New 30" LCD from Dell is coming around conner...

[Geo]

Be interesting to see what the price will be. . . one can hope it ends up on the wishlist of good litte EIC's here and there, after they get their garage roof's fixed.

Tho, actually, it ought to be independant. . .

 

[Sxotty]

Are you sure there would be any quality loss with this resolution? I was thinking that quality would be identical to the native resolution since it is really the integer multiple of the native resolution.

1280*2= 2560
800*2=1600

I would think that s true, and that would be the only reason I would contemplate buying one of these behemoths, but then why buy it when you can get a 32" LCD HDTV for $800.00 and hook it to your PC? XP doesn't scale for crap with resolution, if you get to high you cannot read any of the menus, or if you increase the font size it doesn't fit on the menus. Hopefully in the next iteration this is fixed, bc a higher resolution would look nicer if everything would scale correctly.

 

[phenix]

I would think that s true, and that would be the only reason I would contemplate buying one of these behemoths, but then why buy it when you can get a 32" LCD HDTV for $800.00 and hook it to your PC? XP doesn't scale for crap with resolution, if you get to high you cannot read any of the menus, or if you increase the font size it doesn't fit on the menus. Hopefully in the next iteration this is fixed, bc a higher resolution would look nicer if everything would scale correctly.

One reason can be: if you are planning to use this monitor for a few years, future software/hardware could make 2560x1600 resolution a viable option. Other than that I agree that LCD HDTV's are better options today.

 

[Mize]

I'm surprised a seemingly large number of people actually want this. The size is very nice if you want to sit far away, but the extreme resolution gives more trouble than benefit for most users. If you want this big, you're likely better off with a TV.

The resolution is great for photos, beyond that I can't think of anything.

CAD? DTP? Multiple-window Dreamweaver + photoshop?

 

[Nite_Hawk]

This monitor would make coding a dream. Do you know how many terminal windows I could fit on the screen at once?!

Nite_Hawk

 

[satein]

This monitor would make coding a dream. Do you know how many terminal windows I could fit on the screen at once?!

Nite_Hawk

Twice as many as you can on Dell 2405FPW and you may need some magnification glass for looking to the menu .

 

[AlphaWolf]

Twice as many as you can on Dell 2405FPW and you may need some magnification glass for looking to the menu .

You do realize that the pixels won't actually be smaller? A 30" monitor has a lot more surface area.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

You do realize that the pixels won't actually be smaller? A 30" monitor has a lot more surface area.

Yeah, I actually figured out the rough dimensions and DPI.

It should be fairly close to 25.44"x15.9" and roughly 100dpi assuming square pixels. That's only slightly higher dpi than a 17" 1280x1024 display at 96.4ish dpi, and much less than a 15" 1600x1200 laptop screen at 132.5 dpi. Reading text on this monitor should be quite reasonable at 2 feet.

Nite_Hawk

 

[Sxotty]

You do realize that the pixels won't actually be smaller? A 30" monitor has a lot more surface area.

You do realize that people were discussing placing it farther from their face right? That measn the pixels DO appear smaller. "Weee! lets all squint and lean forward so we can read that quadrant"

Anyway Nothing against Dell, samsung or whoever actually makes the panel. It is a serious failing on microsofts part not theirs, and as was previously said for future operating systems I think we can assume things will scale much more nicely.

EDIT:
BTW as I said this is really just something that has frustrated me I suppose b/c I like high resolution but I sit 3 feet from my monitor and I don't want to get one where it is difficult to read menus and what not.

 

[AlphaWolf]

You do realize that people were discussing placing it farther from their face right? That measn the pixels DO appear smaller. "Weee! lets all squint and lean forward so we can read that quadrant"

read the post I replied to.

 

[bouy]

U can't lift the 2405fpw? lol time to hit the gym.

Yeah, I've been bench pressing it. I should make a video and sell workout routines for gamers. Then sell things like a 10 pound wireless Mouse and a 50 pound keyboard, hell, I could probably make weighted X360 controllers with stronger triggers and buttons to work those fingers too.

the 2405 weighs about 10kgs.
My crt weighs over 30kgs.

