The color reproduction and refresh rate is so low it's basically useless as a modern monitor for 99% of uses. That's great that it works for you, but it's not even really worth discussing. It also requires four DVI inputs to drive it, if I remember correctly. It's also very expensive and has been produced since 2005. Also, as you pointed out, its 16:10.
This is done with 3 dell monitors and is referred to as a "PLP" setup (Portrait-Landscape-Portrait). One 30" in landscape and two 20" monitors in portrait. I'm sure it doesn't meet all your criteria, but it might be a reasonable option for you. Good luck in your never ending search for the perfect monitor setup, I'm on the same hunt. Right now using 2x24 Dell 2408WFP on Ergotron LX mount, but deciding on what three 27" monitors to upgrade too right now (Dell U2713HM is currently at the top of the list for a nice compromise for gaming, development, photograph/photoshop, etc).
I have a similar setup, I use Ergoton LX dual monitor mount (~$250) and a pair of Dell 2408WFP (1920x1200, 16:10). Sitting 4' from a wall while using a computer would definitely be an usual configuration. Or, more specifically 4 foot from a wall mounted display. I appreciate that we don't all have the same, or sometimes even similar, office configurations and that one size doesn't fit all. But as you of course know, to build quantities necessary to drive these cost downs into the realm of reason, we have to build them at massive quantities.
I think you'd want a display to be JUST beyond the ability to resolve individual pixels. Any critical process that required viewing individual pixels provides a zoom function.
Because of the physical space available for most people at their desk. My desk, like most people, is 24" wide and sits against a wall. It's not really practical for most people to sit 3+ feet from a monitor. Why not just use a smaller monitor with higher pixel density and sit it closer? This saves physical desk space, power and reduces cost because it's cheaper to produce a smaller glass panel. I don't see the advantage of making the monitor larger and moving it back. That's a compromise we make in the living room so more than one person can look at the same screen.
My only complaint about 16:9 monitors is that multi-monitor setups become extremely wide and you waste a lot of vertical physical space. So for example, at 3x27", I have to turn my head extremely far side to side. I'd gladly sacrifice some horizontal pixels on each monitor. Unfortunately it's not an option.
They're driving it over a single Displayport 1.2 using MST. It's new technology that hasn't fully developed yet. The advantage will be that it can be done over a single small displaylink cable, instead of using 4 DVI cables. It will also do it at 60hz (if not more).
Only if you're further than 25" from it. At any distance closer than that, you'd be able to resolve individual pixels. Until pixels are so small they are invisible, pixel density isn't high enough.
Furthermore, If you sit closer than 31" to a 40" monitor at 4K (as we all would), you'd be able to see individual pixels. So no, the pixel density on a 40" 4K monitor wouldn't be at the limit of normal visual acuity.
All he's managed to do is nothing. He's kept the company pointed in the same direction doing the same thing for far too long. Eventually it will fall down around him.
First off, I'm NOT ADVOCATING node.js. But, the argument is that because JS is used on the client side it makes sense to use on the server side. All the energy that goes into improving JS performance now benefits the client and server side, and you only learn one language to write both your front end and back end code.
And those are great arguments, except javascript sucks. Let's just make python work in the browser. Thanks in advance!
What do you mean "node.js goes to shit" ? The server side platform? Who does Google call when their python scripts have bugs? I'm not sure you understand how this works. You can't call Oracle because your java code doesn't compile and have them fix it for you.
What do the number of eggs women generate in their lifetime have to do with a desire to have sex? Some women want it 10 times a day and some couldn't care less. That isn't tied to egg production.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point really, what's the watt:gflop ration for those two scenarios? I'm assuming we can get at least, what, 3 or 4 AMD cards in a server?
The color reproduction and refresh rate is so low it's basically useless as a modern monitor for 99% of uses. That's great that it works for you, but it's not even really worth discussing. It also requires four DVI inputs to drive it, if I remember correctly. It's also very expensive and has been produced since 2005. Also, as you pointed out, its 16:10.
