Forums | MacLife

Czachorski wrote:

My friend bought an Apple 23" cinema display for $259.  Quite a deal compared to that 20" Dell at $316.

Arn't anecdotes fun!

Most of us avoid buying stuff that "fell off the back of a truck".

Czachorski wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Czachorski wrote:

My friend bought an Apple 23" cinema display for $259.  Quite a deal compared to that 20" Dell at $316.

Arn't anecdotes fun!

Most of us avoid buying stuff that "fell off the back of a truck".

Why, because the quality might be lower?  Hmmmmm....

Well, the debate here was about prices of brand new, under warrenty screens.

As an aside if you want to see some really misleading discount representations go check out the Apple displays in the Apple refurb store.
Pretty hienous.

The Dell display isn't low-quailty crap.  Oh, and the backlight Dell uses is better.  It's brighter than the ACD (Dell specs) (Apple specs).  Not the difference between a BMW and a Yugo - more like a VW vs. Audi.

I'll spend more for better quality - but not 50% more.  Dell likely has lower cost due to the use of plastic vs. aluminum and volume.  Still, someone looking to switch and buy a mini is going to have to get over the fact that if they want an all-Apple set-up, the display will cost more than the computer.  Seems a bit odd to me.  I hope Apple can continue to bring costs down and make their displays more competitively priced.  Perhaps they can put them in a case similar to the iMac G5 - it would still be plenty durable, if not more so.

It's not a dichotomy of really high quality or total crap.  It's a continuum.  Yes, Dell's low-end hardware sucks royally.  But their high-end Dimensions are pretty good, and the Precisions are tanks.  Dell may not have quite the level of fit and finish, but it's not bad either.  It's like chastising your neighbor because they bought a Volvo instead of a Jag.

robco wrote:

The Dell display isn't low-quailty crap.  Oh, and the backlight Dell uses is better.  It's brighter than the ACD (Dell specs) (Apple specs).  Not the difference between a BMW and a Yugo - more like a VW vs. Audi.

I'll spend more for better quality - but not 50% more.  Dell likely has lower cost due to the use of plastic vs. aluminum and volume.  Still, someone looking to switch and buy a mini is going to have to get over the fact that if they want an all-Apple set-up, the display will cost more than the computer.  Seems a bit odd to me.  I hope Apple can continue to bring costs down and make their displays more competitively priced.  Perhaps they can put them in a case similar to the iMac G5 - it would still be plenty durable, if not more so.

It's not a dichotomy of really high quality or total crap.  It's a continuum.  Yes, Dell's low-end hardware sucks royally.  But their high-end Dimensions are pretty good, and the Precisions are tanks.  Dell may not have quite the level of fit and finish, but it's not bad either.  It's like chastising your neighbor because they bought a Volvo instead of a Jag.

Well, I am not a light engineer, but I know enought to say that brighter does not mean better.  Brighter means brighter.  Better to me is will the light still display a consitent brightness across the full range of the screen in 5 years.  Will the light still work in 5 years?  I am not saying the Dell won't or the Apple is better.  I am just saying that just because it is brighter says nothing about it's quality and value.

On the Dell being crap, perhaps you mis-understood.  I was not saying that the Dell display is total crap.  I would even go so far as to say the Dell is a good deal.  I did not buy one, but that is me.  The anandtech review called these 2 a dead-heat in their review.  I think that is a good conclusion considering their tests.  But they also did not run the display for 5 years continuously.  What I was saying is total crap is the el-cheapo.  And not just Dells, but everything I have ever bought el-cheapo.  It is a pretty obvious conclusion, but it does represents one end of the continuum.  The Dell LCD is not the bottom-end.  I was actually using the low-end crap as a known and easily agreed upon example to bring up the you-get-what-you-pay-for point.  It sounds like you agree with that notion, at least on the bottom end.  If you fill in the middle with that continuum, you generally have a better chance of getting a better product if you spend more.  It may or may not be true with these 2 displays, but the 95 times out of 100 that this notion has proven true for me is enough for me to not want to roll the dice with the Dell on the hopes that it is the 5 out 100 products that is cheaper AND better.  See what I am getting at? 

