The RAM has no value since I will replace either with 4GB .
I can't decide if the CPU upgrade alone is worth 150, so I was wondering if the 2007 model has the same complaints about the display as the 2008.
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.
Panel Question imac 20'' (2009)
- Thread starter tms568
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The RAM has no value since I will replace either with 4GB .
I can't decide if the CPU upgrade alone is worth 150, so I was wondering if the 2007 model has the same complaints about the display as the 2008.
I know...I was waiting for someone to say that. Admittedly, much that was stated wasn't new, and they could have mentioned a few other things like what kind of TN panel... but as they say, don't shoot the messenger...it's their info.
For me it's made a very exciting purchase to very exciting +1 purchase
I know I'm a total mac geek. I'm still on the fence about the 2009 vs. 2008 20". The $999 price is tempting, but if the panel looks any better, I'd take the 2009 over the 2008. In person there was a perceived difference and one of the 2.4ghz models at Best Buy looked uglier than sin. I can get $50 off the 2009 model, but the $150 has me thinking that the 2008 refurbished is a MUCH better deal. Heck, for $50 more I could get a 24", but my wife says it would be too big for our desk and wouldn't work in the room.
Thoughts anyone?
Thoughts anyone?
Don't listen to the wife. The 24" has the same footprint as the 20" and unless your desk is 24" wide there's no way it's too big.
I am not suggesting anything. You are. You're denying the facts and coming up with your own BS. The fact of the matter is that the panel in the 2009 model is different. No one knows weather it's a TN, MVA, IPS or what. No one but Apple and AUO. I only gave my opinion on what it "might' be. Not on what it is. (by the way the viewing angles are 170/160).
Why would I suggest that a 2009 model uses anything when I clearly stated that I don't know what the 2009 models use? And why would I compare a 2009 model to another 2009 model when I clearly stated the above mentioned.
I never said the 20' 2009 panel uses something better than a TN, or a MVA. I was only giving my opinion on the panel in question and on what it might be. You "said' it was a TN, without any facts to back up your claim. So your claim in essence was in reality your "opinion'.
Stop acting like your know what you're talking about and spouting off like your "opionion' is fact.
I stated my 'opinion' between the 2009 panel and the 2008 Panel since I have recently 'owned' the 2008 model and now own a 2009' 20 and a 2009 24'. The viewing angles are a sharp contrast between the two as I already explained the differences between the two.
Further explaining my theory that the new panels use a better TN panel or a MVA. How you figure this theory is BS when I am comparing panels that I 'owned' and do 'own' is beyond me.
Do you even own a 2009 20'. Or have you ever owned a 2008 20'. No so how would you know how the quality is. Your own a old late model 2006 or early 2007. Non glossy, non aluminum imac, a completly different beast.
The only thing I am sure of is your clueless.
Don't listen to this. Not all TN panels are the same and we don't know if the 2009 panels use a TN or not, neither does Jay. What I do know I stated earlier in the thread. How would you know how a 2009 panel looks when you never owned one your self? Stop giving your 'opinion' as fact. When it's just that, 'your opinion'.
Well coming from a person who recently owned a 2008 model, and now own a 2009 read the thread from the beginning and get real info from someone who actually 'owned' both. The panel on the 2009 compared to the 2008 model is like 'night and day' difference. Go look for yourself, that would be the best info I could give you. I suggested this to a few others and they concurred with what I am saying in this thread.
Do a search and you will see what I mean.
According to http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html , it's 160/160. You must be getting the 170/160 figure somewhere else, but then again the panel in question does not exist on the manufacturer's page
The first theory is in fact what I already suggested, which is you're looking at a better TN panel in the 2009 20", but I don't buy the second theory that it's using a MVA. MVA does not have a contrast shift from top to bottom, which others and I have confirmed in the 2009 20". The horizontal viewing angles are very good though and nearly indistinguishable from the 24" I compared. Looks much closer like a 170/160, not a 160/160, but still the slight contrast shift from top to bottom gives it away that it's a TN panel.
Dude, I already mentioned that I physicially viewed a 2009 20" in person.
And, yes, my workplace has several aluminum 20" iMacs.
According to http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html , it's 160/160. You must be getting the 170/160 figure somewhere else, but then again the panel in question does not exist on the manufacturer's page
The first theory is in fact what I already suggested, which is you're looking at a better TN panel in the 2009 20", but I don't buy the second theory that it's using a MVA. MVA does not have a contrast shift from top to bottom, which others and I have confirmed in the 2009 20". The horizontal viewing angles are very good though and nearly indistinguishable from the 24" I compared. Looks much closer like a 170/160, not a 160/160, but still the slight contrast shift from top to bottom gives it away that it's a TN panel.
I never said the panel existed on their website. Your referring a TN panel, thus referring to a imac. The viewing angle on the 2008 model is 170/160. Not confusing at all.
http://auo.com/auoDEV/products.php?sec=monitor&func=info&product_id=111&items_id=1
Well, you or "other's on this thread, looking briefly at a 2009 20' panel does not make your 'opinion' fact. It's just that your opinion. Just as my opinion on the 2009 imac's having a much improved panel is just that a opinion.
