Slashdot Mirror
Dell Selling 30" Flat Panels
bling..bling writes "Apple is not the only company selling 30" flat panel monitors. Dell is now offering a 30" flat panel display that has a native resolution of 2560x1600 and sells for $2,199. Just like the apple 30" display you do need a dual link DVI video card to drive this massive beast. This monitor also sports four USB ports and a media card reader.
I've been waiting for Dell or someone else to release a 30" display and hopefully bring the prices down. I'm tired of the dual monitor thing, I want one display device on my desk, just make it a very large device.
See the details on Dell's web site on the new Dell 3007WFP 30-inch widescreen digital flat panel monitor."
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
Can't thet cut to the chase, how many dead pixels can i get stuck with? as their policy only seems to state:
And 2560x1600 is alot bigger than640x480
Plus for that price, I think i prefer 2 samsung high quality 19" flat panels with no dead pixels
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
From Dell. That'd only cost you about $1600, and you could spend the other $600 on a good video card. You'd get a resolution of 2400x1920.
I can't imagine there's a large group of manufacturers for 30" LCDs, so what even differentiates this from Apple's monitor besides price? Backlight?
Are you in South Korea? If not, that policy doesn't apply to you. I have a Dell 24" widescreen and it has no dead pixels. I'm quite happy.
I'm tired of the dual monitor thing, I want one display device on my desk, just make it a very large device.
that's great, except the human field of vision is wide, not tall. So the multi-monitor setup is more efficient.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
For the same money you can buy 4 (or even more) 19 inch screens.
Having several monitors gives you the ability to focus on the central screen while some applications (monitoring,chat,email, etc...) or on the side.
These monitors can be moved placed on top of eachother turned to a collega, etc.. so they provide you much more flexibility.
Also when one of the 4 screens dies thats not a big deal when your massive 30inch screen dies you have nothing.
200GB/2TB $7.95 Coupon: SAVE90DOLLAR
I know that one of Dell's 24" display is the same as Apple's studio display.
Is this the same technology as Apple's?
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
I don't know for you, but flat panels make my head hurt. Literally. I know they're the latest craze and all, but I get one big headache after 1 or 2 hours AutoCADing with one. I can go a lot longer with my 10 year old 21" CRTs without headaches. I guess it's the light source or something, because I tend to get headaches with neon lighting as well.
Too bad, because I really like the form factor (big tubes are space wasters) but unless they improve whatever it is that makes me sick, I'll stick with good ole CRTs.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppleStore?family=AppleDisplays
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
I see someone's already mentioned the issue of dead pixels, particularly in light of other vendors offering comparable screen space with no-dead-pixel guarantees. I think this is the example of a more general problem: no matter how fantastic a large screen like this may be, it's a single point of failure. Apple's cinema displays look gorgeous... until the infamous back light failure kicks in, and Apple's equally infamous denials/poor customer support leave you with a very expensive piece of useless hardware that's almost beyond economic repair. (I'm told the situation with that particular example may have improved, but there's nothing to stop another problem of similar magnitude occurring instead.)
I've never actually used a monitor this big, but I'm guessing it's of most value to people who are displaying large images with lots of screen-wasting toolboxes etc. (or using Visual Studio, which seems to waste well over 50% of the available screen space on things other than code these days). In that case, given the near-universal support for multiple desktops/monitors with modern graphics cards and drivers, choosing two smaller monitors seem like a safer and more flexible option to me, not to mention probably cheaper and more upgrade-friendly.
I suppose it could be worth it to professional staff working on double-page spreads who can see a spread at full size, in which case having some competition for Apple's 30" cinema display must surely be good for the market.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I can't imagine there's a large group of manufacturers for 30" LCDs, so what even differentiates this from Apple's monitor besides price?
Apple 400:1 Contrast Ratio
DELL 700:1 Contract Ratio
Oh, and the apple one has a fancier bezel.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Apple is not the only company selling 2*3*5" flat panel monitors. Dell is now offering a 2*3*5" flat panel display that has a native resolution of 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*5x2*2*2*2*2*2*5*5 and sells for $3*733 Just like the apple 2*3*5" display you do need a dual link DVI video card to drive this massive beast. This monitor also sports four USB ports and a media card reader. I've been waiting for Dell or someone else to release a 2*3*5" display and hopefully improve factorizations. I'm tired of the dual monitor thing, I want one display device on my desk, just make it a very large device. See the details on Dell's web site on the new Dell 31*97WFP 2*3*5-inch widescreen digital flat panel monitor.
* A higher contrast ratio is of course also possible if you get a different backlight and chooses the measuring point to give you that number, but if the response times are indeed lower, or different, it seems they realyy have a different panel. On the other hand, one could technically squeeze a bit of response time difference from using a different signal chip in the monitor.
No in fact they haven't... Apple has been the only company that has produced such a display. I would have mentioned any manuf. that released a 30" display just happened to be that Dell released it. I'm not really a fan of Dell anyways... But that monitor is sweet. Dell plug site, ha they mention stuff from all kinds of companies, why not mention Dell, they talk about Apple, IBM, HP, Samsung, Sun, etc.
My Sig is better than your Sig, because my Sig is Mine!
Why is it that except for the very large 20"+ LCD monitors it's impossible to get 1600x1200 res or better? I bought a laptop 6 years ago that had UXGA+ 1600x1200 res but I can't find an LCD monitor anywhere on the planet under 20" with that res or better. Anyone know of one? Or, anyone know how to disassemble old UXGA+ laptop screens and reframe them with new adapaters so they can plug into a vid card? I just can't seem to understand the companies that sell these things, I know that 1280x1024 is the size they seem to sell but you take one look around the office of any company and you'll see 90% of the office has resized their screens to 800x600 or 1024x768. It seems silly of them to stop at 1280x1024.
... I posted this article yesterday, Slashdot seems to be a bit slow in publishing postings.
My Sig is better than your Sig, because my Sig is Mine!
The refresh methods of CRT's differ greatly from that of LCD's. Your eyes (or, rather, your eyes and your brain) are probably tuned to the CRT since you've been using that setup for a decade... Also, try adjusting the backlight intensity -- the LCD might actually be too bright for you!
