMac (without downgrades in the screen panel) and decreased the price $200.
Some would say Apple lowered the price across the board by $200-$300. Some would say Apple kept the price the same (focusing on the entry point to the iMac line, and the mid-level 20" iMac sans the value of the hardware upgrades). I think you can examine the facts here and here for yourself, and see that both POVs could be said to be "true". The facts are documented clearly - judge them for yourself.
In either case, and either POV, what Apple did was decrease their own manufacturing cost to make the iMac, while making them more compelling for their customers to buy (i.e. either a price decrease or better hardware at the same price and banking that most wouldn't care about the screen). A good business move in my opinion, and good for most of their customer who perceive they are getting a better value, and buying iMacs in droves. Since the alum iMac line was released in August 2007, the three financial quarters they have reported financials for, desktop sales have increased 31%, 53% an 37% in quarter to year ago quarter percentages, after 4-5 quarters of nearly flat desktop sales. Customers are responding to Apple making the machines more compelling by gobbling them up like never before in Apple's history. (in 2 out of the last 3 quarterly financials, Apple reported record Mac sales, record revenue, record profit). I think it is clear that the target audience that Apple intends for these machines is not overly concerned about the details of the screen quality, and sees a compelling value.
If you are not in that target, the 20" is not for you, and it is unfortunate that you can got the quality screen you desire for $1199 or even $1499. But the screen you desire still exists - you have to spend $1799, or get a desktop and match it with the screen of your choice. It's not like that option does not exist at all (as the complaining by a vocal minority would have to think), it does exist - you just have to pay for. Just like in anything else - if you want something better, you have to pay for it.
If this view makes me a fanboi, than so be it. I'll gladly take that label if it means seeing the common sense and practicality of what Apple is doing, and understanding how their customers are seeing value.
Bought the 20" anyway
I'm new to the forum, but I read much of this thread before replacing our eMac with a 20" iMac today. I first heard about the difference in panels via headlines about the lawsuit. I do think that Apple's technical descriptions of the iMac displays are somwhat misleading. I have 1,764,000 pixels on the panel and to me "millions of colors" means each one can be a different color. I don't think users here would let a competitor off the hook quite so quickly in a similar situation.
Having said that, I spent an hour picking out a new machine today at the Apple store. Comparing the 20 and 23-inch models, I couldn't see any issues in color rendering on the 20", but I only had the standard Apple demo image in front of me and I didn't know where to look other than iPhoto / iMovie. Font smoothness (or lack thereof) was also similar enough for me.
The real difference was the washout effect and the smaller viewing angle. Opening up a blank Excel sheet, the gridlines disappeared at the top and bottom with the slightest change in (vertical) viewing angle. Viewing the screen from a high angle (which I often do when helping my kids use the system) is more difficult on the 20".
In the end, my practical side won over my perfectist side. I picked out the 20-inch iMac because it best fits our space and also because the LCD panel differences were negligable (other than washout). I would have paid more for a 20" with the better panel, but I can see how that offering would complicate Apples marketing message.
I'm new to the forum, but I read much of this thread before replacing our eMac with a 20" iMac today. I first heard about the difference in panels via headlines about the lawsuit. I do think that Apple's technical descriptions of the iMac displays are somwhat misleading. I have 1,764,000 pixels on the panel and to me "millions of colors" means each one can be a different color. I don't think users here would let a competitor off the hook quite so quickly in a similar situation.
Having said that, I spent an hour picking out a new machine today at the Apple store. Comparing the 20 and 23-inch models, I couldn't see any issues in color rendering on the 20", but I only had the standard Apple demo image in front of me and I didn't know where to look other than iPhoto / iMovie. Font smoothness (or lack thereof) was also similar enough for me.
The real difference was the washout effect and the smaller viewing angle. Opening up a blank Excel sheet, the gridlines disappeared at the top and bottom with the slightest change in (vertical) viewing angle. Viewing the screen from a high angle (which I often do when helping my kids use the system) is more difficult on the 20".
In the end, my practical side won over my perfectist side. I picked out the 20-inch iMac because it best fits our space and also because the LCD panel differences were negligable (other than washout). I would have paid more for a 20" with the better panel, but I can see how that offering would complicate Apples marketing message.
There's a nice, pragmatic and reasonable post. Good to see it.
