Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dell Selling 30" Flat Panels

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the still-waiting-for-review-units dept.

Displays 417

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."

cancel ×

417 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Two heads are better than one! (5, Interesting)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14421986)

I'm tired of the dual monitor thing, I want one display device on my desk, just make it a very large device.
OTOH, the first thing that crossed my mind was: "How much for for two of them", because I'm that much of a dual-monitor 'convert'. If I had to choose between one 30" or my two 19" monitors, I'd choose the pair, rather than just one. Right now, I've got a 21" at work, and I find myself resizing windows, just to find the perfect balance of window size, far more than my dual monitor set up at home. Also, it's great to leave some 'desktop hogs' such as chat windows, the Google desktop, the task bar, and other items which would grab the entire vertical or horizontal axis, in the 'secondary window'.

Re:Two heads are better than one! (1)

QuaZar666 (164830) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422032)

yeah, but not too many cards have dual-link dvi and even fewer have 2 dual-link dvi connections. The only card off the top of my head that does in the Quadro FX 5400 - 512MB. I am sure there are others that probally cost a little less, but I wouldn't expect to see a lot of them.

Re:Two heads are better than one! (-1)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422118)

but not too many cards have dual-link dvi and even fewer have 2 dual-link dvi connections.
Well, here's one [tigerdirect.com] for $129, also many cards which have one analog and one digital connections will support dual desktops, (the easy way to tell seems to be if there isn't a cable running from the DVI to the analog on the card). With 19" monitors in the range of $200 each, for just about $550 dollars most anyone can update their old CRT to a 'modern' system.

Also, don't even try to keep your old CRT as the secondary monitor, I tried it for about a week, before I ran back to the store and bought a second LCD (the exact same model).

Re:Two heads are better than one! (1)

xornor (165117) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422188)

This card does not support dual-link. It has two single-link dvi connectors

Re:Two heads are better than one! (1)

aelfwyne (262209) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422290)

So you're telling me I'll want to trade my 21" Sony Trinitron G520? I don't think so!

Re:Two heads are better than one! (1)

mbadolato (105588) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422047)

I'm the oppoisite actually.

5 years ago I had dual 19" CRT's at work and loved it, then that company closed and I went back to one monitor at work.

Last year I got an Apple 23" Cinema which I love love love. At home, I decided to get a second 21" flat panel to go with my current one. I found myself rarely using the second one. Only keeping occasional things there. Maybe it's just because i'm used to the one at home? Maybe it's the angle of the monitors and the border between them.

2 weeks ago when I got my wife a Mac Mini, I replaced her 17" FP with my 2nd 21", and I'm perfectly fine having the one here again.

While I would LOVE more room (like a 24" widescreen or the 30") on here, I like the single monitor instead of the duals.

Re:Two heads are better than one! (2, Interesting)

roror (767312) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422197)

That is perfectly understandable. If you are used to a 23" GOOD LCD monitor and just add a relatively inferior smaller monitor to its side, you are not going to use it often. But, that does not mean dual monitor is not useful. In fact I don't think any dual monitor user actively uses both the monitors even if they are of same quality. The beauty of the dual monitor setup is the luxury it affords to open myriads of useless (or useful) things and throw it to a SEPARATE view away from the place where you are getting your real work done, while keeping it very much accessible. It's similar in a way to having multiple virtual workspace in any mordern desktop envioronment (KDE, GNOME etc). But, separating them physically enables you (or rather me) to just separate "work and play" in the workspace.

So, given your set up -- I do still see a big plus of having 21" monitor next to the prime 23" one, assuming that cost is not a big factor. The border "in the middle" is the thing you dislike, but, I really like that. I have seen my colleague jokingly say me .. don't they sell a small 2" lcd to fill that gap in between. Thats a common complain from any one coming from one monitor setup, but, once you are used to the idea of two monitors, you'll love it.

Re:Two heads are better than one! (1)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422292)

Personally, I think that one the keys of loving a dual monitor set up is to have two monitors of the exact same size, and notching up your mouse speed.