Also, the geometry of the screen may be an issue too. I remember when the first generation of "flat" CRT televisions came out, people used to curved monitors thought that the image looked inwardly curved...
You may not have much of a choice -- CRT's are getting much more difficult to source these days, and when your current one dies, you may not even be able to buy a CRT that suits you!
I've ordered one, and it's set to arrive in a day or two. One interesting detail about the process is that Dell's website seems to consider it a system, rather than a monitor. This added some odd things (which were later stripped) such as a 7 day delay in shipping for "build" time.
I've been using dual 20" CRTs at home for a long time, but at work, I got a Dell LCD about 6 month ago. Having used it as my primary monitor for half a year I decided I was going to upgrade my home setup for Christmas. While looking for coupons for the 2405 though, I heard about the 3007, and decided to wait and get just one of those instead.
Apple's been selling their 30" for god knows how long now. Dell has now joined the game.
I expect that if Dell are using a more modern panel, then Apple will soon have an updated 30" product, not to compete but just because their 30" is due for an update... then again we are talking about Apple, who seem to forget about products once they're launched.
It'd be nice if both had more inputs though. I don't need that many 30" displays in the house, and considering my TV is a 24" widescreen CRT I think I'd switch entirely to the 30" computer display for everything. As a high end product I'd understand if it only offered, say, two HDMI inputs alongside the dual-link DVI. An svideo/SCART would be nice too though.
Currently I have dual Apple 30" Cinema setup and I feel no urge to upgrade. Maybe once something with massively more resolution comes up, I'll consider, thank you very much.
We've had a few problems at work with lighting issues, as several of us people are quite sensitive either to typical office lighting or to particular types of monitor.
At the risk of asking the obvious, have you tried rearranging your workspace? I have quite a nice Dell 19" CRT at work, which was almost unusable when I first started due to screen flicker. (I'm the kind of guy who can tell the difference between 85Hz and 100Hz, never mind 75 and 85.) I have two desks in an L-shape, and shifting the PC to the other desk so the monitor was in a different position fixed everything. It later turned out that there's a fairly major power source on the floor below, which we figure might have been interfering before, so the solution is simple but effective.
We also tend to leave the overhead strip lights off, and use uplighters and desk lamps instead. It's not as bright, but it's also not susceptible to the kinds of flickering effects you can get from typical office lighting, and doesn't cause problems for the guys who have overhead lights just behind them that can glare off the screen.
Despite dealing with an unusally high number of vision-sensitive guys at work, I think you're the first person I've ever come across who actually prefers CRTs to a good flat panel unit, so I wonder whether something simple like the suggestions above might allow you to benefit from a flat panel. YMMV, of course, but maybe that'll help.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'm tired of the dual monitor thing, I want one display device on my desk, just make it a very large device.
Everyone knows the real display technology of the day is Toshiba's Surface-conduction electron-emitter display.
It's 100,000:1 contrast ratio, 1ms response time, and you can get it in 55".
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
One of these monitors costs the same as 4 of Gateways FPD2185W widescreens. I know that it is a larger monitor, but would not 3-4 rotatable 20 inch wide screens be a better, more useful investment for most people?
It's still plenty wide. For some users dual monitor stuff is the best option, when I'm doing sysadmin work, etc. and have lots of windows open the dual monitor thing isn't a problem. Where it does become a problem (for me) is that I'm really getting into photography and the split space between the screens is highly annoying. When I'm working in Photoshop, I want just a huge open space to work, not one that has a big space down the middle of it. I use two 19" Sony Trinitron's right now, but am likely to upgrade in a few months. My CRT's are harder on my eyes than my flat panel at my office, and so I was going to switch to dual LCD's, now I think I will likely switch to one large LCD (even through it will cost a preimum).
My Sig is better than your Sig, because my Sig is Mine!
I don't know if it is the backlight, the uneven coloring, the fact that you can almost but not quite focus on the raster. Perhaps it is just to bright. Or maybe I am just getting old and should no longer spend hours staring at a glow tube. Eh glow panel.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Yes, because as we all know, the spec sheet is everything.
I assume you also decide what speakers to buy after looking at specs in a book?
There's not that much exciting stuff happening at the bleeding edge this time of year, so they're spending more editorial space on general interest issues where formerly bleeding edge things are going mainstream, which might be of interest to anyone looking to buy in the near future?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
My personal opinion is that, while I'd rather have a single monitor than the dual 20" display setup I'm using now, that 30" monitor would tend to annoy me because it would be much taller than my current displays and more difficult to scan. I'd much prefer a display with a 2:1 (or wider) width-to-height ratio.
implies they will updating their displays.
v e_apple_plasma_displays_to_rock_mwsf_updated.html# 008526
read the interesting story that PowerPage posted just the other day.....
http://www.powerpage.org/archives/2006/01/exclusi
the key points being (as put by macrumors):
Apple would be releasing 42inch and 50inch Plasma Displays at Macworld San Francisco.
the new plasma displays will be powered by Intel's recently announced Viiv multimedia platform running Mac OS X 10.4.4 for x86 (Intel).
Prices for the displays/computers are reportedly $2599 and $3299.
DELL 700:1 Contract Ratio
The difference is that Dell is claiming figures based on smoking crack, and Apple's is actually somewhat reasonable. The first thing I did when I got my 20" from Dell, was calibrate it.
According to the calibration device (Eye-one Display2), none of the specs were even close. I think the "true" contrast ratio turned out to be more like 1:250, and when I did brightness testing- brightness on the panel actually went DOWN with time at any setting over "75"; Dell's design pretty clearly overdrives the backlight(probably damaging it), and it is probably to be able to brag an extra 30-40cd over "the competition". Which is hilarious, since the thing is so damn bright, I have to keep it on the lowest brightness setting.
Maybe I'll re-run the calibration right now and get actual numbers and post them as a follow-up, so you can see how lousy true specs are compared to what is claimed on paper.
Please help metamoderate.