I am sorry that you feel like you had to "settle" for the screen quality of the 20". I wonder if most people who are buying these feel that they are "settling", or walk off thinking the screen is great.
I also wonder if you will experience what I usually do with a new gadget: for about 1-2 months, I am all focused on every little detail, scratch, slightest performance variations, etc. And then that goes away, and I spend the next 4-5 years just enjoying the product, and look back at that initial 1-2 months and sort of laugh at myself.
I remember when we first got Tivo about 6 years ago. For the first few weeks, we were obsessed with the "recording quality" because you could store less programming at the higher settings. But we wanted the higher quality image (even though the lower quality ones were still comparable to VCR quality, which we were fine with back them). For a while, we recorded everything in the higher quality settings. After a few months, it went away, and most stuff backed off to the lower quality setting, because we wanted more space for more programs. We still recorded the occasional movie or favorite show in high, but we also laughed at ourselves for being so obsessive. In this case, it was interesting to learn about your own behaviors and quality tolerance, because you could control the level of quality yourself (in trade off for more space). A very interesting physiological experiment!
Here's the thing:
It doesn't matter if or if not Apple upped the specs, lowered prices, if the old iMacs had a better or worse panel or what Steve Jobs had for dinner.
The point is, these are the iMacs that are available to buy from Apple right now so if i'm a potential buyer, new to Macs i'll go to the website and look at the ads and the specs.Will i see *any* information there that they put different panels in the iMacs other than about size ? No, i won't.
So how am i supposed to know ?
The fact that Apple hides this from their customers is misleading buyers of the 20" to think there is no difference in the panel other than size.
Ok then, i even go to an APR to check them out in person.Will i spot the difference there ? Chances are, i will not.Because the default Leopard desktop wallpaper that shows on most Macs that are on display at APRs doesn't show siginificant flaws like the washout/gradient effect.Because just by coincidence (?) the wallpaper is designed in a way that it is light at the top and dark at the bottom of the screen so that equals out the washout effect you would normally see if a single color wallpaper would be showing.
Even if you buy an iMac you won't neccessarily discover that flaw at home, because chances are the first time you discover it is when you change the desktop picture or work with a graphics program for the first time on your new iMac.Just that it might have taken you so long to discover this effect that you're past the 14-day money back guarantee.
So what about the sales person at the APR there - they should tell you about the screen differences, right ? Sad thing is, most sales guys at APRs that i showed the washout flaw on the 20" didn't know about it *at all* or didn't know there were ANY differences in terms of the panel between the 20" and the 24" model - let alone they would tell you about it without you asking first.
Which means: If you're not aware of the 20" screen problems of the iMac before you buy because it's not on Apple's website nor do APRs know or tell you about it, how should you know ?!
Just to illustrate that it's not like it is oh so obvious for newbie buyers that there are "consumer" and "pro" iMacs or that the screens have differences.
Because Apple doesn't tell them.
P.S. As for "Why whining, it won't change anything" - well, i guess that's the point of complaining (especially on the internet):
That things none the less indeed might change because someone might listen.
It doesn't matter if or if not Apple upped the specs, lowered prices, if the old iMacs had a better or worse panel or what Steve Jobs had for dinner.
The point is, these are the iMacs that are available to buy from Apple right now so if i'm a potential buyer, new to Macs i'll go to the website and look at the ads and the specs.Will i see *any* information there that they put different panels in the iMacs other than about size ? No, i won't.
So how am i supposed to know ?
The fact that Apple hides this from their customers is misleading buyers of the 20" to think there is no difference in the panel other than size.
Ok then, i even go to an APR to check them out in person.Will i spot the difference there ? Chances are, i will not.Because the default Leopard desktop wallpaper that shows on most Macs that are on display at APRs doesn't show siginificant flaws like the washout/gradient effect.Because just by coincidence (?) the wallpaper is designed in a way that it is light at the top and dark at the bottom of the screen so that equals out the washout effect you would normally see if a single color wallpaper would be showing.
Even if you buy an iMac you won't neccessarily discover that flaw at home, because chances are the first time you discover it is when you change the desktop picture or work with a graphics program for the first time on your new iMac.Just that it might have taken you so long to discover this effect that you're past the 14-day money back guarantee.
So what about the sales person at the APR there - they should tell you about the screen differences, right ? Sad thing is, most sales guys at APRs that i showed the washout flaw on the 20" didn't know about it *at all* or didn't know there were ANY differences in terms of the panel between the 20" and the 24" model - let alone they would tell you about it without you asking first.