Really, I'd suggest getting the same model, just for the lack of visual differences. For about a week, as I said in a previous reply, I had my old 6 yo 17' CRT as my secondary, and it didn't even come close to being used. Not only was the color off (I really did need a replacement but was waiting for the 19" LCDs to drop to around $300), but the window sizes didn't transfer well. I quickly realized that the three inch difference was much more of a problem than I had anticipated.

As for the mouse speed, it was amazing to find that mouse traverse was actually annoying, but once I realized that issue, it was 'quickly' solved. With the wide aspect screens, such as yours, that you'd have even more 'real estate' to cross.

Many people do all of their work in a single application, and/or manage to keep the number of windowed apps down to a minimum, I am not one of those.

How much did Dell pay for this? (-1, Flamebait)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422095)

This slashvert was brought to you by numbers 2,9 and 30 and the colours green and black.

Re:How much did Dell pay for this? (0, Flamebait)

bling..bling (603514) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422256)

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...

You guys are all pussies (3, Interesting)

User 956 (568564) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422126)

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. [ign.com]

It's 100,000:1 contrast ratio, 1ms response time, and you can get it in 55".

Re:Two heads are better than one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14422163)

Two Samsung 214T 21" flat panels [amazon.com] will run you about $1500.

Re:Two heads are better than one! (3, Interesting)

John Miles (108215) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422199)

If I had to choose between one 30" or my two 19" monitors, I'd choose the pair, rather than just one.

I was faced with upgrading my Samsung monitor from a 1280x1024 170T to a 1920x1200 243T on my home machine awhile back. I was all set to flash the plastic when I stopped and did the math. I could go from 1.3 to 2.3 megapixels for (at the time) about $1500... or I could keep the 170T as a secondary monitor and buy a 1600x1200 213T instead for about $800.

1.9 megapixels plus 1.3 megapixels >> 2.3 megapixels.... duh. I've been very happy with the 213T/170T combo.

Until applications emerge that actually need a contiguous 30" hunk of screen real estate, I think the parent poster has the right idea. Dual monitors have a lot of advantages over buying a single humongous one at the pointy end of the price/pixel curve. Sure, I appreciate a panoramic gaming experience as much as the next guy, but Q4 and HL2 are already choppy when I run them on the 213T with all rendering features cranked up. A 30" display would be like watching King Kong at 12 FPS from the front row.

Re:Two heads are better than one! (2, Insightful)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422217)

just to find the perfect balance of window size, far more than my dual monitor set up at home. Also, it's great to leave some 'desktop hogs' such as chat windows, the Google desktop, the task bar, and other items which would grab the entire vertical or horizontal axis, in the 'secondary window'.
I have a widescreen at home, and use dual monitors at work, so I know exactly where you're coming from.

The issues you bring up are window management problems. They're things that should be solved in software, rather than requiring you to spend good money to reconfigure your hardware. Optimally, switch to linux and configure the window manager's behavior until you're happy, possibly start off with a tiling window manager like ratpoison [wikipedia.org] or something.

Also, widescreen threw me for a bit of a loop... webpages aren't designed to be viewed at 1920 pixels wide, and aren't designed for 16:9 / 16:10, and some of them end up being much harder to read than you'd think they would. I end up wanting software to "halve" the monitor so it acts like a left and a right half. So if you're really really stuck on using hardware to solve the window manager issues, I'd suggest not getting a widescreen.

Also, widescreen really is the future: if you have a 50" widescreen monitor, and you sit a foot or two away from it, you don't need two of them. A widescreen monitor is shaped to fill your perhipheral vision well. We just need window managers to catch up now (especially Windows, if that's something we'll be forced to use at work).

30" is better than dual-monitor for certain apps (4, Interesting)

xornor (165117) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422219)

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.