By all means, however, if you have the money and the requirements, go ahead and get this if user reviews are good. It looks sheerly massive. One thing for sure, though, is that it certainly isn't a necessity.
As an aside, any word on dead-pixels? My friend that has a fairly large Dell LCD hasn't had any problems in that department, but it never hurts to ask around.
Fun Zoid RPG
Dell's offer also comes with a 4-port USB hub and a 9-in-2 card reader. Apple's display has 2 firewire ports and 2 USB ports. A lot of people have said Dell is inflating their monitor's specs since both monitors use the same LCD panel. Either way saving $300 over some silver plastic is a good deal.
Unless I'm missing something, Apple's 30" doesn't have HDCP, while Dell's does. If I'm going to drop this kind of cash on a monitor, I'm going to want it ready for Vista...
I'm tired of the dual monitor thing
Multimonitor setup is more sensitive to your eyes. With the two monitors you need to refocus when you look the other monitor, this "exercise" saves the eyes from the strain caused by staring into one monitor from fixed distance for a long time. The best setup so far (that i tested) is 1600x1200 (left) 1920x1200 (center) 1600x1200 (right) with a TV display far behind so i can focus my eyes to distant display as well as near displays giving my eyes lot of exercise. I've found that my eyes keep refocusing on the other displays when it is no longer confortable to stare into one for too long. I have no eye sight problems since.
Someone asked if there were any differences between Dell's and Apple's panel, and someone responded. Calm down.
I have a 30" cinema display at home and two 23" cinema displays at work. I do an equal amount of programming from each. I like the dual-display setup better for programming. For programming it seems to be easier to arrange the windows (IDE,firefox,terminals,etc) in the most efficient way. When using programs like autocad and photoshop though, the 30" is much better.
Why would anyone want to spend $2000 on a monitor? For half the cost (and this isn't even a great example), I'd sooner buy a projector that gives me up to 300inches of view space. Not to mention I can watch movies on it, too.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
hell everthing about windows is all about making the best of limited screen space. its all a work around for our limited screen space...all the tiling..minimizing..windows crud. bigger screen = better
Seriously what the heck are you talking about? HP doesn't make a 30" display the biggest LCD flat panel monitor they sell is the HP L2335 which is a 23" widescreen display. As for Apple they have only been selling the 30" monitor for about a year now. So in terms of the technology being commercially available, yeah it's kind of new. With Dell just releasing the second 30" flat panel monitor on the market. So it's news... Not seriously big news in the grand world of computing, but news none the less.
My Sig is better than your Sig, because my Sig is Mine!
This monitor also sports four USB ports and a media card reader.
Be careful, there is a problem with that!
I have a Dell 2405FPW and it has the same ports and readers. When the monitor is switched off, the power supply to this subsystem is cut as well (and apparently it is not powered from the PC USB bus).
I leave my PC switched on all the time, and switch off the monitor when I am not using it. The PC continues to perform server functions.
The result is that every switch off and on of the display it will go through the USB hardware discovery cycle, find all the cardreaders, and try to read all card types. This results in a massive amount of log messages and a very slow PC for 5-10 seconds.
The manual tells about this, but I think many users would not think about it when reading the feature list.
Fortunately, the monitor has multiple inputs (VGA, DVI, S-Video, Composite, Component) and when switching to one of the TV inputs it goes to standby mode when no signal is present. So as a workaround, I switch it off by setting S-Video input and back on by selecting DVI again. Not as convenient, as it needs multiple button clicks to do so.
I have the 2005FPW and I love it. I have two computers connected through the DVI and VGA ports and my Xbox hooked up to the composite. This just has a media reader and a DVI port. For that much money, I want a full array of connections.
Because everything else inside a computer is measurable in pretty much just speeds and dimensions, not counting cooling systems, would it be reasonable to say that the hard drives and monitors, which die relatively quickly, are unpredictable in that sense and it is important to have a company make a quality product that they can "stand behind" to defend their brand (even if they're just being choosey with Korean OEMs?
Apple 400:1 Contrast Ratio
DELL 700:1 Contract Ratio
Uh, as the parent stated, there aren't many sources (read: one) for 30" panels. So in all probability, Dell is using the same bullshit specs they use everywhere else. Any real-world comparison will show this to be true.
For me I have a single monitor at home that I use for browsing/gaming/etc - and I have no real need for a second monitor.
At work though I do lots of testing of patches, scripts and other administration duties. I open up my administration or editing program in one window and the target system in the other window. With one monitor I sometimes missed any quick messages or weird update issues - with two I can catch everything. I also know a lot of people that use two monitors for the same reason. More real estate would not help, it is literally being able to see two separate things at once that helps.
It could be argued that with a 30 inch you could open up two windows side by side, but in my personal experience it is always easier to use two monitors because it is easier to just expand an application to take up one monitor rather than trying to manually resize programs every time.
So I think the whole debate about which is better depends completely upon what your goals are and how you work.
Dell didn't pay me squat to post this... If they did pay me the check hasn't arrived. I actually don't like Dell at all and refuse to buy their PowerEdge servers. Bringing out a 30" monitor which supports HDCP is news...
My Sig is better than your Sig, because my Sig is Mine!
You can get this monitor for $1800 or less if you claim you are a small business (they don't check) and speak to one of the reps in the small business department of Dell. More importantly, If you wait a bit, some great deal will show up. Wait until a $1500 or less deal and grab it then. I got my 2001FP for 860 when it used to cost $1200 and my 2405FPW for $915 when it used to cost $1500 so I'm familiar with Dell deals.
This price is ridiculous for a Dell, you can get the apple 30" for $100 more with student discount. And we all know the kinds of margins Apple has.
For the same money you can buy 4 (or even more) 19 inch screens.
No arguement there, Dell has overpriced this at $2,199 (I presume USD).
Me, I went to the local Canadian Costco and picked up a Viewsonic 27" widescreen N2750W that has DVI, VGA, TV tuner, speakers, PIP etc. all inside. Sure, the resultion is 1280x720 but I don't need to see 10 pt fonts at 1/32". My stock NVIDIA AGP DVI card drives it nicely. The kicker is it is $899 Canadian, but I paid $999 a year earlier. Thinking of buying another one as my wife wants it as a TV. And no dead pixels that I can find.
