Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays

Dell Selling 30" Flat Panels 417

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the still-waiting-for-review-units dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dell Selling 30" Flat Panels

Comments Filter:
  • by ericspinder (146776) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:13PM (#14421986) Journal
    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'.
    • 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.
    • 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 m
      • 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 g
      • 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 siz

      • by shmlco (594907) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @02:35PM (#14422418) Homepage
        Since you mentioned Apple displays and a mini, I assume you're on a Mac as well. At any rate, Mac OS X has a "feature" that definitely works against multiple monitors, namely the single top-of-the-screen menu bar. As implemented, any application you put in the second monitor will have it's menu all the way back over on the first monitor.

        As such, I'd like an option to "echo" the menu bar onto each monitor, reducing at least half of the problem.

        The other half, however, is inherent in their single shared menu design. Yes, I know about the usability studies, but the majority of those stem from the time when most Apples had a single 9" screen. If you've ever used a Mac with a 30" widescreen display, I think you'll agree that the top menu bar, as with the split screen setup, often seems a long ways away from your current work window. It kills a lot of the benefits of having a huge monitor if you need to cluster most of your work in the top-left corner of the screen.

        • any application you put in the second monitor will have it's menu all the way back over on the first monitor

          Uhm, there's no such concept as "putting an application on the second monitor" on the Mac, since there isn't anything on screen which you could call "the application".

          I personally use three monitors on my Mac, with the menu bar at the center. I don't have any issues with the menu bar distance, since the center monitor is the only one that's really used for work, the others are like auxiliary moni

    • by User 956 (568564) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:37PM (#14422126) Homepage
      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".
    • by John Miles (108215) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:52PM (#14422199) Homepage Journal
      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.
    • 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,

    • by xornor (165117) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:55PM (#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.
    • 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).
    • Lame! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by emptycorp (908368)
      Not only is this not tech news, but the last thing the tech world needs is free advertising for dell on Slashdot of all places.

      dell can gain some respect from me and other true computer users/builders when they leave the trifecta from hell (dell, intel, microsoft) and stop manufacturing their own crappy parts and stick in quality products like antec and corsair.

      Flaimbait? Not if you're a true computer tech.
    • 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.

      If in 2006 your windowing system, applications, or operating system don't remember your window placement from the last time you ran the application, I would suggest upgrading.

      I remember back in 1995 or so when I first started using dual displays, I heard of a usability study that found that 2 smaller displays that had the same real estate of 1 t
    • Exactly..

      Right now her at work I have a 21" CRT & 20.1" LCD which gives me the same aspect ratio of the CRT. Now I can get a 20.1" LCD for about $600. I could even see the use of 4 in a rack.
  • Dead Pixels Worries (Score:3, Informative)

    by Freexe (717562) * <serrkr@tznvy.pbz> on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:13PM (#14421987) Homepage
    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]

    • 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.
    • Can't thet cut to the chase, how many dead pixels can i get stuck with?

      People have reported returning monitors that had dead pixels, but not enough to fall under the dead pixel policy allowance, under Dell's general "money back if you aren't satisfied for any reason policy".

      I haven't had a chance to try this, as my 24" was perfect.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:13PM (#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.
  • or... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by User 956 (568564) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:17PM (#14422007) Homepage
    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.
    • 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)

  • 4, 19 inch screens (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mtenhagen (450608)
    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.
    • 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...!
    • 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...

    • For the same money you can buy 4 (or even more) 19 inch screens.

      No arguement there, Dell has overpriced this at $2,199 (I presume USD).

      Me, I went to the local Canadian Costco and picked up a Viewsonic 27" widescreen N2750W that has DVI, VGA, TV tuner, speakers, PIP etc. all inside. Sure, the resultion is 1280x720 but I don't need to see 10 pt fonts at 1/32". My stock NVIDIA AGP DVI card drives it nicely. The kicker is it is $899 Canadian, but I paid $999 a year earlier. Thinking of buying another on

  • 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?
  • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:21PM (#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.
    • 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
    • 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.
    • 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 th

    • 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 spen

    • 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
    • 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.
    • 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

      One possible reason for such a headache is if your vision is slightly off. As you concentrate on the screen your eyes try to focus, but since they cannot do it fu

  • point of comparison (Score:4, Informative)

    by Schlemphfer (556732) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:21PM (#14422035) Homepage
    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]

    • And you would be insane to pay list price for the Dell. There are always deals to be found.
    • http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx ?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=W3007&s=dhs [dell.com]

      There's more expensive cables and cards from Dell, too.