And no, looking at specs on brightness and LCD's is not going to convince me.  Who designed it?  Who assembled it?  Who quality controlled it? If you have good answers on these that show these 2 to be the same, then I might start considering the Dell.  But without that, my money is on that Apple logo hanging on the front.  That tells me: well designed, good assembly and strong quality control, without having to worry about it.  It is simply brand loyality and certain products have earned it in my book, and Apple is one of them.  Dell is not. 

Pariah wrote:

Dell Home has the DELL UltraSharp 1905FP 19-inch Flat Panel Monitor with Height Adjustable Stand for $276 after $203 Coupon saving + $3 S/H

And what makes this particularly sweet and attractive is it is a standard aspect ratio screen  and it can pivot to a portrait display both attributes I find kick assedly superior to anything Apple offers.

That's cool.  If that sort of thing floats your boat, it sounds like a good deal on a neat display.

But it is obvious that you and I look at purchases differently.  I find those extra features to be gimmiky and I rarely end up using them, and then they often end up being the failure point of the entire device, and I kick myself for buying it later.  I have just seen it too many times.  When I make a purchase, I want it to work well at it's primary function, and have very little to none of these "extras".  I will even pay more for a device that is simplier with less features, because it will be easier to use for it's primary purpose and have less failure points.  That is why I like the iPod.  That is why I bought the Tivo instead of the ReplayTV.  That is why I bought a Mac.  That is why I don't like cell phones.

Czachorski wrote:

robco wrote:

Well, to some of us, $250 is a fair chunk of change.  It's an iPod nano, or a digital camera or extra RAM.  More inputs makes it possible to share with another computer, or devices.  I do wish that Apple could find a way to add height adjustment to their displays and the iMac.  It's a feature that really should be in any $800 monitor.  It might not be a bad idea for them to knock a bit off the price for those who purchase an Apple display with a new Mac.  As for durability, I think the Dell can handle standing on a desktop.  Most folks tend not to move their monitors around too often.  It's a desktop display, not a laptop.

To you, it may be worth the extra price for that, others will choose differently.  The beauty of a free-market economy.

Yup.

There is an old ubiquitous addage that you get what you pay for.  There are always exceptions to every rule, but they are rare for this rule.  Sure, the 2 monitors have the same LCD, but there are other components that are different.  Same specs does not mean same quality.  It is possible that the Dell is cheaper because they operate on a lower margin than Apple.  It is also possible that they went with a low-bid, low-quality chinese assembler and Apple did not.  It is also possible that the Apple backlight and other components are actually higher quality than the Dell.  That $250 for the Apple buys me the confidence that I have a quality product that will last and have a low chance of issues.  This has been my experience with Apple products.  With Dell, I have just the opposite experience, I have used their cheap products and they feel cheap and work cheap and you got what you paid for.  Following the get-what-you-pay-for rule has usually worked well for me and I have gotten burnt when I have disobeyed it.  This is not a blind-hatred towards Dell or a fanboy attitude for Apple.  This is real world experience with many purchases and several by these actual 2 companies.

I am not spending $250 extra because I like flushing money down the toilet.  I am spending it because I genuinely like the Apple display better and it gives me more comfort and confidence that I got a quality product.  Over the years, I have done the same many times with cars, motorcycles, electronics, etc, and it has worked well.  I have also seen some of my biggest frustrations and disappointments come from the el-cheapo.  It is a trend that I am sure many have observed, and is too signficant to ignore.

Then again, it may just be a placebo that makes me feel better.  Either way, the end result to my comfort and confidence is the same.

By the way, I guess you miss the one about "both" Dell and Apple 20in lcd was fab from LG plant!

pcguy wrote:

By the way, I guess you miss the one about "both" Dell and Apple 20in lcd was fab from LG plant!

Actually, now that you brought it up, I seem to remember that being discussed here before.  I think someone else also pointed out in that prior thread that the same plant could produce machines from the same components, but with different designs and quality control standards such that the end product comes out entirely different from a quality stand point.  So I will give you 1 out of 3 of my concerns.  Show me the other 2, and maybe I will sell my Apple on ebay and go get 2 Dells!

Pariah wrote:

Generally speaking I agree with that philosophy but the pivot feature is one I know I would use for sure. I am old enough to have used the old Radius Pivots back in the day and I have been missing being able to do that for years.
I dont see pivoting as being such a weak link anymore since thats handled by video card software now instead of a mechanical switch in the monitor like it used to be.
Since around 90% of the images I work with are portraite oreintation I have developed a healthy loathing for wide aspect ratio screens.
But, ya, generally speaking cramming to much into one box is a very bad thing in my opinion.
Thats why I would never consider a G5 iMac for one glareing example.