Re:Two heads are better than one! (1)

cspring007 (705809) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422261)

After Hurricane katrina i had all of my office's equipent at my house which included 2 dell 21" flat panel monitors and one apple cinema display. I managed to hook all three of them up to one of the dell Precision workstations we have. It was pretty cool but the apple display was a WAY higher quality picture than the dell 21'' fp. Also, i had one of the dell fp using an d-sub cable, wich , when sitting next to to monitors hooked up with DVI made a huge difference. I managed to actually use all three when i was writing software (two windows of code and one of the object browser, console, etc..) however, there is no way that it was worth the 5,000 pricetag that i would have had to pay for it if i bought them myself. Eventually, my boss came and took his cinema display and now i have the 2 fp hooked up, which is nice.
at my job that i work at now (my other office dosent exist anymore) i have three monitors (a CRT a 19'' flatpanel and a 17'' flat panel) which i use to write code. the two bigger ones i use for the ide and the smaller one i use for the client web page preview.
my point is that id pay for 2 monitors that in total cost half the price of the big one and be happy. really, id like to have 2 of the big ones, but for some reason, my wife wont let me spend 4000 dollars on monitors and 2000 dollars on the video cards to run them. grrr.

Re:Two heads are better than one! (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422268)

Can't you buy a single screen and set up some kind of software emulation to split it into two? Certainly this is possible with X Window (eg two xnests).

Dead Pixels Worries (2, Informative)

Freexe (717562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14421987)

Dell monitors are designed and built to our highest standards, helping ensure the quality and reliability you expect when you see the Dell logo. Like all our products, the 3007WFP has been exhaustively tested under true-to-life circumstances and then some, and it comes backed by a Dell Limited Warranty1, so you can rest assured your investment is protected.

Can't thet cut to the chase, how many dead pixels can i get stuck with? as their policy only seems to state:

A QVGA (240x320) or VGA (640x480) display with up to 2 fixed pixels is within industry standards and is therefore considered an acceptable display.

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 [slashdot.org]

"No Dead Pixels" (In South Korea) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14422005)

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.

Re:"No Dead Pixels" (In South Korea) (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422046)

I have a Dell 24" widescreen and it has no dead pixels.

yet

Re:"No Dead Pixels" (In South Korea) (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422114)

Isn't the backlight actually more likely to go before any individual pixel dies/gets stuck? I have to admit that I have seen pixels die after a while, but the user has generally admitted that he accidentally dropped the whole screen or applied direct force on the panel. In the few cases where they didn't admit it, you could see the physical damage on the frame, so I still consider it happening without mistreatment as very rare. I would be interested in the experiences of other readers...

Re:"No Dead Pixels" (In South Korea) (1)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422275)

Never had a pixel die on me after the monitor was in my possession. (I've never dropped a monitor -- how do you do that, when it's just sitting on the desk? -- so YMMV.)

2 Apple 23" Cinemas - no dead pixels on either
1 Apple 15" PowerBook (1280x800) - no dead pixels
1 Apple 12" PowerBook (1024x768) - no dead pixels
1 Dell 14" (1280x1024) notebook - no dead pixels
1 old NEC 14" 1024x768 panel - no dead pixels, and backlight works after 9 years of everyday use
1 Samsung 193p (1280x1024) - 1 pixel with red element stuck off
1 POS Sony 17" panel (1280x1024) - 3 dead pixels, 1 with red element stuck on, 1 with blue element stuck off

... and a few others I no longer own, none as bad as that Sony.

Re:Dead Pixels Worries (2, Funny)

chris_eineke (634570) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422186)

Are you too lazy to do the math?
2560 * 1600
----------- = 13.333... as many dead pixels on a 2560x1600 display as on a 640x480
640 * 480
Given that it's Dell who is selling those display, I say we round that number and get 14.

So two dead pixels times fourteen equals, what, 28? 28 dead pixels. Sounds like a blockbuster to me.

I'd rather have dual 24" monitors (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14421990)

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.

Re:I'd rather have dual 24" monitors (1)

mbadolato (105588) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422067)

Or watch Slickdeals.net and wait til they say that the dell 24" widescreens are under $1000 again. A lot of people I know have waited for those and got smokin deals. I think one got one for around $850 or so.

Re:I'd rather have dual 24" monitors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14422078)

I just looked and right now they're $879. I'm sure with some coupons, etc, you can get it under $850 and down close to $800 (about what I paid).