What is really cool about this is watching TV in PIP, no ATI blunder software to crash.
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx ?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=W3007&s=dhs
There's more expensive cables and cards from Dell, too.
I'd rather buy the Apple with my educational discount (just $2,299 with the cable) and works with my Powerbook's graphics card.
-- Boycott Shell
Not only is this not tech news, but the last thing the tech world needs is free advertising for dell on Slashdot of all places.
dell can gain some respect from me and other true computer users/builders when they leave the trifecta from hell (dell, intel, microsoft) and stop manufacturing their own crappy parts and stick in quality products like antec and corsair.
Flaimbait? Not if you're a true computer tech.
I think that a large monitor would work very nicely for people who do design work though. It is nice to have a larger view of the image or project you are working on while still having it zoomed in enough to see what you are doing. Then of course you can always have another little monitor becide it to hold your toolbars and such.
Well, before any /.'er compares the price and specs with the Apple display and rushes out to order one from Dell, I should point out the obvious and mention that Macworld is coming up next week. It's probably worth a few days of waiting to see if Apple has a price or feature response to Dell.
Unless you REALLY have over two grand burning a hole in your pocket...
- "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
Oh, and the apple one has a fancier bezel. ...and of course built in 2 port Firewire (400) hub in addition to 2 port USB (2.0). Also the firewire, USB, power and Dual-DVI all come to the monitor via a single cabel, this makes thing a lot cleaner on your desktop or when mounting on a wall.
"Color and detail have never looked better or bigger thanks to the brilliantly bright display and Dell's UltraSharp technology."
Is UltraSharp Dell's way of saying "it's an LCD screen"?
Done. Here are the results for my 2 month old Dell 2005FPW, which has been on for about 2 hours before calibration.
Max brightness: 250 cd/m^2 at 100, but dropped 1 cd/m^2 EVERY SECOND I left it at that setting(and oddly enough, when I brought the setting back to 0, luminance climbed slightly over 5-10 seconds, then dropped back to 178-179). 0 is anywhere from 178.2-180.
Guess what? 250cd/m^2, or 250 lumens, is run of the mill. Dell claims an additional 50 lumens. To put that in perspective, that's as if the display had a brightness setting of around "200"(well, a little less, but you get the idea.)
Dell also claims a 600:1 contrast ratio. Except the calibration device measured a minimum luminance of .4 cd/m^2. 180 divided by .4 = 450:1 contrast ratio.
Apple claims a contrast ratio of 400:1 and a max luminance of 250cd/m2 on the Cinema 20", which is supposedly the same exact screen (but different front "glass" and backlight, I believe). How 'bout that.
Please help metamoderate.
Either way saving $300 over some silver plastic is a good deal.
The Apple display is made of aluminum, not plastic.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Your Powerbook has duallink DVI? What makes the apple display so special that it works with your powerbook, and the dell won't?
If there is demand for high resolution displays on laptops why not desktop LCD's?
Also why are both 17" and 19" desktop LCD's stuck at the same 1280x1024 resolution?
Better flight searching coming soon.
Also the firewire, USB, power and Dual-DVI all come to the monitor via a single cabel, this makes thing a lot cleaner on your desktop or when mounting on a wall.
Who the fuck mounts a computer monitor on a wall?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
It's the number of pixels not the number of inches. A projection system simply doesn't have the resolution of pixels that a 30 inch lcd panel does. Besides a projected image would be on a wall or too large to put on a desk if it's rear projection. I suppose you could mount it on a wall... ick...
Another factor to consider is the clarity of the pixels which is very important for preserving you eyes and for detailed work.
A friend bought on of the Apple 30 inch monsters for her home computer simply because she loved it so much. It barely fits on her desk but it's simply an awesome experience to use a computer with one of these.
I'd like at least three of them...
"If I'm going to drop this kind of cash on a monitor, I'm going to want it ready for Vista..."
If that's the case, you have about 2 more years to work on your purchase...
Heh, actually it's aluminum, not silver plastic. And I'd prefer 2 firewire ports and 2 USB ports to 4 USB ports and a card reader. Then again, I don't like those ports on monitors anyway and saving $300 dollars is certainly good.
I, on the other hand, would like to not have DRM in my computer monitor.
Imagine if no one bought HDCP monitors. When Vista came out, it would blow up massively--people would be furious at having to either use really crappy video or buy a new monitor.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Okay you got me there, but you still save $300!
I hope that manufactures continue to embrace higher resolutions as I have loved the 1920x1200 (WUXGA) screen on my Inspiron 8500 (another Dell plug) for three years now and have considered replacing the computer, but have not becuase I love the screen so much. I understand that manufactures have a lack of incentives for making such high resolution desktop panels, but if you use a WUXGA laptop display you'll realize how beautiful it is. The reason I am such a fan of these laptop panels is that, as previously mentioned today, the human field of vision is far wider than tall. Furthermore, it is much easier for the eye to collect information in as short an arc of eye displacement as possible. When I am writing GUI's and scripts for my engineering classes, being able to see all the information very quickly is hugely valuable and efficient. Still, I don't know why so many people care about screen SIZE so much more than resolution. I truly wish there was some way of getting my WUXGA resolution on a stand alone flat panel, but doing so would require a screen 23" or larger and costing more than I can afford. If Dell makes twin WUXGA's, I'll be sold.
With these mammoth LCDs that require dual DVI inputs... Is it possible to hook them up to a lower-end video card (eg, my laptop) and run them at a lower resolution?
I'd love one of these things, but I don't want to build a new computer to use it.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
I don't have any experience using >20" monitors, but wouldn't 30" be a little to much, for the same reason sitting in the front row at the cinema sucks?
The resolution surely is nice though...