For what it's worth, I think this might be what you're looking for: http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/6687/16421896.jpg
This is done with 3 dell monitors and is referred to as a "PLP" setup (Portrait-Landscape-Portrait). One 30" in landscape and two 20" monitors in portrait. I'm sure it doesn't meet all your criteria, but it might be a reasonable option for you. Good luck in your never ending search for the perfect monitor setup, I'm on the same hunt. Right now using 2x24 Dell 2408WFP on Ergotron LX mount, but deciding on what three 27" monitors to upgrade too right now (Dell U2713HM is currently at the top of the list for a nice compromise for gaming, development, photograph/photoshop, etc).
I have a similar setup, I use Ergoton LX dual monitor mount (~$250) and a pair of Dell 2408WFP (1920x1200, 16:10). Sitting 4' from a wall while using a computer would definitely be an usual configuration. Or, more specifically 4 foot from a wall mounted display. I appreciate that we don't all have the same, or sometimes even similar, office configurations and that one size doesn't fit all. But as you of course know, to build quantities necessary to drive these cost downs into the realm of reason, we have to build them at massive quantities.
I think you'd want a display to be JUST beyond the ability to resolve individual pixels. Any critical process that required viewing individual pixels provides a zoom function.
Because of the physical space available for most people at their desk. My desk, like most people, is 24" wide and sits against a wall. It's not really practical for most people to sit 3+ feet from a monitor. Why not just use a smaller monitor with higher pixel density and sit it closer? This saves physical desk space, power and reduces cost because it's cheaper to produce a smaller glass panel. I don't see the advantage of making the monitor larger and moving it back. That's a compromise we make in the living room so more than one person can look at the same screen.
My only complaint about 16:9 monitors is that multi-monitor setups become extremely wide and you waste a lot of vertical physical space. So for example, at 3x27", I have to turn my head extremely far side to side. I'd gladly sacrifice some horizontal pixels on each monitor. Unfortunately it's not an option.
They're driving it over a single Displayport 1.2 using MST. It's new technology that hasn't fully developed yet. The advantage will be that it can be done over a single small displaylink cable, instead of using 4 DVI cables. It will also do it at 60hz (if not more).
31" is really too small for 4K.
Only if you're further than 25" from it. At any distance closer than that, you'd be able to resolve individual pixels. Until pixels are so small they are invisible, pixel density isn't high enough.
Furthermore, If you sit closer than 31" to a 40" monitor at 4K (as we all would), you'd be able to see individual pixels. So no, the pixel density on a 40" 4K monitor wouldn't be at the limit of normal visual acuity.
Good thing the ASUS does 4K @ 60hz. A 30" display doesn't force you to pan your head. Increase the font size. Put 2 apps side by side.
Please name a 4:3 monitor with more vertical space, in either inches or pixels, than this monitor.
Slashdot has become a fucking joke.
All he's managed to do is nothing. He's kept the company pointed in the same direction doing the same thing for far too long. Eventually it will fall down around him.
First off, I'm NOT ADVOCATING node.js. But, the argument is that because JS is used on the client side it makes sense to use on the server side. All the energy that goes into improving JS performance now benefits the client and server side, and you only learn one language to write both your front end and back end code.
And those are great arguments, except javascript sucks. Let's just make python work in the browser. Thanks in advance!
What do you mean "node.js goes to shit" ? The server side platform? Who does Google call when their python scripts have bugs? I'm not sure you understand how this works. You can't call Oracle because your java code doesn't compile and have them fix it for you.
Seriously, I had to take a breath twice to finish that monster.
Are you talking about dogfighting? I'm not sure what you mean, exactly.
Does this include provisions to exempt electronic cigarette users?
Classic slashdot, can't even RTFA.
How does viewing AOSP code prove that your binary doesn't have a backdoor?
There's absolutely no way it was "the only possible way of accomplishing something"
Why isn't python "good for the web" ?
What do the number of eggs women generate in their lifetime have to do with a desire to have sex? Some women want it 10 times a day and some couldn't care less. That isn't tied to egg production.
Sex once a year? We have a name for that in the US too, it's called "marriage".
Porn and Video games. Why leave?