Want to be more productive? Get a 30 inch Apple Cinema Display
Whenever I go into an Apple Store I quickly locate the 30 inch displays and look at them for awhile. Silently I think, 'One day, oh yes, one day you will be mine.' It seems Apple is encouraging that kind of thing (who would have thought?). Apple commissioned Pfeiffer Consulting, an independent technology consulting firm, to look at the productivity gains that come along with using a big old monitor (specifically a 30 inch Apple Cinema HD Display).Not too surprisingly the study (PDF link) finds that a larger monitor results in a productivity boost across the board. The boost isn't just limited to more artistic pursues, people using mainly productivity apps (like Office) also saw a boost.
I wonder if my blogging would benefit from a couple of 30 inch Cinema HD Displays. Where did I put that corporate card?
_thumbnail.jpg "Take a stroll down memory lane")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Andrew Childress said 9:34PM on 9-20-2006
Repeatedly click the TUAW ads to buy David Chartier a 30 inch Cinema display.
Reply
Scott McNulty said 9:36PM on 9-20-2006
Hey! Chartier can get his own, I wrote this post and I want that monitor! ;)
Reply
Greyson said 9:43PM on 9-20-2006
You left it at my house. ;)
Reply
Andrew Childress said 9:45PM on 9-20-2006
Chartier is the boy.
Reply
Francois Schiettecatte said 10:16PM on 9-20-2006
Not as cool as a 30" monitor, but cheaper I think, you can get two or three 21" monitors which is what I have.
Reply
Luigi said 10:45PM on 9-20-2006
Francois has a point. I've been dreaming of two 23" Apple Cinemas which cost a dollar less than one 30".
If you get two 20" Apple Cinemas for $1398, thats 3.53 million pixels of viewing pleasure, while two 23" displays for $1998 get you 4.61 million pixels. One 30" behemoth gets you 4.01 million pixels for $1999. Save a dollar AND get 600,000 more pixels!
Reply
exilio said 11:30PM on 9-20-2006
Exactly! I would like to have seen how two smaller monitors, 2x 20" displays or 2x 23" would have done. personally I really like a dual monitor setup. I have a ACD20, and I have been considering adding a ACD23 as my main.
Reply
u07ch said 1:26AM on 9-21-2006
Jakob nielsen wrote about this in july
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/screen_resolution.html.
As part time windows user; i think that it would be better for mac users as os/x apps maximise buttons are more efficient than their windows counterparts; which would just expand and fill the screen.
At home i use a large apple screen on my macbook. I would love is for the F9 expose show my running apps to be a runnable state though; or at least be useable to arrange the desktop. It does a great job far quicker than i can 99% of the time
Reply
gotama said 1:45AM on 9-21-2006
whatever, the 30" is just straight badass
Reply
randy said 1:47AM on 9-21-2006
I've been bugging my employer for over a year to get a bigger (wide screen) LCD for work. I think I'll be stuffing some reading material under the CTO's door in the morning.
Reply
saamvisual said 2:17AM on 9-21-2006
Of course productivity is going to be boosted. For several months you will be primarily interested in justifying such a beast.
Reply
Florian said 2:26AM on 9-21-2006
Productivity is higher than on a smaller screen, this is right. I have one for 1.5 years now and it's great. Prior to that I used two screens, and I don't think the productivity went up. Having more than a regular screen is the main message.
However, I have major concerns about ergonomy: since I have this huge beast I have also problems with my eyes. The screen is so damn large, you are constantly searching your mouse and since MacOSX does not yet support scaling of the entire screen everything is damn small. Your mouse is travelling miles, and so do your eyes. Menubar always on top of the screen - Since your sitting in front of the computer and the screen is flat you have to turn your head and the distance from one eye to the screen to the other is not the same when you look e.g. a menu item in the top-left corner.
This means hard work for your eyes. My personal conclusion: if you deal with photos, video or music: your screen can't be large enough, you really need it.
But when you are a developer as I am or you write emails the whole day, you should buy two smaller screens and have one as your main screen and one for your communication tools or something.
Cheers,
Florian
PS: despite all this, I still love my 30' :-)
Reply
Sfumato said 3:05AM on 9-21-2006
For most non-photo/video type work, I think multiple monitors is more efficient than one huge monitor. Having a monitor with all your constant windows (mail, im, itunes, etc) and one with your current working app/document i think is a really good idea. Personally I use 3 for web development: one for mail/im/itunes/terminal, one for IDE, and one for browser. I could see adding a 4th for dedicated sling/tv/music (and making room for a poker spot on monitor 3). :)
Also, in this scenario, monitors can be too big (i never thought i'd say that). I'm thinking maybe a 23" primary and maybe 2 17" secondaries.
Reply
frogbat said 3:32AM on 9-21-2006
my 20" cinema display (old style) which was my pride and joy and which cost the proverbial arm and leg (and batwing) has now developed a fault. Basically the backlight is faulty causing the top half of the screen to dim but worse of all the power button flashes incessantly. Identical problem as here - http://homepage.mac.com/wysz/Studio_Display/. Anyone know if such issues affect the newer style displays?
btw the monitor is or was great. Though i think 23 or 24" is the real sweet spot for most users. Power users need as much real estate cos applications' guis take up so much room and you can edit an A4 spread at actual size...
Reply
Ken said 7:04AM on 9-21-2006
Productivity doesn't increase by screen size, but by screen resolution. It's all about having all the windows you need on screen at the same time, at the size you want, find anything at a glace, withour the need to scroll or constantly switch from one window to another. And that depends solely on screen resolution.
Increased screen resolution comes with a bigger monitor, but 30" may make you move your head more than you move your mouse.
Finding the perfect combination is a matter of personal preference: how big is too big for you, how far is too far, etc.
My old 17" CRT is set at 1600x1200 and I'm happy with it. I wouldn't reject a bigger TFT, as long as it gave me even more pixels to play with.
Reply
Ed said 8:53AM on 9-21-2006
I would buy better a imac 24".
Reply
Catt said 12:15PM on 9-21-2006
Its not the productivity I'm worried about its the price. I use 2-19" monitors at work at and yes it is definately more productive to have more screen realestate/resoultion... At home I'm down to one and I can feel the difference. I like the idea of having 2 monitors vs. 1 large monitor actually. I can get 2-20" monitors for under $800 or 2-24" for about $1600. It would cost $2K for a 30" display. I agree having seen one more than a few times in the Apple section of a store nearby that its a thing of beauty but just can't justify the cost on my budget.
Reply
mark said 12:41PM on 9-21-2006
I've had a two-display setup at work for years; recently had the main display replaced with a 30" Cinema Display (had a 23" before). I'm still using the 19" CRT as a secondary display. This is a nice setup and is a big boon to my work, but I could easily make use of even more screen real estate. I'd love to have a second 30" display.
But to be honest, if I had to choose between a single 30" display and a dual setup with a 23" and the 19" CRT, I'd pick the dual setup. Thankfully my employer didn't make me make that choice.
Reply
Andrew said 1:24PM on 9-21-2006
I'm debating a purchase of the 30" myself. I'll primarily be using it for video/photo/music work. I've read reviews all over the place. What I need it real-world experience. For those of you with a 30", do you love it? Does it play video smoothly? Do pictures look good with vivid color? And insight you can provide?
It'll be attached to my new Mac Pro with the x1900 video card, 30ghz, 4gb ram.
Thanks.
Andrew
Reply
Andrew said 1:26PM on 9-21-2006
That was "3.0 ghz" not "30ghz".. Missed the decimal point.
Andrew
Reply