FWIW, I've been looking into buying a widescreen TV recently, and the usual recommendation seems to be that you want to sit about 3x the screen diagonal away (i.e., about 10-11' away for your screen). My more responsible friends and other half have talked me out of buying a stunning Sagem 45" DLP TV on this basis; while the image is fantastic and wold be great for movie nights, it's simply too big to fit in my lounge, and something more modest like a 32" LCD is a much better fit.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Of course, DVD video will be available, which by most people's accounts here, is "good enough"... ... look, like it or not, HDCP (especially married with HDMI) is now a staple of the HDTV world and isn't going anywhere. I'm just saying, having the option of watching HD movies (in whatever format) in a few years time vs. not having the option on a $2000 monitor (which, by most accounts and at that price point, should last at least a few years) seems to be a selling point to me. It seems silly that Apple isn't offering it, though as we all know, Apple really hasn't made any anouncemnts about HD video and Macs... though by most all accoutns they are going to have to....
Because:
- it makes the positions of widgets predictable, so you can interact with your software much faster using a mouse once you learn where things are
- using the physical limits of screen edges has advantages for usability, e.g., I know that I can throw my mouse point to top-right and click and I'll get the close button for the current window
- using non-maximised windows adds even more window dressing
- it's annoying if you keep accidentally moving or resizing a window, e.g., when trying to select text near the end of a line in an editor
- personally, I find overlapping windows to be confusing and unhelpful, transparency effects to be really distracting
- switching the active window based on where the mouse pointer is on most UNIX systems rates among my top-ten most annoying UI mistakes ever
and that's just off the top of my head.As another poster mentioned, a window manager that could let you have some of these advantages while using a non-maximised window would be a great help, but I know of no platform today that will, e.g., slow the mouse down as it nears the edge of a window to emulate the hard edge of the screen. It would be interesting to measure the usabilty of such features, but intuitively I'd guess it would help a lot once people got used to it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The Cinema 30" has been out long enough now that I would place the odds of a product revision at MacWorld over 50%. Whether it's a bigger panel, or and increase in the DPI will be interesting to see. Tiger is already capable of going fully resolution-independent.
I'd love to have a 30" display that bumped the resolution up to 250 DPI or so.. That would be sweet.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I also thought initially that I'd prefer two smaller displays to one big, but then I thought about it and wasn't so sure any more:
So unless you make a mess of it, one display should probably be preferable to two, as long as it doesn't get so big, that the side areas are just too far from you. Or triple-head. Or one huge thing and two smaller ones on the sides. Oh if I had the money. 8-)
Ultimately, though, a foldable big honking display would be best, I'd wager.
Yesterday was the time to do it right. Are we having a REVOLUTION yet?
I can't imagine there's a large group of manufacturers for 30" LCD
If I'm not mistaken, Samsung released their 30" LCD yesterday (or today). It should have similar specs, but be a bit cheaper. I didn't find any good links at samsung.com though. Does anyone have more info?
Has anyone actually used one of these 30 inch displays with Linux, NOT using closed-source drivers?
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
As crazy as it sounds, today I power my Apple 30" monitor with my 15" powerbook. Full Resolution (dual head). New powerbooks that have 128megs of VRAM can do it. It's a great setup....and actually almost too much screen real estate, not that I'm complaining. ;-)
I wonder if this new Dell 30" monitor will work with a powerbook (though the DVI port) as well.. Apple must support dual link in the Powerbook's DVI port, otherwise it wouldn't work in the current setup.
Pat-
Let's see... 2 19" (18" viewable) Viewsonic G90FB CRTs will cost me about $450 for both and I'll then have 3200x1200 space to work with. 2 21" (20" viewable) G225FB CRTs around $850 for both to get 4096x1536. Nope, I can't justify $2200 for a flat panel that gives me less "real estate".
The 20.1inch Iiyama Prolite E511S supports 1600x1200 for both DVI and analog inputs. I have used one and I think it is an excellent display -- no dead or stuck pixels. The Iiyama Prolite H2010B has one additional DVI input, and support for PAL/NTSC input via an (optional) video adapter.
News for Nerds - check.
Stuff that matters - check.
This is interesting news to me.
My understanding is that Windows XP will only allow a single icm profile for a dual display unless the video card has a dual LUT (Look Up Table).
Anyone know the True Answer?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Apple has a reputation for being terribly overpriced. A bit behind w/ some hardware (like memory/FSB speed in my iBook), but there prices aren't as bad as some make it seem. $1000 for a decent notebook is reasonable (iBook again). They just get unrealistically expensive with some of their fully loaded systems. Back on topic though. That's not too much cheaper then Apple's 30" display. With education discount, it's only $100 cheaper. And if you are spending $2000+ on a display, I don't think a couple hundred dollars is a huge deal. And I've heard Apple's displays are some of the best for accurate reproduction of color (although that might just be propaganda affecting me). I found there mid-sized display to be pretty competitive with newegg's displays of that size, even cheaper then many of the better known brands with the educational discount. It's good to see some competition though. Someday I will have one.........
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Spoken like a true Apple whore.
Keep repeating after me - 'It does not matter what a device can do so long as it is expensive and looks nice.'
Ummm some folks?... Think a wall arm mount so you have zero foot print on your desk and a movable display.
Yes. This should technically work.
Here is Apple's page that lists dual link DVI as how their 30" displays work.
Be warned that not all 128MB VRAM powerbooks support DL-DVI. Most do but there was a build-to-order option on the late 2004 systems that would give it 128MB of VRAM but not DL-DVI.
What in the world does dots per inch have to do with a monitors native resolution? If you have two 19" monitors with the same physically sized display area, one having a native display resolution of 1024x768 and the other is 1280x1024 running the same desktop/apps, etc. (all with the same fonts/sizes), which one will have physically smaller sized type, images, etc.? Obviously the 1280x1024 will have the smaller sized type, images, etc. that's because are fitting more pixels in the same physical space, so everything appears smaller. While true you can adjust the text size in some applications this can cause those applications to look goofy, weird, etc. There is a big difference between print resolution/image quality and the image quality on a monitor/display. My friends who are pro photograhers print almost everything at 300 DPI. It sounds as if you are equating DPI and pixels? DPI doesn't give you higher image quality... "The Myth of DPI" http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/mythdpi.html ... I'm not an expert on print stuff, etc. but it sounds like you have some misconceptions and are intermixing terminology.
