Fuck your 21,5" iMac, Apple!

[Paws]

A resolution of 1920x1200 pixels and I would have bought it

It's of no use giving it the same small resolution like the 20" model. Also, non-glossy please.

 

[navinator]

I doubt non-glossy would happen - the aluminum iMacs have been out for more then two years and have never had a matte option.

I'm looking at getting the low-end 27" because of it's video-in capabilities. Apparently Apple is working on a range of adapters so you can connect different devices up to it.

 

[onetwothreefour]

A resolution of 1920x1200 pixels and I would have bought it

It's of no use giving it the same small resolution like the 20" model. Also, non-glossy please.

The previous 20" iMac was 1680 by 1050 pixels. It now has the exact resolution of the 1080p format in a 16:9 format (1920 x 1080).

Why would you want 1200 horizontal pixels? It would be an odd screen size/shape.

 

[Paws]

Oh wow. The 20" model has an even lower resolution than I had in mind A resolution of 1920x1200 is standard in bigger monitors and my old 4:3 20" monitor has 1600x1200 pixels, so I wouldn't want to go lower again vertically

 

[andysayshi]

As mentioned above, 1920x1080 is the dominant standard for High Definition video displays - virtually every true HD plasma, LCD and LED screen operates at this resolution.

If the resolution isn't high enough for you, plug in a second monitor or get a 27" iMac - 2560-by-1440!

 

[JB3]

Oh wow. The 20" model has an even lower resolution than I had in mind A resolution of 1920x1200 is standard in bigger monitors and my old 4:3 20" monitor has 1600x1200 pixels, so I wouldn't want to go lower again vertically

Except this isn't 4:3. Its 16:9. This screen size is standard 1080p, and recently introduced monitors with BIGGER screens have that same resolution.

 

[sheep]

You can plug your old 4:3 monitor in if it would give u that warm fuzzy feeling

 

[Paws]

and recently introduced monitors with BIGGER screens have that same resolution.

Most, if not all 24" monitors have a resolution of 1920x1200. Check any (online) shop of your choice. Even a few 22" have that one, so for being Apple, I thought they would give us quality.

 

[ANDORYUU]

Most, if not all 24" monitors have a resolution of 1920x1200. Check any (online) shop of your choice. Even a few 22" have that one, so for being Apple, I thought they would give us quality.

How many of these monitors integrate all the computers components into one stylish looking machine just like an iMac? I haven't found any. An iMac isn't a monitor, it's a computer.

 

[Paws]

What kind of argument is that? What would be so hard to give a monitor with integrated computer (where you can't change the parts) a proper resolution?

 

[JB3]

Most, if not all 24" monitors have a resolution of 1920x1200. Check any (online) shop of your choice. Even a few 22" have that one, so for being Apple, I thought they would give us quality.

1920x1200 is NOT 16:9, meaning that it is NOT TRUE WIDESCREEN OR true HD.

1920x1080 is a standard resolution. It is actually more advanced than current LCD panels available on computers like the 24" Dell XPS One, meaning that the manufacturer Apple sourced this panel from is moving to panels this size for future devices.

It really doesn't matter what you think about this, because this panel IS more advanced than anything offered by any other manufacturer, and will play HD content with NO letter-boxing effect because it is TRUE HD resolution.

 

[onetwothreefour]

Also right now Apple has the only 27" LED display on the market with the new iMac.

It's not a matter of quality, it's a matter of you wanting a certain number of pixels for some reason...

 

[Paws]

1920x1200 is NOT 16:9, meaning that it is NOT TRUE WIDESCREEN OR true HD.

It really doesn't matter what you think about this, because this panel IS more advanced than anything offered by any other manufacturer, and will play HD content with NO letter-boxing effect because it is TRUE HD resolution.

Who cares about true HD resolution? 1920x1200 (WUXGA) is a standard too, even a better one, because monitors aren't just here for watching movies, but also working. My 4:3 monitor has 1200 vertical pixels, I wouldn't want to miss them in a bigger monitor.

I rarely watch movies in fullscreen, usually they're in a smaller window while I have other programs open as well. I'm not going to make a drama because of letterboxes. People who buy iMacs because Apple markets them with "true HD" do not understand that there's a much better resolution available.

 

[sheep]

I checked out 24" monitors at Tiger direct. 3 of 18 are 1200. The rest are 1080. Why dont you plug your old X 1200 monitor into the iMac? That way you would have the best of both worlds.

 

[bankside]

I think people need to practise drawing squares and rectangles on graph paper and see what the difference is. I know, math is hard.

 

[JB3]

Who cares about true HD resolution? 1920x1200 (WUXGA) is a standard too, even a better one, because monitors aren't just here for watching movies, but also working. My 4:3 monitor has 1200 vertical pixels, I wouldn't want to miss them in a bigger monitor.

I rarely watch movies in fullscreen, usually they're in a smaller window while I have other programs open as well. I'm not going to make a drama because of letterboxes. People who buy iMacs because Apple markets them with "true HD" do not understand that there's a much better resolution available.

Except it ISN'T BETTER. 4:3=BAD, 16:9=GOOD

If you're content with old technology with old resolutions, fine. But, you're going to be clinging to that technology as all of the other manufacturers move to 16:9 panels with 1920x1080 resolution. You're not getting short-changed, and you are not being an intelligent consumer if you're actively seeking a computer with an older design and older panel.