Ughh. Why the hell did apple get rid of this? and 16 gb on the 27 inch for 1400 dollars that's crazy! who wants a 27 inch mac? apple should put their i5's and i7's in the 21 inch too btw, i did some configuring and if you get the macbook with 4gb of ram and the highest cpu as well as the 500 hd, (plus all the ports and adapters) and its about the same price as the macbook pro 13 inch with those same specs. its only about 250 more. might as well go with the pro.
The better question is why is the 21 inch iMac only 1080p and 16:9 display? What is with the computer industry as a whole and their faulty assumption that people actually want lower resolutions on their displays?
Forgive my ignorance, but I thought 1080p is the best resolution...? Cause if it's not, I'm gonna kill the sales guy who sold me my tv.
It wasn't. I know exactly what the hell I'm talking about, btw. The rest of you really don't, however. Ask yourself how 1920 x 1080 is in any way better for computer work than 1920 x 1200. Ask yourself how 16:9 is better than 16:10 for computer work. Ask yourself how less screen real estate is in any way better than more, even if only a slight amount.
Again, 1080p is GREAT for TV sets. It's HD for TV. But we're talking PC monitors here. That's why the 24" is actually such a "loss". It had a standard (for monitors) 1920 x 1200 resolution display. This new 20" increased the resolution from the previous gen 20", but to an HDTV display rather than WUXGA resolution (1920 x 1200). Why does this matter? Displaying two word documents, in full screen, next to each other on the same screen is, IMHO, more important that avoiding slight letterboxing when viewing 1080p 16:9 widescreen movies.
30", I wish they made bigger. My monitor just seems normal to me now. edit: Bigger as in higher resolution, I don't really care about size.
I think the new 27" iMacs are the same resolution as the monitor Hodapp mentioned in his post. Not saying he has a new iMac, just making an observation.
Should I make a joke, or shouldn't I? Best leave it up to others. I'm sure yourof10 has some funnies left
I'd actually prefer a smaller monitor with the same resolution and a higher pixel density. Some of those tiny LCD TV's that can do 1080p look nice because of that.
You notice that too? That's what I bring up anytime someone tells me that 1080p on a set smaller than 36" or so "doesn't matter". I mean...it depends on how far away you are from the set, but if you're in a cramped apartment in NYC there's a pretty sizable difference between a 720p set and a 1080p set even if both are only 24".
A lot of people don't understand anything about TV's or monitors. Other than more p's equals more better of course.
Easy there, I was just asking. Thanks for the clarification... i didn't think it was a typo in the first place which is why I asked. Didn't know computer monitors had 1200. I'm just happy not to regret my tv purchase To add to the discussion, I do agree a smaller size and a high resolution make a great combination. My 27'' 720p looks just as good imo as the 42'' 1080p Edit- my computer monitor is 1024x768. So in my defense...
^^lol Sorry. It's not you that I'm miffed at, it's the computer manufacturers. I have this bad feeling that they'll all get in on the "1080p and 16:9 as standard" act and kill off the WUXGA and 16:10 option. Especially now that Apple of all companies is doing it (where Apple goes, others follow). I've been kinda disappointed with their announcements lately. No 24" iMac, less resolution and size than there really ought to be on the 20" model, no camera in the iPod touch, Mac Mini is still overpriced for what it is (seriously...they need to put in a discrete GPU in that thing), and still no new Apple TV announcement. Magic Mouse and the i5 and i7 CPUs are good news though. Especially at those prices for an "all in one" desktop.