My Sig is better than your Sig, because my Sig is Mine!
all the new 15 and 17in powerbooks have duallink; so works with both apple and dell.
but even with some small difference in price ($100-300 is small as fraction of the total), i definitely would prefer the apple. 30in monster with black plastic frame and dell logo? and with apple, i know about their rather helpful policy if problems appear.
Yes, I agree, Apple should totally change their screen so that it works with an arbitrary restriction imposed by a competitor on that competitor's own users.
Worst of all: It's uglier and more expensive than Apple's 30 in Cinema Display.
A ppleStore?family=AppleDisplays
e tails.aspx/monitor_3007wfp?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/
against
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productd
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
It's a nice unit. No embedded controls, except for brightness, so you need to use your graphics card control panel to make adjustments. Some minor uniformity problems with the backlight, but good D6500 color temperature tracking.
Oh, and Civ4 looks great at 2560x1600 ;-)
you are comparing prices from apple with discount VS dell prices without discount. which are the prices from apple without discount?.
http://www1.ca.dell.com/content/products/productde tails.aspx/monitor_3007wfp?c=ca&cs=CABSDT1&l=en&s= bsd
Just because "I" and "eye" sound the same doesn't mean you would use the first to mean the second, does it?
TWW
I have a 24" Dell, they're 1920X1200 which would give you 3840x1200 in a dual setup.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
And if you are spending $2000+ on a display, I don't think a couple hundred dollars is a huge deal.
One of the best human fallacies marketers love to exploit is that of context. People will drive across town to save $10 on a $30 toaster purchase, but not to save $50 -- five times as much -- on a $20,000 car purchase.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
It is a pleasant thought, but I'm sure MS's plan is to just dominate through OEMs first. Force the OEMS to sell systems with only DRM monitors, and wham - in 3 years tops, you have market domination and acceptance of DRM monitors. Retail OS buyers are forced to follow.
Yes, we have lcd displays mounted on wall mounts at work in the server room. Its quite helpful.
I wouldn't mind it at home actually. Then again, an LCD display would be a start. My 19 inch crt takes a lot of desktop room.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
This sounds like the window manager you are using (Windows itself) needs a feature where you can can partition programs to certain areas of your display easily. Snap to grid perhaps? I doubt anybody has thought of creating "zones" in large display areas because such high res hasn't been available till recently.
Everyone is still thinking way too small. I've been thinking that I want something like HDTV on a computer with a 60 inch screen but that's still too small. So now I'm thinking about an interface consisting of a ceiling mounted projector with images on the wall from floor to ceiling. I want to be able to walk around and still see images no matter where I am in the room so I guess that means the projector needs to be on the other side of the wall in a closet. At work we have a 6 monitor solution that displays the status of servers in datacenters around the world so now I'm thinking a 6 monitor solution is barely an acceptable minimum.
My human machine interface should be something like my home theatre... A big screen, a powerful 7.1 surround sound system and a comfortable recliner. I don't want to be bothered with a mouse, pointing my finger and uttering a few sounds should be sufficient. Waving my empty 12 oz bottle at the screen should be enough for my computing assistant to know that a refill is in order.
Though I make a living working with machines I maintain that computers and robots are here to serve me and answer my every beck and call.
D. B. Dweeb
What I encounter is that at these high resolutions windows are getting smaller, you move your head more, and you go nuts on your mouse since you have to drag the pointer everywhere... Increase mouse-speed you say? well the windows and everything is smaller, so you have to point exact thus you need pretty much normal speed..
The only reason that we spend vast amounts of money (which translates to man-hours) of production on huge monitors is because the mass-market windowing systems, Windows and Mac OS X, lack the ability to deal with a sizeable number of windows simultaneously.
Both have improved somewhat recently. These days, Windows can at least group windows, and Mac OS X is somewhat better off, with Expose. However, both pale in comparison to even a rudimentary multiple-viewport window manager.
I have three monitors easily to hand, including 21" monitors. I instead use a single 19" monitor (though running at 1600x1200) on my Linux box. I could easily have a larger, dual monitor setup, but choose not to do so. Because I want to keep my work in my most comfortable viewing position. I use sawfish (which switches viewports extremely quickly), and have bindings to switch viewports on my keyboard. I have zero delay edge flipping with the mouse -- it hits the edge of the screen, I go to the next viewport in that direction. As a result, I can snap between viewports instantly -- as quickly as a dual-monitor user might look between two monitors.
And here's the great thing about a single, smaller monitor -- Everything that you're working on is right where you want it to be -- directly in front of you. I have twin 20" monitors on my Windows box at work -- I have to look off to the side then look back to the other side. Even on a single 21" monitor, it becomes awkward to work with two things on opposite corners.
Now, I'll grant that it takes you a while to learn a setup like this effectively -- anyone that tries the thing has gotten used to Windows and Mac OS X-style solid edges, and tends to just throw their mouse off to the edge. Also, with such a large desktop, you probably want a very high mouse sensitivity -- when moving my mouse quickly, it probably takes about a centimeter of mouse movement to move my cursor all the way across one viewport. However, once you are comfortable with such an approach, it is far faster than a dual monitor setup.
Also, if you have something like this, you can expand your desktop as much as you want. I normally use 12 viewports (I used to use 9, and finally decided that I needed a bit more space). Now, you could always get dual monitors and *then* use viewports, granted, but then you have the above drawbacks.
My largest concern is for resolution. I don't want to have individual pixels identifiable as such. Now, 1600x1200 is a minimum for such a requirement -- if I could get an even higher resolution display, I might go for that.
If you sit very far back from your monitor, you might want to get a larger monitor, granted, so that the same visual arc is provided by your monitor. If I sat further away from my monitor, I'd want the thing to be progressively larger and able to throw off more light to compensate for the greater distance.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
On this topic- are there any good monitor arms for a 30" display?
The ones I've tried so far:
Ergotron (LX series): Isn't expensive and is generally pretty nice, but it can barely hold a 23" display (the last "tilt" joint just isn't strong enough).