You and one other person on this thread is the only instance i have read on this forum of the 2009 panels having any 'contrast shift. My 2009 ' 20 does not have any 'contrast shift' at all. None, Zero, zip. Look up see if you can find any others with the same perceived problem.
I really don't know since the specs are not out yet. I don't really care what kind of panel it has since the screen looks fantastic. If it is a TN, MVA, or what. But not all TN's have a 'contrast shift'.
panel make and model info
Hey...my iMac has this panel - manufacturer: 0610; model: 09C93
Anyone care to compare?
Hey...my iMac has this panel - manufacturer: 0610; model: 09C93
Anyone care to compare?
Canadian Bacon, Seeby, and other owners of 2009 20" iMac, can you test for this slight contrast shift from top to bottom on your 20"? Easiest way to do this is to resize the safari browser small and look at the grey color in the menu bar and you move up and down. Or look at the stripes in iTunes' song listings. You should see the light greys become inverted. Other colors won't fade or turn negative until greater angles.
Care to cite your source on this? Because everything I've read says it's the nature of TN film panels, especially in the vertical directions (in contrast to MVA's slight horizontal contrast shift). Of course, not all TN panels have poor viewing angles (compare MBA's superior TN panel to that of macbooks).
The best way to check for contrast shift is to aim your screen up and get down low while looking at the apple symbol on your menu bar. If part of it goes white/pale coloured then you have a contrast shift.
The '09 imac does have a decent horizontal viewing angle but vertical contrast shift is still an issue.
The '09 imac does have a decent horizontal viewing angle but vertical contrast shift is still an issue.
Well...after doing the safari test for a few minutes I'm voting for subtle contrast shift. The panel still looks way better than my laptop's though.
I had a look at the 20" in the Apple Store today, and whilst there's definitely a contrast shift, the screen was significantly better than I was expecting. I couldn't imagine anyone being disappointed with it; it's still an absolutely beautiful screen.
Anyone else comparing 20" imac screen quality?
dudeman,
I appreciate your input here and I would like to learn more. Personally I find it hard to believe that the 2009 screen would be significantly better than the 2008 screen on the 20" imac, or Apple would have advertised it as a benefit of the new model. Can you provide any links to other people's research that supports your findings?
Clearly you have shown the part numbers are different. Thanks for that info. And clearly your two 20" machines side by side look different, but I would be hesitant to draw any conclusions about all macs from this single comparison. My default position, without any knowledge to the contrary, would be that the screens are actually identical in quality and that the difference you are seeing is perhaps due to the aging of the backlight in the 2008 model. However, I am open to the possibility that you may be on to something, as clearly something is different if the part numbers changed.
Can you offer any quantitative evidence to support your observations, or perhaps links to similar threads by others?
Also: Does anyone have a part number for the 24" screens?
dudeman,
I appreciate your input here and I would like to learn more. Personally I find it hard to believe that the 2009 screen would be significantly better than the 2008 screen on the 20" imac, or Apple would have advertised it as a benefit of the new model. Can you provide any links to other people's research that supports your findings?
Clearly you have shown the part numbers are different. Thanks for that info. And clearly your two 20" machines side by side look different, but I would be hesitant to draw any conclusions about all macs from this single comparison. My default position, without any knowledge to the contrary, would be that the screens are actually identical in quality and that the difference you are seeing is perhaps due to the aging of the backlight in the 2008 model. However, I am open to the possibility that you may be on to something, as clearly something is different if the part numbers changed.
Can you offer any quantitative evidence to support your observations, or perhaps links to similar threads by others?
Also: Does anyone have a part number for the 24" screens?
You don't have to understand the technical underpinnings to perceive a quality difference. If the difference can be seen, it can be advertised as a benefit.
They could say something like, "All 2009 models now ship with our new improved display technology making your photos and graphics look better than ever!"
Could the AUO number be a typo?
Did you confirm this is not simply a typo? Perhaps the ifixit article has a typo in the part number. The reason I mention this is that the link ifixit provides goes to the M201EW02 panel on AUO. This combined with the fact that AUO wouldn't even acknowledge to you that such a part number exists makes me wonder about the possibility of a typo.
What AUO part number did the 2008 use by the way? was it this 201?
Did you confirm this is not simply a typo? Perhaps the ifixit article has a typo in the part number. The reason I mention this is that the link ifixit provides goes to the M201EW02 panel on AUO. This combined with the fact that AUO wouldn't even acknowledge to you that such a part number exists makes me wonder about the possibility of a typo.
What AUO part number did the 2008 use by the way? was it this 201?
just fyi, AUO is a low-end panel manufacturer. Funny apple goes to them for their "high-end" products" At least put a pva panel from samsung in the 20" imac, jesus.