Re:I'd rather have dual 24" monitors (1)

JonahLee (158787) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422113)

Yea mine was somewhere around $800. And damn do I love it, and still use a 19" CRT for my second monitor. After Effects is a totally different program with this big of a display.

Re:I'd rather have dual 24" monitors (0, Troll)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422284)

I think one got one for around $850 or so.

And twice $800 is. . .?

KFG

Re:I'd rather have dual 24" monitors (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14422073)

That'd only cost you about $1600

Oh, is that all?

Re:I'd rather have dual 24" monitors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14422097)

Well, when we're talking about a $2200 monitor, yes, $1600 is quite an improvement.

Re:I'd rather have dual 24" monitors (1)

Comatose51 (687974) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422274)

Through Dell Premier you can get this new 30" for $1500-1600. They seriously overcharge their retail customers.

Re:I'd rather have dual 24" monitors (2, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422288)

Indeed. And unlike the new 30" beasts which only have DVI, the 24" have five different video inputs. And as the four on my 20" Dell widescreen aren't enough for me, I'm thinking a pair of 24" LCDs would fill my desktop nicely.

Isn't it the same liquid crystal panel as Apple's? (1)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422000)

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?

Re:Isn't it the same liquid crystal panel as Apple (2, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422048)

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.

Re:Isn't it the same liquid crystal panel as Apple (1)

John Nowak (872479) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422153)

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?

Re:Isn't it the same liquid crystal panel as Apple (1)

Rew190 (138940) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422218)

Someone asked if there were any differences between Dell's and Apple's panel, and someone responded. Calm down.

lies and damned specifications (5, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422176)

Apple 400:1 Contrast Ratio
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.

Re:lies and damned specifications (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14422263)

and Apple's is actually somewhat reasonable.

That would be a first. But there is probably a G4 "supercomputer" in there..

Re:Isn't it the same liquid crystal panel as Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14422252)

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.

Re:Isn't it the same liquid crystal panel as Apple (2, Informative)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422053)

Anandtech [anandtech.com] says it's a newer panel with higher contrast ratio* and lower response times.

* 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.

Re:Isn't it the same liquid crystal panel as Apple (2, Interesting)

hattig (47930) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422104)

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.

well, the new Apple display rumor for tuesday..... (1)

johnpaul191 (240105) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422161)

implies they will updating their displays.
read the interesting story that PowerPage posted just the other day.....

http://www.powerpage.org/archives/2006/01/exclusiv e_apple_plasma_displays_to_rock_mwsf_updated.html# 008526 [powerpage.org]

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.

Re:Isn't it the same liquid crystal panel as Apple (2, Funny)

CaptSnuffy (843104) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422192)

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.

or... (3, Interesting)

User 956 (568564) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422007)

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.

Re:or... (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422093)

OTOH, this is a widescreen. It will not have the nice aspect ratio of 8:3, but the 8:3 setup carries the slight disadvantage of a thick, or thin, bezel right in the middle of the field of vision. I've actually decided to avoid triple-mon just because the bezels have distracted me even more on the few configurations I've actually seen of that sort.

(3200 * 1200 rocks, so does 1920*1200 laptops)

Some Times Dual Monitors Are a Pain... (1)

bling..bling (603514) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422140)

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).

4, 19 inch screens (2, Insightful)

mtenhagen (450608) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422009)

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.

Re:4, 19 inch screens (1)

FinestLittleSpace (719663) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422055)

I agree with a lot of the views here on dual. Dual monitors isn't just about space, it's also about the phsycology of "putting this" on "that screen". It's a tidy way to work, although I'm currently battling with video in Combustion and wouldn't mind a 30 inch to work on...!

Re:4, 19 inch screens (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14422079)

Does anyone else find that these large LCD's are getting less and less comfortable to view? I have a 15" and a 17" panel here, and they're not too bad. The viewing angle works out well so that if I'm basically in front of them I get to see pretty even lighting.