Which means: If you're not aware of the 20" screen problems of the iMac before you buy because it's not on Apple's website nor do APRs know or tell you about it, how should you know ?!
Just to illustrate that it's not like it is oh so obvious for newbie buyers that there are "consumer" and "pro" iMacs or that the screens have differences.
Because Apple doesn't tell them.
P.S. As for "Why whining, it won't change anything" - well, i guess that's the point of complaining (especially on the internet):
That things none the less indeed might change because someone might listen.
If I go to Home Depot I don't see contractors buying $100 Miter Saws to build houses with. They buy construction grade tools. I don't see them buying a $40 drill and then complaining it doesn't last or isn't powerful enough.
If you want a professional grade setup from Apple then you go Pro. You don't go to their consumer lineup.
I guess you didn't read my post at all.
So what again is the "consumer lineup" within the iMac range ?!
And why is it supposed to be "consumer" and where does Apple say so or where is a hint hidden in the specs ?
C'mon, some people here are just trying to make it look like the gradient and other flaws were just a matter of "consumer" or "pro" when in reality it's a matter of bad quality.
So could we please stop that "consumer" nonsense ?
I'm doing graphic design for a living so i would consider myself a professional just that a 24" is way TOO BIG for me, and why should a 20" 2,66 C2D 4GB RAM machine not be considered professional by looking at these specs ?! There's just no logical reason.
Again, that "consumer/pro" nonsense within the iMac range is just a weak try to justify partial poor quality in an otherwise perfect and "professional" machine.
Makes no sense.
So what again is the "consumer lineup" within the iMac range ?!
And why is it supposed to be "consumer" and where does Apple say so or where is a hint hidden in the specs ?
C'mon, some people here are just trying to make it look like the gradient and other flaws were just a matter of "consumer" or "pro" when in reality it's a matter of bad quality.
So could we please stop that "consumer" nonsense ?
I'm doing graphic design for a living so i would consider myself a professional just that a 24" is way TOO BIG for me, and why should a 20" 2,66 C2D 4GB RAM machine not be considered professional by looking at these specs ?! There's just no logical reason.
Again, that "consumer/pro" nonsense within the iMac range is just a weak try to justify partial poor quality in an otherwise perfect and "professional" machine.
Makes no sense.
What makes no sense? That Apple makes Cinema Displays that adhere to professional color standards? That graphics designers have different needs than Joe Schmoe and Ma and Pa?
Why would you think the iMac is a professional machine when the one thing your profession really needs is a top of the line screen? With your logic any 20" monitor should be a considered a professional monitor because 20" is listed on the box.
It seems to me Apple makes the products for your demanding needs, but you want those products at a cheaper price. I don't know what to tell you except it's easier to buy a diamond then try and turn manure into a diamond.
Here's what you can do.
YOu can buy a 20" iMac and run a 2nd display of the quality of your choosing.
You could buy a MBP and do the same thing.
You can buy a Mac Pro.
I hear ya on your needs and feel for ya that the 20" monitor isn't the quality you need, but that doesn't mean it has a serious issue for anyone, but you. The reality is Apple makes products for millions of consumers and that they can't please everyone nor have a perfect product at a perfect price for everyone. Unfortunately for you this means you're going to have go with Plan B.
I agree.
I bought the new 20" iMac (2.66GHz) and am very satisfied with it, I did not "settle" for it. When I was researching about the 20 inchers, like most folks I read about others reporting dissatisfaction with the display. After spending about 5 hours total in the Apple store going from machine to machine looking at sample images, documents and web pages, I thought the 20" display was very good. The 24" was definitely brighter, but it's not what I needed. When I came home and started it up, I had that feeling of satisfaction that I made a good choice for myself. Then I realized that I really should've taken less time to check out the machine in the store, but I was aware of the issues that others had said and this just hung over me like a cloud at the time. So I spent more time trying to find the reported flaws. I was worried of what I have read instead of just focusing on what I need and what I want. And this 20" iMac is it.
Thanks for the comment! For my case, I think you are spot on -- the "settled for" feeling evaporated at home quite quickly (well, after the 2-hour migration bit). The kids were falling all over each other demoing PhotoBooth to my wife.
