Dell U3011 %25 off on Dell Small Business

[Lpb45]

The deal is back at Dell Small Business get one of these while you can before they switch everything to 16:9

Expires  05/18/2011.

Promo code: PJK$HL8JBWVHD7

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=224-9949&~ck=bncat&~bk=gr:bnMap:CategoryRec,g:NextStep,rk:

[Ascaii]

somehow I doubt they will ship to me

[Jim66]

somehow I doubt they will ship to me

Me neither... Great deal to be had there.

[kpeezy]

I didn't even know they made IPS monitors in 16:9.

What do people have against 16:9 anyways? I have a 24" 16:10 monitor but I don't see the big deal.

[alaricljs]

Same reason people cried when 4:3 died like a dodo.  Movies may look cool widescreen, but for computer *users* (not spectators or game players) 4:3 was the best format.  It provided the most useable space for text in multiple windows/apps.  Yes, 16:10/9 gives you 2 pages side by side which can be nice, however take a look at newspapers.  Big honking pages split into very narrow columns, each article constrained to blocks of reasonable height and width scattered throughout the pages.  I have a 16:10 and even when web browsing is the only thing I'm doing the window is only on half my screen.  When working on multiple systems I have gobs of terms open on the screen and they just fit better on a 4:3 than 16:10/9

[Arc'xer]

I didn't even know they made IPS monitors in 16:9.

I didn't even know that was possible to not to know.

What do people have against 16:9 anyways? I have a 24" 16:10 monitor but I don't see the big deal.

11.1% more pixel real-estate(1920x1200 = 2,304,000 vs 1920x1080 = 2,073,600) or 10% more pixels(1920*120=230400; 2304000/230400 = 10%). Plus to add insult to injury your paying for a 16:9 panel at the same price they sold 16:10 panels years ago; so if you buy a 16:10 more often than not you gotta pay twice as much if not more just for the extra 1920x120 or 10%.

It's not so much that 16:9 is as bad(2560x1440 is a good example) it's that 1080p specifically lacks vertical height. If 2048x1152 was the standard(16:9 of 2048x1536(4:3) or 2048x1280(16:10:); Then 16:9 wouldn't be seen in such a negative light as the 1152p provides a respectable vertical height over 1080p. Your using a computer, your not watching a television and even for gaming the extra vertical space is actually welcoming despite taking a FoV hit in horizontal+ games(16:10|(100.38) vs 16:9|(106.26)) you do gain 10% more pixel for more details though so it's not a total negative and if you like you can play in 1:1 mode and use 1080P if your monitor supports it.

[Tennobanzai]

I have this monitor and it's great but not sure it's worth it for everyone.

[godofdeath]

can this be used for other mons?

[tamasrepus]

Hrm, MSRP is $1499? 25% off of $1500 is $1125…

This isn't that great, I don't think? I've seen this display go for $1050 late last year.

[Surly73]

I had a pair of great 4:3 monitors (Sony GDM-F520) which I was using until a couple of years ago.  The way I use my systems (At home some gaming, photo/video work, general computing, no movie watching.   At work spreadsheets, browsers, documents, technical diagrams) I wanted something widescreen.  That being said, I don't like 16:9 either because all of the 16:9 options lose pixels compared to the 16:10 options in the same class (e.g. 1920x1080 v. 1920x1200).  I was already running 1600x1200 as my "average" res and 2048x1536 was available to me on that display.  There's no way I was "downgrading" to 1080 rows when I bought a new LCD monitor.

I find that 16:10 allows me to edit dSLR AR pictures (3:2) with excellent space for palettes and toolbars.  Ditto with 16:9 video - I'm not watching the video, I'm editing.  In 16:10 I can have "full HD" video on screen and still have room for some ribbons of tools and controls when viewing full HD.  

Forums like [H] are full of people who do nothing but play games and watch movies "in their room", and they endlessly go on and on about how most games are Hor+ and you can "see more" on a 16:9 monitor regardless of the number of pixels available on it.  Lots of games have adjustable FOV and I'm not giving up the pixels or productivity of 16:10 for a minor FOV reduction in those games which are Hor+ and lack tweakable FOV.

At work I have a crappy company-provided 1680x1050 16:10 display and at home I have an NEC 2490WUXi.  For both uses 16:10 is perfect for productivity.  I'm almost never looking at one thing full screen (except maybe some spreadsheets or project plans).  A browser, terminal, outlook, word, access, PPT, whatever is usually one window on my screen and I'm often cross referencing between windows while working.  I would find 16:9 limiting and less productive.  

Unfortunately 16:9 is the "lowest common denominator".  Hardcore gamers will give up resolution in order to get a little more FOV or not have to see letterboxing on movies (who cares?  You aren't scaling the content or losing any pixels to watch 1920x1080 programming on a 1920x1200 display!) Average Joe falls for the "fullHD" marketing hoopla and somehow feels it's superior to 16:10.  As a result prices are dropping on 16:9 panels (although most of them suck) due to supply/demand and it's being rammed down our throat.

The newer NEC PA professional series (with IPS panels, hardware LUT etc...) comes in both 16:9 and 16:10.  I think the writing is on the wall there too unfortunately.

[Soarer]

I couldn't agree more, Surly73. I had an F520 too, great monitor, but it didn't last much longer than its warranty :-/

I already find 16:10 limiting compared to 4:3, especially in a multi-monitor setup used for real work (programming in my case, but for most people their real work is mainly text with some graphics).

The 16:9 panels provide an opportunity for PC brands to further diversify their products.

ROFL. '... further maximise the bland uniformity of their products' would be more truthful. Give us choice!