Tell that to the professional video producers and photographers that swear by them then.
I can also say perfect color means nothing when you need PPI. It doesn't actually mean anything. Besides, last I checked no one did a color gamut test on the screen in question to determine its color accuracy. Apple displays have always ranked at or close to the top in pretty much every metric.
I am in the industry and we don't use any LCD tech for color. We still use Hitachi CRTs. Nothing beats calibrated CRT for color.
If you have to have IPS then I'd go Dell or NEC first. Their professional monitors are more expensive but a step above Apple.
I agree Dells and NECs are better, but the apple display is not far behind.
I am in the industry and we don't use any LCD tech for color. We still use Hitachi CRTs. Nothing beats calibrated CRT for color.
If you have to have IPS then I'd go Dell or NEC first. Their professional monitors are more expensive but a step above Apple.
The most popular brand I've seen locally among artists and photographers is dell. Probably because of the coupon codes to be found online.
I have much experience with high DPI screens, and I'm with 2is. To me, the difference is quite striking. I think it's important to clarify the difference between seeing something in a store or using it for 5 minutes VS owning a hi DPI product and growing accustomed to it. Once you use one for a longer term, trying to go back to a lower DPI version is when the difference becomes most striking.
I have much experience with high DPI screens, and I'm with 2is. To me, the difference is quite striking. I think it's important to clarify the difference between seeing something in a store or using it for 5 minutes VS owning a hi DPI product and growing accustomed to it. Once you use one for a longer term, trying to go back to a lower DPI version is when the difference becomes most striking.
I'm in the industry also. We use calibrated broadcast monitors to monitor color and do grading, but still do everything on IPS displays. The Dell and NECs are a "step above" in terms of what? From everything I have heard, read, and seen they are neck to neck in terms of color accuracy and contrast ratio. I do agree that they are better in terms of physical buttons, switches, connection options, etc.
I don't think that reflects quality in so much as it reflects pricing, like you said. I would never buy an Apple display (though I have 2 Cinema Displays I got from my company), as I prefer the ergos, connectivity, and physical controls not to mention the much cheaper price of the Dell monitors. I have 3 Dell IPS displays.
Perhaps it's much better managed on the OSX side of things, w
Step above in total packageI mean. Aside from brushed metal styling, the apple display severly lacks everything else IMO. You have no physical adjustments and everything is software only. I find it's easier to get accuracy if you have both software and the hardware controls to adjust. Not that it can't be done, but it's my preference
Yeah, Windows doesn't scale at all - it's not made for it. OSX is built for the hardware, and Apple has created ultra high resolution (HiDPI) versions of everything - all icons, apps, etc. Which means all of the screen elements stay the same size, but look ridiculously crisp. OSX also allows you to scale so you can get more real estate if you choose.
Apple charges a LOT for their hardware, yes. But the build quality is beautiful, down to every detail. And for many, it's all about OSX - which is really an incredible operating system. Is that worth it? Depends on each individually personally and what you value. I think it's clear that a lot of people here are system builders that look for max power for minimum price and enjoy tinkering. Ironically, I am one of these people but also very much appreciate Apple and their products and software, particularly on the mobile side. IMO, there are things worth paying for in a computer that go beyond pure speed/benchmarks. But, to each their own.
Yeah, Windows doesn't scale at all - it's not made for it. OSX is built for the hardware, and Apple has created ultra high resolution (HiDPI) versions of everything - all icons, apps, etc. Which means all of the screen elements stay the same size, but look ridiculously crisp. OSX also allows you to scale so you can get more real estate if you choose.
Apple charges a LOT for their hardware, yes. But the build quality is beautiful, down to every detail. And for many, it's all about OSX - which is really an incredible operating system. Is that worth it? Depends on each individually personally and what you value. I think it's clear that a lot of people here are system builders that look for max power for minimum price and enjoy tinkering. Ironically, I am one of these people but also very much appreciate Apple and their products and software, particularly on the mobile side. IMO, there are things worth paying for in a computer that go beyond pure speed/benchmarks. But, to each their own.
I like Apple, but lets keep it real. They did not have TB "years" before PC laptops.
PCs implemented USB 3 well before Apple and it's arguably more useful than TB at present.
I like Apple, but lets keep it real. They did not have TB "years" before PC laptops.
PCs implemented USB 3 well before Apple and it's arguably more useful than TB at present.
Yeah, Apple included Thunderbolt one year before PCs, but not because they are more cutting edge, only because they co-developed it with Intel and held a 1 year exclusivity agreement.
and I think asus offers a 1080 IPS display. The apple display is much better with more pixel density.
Apple had thunderbolt years before intel laptops (thunderbolt was CREATED by intel) and they had the ultra small form factor years before intel laptops. I can appreciate that even though I would never use their stuff.
Developed by Intel, and brought to market with technical collaboration from Apple. Thunderbolt technology
The cabling for TB is much easier to manage and you can daisy chain items - furthermore, TB is twice is fast theoretically however in REAL WORLD use TB external hard drives perform 4-5 times faster than their usb 3.0 counterparts. Lastly, TB has enough bandwidth for external graphics - so you want external graphics for your ultrabook? TB can do it. You can even "upgrade" laptop graphics in this manner, although it has not come to fruition yet. TB is simply superior to USB 3.0.
I'm not an apple loyalist, but I have to give them props for forward thinking with better displays and adopting thunderport. I don't see why PC makers stagnate on this stuff, it just gives Apple more business when they combine their new features (retina display) with crap hardware. If PC laptop manufacturers added features at the same pace, Apple would be a mere blip on the radar. But they don't.
Retina display is a practically meaningless term. If you want a great display than you can buy a great display but buying something because it's a "Retina display" when you don't know what it means isn't a good idea. If you want a cheap retina display you can buy yourself a 1080p 21.5" monitor because that too is a retina display See what I mean about being meaningless?
So regarding the CPU in this thing, how will the 2.3GHz compare to my 3.5Ghz 3-core Phenom II? Does it have 8-thread hyper threading? If so, that's kind of awesome.
The i7 will stomp on the Phenom.