I've tried one from www.lcdarms.com, and it'll hold the 23" fine, but it just doesn't feel as polished - the two joints next to the screen are exceedingly stiff (good for keeping the monitor tilted), but they don't move smoothly ("slip-stick" with lots of vibration) - and it doesn't have the range of the Ergotron one.
Apple has a 23" IPS panel, while dell uses a 24" PVA panel.
As for the 30", the Dell has a newer panel, but I bet the Apples get a new rev soon.
I've never actually used a monitor this big, but I'm guessing it's of most value to people who are displaying large images with lots of screen-wasting toolboxes etc. (or using Visual Studio, which seems to waste well over 50% of the available screen space on things other than code these days).
Seriously, every time I see someone using Visual Studio, they have eight million tearable panes and toolbars slapped on their monitor, and a tiny portal in the middle -- about 25% of their screen, at best -- to actually see their code. And most of the toolbars are for ridiculous things that they almost *never* use -- who on earth uses a toolbar button to copy text or save?
All the people that use emacs at work, on the other hand, have an emacs window that's stretches the entire vertical size of the monitor (and in my case, probably a second emacs window next to it).
Normally, I'd say something snide about software flaws being fixed by better/more expensive hardware -- but Visual Studio doesn't *force* you keep all that stuff on your screen. Most of it is just noise, dead space, basically useless pixels, but people still leave it up there. So people choose to do this.
On the same note -- one thing that Win/Mac OS X boxes should really have, IMHO (I believe that both have accessability software that can do at least a limited version of this, granted), is the ability to kick into a "magnified" mode. I can do this with Ctrl-Alt-KP+ and Ctrl-Alt-KP- on my Linux box, and it's useful for showing someone across the room something quickly or examining fine detail on something. It's really frusterating that there isn't a quick way to do this under Windows. Every time I see two people with their noses scrunched up against their monitor, pointing at some artsy website, and saying "no, I'm pretty sure that that's an 'i'", I wish that Windows had a full-screen magnifier that you could get at from a simple keystroke.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
I use Mac OS primarily in both setups. You are correct that the window manager does not have enough features to help the organization of the windows. A virtual dual monitor setup would be great. I think part of the problem also is the shear height of the 30" display. As someone else posted, I think a wider aspect ratio would make the 30" display better for programming.
Actually, on Windows with nVidia cards, you can use the nView software to do just this. You drag gridlines wherever you want them, and windows snap to them as you move them. Pretty cool.
Trackballs are nice for this. I still use a mouse for gaming, but for everything else, i use my trackball, i can just kind of spin it to throw my pointer all the way across the desktop. I've got a 20" ACD and a 15" to the right of it.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
-goro-
Couldn't we just agree that two 30" monitors would be the sweetest?
What flavour of AutoCAD are you using? Any add-on programs?
As an old-skool draftsman, I want a 34"x48" active table. Until that happens, I'll be working in tiny little 21" monitor windows and zooming around.
Yes, this causes a perspective change, and it is manageable, but we seem to be working more and more towards compartmentalization for workers.
That's good for the interchangeability of tasks, but in the long run we will end up with the fat end of the bell curve only.
"I'm tired of the dual monitor thing, I want one display device on my desk, just make it a very large device."
Though I understand the posters desire to have a single device...I love having two or even my current three monitors because it allows me to "full screen" three different things I am working on at once. For instance, I can have my database management software up in one (lets say the left monitor), my development environment (read coding) on the middle monitor, with whatever else I need on the right monitor. Usually when building web apps, I keep the live version in the right monitor then just refresh when I make a change, save, and upload. My efficiency is much greater when using a three monitor system to do what I do over having a single or even dual monitors and continually switching screens to reference or view something.
So if I do the math correctly (and I've double-checked), I get the size to be approximately 15.9 inches high by 25.44 inches wide (with the result sqrt(15.9*15.9 + 25.44*25.44)=30.00006 inches diagonally. Now my current monitor is a 17 inch panel (Samsung 172N). It has a razor-thin bezel, and it's real easy to put these side-by-side. If I bought 4 of these, it would cost $1716 (if I don't consider that prices have dropped since I bought mine for $429 a few years ago). I would get 34 inches diagonally and would be able to go to resolutions up to 2560x2048, although I usually only run the single one at 1024x768, so I would probably run the four at 2048x1536. If I removed the bezel and made a custom one, all four panels would make one big seamless screen, I would have a higher resolution, and only pay 4/5 of what they are asking. Economics of scale surely have not kicked into these big panels yet. I would expect to pay 5% for a premium size panel, but 20%? No.
I have a Dell 24" both at home and on my desk at work, but even before that, I was getting headaches working on computers, which I do... way too much! At my last eye doctor appointment, he told me to use reading glasses while I'm working at the computer. I'm only 32, but thought I'd give it a go even though I was a little skeptical. Since I started using reading glasses, no more headaches.
Cheaper to buy it from Dell Canada at $1,999 AKA $1665US or so.
x ?sku=222-0863&c=ca&l=en&cs=CABSDT1&category_id=619 8&first=true&page=productlisting.aspx
http://accessories.dell.com/sna/ProductDetail.asp
that Dull is rebadging? It has higher contrast, and hopefully will show up in the US.
ignorance is bliss. googlefiberatx.com
agreed. 30" would be ok for some things, but really when it comes to programming, life is made much easier with two SEPERATE screens, so your not having to resize and all that jazz, simple drag and drop from window to window (using ultramon). Also anyone that debugs GUIs would know on a single screen is quite the headache, but when you can have your code on one screen, GUI on the other, it makes it much simpler to step through the program and see the results without minimizing/maximizing/ect I think really the only reason I would enjoy a 30" would be for media and gaming.
If by "restriction" you mean "will be able to watch high def DVDs", then yeah, sure.
The simple fact is that you will *not* be able to watch DVDs without that, so it hardly makes it a restriction in the eyes of most consumers. It's displays without it which will be perceived as having restictions.
Mark my words...