But a friend's 24" dell panel looks a little dark at the corners when I'm right in front of it, and moving my head side to side lets me see one side or another a bit better, but not both at the same time. The one Apple 30" panel I've managed to look at was so huge that the viewing angle problems were really apparent.

Is this just me seeing this, or are all those people with 30" panels just happy to be using massive amounts of screen area and not worrying about the light falloff near the corners? I don't consider myself a monitor snob but I really don't find those large panels acceptable when it comes to displaying a nice even picture from side to side.

Re:4, 19 inch screens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14422207)

Note that LCD viewing angle is a wank. You might buy any LCD with a quoted 170 degree plus viewing angle, but any idiot can see that viewing the panel from just forty degrees off perpendicular which is within an 80 degree viewing arc will give brightness or colour shift. It's like those cheap $20 stereo systems advertising 400watts of peak music power. It's a number that sounds good but is meaningless in reality.

Re:4, 19 inch screens (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422080)

One issue that's still bugging me is the fact that even when you buy the monitors at the same time, it can be non-trivial to get the color reproduction identical enough at all times. Even if they look good in the beginning, and there are no huge differences in the total running time, individual backlights/panels seem to age at different rates. That would be one reason for me to go back to a single display.

Maybe I should just get some real calibration equipment and to that once in a while...

Re:4, 19 inch screens (1)

sinucus (85222) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422101)

Absolutely, go with dual, trip or quad monitor setups. I still to this day refuse to use LCD, if only for the fact that I can't get an LCD monitor with 1600x1200 res. I bought 2 19" CRT's with 1600x1200 res for $60 each. That's cheaper than a 15" Dell LCD that does 1024x768 and I got 3200x1600 res AND the ability to throw things on 2 different monitors which increased my productivity many times. Since I also have dual at work and at home I can remotely login to each and get my full desktop real estate on both computers.

Is this the same LCD as the Apple 30"? (1)

un1xl0ser (575642) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422015)

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?

Re:Is this the same LCD as the Apple 30"? (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422036)

Their 24" inch display is made by Samsung, not Apple. I've been looking into those for a bit, they are down below $900 if you look hard enough. Course who makes Apple's display, heck if I know.

Re:Is this the same LCD as the Apple 30"? (1)

iotaborg (167569) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422045)

If you look at the specifications, the brightness and contrast ratio is higher on the Dell screen than the Apple (unless they are exaggerated). So they could be different.

Re:Is this the same LCD as the Apple 30"? (1)

QuaZar666 (164830) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422051)

I would imagine that it would use the same LCD panel as apple's, but someone will confirm or deny that sooner or later.

Re:Is this the same LCD as the Apple 30"? (1)

JonahLee (158787) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422131)

I heard the HP is the same technology, but not the Dell. The Dell is 24" versus Apple's which is 23", but supposedly is viewable from a bigger angle, though I have a Dell and love it.

This is news? (-1, Flamebait)

Durandal64 (658649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422025)

Dell's had a 30" display for a while, haven't they? Since when did Slashdot become a Dell plug site?

Re:This is news? (1)

bling..bling (603514) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422062)

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.

Well too bad for the rest of us (3, Interesting)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422031)

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.

Perhaps you need to adapt? (2, Insightful)

toybuilder (161045) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422085)

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!

Re:Well too bad for the rest of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14422092)

Try turning down the brightness - My Dell 2405 gave me headaches until I turned the brightness to 0 and even brought the gamma down via the display properties on my system. I suppose my contrast ratio took a hit, but I'd much rather work (and play) without the pain...

Re:Well too bad for the rest of us (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422110)

Your not the only one! I hate LCDs with the white-hot passion of a thousand suns!!! Because the color is not uniform at all viewing angles, the phase shift can be different for each eye. As such, it gives me a headache.

A more extreme example would be like wearing those old 50s 3D glasses in a movie theater where one eye sees blue and the other red. Same effect with an LCD screen, but far more subtile.

[O/T] Lighting and monitors (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422115)

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.

