Yes, the 27″ iMac’s screen is “better than HD” – kind of like most monitors

I’ll make this quick. I’ve heard two or three independent sources saying that the new iMac’s screen is “better than HD.” Let’s examine that claim for a moment here. If HD is 1920×1080 and the iMac is 2560×1440, then yes, it is better than HD.

But why would you make that claim when most monitors over 22 inches are at least that resolution? I’ve been using a fantastic Dell 2407WFP for five years or so, and it goes up to 1920×1200. Better than HD, before HD even came around!

That’s all. I just wanted to register a facepalm at this ridiculous talking point. I’m sure the new iMac screen is great (better than mine, to be sure), and actually it looks like a pretty good deal, but “better than HD” is just about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

Update: Sorry if it wasn’t clear; by “at least that resolution,” I mean 1920×1080, i.e. HD. That’s why saying “better than HD” is meaningless, almost every monitor is better than HD. Also, I am not criticizing Apple, people. If you read the post, you will find I praised the monitor. I’m criticizing a phrase I’ve seen bandied about recently. Time to chill out.