I Want New Monitors

[AndrewZorn]

i was going to comment on that, but left it out... really?  42-115w, ideal brightness is usually toward the low end... is 60 (maybe 80) watts so bad?  OH HEAVENS, the watts!  before everyone got all crazy about it, that was a normal light bulb.  a lamp.  that isnt very staggering.
seems pretty much exactly normal when compared to other displays like it.

[ch_123]

Their current 30" screen chews up something like 150-200W... Then again, that's probably because it doesn't use LED back lighting.

[AndrewZorn]

neither does this one.

i thought i would only get more pumped about this monitor, but no LED backlighting, no rotating stand are both kind of a shame.  that, and i probably wont get it day-one because of the way dell inflates its prices before putting everything on sale permanently: it will probably be $800 easily within a month of being released.

everyone is worried about the input lag from having so many inputs, too.

i dont like it when dynamic contrast cannot be turned off, but it isnt such a bad feature for movies and games.  i especially like the light sensor option on my current monitor, gets brighter during the daytime (but more customization, like even a min/max, would be nice).

[ch_123]

Oh, I thought it was.

I wonder why LED backlighting hasn't caught on in the desktop world in the same way it has for laptops...

[AndrewZorn]

oh it has, im not the only one surprised that dell didnt do it this time.
i wish CCFL had an advantage, but i cant think of one.  it doesnt completely ruin it, but one of those things, like the stand, that i wonder the justification.

[exia]

how are the prices on 30" LCD screens? everywhere i still see them at $1000+...

[AndrewZorn]

that is pretty much normal

[hyperlinked]

CNET (oh well) has reviewed the U2711
http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/dell-ultrasharp-u2711/4505-3174_7-33913833.html

Are you disappointed that it got 4.5 stars instead of 5? There's hardly anything on CNET that gets 4.5 stars much less 5. Anything over 4 by CNET is pretty much at the top of the food chain as they see it.

[AndrewZorn]

just saying that their main gripe was the price
in fact, the only OTHER gripe was the stand
everything else was perfect, beyond expectations, etc
so price played into the review score, instead of highly-rated items just costing more
and as a side note, yes, i think you should give out some 5-stars here and there, especially considering how positive they were

i say oh well just because i dont like cnet
definitely a few stupid aspects of the review
the most memorable being their explanation that "old 16:10 displays were only 1680x1050, but new 16:9 displays allow full HD (1920x1080)" or something like that

[itlnstln]

how are the prices on 30" LCD screens? everywhere i still see them at $1000+...

Unless you are a stickler for high resolution, you can get a bigger 1080p TV for the same price or less.  It'll be big, probably have better contrast, and you can watch TV on it.  Unfortunately, you'll be stuck at 1920x1080.

[AndrewZorn]

better contrast?  i thought they just used marketing tricks to get that high.  there arent really IPS panels over 1000:1 last time i checked.

[itlnstln]

better contrast? i thought they just used marketing tricks to get that high. there arent really IPS panels over 1000:1 last time i checked.

Not the case.  You really need to see them side-by-side to see.  There is more than one type of contrast measurement, as well: Full On/Off and ANSI.  Niether one is definitive, and the both need to be evaluated for a true measurement of contrast.

[AndrewZorn]

right, by marketing tricks, i mean dynamic backlighting and whatnot.  the panel itself is still usually 1000:1 i believe.

[ch_123]

Unless you are a stickler for high resolution, you can get a bigger 1080p TV for the same price or less.  It'll be big, probably have better contrast, and you can watch TV on it.  Unfortunately, you'll be stuck at 1920x1080.

I was trying to think of the best way of phrasing "I think anything bigger than 30' becomes uncomfortable after a while", but I really don't think there's any good way of phrasing that...

[keyb_gr]

I wonder why LED backlighting hasn't caught on in the desktop world in the same way it has for laptops...

While it definitely has, space tends to be less and cost more of an issue when it comes to desktop monitors.

I was trying to think of the best way of phrasing "I think anything bigger than 30' becomes uncomfortable after a while", but I really don't think there's any good way of phrasing that...