More likely that the Dell display looks like crap in the real-world, while the Apple display lookis stunning. I haven't seen any realistic alternative to Apple's Cinema Display quality in its price-range. Apple uses a different type of screen technology to most vendors. I can't recall what it is called off the top of my head. but I know what looks good, and the vast majority of LCD displays look like utter shit.
... and then they built the supercollider.
i do. I have twin 23" Cinema displays mounted on wall-mounted articulated arms. I can change the position and orientation of either or both monitors, and it consumes no desk space. So i can have my video cameras and other firewire devices sitting under the displays, with the FW cable going directly up to the displays. I can use both monitors (or one) in portrait (vertical) orientation for things like laying out magazine pages or reading web-pages.
... and then they built the supercollider.
"High Def DVDs" as currently planned, should be rejected by the market and scrapped, anyway. I don't see how they are going to stop people from playing their existing DVDs. Not enough people care about HD to cause people to buy them instead of SD DVDs.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I never got into dual-headed setups, I think I could go for a 3-head display, but I just don't like the idea of the middle of my workspace being a break between two monitors. Does anyone else feel this way?
When I used to have a dual display setup (PowerBook G4 and a 19" LCD), I'd have the big display be my main screen, centered visually, with the 'book on the side as an extra.
just find a utility that manages two seperate portions of the screen, or write one. I think all you need is for maximize in one half of the screen to maximize there, and vice versa for the other monitor.
There aren't any square monitors. You probably mean a 4:3 width:height ratio. You see that as a square (because human brains are fsked up like that). A real square you'd see as a tall rectangle :)
True enough. I'm not knocking Dell monitors or anything (I'm the very happy owner of a 2005fpw), but it just kind of seemed out of the blue that there was a "Hey Dell has a 30" monitor too!" post.
Switch to ion and press MOD1+S to split the screen vertically.
http://modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~tuomov/ion/
Well I hope you are right, but I'm not optimistic. If they start only releasing movies in that format, consumers will lap it up.
Its good to see this 30" dell at least supports HDCP. It still miffs me that the 30" Apple one doesn't. It seems like a waste not to include it since most HD TVs do. Its been a while since I've seen an update on HDCP but last I checked support for it in consumer hardware was widespread and the format was pretty well developed.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
The Dell display includes a ~4 ft cable... you only have to buy a cable if you want 8-12 feet, something Apple doesn't offer at all.
Now, I have a couple of questions about the Dell monitor, in case anyone knows the answer, as I'm considering requested these monitors at work.
1. Is it fanless? I have been told that the Apple monitor in its aluminum case is fanless. If I get one of these monitors, I would like it to be fanless and then disconnect the fan in the video card. I don't intend to run games that exercise the GPU, and I'm willing to replace a burned out $200 video card occasionally in exchange for more quiet.
2. Can this monitor rotate 90 degress like the other larger Dell flat panels? From the pictures, it looks like the margins around this monitor are thinner than on the Apple monitor. I would be nice to be able to rotate this monitor 90 degress and be able to set up a wall of them on my desk without any special mounting hardware. Unfortunately, I do not see any mention on the Dell web pages about being able to rotate this monitor, and its mounting assembly looks like it might not be able to do so, although this is not clear. At least the Apple display uses some kind of industry standard removable mounting bracket, so there is more hope that someone will make a 90 degree rotating bracket for it.
Hardware Device Content Protection. Downsamples to DVD. Bad. Bad. Bad. Do Not Buy.
Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
The reason is quality. For the same price, the higher the resolution for a given surface, the lower the quality. Every laptop LCD looks like junk compared to my apple 20" cinema display (at work) or the equivalent dell LCD (at home). The compromise is accepted for laptops, but nobody would buy a higher-res with low quality, or a high quality model that is almost as expensive as a bigger monitor with the same resolution.
No, according to this chart. It also lacks the picture-in-a-picture feature that I did not realize that the less huge Dell monitors have.
Still, it's a really cool product, and I am still leaning toward requesting one.
Again following up my own posting, according to the same chart, the Dell 3007fpw does have a VESA wall mount, which I believe means that if somebody makes a 90 degrees rotating mount for the Apple 30 inch panel, it should also work with the Dell.
As Interiot writes elsewhere, the display you should snap up is the Westinghouse 37" 1080p LCD. It's a monitor (so no ATSC tuner; use a cable or over-the-air set-top box instead, or a computer), but otherwise it's absolutely ideal as an HDTV and, for those inclined, a monitor (I'm doing both, in a sense, by hooking it up to my new MythTV box). Of course, be sure to first read the lengthy AVSForum thread. When ready, go to J&R to buy it for $1570 including shipping anywhere in the 48 states outside New York state.
While on the subject of 1080p, an issue I'm facing now that I have a true 1080p display is that my video card--an eVGA Nvidia 6200 TC--is just a little too slow to deliver a perfect 1080p image without a portion of the screen refreshing behind the rest in certain cases. When I asked about this on AVSForum I was told that the 6600GT is is fast enough to do this right; thoughts?
I've grown pretty used to eyeballing dots that are spaced on a 0.29mm grid, the original dot pitch of a 21" monitor showing a 1280x1024 image [viewable area on such monitors was about 19".].
Presently, I use dual 19" flat panels whose native resolution [combined] is 2560x1024. Each individual display is native 1280x1024, and so has that same dot pitch (0.29mm) as the classic 21" monitor with 1280x1024 setting.
This 30" display, if I calculate correctly, has a dot pitch of about 0.25mm.
This is finer than my aging eyes like to see for text and coding, which is mostly what I do. Sure I could bump up the text size a bit, but then I would essentially waste many of those extra pixels I would have paid dearly for with this 30" display.
Many of the current crop of flat panels also have finer than the 'classic' 0.29mm dot pitch.
Is this a trend that is unlikely to stop?
Will I be able to find high pixel-count displays with no smaller than 0.29mm dot pitch in future?
What makes the apple display so special that it works with your powerbook, and the dell won't?
Wow, um....I never said the dull wouldn't work, I said the apple display would be way less expensive for me. READ WHAT I WROTE!
-- Boycott Shell