Probably because the rays kill your braincells (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422148)

Nah, I am kidding. I have heard this before. The light from a LCD is "different". It is rarely entirely smooth and since a lot of apps, like this website seem to delight in making a pure white background you are essentially staring in a lamp. CRT's tend to be smoother and have less of the discoulering.

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.

Re:Well too bad for the rest of us (2, Interesting)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422185)

I have found the completely opposite. I stared at a CRT for about 8 years and when I got my LCD display at work and have all LCD's at home, wow. My eyes are not near as tired and I am one of the ones who usually have the backlight cranked up. When on the CRT, even when it was running between 85 and 100 Hz, my eyes would really bother me. When I use someone's computer and see the refresh is set to 60 or 75 Hz, I instantly ramp it up to as high as the videocard and monitor can go. The people ask me how I made the monitor stop flickering.....grin. LCD's are simply awesome. No, I don't care what you say! :D Now for watching TV/Movies.....CRT's are king. Every LCD based HDTV I have seen looked like hell.

Re:Well too bad for the rest of us (1)

rljohnson2 (864966) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422279)

I switched from 2 19" crts to 2 19" lcds. I couldnt sit at the computer for over an hour
before getting a headache. I spent hrs searching on the web for answers. Tried all
the suggestions. Nothing worked.. After about 2 weeks it started getting better.
Now im about 4 months into it and have no problems at all (using default settings).

Just give your eyes time to get used to the difference.

Re:Well too bad for the rest of us (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422293)

In my experience, with modern displays, it is predominatly the ambient lighting interacting with the refresh rate of the display. The flourescent lighting commonly used in US businesses is so unbeleivably poor as to be criminal.

I use two of the Apple 30 inch cinema displays and sometimes sit before them for well over 12 hours, to no ill effects.

point of comparison (3, Informative)

Schlemphfer (556732) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422035)

After all that space in the write-up mentioning that Apple also has a 30" monitor, I was waiting for Apple price. It's $2499, shipping included -- $300 more than what the Dell lists at.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppleStore?family=AppleDisplays [apple.com]

Re:point of comparison (1)

prator (71051) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422266)

And you would be insane to pay list price for the Dell. There are always deals to be found.

Is it ever worth it? (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422037)

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.

First Prime Factorization Post (2, Funny)

2*2*3*75011 (900132) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422052)

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.

yawn ... (0, Troll)

drfindley (657462) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422054)

Um, this is the first slashdot has heard of these? A few days behind everyone else it seems.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060105-5911 .html [arstechnica.com]

Re:yawn ... (1)

bling..bling (603514) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422075)

... I posted this article yesterday, Slashdot seems to be a bit slow in publishing postings.

smaller resolution (4, Insightful)

sinucus (85222) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422074)

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.

Re:smaller resolution (1)

bling..bling (603514) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422100)

I think that because most people would find 1600x1200 way to small and hard to read if they put it on a 17" display, etc. You might like your text that small but most people don't, and manufacturer's have to find 'lots' of people to buy products. I think people put up with the small size on the laptops because they have to, and because I would guess that people sit closer to their laptop screens than their desktop monitors. ...just a guess.

Re:smaller resolution (2, Insightful)

prichardson (603676) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422178)

HIgher resolution != Smaller text

Any decent OS or web browser will let you scale up font sizes. The end result is that your text is the same size, but smoother. The only problem occurs when sites do stupid things like make navigation bars images of text.

Images, I admit, are another matter. I suppose the best thing here is to switch to all vector graphics that can be scaled up smoothly just like fonts.

Re:smaller resolution (1)

toybuilder (161045) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422138)

It's too expensive for monitor makers to tool up for a UXGA+ desktop display that most people wouldn't buy.

Outside of specialty applications, most people wouldn't want such a high native-resolution display on a desktop monitor.

That said, if you want to convert a notebook panel to be a desktop monitor, you can find custom monitor makers out there that'll do whatever you want... It just won't be cheap!
 