Even a 30' screen would be a little big, wouldn't it?

For me, a 19" is large enough. Anything much bigger, and there would only be more real estate for the mouse pointer to be hiding in.

[exia]

Unless you are a stickler for high resolution, you can get a bigger 1080p TV for the same price or less.  It'll be big, probably have better contrast, and you can watch TV on it.  Unfortunately, you'll be stuck at 1920x1080.

true, but i would much rather take a 30" 2560x1600 over a 50" 1920x1080 screen. i could have 2 1280 wide windows side by side

While it definitely has, space tends to be less and cost more of an issue when it comes to desktop monitors.

Even a 30' screen would be a little big, wouldn't it?

For me, a 19" is large enough. Anything much bigger, and there would only be more real estate for the mouse pointer to be hiding in.

19" monitors don't go over 1920x1080 (unless you want to give up HD movies)

I myself don't even watch the standard definition stuff anymore, 1080p all the way (or 720p is I have to, I really wish some shows would move on up)

but then even 1080p is a low res for some of the larger LCD TVs that are coming out now, we need 2160p now

[AndrewZorn]

we need 2160p now

...and then content to match it.
this would be easy if they adopted the same model as pirates.  you get the best resolution you can.

but no, everything has to be so 'hip', "1080P, ZOMG!" "HIGH-DEF screen on my ipod" etc

because of all the marketing crap i think it is probably far away.
but it would just be nice if displays were sold in all sorts of resolutions, and there was content out there that ranged in resolution, from 640x480 to 5120x2160, or more... resolution just shouldnt MATTER so much.

[itlnstln]

Clean scaling is key.  Sure, up the resolution, but like AZ said, there really isn't any content for it yet.  If you have to scale, the picture won't be as sharp as something in the native resolution. Blu-Ray and a little content from Sat./Cable providers is in 1080p, but the vast majority is not.  Upping the resolution on a TV (or lowering the resolution) by some non-1080 factor is just going to yield a soft, and not-very-pleasant picture.

[AndrewZorn]

dont get me wrong, my next monitor WILL be 2560x____. i am definitely not paying more to try to get more out of TV/movies, but rather the extra room and resolution in games.

also, im not sure how it would work: would a 640x480 native 27" monitor displaying 640x480 content look better than a 2560x1600 native 27" monitor showing the same thing?

i understand the 'softness', but if the display is the same size... i dont know.  you are adding pixels, even if they are just interpolated.  with a good algorithm, it would be like resizing a picture in photoshop compared to just zooming in on it... hard to say whether it would actually make it look WORSE.  but i dont know.

[ch_123]

While it definitely has, space tends to be less and cost more of an issue when it comes to desktop monitors.

I was considering buying a new monitor recently, and I couldn't find that many that used LED backlighting, let alone reasonably priced ones.

Even a 30' screen would be a little big, wouldn't it?

For me, a 19" is large enough. Anything much bigger, and there would only be more real estate for the mouse pointer to be hiding in.

Depends on how you use the PC, and what for. Things like games and films would reap obvious benefits. For regular computer use, you'd really need some sort of tiled window manager to reap the benefit.

[AndrewZorn]

i would think a higher resolution should make someone LESS dependent on tiling window managers...

and i believe the joke was 30' vs 30"

[HaaTa]

i would think a higher resolution should make someone LESS dependent on tiling window managers...

Only if you like to micro manage your windows, and have a really sensitive mouse.

[williamjoseph]

i am exceedingly happy with them, would even get a third dedicated for my netbooks or old AMD platform.  but for those of us "like me" who are not too keen of the downsides of TN moniters, please fill us in.  the most i have found is that it is an established standard, but is not as energy efficient as newer, more expensive standards.

Those are TN panels. Perhaps decent for TN panels, but TN panels nonetheless.

[AndrewZorn]

it isnt that TN is old, its just cheap.  awful viewing angles, image quality not as good, etc.