The real gist of my post was just to say that despite being worried by the 6-bit panel lawsuit, I couldn't see where that issue might affect me once I compared the units side-by-side. The only real visual issue I could see was the lmited viewing angle and some washout. The viewing angle constraints, though, are documented in the Tech Specs.
Apple basically came up with a way to get iMacs with a lower price-point into the market with acceptable margin. The 6-bit issue may be problematic for some users -- and Apple needs to acknowledge that. But no harm was done to me!
I don't need a top of the line screen.Neither do the zillion designer people that have had previous iMacs as their main, industry-standard machine.All we need is a screen that has no hardware issues like bleeds and color gradients and such.Like the ones that were in the previous iMacs.Not top-of-all-lines but they were fine, i guess THAT IS WHY previous iMacs were so common amongst graphics people and have set the quasi standard in this industry.
So that is why of course people like me complain, as of course we expected the displays not to be of subpar quality.But that's what they are compared to previous iMacs that the industry is used t
f course there are always other options like buying an additional display, buy a 24" model (no matter if you need or have space for the bigger size, may i say) or go the PC route.Yeah, but i already knew that, thank you, that's not the point of this and other threads.My point was and is: The 20" display has issues, Apple ain't saying a word about it and it's not a matter of consumer/pro.It wasn't such a matter with previous iMac models either.
True. Professionals have been spoiled with the superior displays in the prev gen white iMac, but Apple apparently took that away with the new 20" (TN panel) and 24" (glossiness across the board and poor case design that contributed to backlight bleeding).
I actually passed on buying the 24" iMac back in March because the display had uneven lighting. I bought the 20" instead because the display model looked allot better.
I noticed something though for the first time:
I have a 23" Cinema display plugged into my iMac and from day one, I have always though the display had a better screen then the iMac. Today I was heading out and was standing up above both displays getting ready to sleep them. I looked down and noticed I could not even read the text on the display of the iMac and I could read every word on the Cinema display.
I still am happy that I chose the 20" iMac over the 24" but this shows how bad the viewing angles are on the iMacs.
The washout-ness can be mitigated by calibration. If you want i can send you a profile i made. PM me if interested.
Yes, you can exchange washedout-ness at the bottom edge
of the screen for a nice Darth Vader motif at the top:
http://picasaweb.google.com/TheLooby/20IMacScreenPhotos
Calibration can't fix nonuniformity, it can only relocate it.
LK
it's quite a decission to make... the iMac 20" has a horrible viewing angle but no color casts, while the 24" has good viewing angles with color casts and screen bleeds...
and i'm REALLY getting tired of people claiming that the iMac is apparently some "consumer only" computer, while it's unsuitable for professionals. what the hell is that suppose to mean?
if you think that some NASTY screen is acceptable for apple to sell to ANYONE, then i don't know why you're even here... may i suggest these links:
http://www.budgetpc.org/
http://www.dollaradaycomputer.com/
and i'm REALLY getting tired of people claiming that the iMac is apparently some "consumer only" computer, while it's unsuitable for professionals. what the hell is that suppose to mean?
if you think that some NASTY screen is acceptable for apple to sell to ANYONE, then i don't know why you're even here... may i suggest these links:
http://www.budgetpc.org/
http://www.dollaradaycomputer.com/
Another person missing the whole point. There are alternatives to the "horrible" 20" display, but no one seems to exercise their choice to go that route. They just come here and complain.
I don't need a top of the line screen.Neither do the zillion designer people that have had previous iMacs as their main, industry-standard machine.All we need is a screen that has no hardware issues like bleeds and color gradients and such.Like the ones that were in the previous iMacs.Not top-of-all-lines but they were fine, i guess THAT IS WHY previous iMacs were so common amongst graphics people and have set the quasi standard in this industry.
So that is why of course people like me complain, as of course we expected the displays not to be of subpar quality.But that's what they are compared to previous iMacs that the industry is used t
My point was and is: The 20" display has issues, Apple ain't saying a word about it and it's not a matter of consumer/pro.It wasn't such a matter with previous iMac models either.
They aren't saying a word about it because you have magazines like Consumer Reports rating the iMac displays Very Good and Excellent.
LIke I said I feel for ya. Apple has decided to go with a cheaper cost screen on the 20" and their iMac lineup no longer suits your professional graphics needs.
So I guess you have to look at plan B. What's your plan B?