Re:smaller resolution (1)

Kijori (897770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422144)

They're rare, but they do exist. The Liyama Prolite [infotechshop.co.uk] can support 1600*1200 as long as you use DVI, but you're going to pay around £500 for it. For that kinda of money, why not go 20.1" at least, and get the higher res as standard?
For what it's worth, high resolutions seem to be the norm for laptop displays these days, so it is a bit odd that desktop TFTs aren't keeping up.

Re:smaller resolution (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422147)

I'm guessing it's a combination of native resolution and poor support in OSes for high resolution displays. On a typical machine today, most OS widgets will be pretty tiny on something like a 17" TFT running at 1600x1200, and I'm not sure any of the big name OSes has yet reached the point where simple things like icons and widgets scale nicely (and don't even mention fonts and dialog box layouts). If you're using a CRT, this isn't such a problem, because CRTs can scale to different resolutions with relatively little loss of image quality, so you can always use high res for detail work and switch to a lower resolution for other things. On TFTs, however, using anything other than the native resolution typically results in a dramatic reduction in image quality, to the point where most users would rather have a lower, native resolution than a higher but poorly scaled one.

flash: oracle selling database software (-1, Troll)

CDPatten (907182) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422083)

seriously, who cares that Dell is selling a 30"? Is this really front page news? I mean it's not like the technology isn't new, and HP and Apple have been selling awesome 30" flat panels for years.

I know you created the site (CmdrTaco), so all much respect goes out to you and this rather large accomplishment, but lately you've been posting lots of dupes and fluff like this... what's going on?

Re:flash: oracle selling database software (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422157)

I know you created the site (CmdrTaco), so all much respect goes out to you and this rather large accomplishment, but lately you've been posting lots of dupes and fluff like this... what's going on?

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?

Re:flash: oracle selling database software (2, Informative)

bling..bling (603514) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422229)

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.

I've ordered one... (3, Interesting)

Jerrith (6472) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422103)

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.

Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14422107)

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.

Same price as 4 Gateway FPD2185W (3, Informative)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422136)

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?

height (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422158)

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.

Ouch (1)

ddx Christ (907967) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422189)

Talk about a hefty price tag. I think I'll stick with my 19" LCD. Until it becomes cheaper, there doesn't seem to be too much of a point in buying this monitor. Purchasing a combination of two monitors is more economical and, depending on your choices, would leave you with some cash for a better video card.

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.

Re:Ouch (2, Interesting)

game kid (805301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422236)

No dead pixels on my Dell 24", thank &deity;. No idea how reliable the 30" is there (I don't plan on getting it anyhow).

I wonder how ATI takes it when Dell only recommends five specific nVidia cards for the screen [dell.com] .

(Interestingly, nothing on TV inputs, if any; actually seems to pass the "no HDCP to pay companies to restrict how I see video in full quality" test.)

Here's one reasons to buy the Dell over Apple... (1)

OnarGrindlewald (600917) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422204)

Unless I'm missing something, Apple's 30" doesn't have HDCP [apple.com] , while Dell's does. [dell.com] If I'm going to drop this kind of cash on a monitor, I'm going to want it ready for Vista...

tired of the dual monitor thing (3, Interesting)

BadassJesus (939844) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422209)

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.

This is ridiculous (3, Informative)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422221)

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 [ebay.com] that gives me up to 300inches of view space. Not to mention I can watch movies on it, too.

Re:This is ridiculous (1)

bling..bling (603514) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422248)

You going to put that projector behind your desktop and get a big screen on your desk? This is a computer monitor designed to be connected to a computer, not a TV... The link you provided to a projector only display's a 800x600 resolution, which isn't even that great by projector standards. So if you wanted to use this you would have your icon's be the size of basketball on a 300" screen. Very practical for a desktop monitor...

Re:This is ridiculous (1)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422250)

That won't give you 2560x1600 pixels of resolution...

everyone could use one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14422222)

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

USB on a display (5, Informative)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422231)

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.

Connectivity (1)

Nitroflames (883115) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422239)

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.

Brand important only to monitors and HDs (1)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422240)

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?

Dual vs Large Single Monitor (1)

mchawi (468120) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422254)

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.

Don't buy it for $2199 (4, Informative)

gozu (541069) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422270)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?