[fireglow]

I've been reading a lot of good stuff about the Dell 2209WA in here, so I got one.
Now, my model has quite noticeable yellowing in the lower left corner.
It's very disturbing.
Did any of you had this problem?
If so, how have you dealt with it?
Dell offers this return service, but I heard they only rotate the returned models between customers, so I'm very inclined to just return the display to my retailer and be done with it.

(edit: and by corner I mean a 10x10 cm [~4x4 inch] rectangle, not a few pixels)

[AndrewZorn]

dell has an excellent exchange policy... at least, they did when/with my 2405fpw.  next day, new monitor at doorstep with a return packing slip inside.

i really doubt they just cycle returns as replacements.

but if you bought it "in store", definitely just go for a refund/exchange (and consider doing it anyway)

[itlnstln]

Cycling returns would be incredibly expensive for Dell as they would just keep having to process the same return over and over.  That's what refurbishing and the Dell Outlet is for.

[microsoft windows]

If you buy Dell, make sure you don't get a monitor that's low-priced. Chances are it'll be a piece of ****, just like all those nice low-priced Pentium 4 laptops and flat panels.

[firestorm]

Hi.  New guy here.  

FWIW, I recently went through the whole - I love my CRT, but want the spacing savings of an LCD - dilemma.  Mostly because I loved my Samsung 900IFT (Professional 19" flat CRT) and I've gotten more into amateur photography in recent years.

I was aiming for $300.

We have a fair number of the Dell 2209WA screens at work.  They are very nice and I planned on buying one.  I recently discovered the NEC EA231WMi though, which is also an eIPS display.  They are both very comparable.

Both have 8bit color - IIRC many TN panels are only 6 bit.  This is one reason these screens look better.

The Dell is 16:10, which I prefer.  The NEC is 16:9, but only .25-.5 inches shorter, plus something like an 1.5 inches wider.  I did measurements last week and already forgot the actual numbers.  Both have 3 year warranties; both use LG panels; both are built well.  The NEC has Displayport, if you care.   I didn't.

The NEC also has speakers, but they're horrible.  The soundbar for Dells are great, but they're better than these "headphones in a coffee can."  It's a shame, as that was one of the factors that made me choose the NEC.

The NEC also has Eco modes and auto-ambient+white-content adjustment.  It's funky though.  I disabled both.

Otherwise, I mostly got the NEC because I could get it for $304 shipped (at Buy.com.)

For about $380, there's the NEC P221W, which is an S-PVA screen.  Better suited for photography, with 10 bit color.  I can say I have a 2208WFP (S-PVA panel) next to a 2209WA on my desk at work, and the main difference that I see is color accuracy.  

There's also the Dell 2007FP, which I've heard comes in S-IPS (better than eIPS, or Economy IPS) and S-PVA versions.  S-IPS may be preferred, but, again, S-PVA is no slouch either.  A little spendy at ~$390.  There are other good 4:3 displays, but they are obviously becoming a rare breed.

This list may be helpful, 'though it doesn't spec' what is 4:3, 16:9 or 16:10:
http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/s-ips-lcd-list.php

Ironically, I had about as much trouble finding an LCD that met my needs and desires as I currently am having finding the perfect keyboard.

[hyperlinked]

Well, all this talk about monitors and salivating over the Dell U2711 got me to take some action and to replace my Apple Cinema Display 23" and Samsung BWX23. I've got a string of heavy projects coming up on insanely tight deadlines so it was time to buy anything that might give me a slight productivity boost.

I initially leaned toward getting a U2711, but like some people here, I really wanted a 16:10 orientation and I didn't want to get more screen space by shrinking the pixels more. My eyes get strained enough already.

That left me wading into the pool of 30" IPS monitors and man that is not a fun pool to be wading through. I really wanted to go with the Dell 3008WFP for it's sweet looks and bazillion input possibilities, but the input lag and Dell's reputation for color variance, and the 3008's questionable stand quality gave me cause to keep looking. I had a bad previous experience with HP monitors so the HP 30" was off the list. I couldn't find a lot of fans of the Gateway 30" so that's out too.

