Alienware's Curved Monitor

ViperArrow writes "Alienware has showcased a curved display prototype supporting a resolution of 2880x900, aimed mainly toward gamers, with a refresh rate of .02ms. This 3-foot-wide DLP with LED illumination will be available by the second half of 2008. The monitor is still showing some flaws, but Alienware assures us that these will be gone by release. No price has been revealed as of yet."

Comments

That's a lot of pixels!

[91degrees]

Can any graphics card handle the sort of fill rate required from this yet?

Re:That's a lot of pixels!

[Bigbutt]

And that's the $64,000 question. I have three screens at home running on two adapters (512M video ram). It'd be nice to be able to use all the extra real estate to see more of a battlefield (StarCraft or Command and Conquer for example).

The three screens work great for my programming projects though.

[John]

...tf?

[Anonymous Coward]

it has a 50kHz refresh rate? that can't be right

Flight Simmers

[PowerEdge]

I can see this product geared towards flight simmers. Figure out how to drive four of these displays (front, left, right, back) and I'll be happy. That and I won't have to worry about installing a furnace in my new house.

Gaming on RPTV

[__aaqvdr516]

I'm not sure how many other people have done it but I've attempted to game on my rear projection HDTV. It looks like poop. Their refresh rate is based on 60hz which is where they got their .02 refresh rate (1/60hz). I'll pass on this one.

Re:hmm

[192939495969798999]

Agreed, looking at the playback it's quite clearly 4 monitors stitched together, very cheesy and disappointing. It is not at all a "seamless" curved display , and looks surprisingly dumb compared with say, the zenview 6-way monitor which has defined seams. At least the picture remains sharp besides the seams, instead of having that weird fade line.

http://www.bornrich.org/entry/zenview-announces-elite-six-screen-monitor/

why do screen resolutions keep going down?

[razorh]

with all the high def mania out there, why is it that monitor resolutions keep going lower and lower? I still run mainly CRT's because I like 1600x1200 and I don't want to pay a bunch of $$ for an LCD that will support that (most traditional ratio LCD's are 1280x1024, widescreens are Something x somethingcloseto 1024). Now, 900?

A common arguement I hear is 'well, you loose some there but you make up for it on the sides'. HELLO? If I am browsing a web page, looking at a document, or basically doing just about anything, I want length/height on my display, I want to be able to stretch it out up and down.. not sideways.

Maybe for gaming this lower resolution is ok, but really, lets start seeing some higher res. monitors as 'standards'.

Re:why do screen resolutions keep going down?

[Alioth]

Turn the display on its side.

No seriously. We have monitors like that at work that have a stand that allow them to be turned on their sides to view or use "sheet like" programs like web browsers, word processors etc.

Re:hmm

[dmdavis]

If you RTFM, you'll see that it is described as "four nearly seamless and sharp screens", and "You can see the seams between this monitor's four segments, but the Alienware humanoids tell us that flaw will be gone by the time this craft lands on Earth." So yeah, I think that was noticed.

Rubbish

[Spad]

My two 17" LCDs do 2560x1024 - they may not be seemless, but that doesn't really bother me. 2880*900 is pretty poor, especially when you consider the size of the thing.

Re:Rubbish

[vimh42]

Not sure if I'm ready to call it rubbish. I'd have to sit down in front of the thing. Looking at the pictures, I'm not sure I'd like the curved screen.

Re:hmm

[ajs318]

There are 625 lines, which are not subdivided into pixels, in the two fields which make up a standard analogue TV picture.

Re:hmm

[marcansoft]

Of which about 480 are actually visible, and the rest are blanking and retracing.

Can't find the images for the scripts

[HTH NE1]

Come on, if your site needs to be able to run scripts from:

1. 2mdn.net
2. digg.com
3. doubleclick.net
4. gawker.com
5. gizmodo.com
6. googlesyndication.com
7. gridskipper.com
8. quantserve.com
9. sitemeter.com

just to convey a one-paragraph story with pictures, there's something seriously wrong with your site design, your privacy practices, and the lack of respect you have for the security of your readers. Sorry, Gizmodo, but your content is not compelling enough for me to drop my shields for all your friends. We are not one big happy fleet.