      I'd rather buy the Apple with my educational discount (just $2,299 with the cable) and works with my Powerbook's graphics card.
    • People that NEED displays that big all have access to the education or developer discount. Most people can build a dual monitor system cheaper, and get the same pixels.

      So all Dell did was match Apples prices - and add shitty quality, tech support in some place far far away, and a "don't-give-a-damn" attitude about anyone that's not gov or large business account. Oh and a $5 USB hub - ooooooooo, big spenders.

      Anyone with any sense will go with the Apple.
      • by MKalus (72765)
        A while ago people where pointing out that Dell was selling "the same" display as the Apple for the 20" but sooo much cheaper.

        Yeah, it seemed to be using the same Panel but the backlight is different and I had a chance to compare both the Apple and the Dell and the Apple IMO looked better, brighter (I am writing it on that one right now).

        Michael
    • by hackstraw (262471) *
      Yeah, I am an Apple fanboy, but Apple displays are better than Dell's and probably most others too. I've seen a comparison between an Apple and a Dell that used the same LCD panel, but the Apple looked better in terms of brightness and color. The test was cool because it had both displays hooked up to the same computer with images spanning across both of them.

      $300 for a luxury purchase like this is only a 13% difference. If your looking at quality and saving a buck, keep looking at Apple's refurbished eq
  • 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

  • smaller resolution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sinucus (85222) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:27PM (#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.
    • 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 relative

  • I've ordered one... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jerrith (6472) * on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:32PM (#14422103) Homepage
    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.

  • by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:39PM (#14422136) Journal
    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?
  • 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.
  • by BadassJesus (939844) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:54PM (#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 (Score:4, Informative)

    by AutopsyReport (856852) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:56PM (#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.
    • That won't give you 2560x1600 pixels of resolution...
    • by suwain_2 (260792) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @02:28PM (#14422372) Journal
      Resolution. To me, it's more important than display size. I was looking at LCDs, and ended up getting a 17" that did 1280x1024, even though there was a 19" of the same resolution for only slightly more. I want a huge resolution, but not a huge monitor. (Not that 1280x1024 is a "huge" resolution.)

      Unless you're spending the same $2,000+ on a projector, I doubt you could exceed 1280x1024. (Though I haven't looked too closely at pricing lately.)
  • USB on a display (Score:5, Informative)

    by pe1chl (90186) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:59PM (#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.
    • 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.

      Solution: Buy a $5 cardreader/usb hub. Plug said hub into your computer. Plug all permanently-connected devices/cards
      • Re:USB on a display (Score:3, Interesting)

        by pe1chl (90186)
        Obviously, using them as a full-time solution is not optimal.

        There is nothing plugged in to these slots and connectors normally. I use them for my USB key and would use them for cards if I had those.
        The problem still occurs when everything is empty because there still is a hub and a couple of cardreader USB devices that are being detected, and an eager "hwscand" process that likes to find out what exciting new hardware there is to be found, automount cards, etc.

        In this, Linux is becoming more like Windows.
  • 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?
  • 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
  • by gozu (541069) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @02:09PM (#14422270) Journal
    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.

  • I think that a large monitor would work very nicely for people who do design work though. It is nice to have a larger view of the image or project you are working on while still having it zoomed in enough to see what you are doing. Then of course you can always have another little monitor becide it to hold your toolbars and such.
  • Well, before any /.'er compares the price and specs with the Apple display and rushes out to order one from Dell, I should point out the obvious and mention that Macworld is coming up next week. It's probably worth a few days of waiting to see if Apple has a price or feature response to Dell.

    Unless you REALLY have over two grand burning a hole in your pocket...

  • by cassius2002 (675501) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @04:34PM (#14423064) Homepage
    Well, you might checkk out my review [extremetech.com].

    It's a nice unit. No embedded controls, except for brightness, so you need to use your graphics card control panel to make adjustments. Some minor uniformity problems with the backlight, but good D6500 color temperature tracking.

    Oh, and Civ4 looks great at 2560x1600 ;-)

  • by medazinol (540033) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @04:44PM (#14423108)
    I'm really surprised that nobody has noticed this: The Dell Canada site has the sane thing for $1999 Canadian which works out to be about $1700 US!!

    http://www1.ca.dell.com/content/products/productde tails.aspx/monitor_3007wfp?c=ca&cs=CABSDT1&l=en&s= bsd [dell.com]

  • Cheaper in Canada (Score:3, Informative)

    by muyshiny (944250) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @07:48PM (#14423883)

The trouble with the rat-race is that even if you win, you're still a rat. -- Lily Tomlin

Working...