In the real world, how do the monitors compare? Can the user notice the difference, if indeed there is a difference, or does it take Gil Grissom and the crime lab to find that if you look close enough with a scanning electron microscope you can clearly see that the new one is inferior.

Quote

Sir Harry Flashman wrote:
Can the user notice the difference?

Some can, yes, but that really doesn't matter.

When surfing the internet, could you tell the difference between 667 or 533 speed RAM? If you can't, do you think Apple should start using the slower one while advertising that they use the faster one?

We tend to believe in truth in advertising. If some iMacs are 'millions of colors' and some are 'simulated millions of colors' then there's nothing wrong with that.

But if both boxes and both web sites for those computers say they have the same screens, well then that's a problem.

New and Improved have always been advertizing weasel words that can be slapped on any change.

As far as the millions of colors question is concerned, didn't the lawsuit over the same issue on the MBP get settled last week. I seem to remember that the plaintiffs settled because they couldn't get many to join tn the class action.

With my tongue firmly pressed into my cheek, I would have liked to drag the whole computer industry to court for claiming that they can show us millions of colours! As an artist, I would very much have liked to know the names of each one of those colours:)

Millions of shades, variables, yes, but colours? It sounds rather metaphysical to me:)

Well, totally off-topic, of course...

Quote

wilf53 wrote:
Well, totally off-topic, of course...

Not necissarily. That might be Apple's defense.

Correct me if I am incorrect, but when it comes to colors in a monitor are we not just seeing RGB in various combinations?

I am not saying that the case doesn't have merit, but I am a little skeptical of the reasons for bringing it.

Quote

Sir Harry Flashman wrote:
Correct me if I am incorrect, but when it comes to colors in a monitor are we not just seeing RGB in various combinations?

Actually, in any situation, that is true, not only in monitors. We only have receptors for Red, Green and Blue. All other colors are combinations of these, and any variation in R, G or B creates a new color.

If the claims are in fact, true, then I think this is a disgusting sham on Apple's part. If it's a little bit off, like how much actual data you can store on a 500 GB hard drive, that's one thing. But if they are off by 98%, that's a whole new level of shammery (new word).

It is the same claim as is made by most laptop manufacturers (and the basis of the last CAS filed on this topic). The 6-bit display is capable of showing 262K colors. However, with dithering, it gives the perception of 16M colors.

No laptop display used today (at least not in the most common sizes. Not sure about the 19" behemoths) is actually an 8-bit display (16.7M colors), yet all claim to show 16M colors. Apple is not alone in these claims. They are now using the same display technology (TN) in the 20" iMac. The previous version used a different display technology which DID display 16.7M colors. The change is probably why they were able to provide a larger display (17" o 20") for the same price. Or, looked at another way, they reduced the price on the 20".

I think you'd be surprised at how many displays out there really are 6-bit displays.

I hate lawyers and lawsuits, but this is about quality.
The biggest disappointments with the new iMac's display is the viewing angle and the washout. It is noticeable and it is disappointing that Apple is putting these on people's desktops. I wouldn't recommend anyone buy the latest 20" iMac. I almost returned the refurb I bought for my fiancee, but she decided it wasn't worth the hassle. We would have to step back to the older white 20" iMac for a better quality display, or spend an additional $500 to get a 24" model.. which.. by the way.. look terrific. That's my biggest complaint- put the 20" and 24" iMacs next to each other and you will see a drastic difference in quality.

For any skeptics out there- have you noticed that the Apple refurb store has had these in stock for months now? They even had to reduce the price to below what the previous generation 20" are selling for.

Colorimetry and psychophysics aside, there are differences.

Go to an Apple Store and bring up the same image on a 24" and 20"iMac.

They both look great, but then compare them. You'll see subtle differences. Especially in shadows where there is a light to dark transition. Then look at how far you can move from the perpendicular before the image quality suffers. It's not far for the 20"

BUT, isn't it amazing how good they make those 6-bits sing? 10-years ago we would have been amazed!

Now consumers are smarter. Apple should say, 8-bit or 6-Bit and dithering when noting a screen's specs. I would not be put off by 6-bits, since it still looks great. And the price is right. $500 buys you 4-inches and 2-bits. Worth it? To some, not to others, but let them know where the compromise is.

Why should Apple? None of their competition does? They should all be taken to task. Apple takes the heat because they are the quality leader. Personally, I think they should have made the 20" screen a true 8-bit per color screen and charged more for it. Macs are more expensive for a reason.

Can't you see Hodgeman trying to explain that spreadsheets only really need 6-bits? Apple could have used this as a differentiator! Don't get one of those 2-bit-less PeeCees!

Note: 8-bits translates to 2 to the 8th power or 256 levels of an individual color (Red, green or Blue). Since you have 8-bits per color, and 3 colors, you need to consider all combinations so, 256 to the 3rd power is 16,777,216 - Thus, 16 Million colors.

6-bits translates to 2 to the 6th power or 64 levels. 64 to the 3rd power is 262,144

In my opinion the display on the 20" is godawful - The viewing angle was very poor and you can easily see the difference from the top of the panel compared to the bottom. After owning a 20 for nearly a month I returned the computer and coughed up the extra money for the 24" iMac and it does have a substantially better display, still far from perfect but a league apart it's smaller brethren. However the point remains that I shouldn't have had to do that on Apple's premier consumer line of computers, it's was a poor choice on Apple's part as aside from this show stopper of an issue the 20" is a great machine but if this is what it takes to get them to fix it then it's for the better.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
However the point remains that I shouldn't have had to do that on Apple's premier consumer line of computers ...

"Premier consumer line"? What? The iMac is Apple's primary "consumer line." The Mac Mini hardly counts, as few people buy them. Thus, the 20" iMac is the BOTTOM of Apple's consumer line.

Quote

Intruder wrote:
I think you'd be surprised at how many displays out there really are 6-bit displays.

I wouldn't. I'm more than well aware that if you want a monitor that truly displays all 16.7 million colors, you need to make sure that is how it is marketed. I am finding in my own research that it can be extremely hard to find monitors that use anything other than the twisted nematic + film type displays. Some TN displays claim to be capable of 16.7 million colors, which surprises me a bit. Either way, it seems to run at least $500+ to get any of the IPS or S-PVA screen types.

I'll say this to Apple: Guys, for a long time some Mac fans defended the cost of your product over a regular PC by mentioning how the hardware was superior. Doing things like this not only makes liars out of those people, but it also erodes their confidence that you are producing the best product. Learn from this and the MB/MBP lawsuit and never assume people won't notice where you skimp. Just tell people where the differences are and things will work out much better.

If you visit the Dell UK webpage (this may be difficult if you are in the USA, just as I have problems finding the Dell US website), you find that their tech specs say 16.7 million colours for _all_ laptops, from the cheapest to the most expensive. We can have bets whether (a) Dell sells highest quality monitors at cheapest prices, or (b) whoever wrote the specs is clueless or (c) Dell is lying to customers.

I can find no reference anywhere to a manufacturer of laptop displays 17" and smaller that are not 6 bit.

As the entire computer industry moves to cheaper products that will affect the features of Apple's entry level computers. To compete Apple has to respond to the pressure of the rest of the industry.

BB