>> Ideal as Public Information and Home Display : The large screen, coupled with ultra high brightness and multimedia speakers, makes it well-suited for home entertainment and for presentations for large groups of people <<
So, by implication it's not suitable for single-user PC use then?
Aside from response time issue, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to tell the difference between specification of LCD monitors and TVs, but always the marketing information points to one use or the other.
I have a 20.1" Dell 2001FP running 1600x1200 native resolution, which I use solely for PC desktop apps and games.
For me, a true "multi-purpose" screen should work as:
- PC "desktop" monitor, viewed close up (~0.5m).
- Gaming display (PC and consoles), viewed at 1m-2m.
- TV/Cinema display, both HDTV and non-HDTV resolutions, viewed at 2m-4m.
So, my ideal product would be:
- 1600x1200 native resolution. I don't need any more than this for desktop use, and any higher would be difficult for any graphics card to drive at native resolution.
- About 30" diagonal. In my environment, this is large enough for good movie viewing, but small enough for ergonomic desktop use.
- No noticable ghosting (my 16ms 2001FP is fine in this respect).
- Good picture with common inputs (1600x1200 PC, both HDTV resolutions, games consoles, and non-HDTV signals).
By far PC desktop use is the most important, as I need to spend many hours a day working at 1600x1200 without eyestrain.
So, my next buy is likely to be one that's aimed at PC users, but also works well for HDTV/TV/DVD signals.
I agree for the most part. The Apple 30" is 2560x1600 resolution and the LG is only 1280x1024 so that's really not appropriate for a 30" screen. If you sat up close for use as a desktop you'd notice it's not as nice for computer work and better suited for TV viewing.
But I have not seen it in action so I'm just guessing. But that's the problem with the LCD TVs is that even though you could use them for desktop use the resolution is right and you'd notice things are not as nice up close as a normal LCD monitor. That's why they're cheaper too I think. Less complexity and detail up close because of the lower resolution.
I'm still waiting for my perfect monitor. See, I want good integrated speakers in 20" screen with an aluminum frame, fast response rates etc. The Apple is close. But now I hear rumors of these new screens comming out with 2ms response rates so I'm back in the waiting game I think. I'm one of those people waiting for the next best technology before I buy and then never actually buy anything because there's something better coming down the road. (well, sometimes I buy
The monitor requires dual dvi, one to control the top half of the screen and the other the bottom half of the screen. I'm sure there are more dual dvi cards out there other than the one Apple sells by Nvidia.