In the end, I went with something I was familiar with. I went with a 30" Apple Cinema Display. Once I realized the price had come down and that it was the same price at my local electronics store as the Dell 3008WFP it was a no brainer. Although this model is several years old, it's perfectly fine in every spec that matters to me and I didn't have to get it shipped so I could return it without a major hassle if needed.

I'd like to put this thing in the case of the Dell 3008WFP, but in the end, I spend my time looking at the center, not at the side or back. I'll get over it and I've got all the external card readers I need.

It's a brilliant monitor... expensive, but brilliant. I'm back to a one monitor setup and my neck and eyes feel better already.

[ch_123]

From an economical point of view, it would be better to buy two 24" than one 30". Personally I find twin monitors somewhat cumbersome, so I'm waiting for 30" to come down in price to somewhat more sane levels. Perhaps even 27" would be a good idea.

[hyperlinked]

At arms length distance to the screen does it cause  neck strain looking up or down?? I'm tempted to go 30" as well but for some reason that segment of the market seems to be technologically stagnant right now.

No, neck strain isn't an issue at all. I don't find myself craning my neck any direction to adjust to the extra screen space. I have fairly decent peripheral vision (as far as I know) so it's possible the size could pose an issue if I didn't.

I actually get less neck strain because when I had a two monitor setup, I couldn't comfortably read the second monitor without keeping my head turned. With one bigger screen, I have enough prime space to work and I can see everything rather easily sitting at about an arm's length away.

Yeah, the 30" monitor space really seemed to hit a wall. I was waiting for a 30" LED monitor before I was going to finally upgrade, but I've been holding out for a long time and decided it was time enough to make a decision if nothing coming out really seemed to be moving forward in image quality, brightness, and power consumption.

Power consumption and brightness was another reason why I went back to the Apple Cinema Display. The Dell 3008WFP is less bright (370cd/m2 vs 400 cs/m2) and it's a power hog! It's rated at 163W (typical) and 250W (maximum) whereas the Apple Cinema 30 is 150W maximum.

Anyway, I'm quite enjoying my new display. I was a little worried (and still am) that my eyes would find it hard to be sitting in front of this much light coming at it, but they're doing ok so far. Keeping the brightness tuned down seems to help a lot.

One area in which I'm really loving this display is for photo editing. I can finally view my D300 RAW files in enough detail to get a good sense as whether the image is good enough to keep or not.

[hacfed]

So, did the original poster make a decision?

If not, then here's my 2c: I have 3 cheap Dell 22" TN panel 1920x1080 displays turned vertically. Yes, viewing angles aren't wonderful, but they aren't a problem either. There's a trick: put the outside monitors so you're looking 'down' at them -- for the Dell ones, this means that 1/3 monitors has the logo on the opposite side to the other two. This maximises effective viewing angle margins.

I have a very credible 28" 16:9 CRT for watching movies on, so for my needs, my Dells are fine. Are they too tall? Well, I have them at arm's length and a bit. I think they're just right. Sometimes I find myself leaning in a little, and then it takes some head tilting to see the extreme top and bottom... that generally happens with font size 8 or less, though. All relative, I know.

All this talk of 27" and 30" displays sounds mighty tempting. I like the idea of 'oneness' -- except that I currently have a lot more real estate for a lot less money, and because they're 3 seperate displays, I don't have to get a fancy window manager

Wish there was a 30" out there with my 3240x1920 pixels. That really would be epic. Plus I could run MAME on it, fullscreen. Oh joy! (although I guess the actual pixels would have to be 20% smaller or more)

[itlnstln]

For me, it would depend on what I was using the monitors for.  At work, I like my 3-monitor setup.  I can have a Remote Desktop session on one, e-mail on another, and my main work area (Geekhack) in front on my main.  It also helps with Web development as I can code in front and test the page on another monitor, or I can write queries in the main and do data analysis in Excel on another.  The different "panels" provide a mental separation that makes work tasks easier for me.  At home, I prefer one large monitor.

[ricercar]

replace my Apple Cinema Display 23" and Samsung BWX23

Do tell the fate of these decrepit depecated displays?