Ok.

If you have such a known need for this exact feature, then that actually becomes one of your primary uses for the device and it changes the equations entirely.

When my mother-in-law was shopping for an iMac several years ago, she looked at the gorgeous pivoting arm on that G4 iMac and do you know that the first thing she said was?  It wasn't how amazing it was, or how smooth it was, or how well it worked.  Nope.  It was - should I really be using that pivoting at all, because they are probably wires in there and if I use it, they are just going to wear out and then the machine will break.  This is a 65 year old woman who, like many of us, has been conditioned thorough her experience to notice that any neat feature should not be used for fear it will break.  I really is a shame that such is the current state of tech, but that is where we are at.

You get what you pay for and extra features often break when used, and can be the failure of the entire gizmo.  These observations are the reasons why I believe that less is more and that I am willing to pay more for good, simple, elegant design.

Czachorski wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Generally speaking I agree with that philosophy but the pivot feature is one I know I would use for sure. I am old enough to have used the old Radius Pivots back in the day and I have been missing being able to do that for years.
I dont see pivoting as being such a weak link anymore since thats handled by video card software now instead of a mechanical switch in the monitor like it used to be.
Since around 90% of the images I work with are portraite oreintation I have developed a healthy loathing for wide aspect ratio screens.
But, ya, generally speaking cramming to much into one box is a very bad thing in my opinion.
Thats why I would never consider a G5 iMac for one glareing example.

Ok.

If you have such a known need for this exact feature, then that actually becomes one of your primary uses for the device and it changes the equations entirely.

When my mother-in-law was shopping for an iMac several years ago, she looked at the gorgeous pivoting arm on that G4 iMac and do you know that the first thing she said was?  It wasn't how amazing it was, or how smooth it was, or how well it worked.  Nope.  It was - should I really be using that pivoting at all, because they are probably wires in there and if I use it, they are just going to wear out and then the machine will break.  This is a 65 year old woman who, like many of us, has been conditioned thorough her experience to notice that any neat feature should not be used for fear it will break.  I really is a shame that such is the current state of tech, but that is where we are at.

You get what you pay for and extra features often break when used, and can be the failure of the entire gizmo.  These observations are the reasons why I believe that less is more and that I am willing to pay more for good, simple, elegant design.

Will that be the same grandma who will be afraid to drive a car since you have to turn/move a steering wheel "all the time", and with all those wire in it for horn/cruise control/audio control/gps control! damn! are they just going to wear out and then the machine will break?

Forget about your grandma, what about you? but how often one move that pivoting arm in a week? 5? 10? 15 time to adjust it just right for the day? how does that compare to say your laptop when u flip open and close with much greater force/speed/repeat per day! what about all those flip phone out on the market? millions of it? flip up and down, up and down, up and down alllll day with wire inside too! maybe that's why you use a candy bar style phone instead of flip phone/claimsshell!

Last edited by pcguy (2005-10-19 12:09 pm)

iBubba wrote:

I just feel dirty at the thought of pairing a Apple product with a Dell product.

Why?
My understanding is that they use the same LCD manufacturer, only Dell doesn't ask you to pull your gold teeth to pay for it.

That remind me of a ad from Porsche!

Form fellow function.

I guess for some here

function/price/ability fellow form and brand name

resedit wrote:

iBubba wrote:

I just feel dirty at the thought of pairing a Apple product with a Dell product.

Why?
My understanding is that they use the same LCD manufacturer, only Dell doesn't ask you to pull your gold teeth to pay for it.

Because it feeds the pocketbook of Dell (and by extension, Microsoft.) Duh. Akin to buying Ford Mustang floormats for a Chevy Corvette.

iBubba wrote:

resedit wrote:

iBubba wrote:

I just feel dirty at the thought of pairing a Apple product with a Dell product.

Why?
My understanding is that they use the same LCD manufacturer, only Dell doesn't ask you to pull your gold teeth to pay for it.

Because it feeds the pocketbook of Dell (and by extension, Microsoft.) Duh. Akin to buying Ford Mustang floormats for a Chevy Corvette.

Yeah, but Corvettes and Mustangs are both crappy redneck cars made by lazy Union labour.