10 Kg's? Makes me wonder how much the 30 inch one will weigh, at least 16-20 Kg's? That'll be a great workout!

 

[AlphaWolf]

10 Kg's? Makes me wonder how much the 30 inch one will weigh, at least 16-20 Kg's? That'll be a great workout!

Apples 30" weighs <13kg, but their 23" is a fair bit lighter (7kg vs 10kg) than the the 2405. So I'd say 16-20 would be a good guess.

 

[satein]

You do realize that the pixels won't actually be smaller? A 30" monitor has a lot more surface area.

Yes, but I just ment by kidding not that so serious . Anyway, by 2 feet apart the monitor, we may face some problem that we only can watch on a part of screen not a whole screen as now on my Dell 2405 about 2 feet and it is really full my sight . Also, as point out by Nite_Hawk, if the DPI is about UXGA at 15"... some people may have got a bit difficulty reading text on it. Anyway, after trying SuSE Linux 10 on 2001FP (20"), the KDE does a good job on scalling desktop than the XP can do and it is really fast response for 9550 128MB pci card .

 

[Nite_Hawk]

Yes, but I just ment by kidding not that so serious . Anyway, by 2 feet apart the monitor, we may face some problem that we only can watch on a part of screen not a whole screen as now on my Dell 2405 about 2 feet and it is really full my sight . Also, as point out by Nite_Hawk, if the DPI is about UXGA at 15"... some people may have got a bit difficulty reading text on it. Anyway, after trying SuSE Linux 10 on 2001FP (20"), the KDE does a good job on scalling desktop than the XP can do and it is really fast response for 9550 128MB pci card .

It's much bigger pixel size than UXGA on a 15", it's just very slightly smaller text than what you would see on a 17" SXGA (1280x1024) monitor. Should be really quite readable.

Nite_Hawk

 

[EasyRaider]

Well, I would hardly consider 2 feet a comfortable viewing distance for a 30". Having to shift your eyes so much, or shift your head, is a Bad Thing in the long run.

I guess I would put it about 1 meter away, at which point text would be too small with standard font size.

 

[Sxotty]

Hell I sit 3 feet, or a meter from my 21" so I would have to sit like 6 feet from this or something

 

[Nite_Hawk]

Meh, I personally can sit about 3 feet away from my 17" lcd at work and read text fine, but I figured 2' is a pretty standard viewing distance.

Either way, my point is pretty much that it's not a higher dps than any of the current screens on the market. It should work out fine.

Nite_Hawk

 

[EasyRaider]

Meh, I personally can sit about 3 feet away from my 17" lcd at work and read text fine, but I figured 2' is a pretty standard viewing distance.

I guess you have better vision than me. I can read text in such a situation, but I most certainly would not want to do so regularly.

Either way, my point is pretty much that it's not a higher dps than any of the current screens on the market. It should work out fine.

My point is, you can't look at dot pitch alone, the size of the display also matters. If it was 100", would you still consider 2 feet a natural distance?

For me personally the resolution would be more of a nuisance than an advantage.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

I guess you have better vision than me. I can read text in such a situation, but I most certainly would not want to do so regularly.


My point is, you can't look at dot pitch alone, the size of the display also matters. If it was 100", would you still consider 2 feet a natural distance?

For me personally the resolution would be more of a nuisance than an advantage.

When I'm reading text on the computer, I don't need to see the whole screen at once. Generally I'd use a screen like this to have multiple code windows, a reference window, and maybe a web browser open at the same time. My vision would only be focused on one window at a time though, which would only take up a small portion of the screen.

For things like video games you'd want to see the whole screen, but then it's generally not necessary to be so close.

Nite_Hawk

 

[EasyRaider]

When I'm reading text on the computer, I don't need to see the whole screen at once. Generally I'd use a screen like this to have multiple code windows, a reference window, and maybe a web browser open at the same time. My vision would only be focused on one window at a time though, which would only take up a small portion of the screen.

Fair enough. Two 1600x1200 monitors should do the same trick for less money, though.