Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays Hardware

Dell Launches New UltraSharp 3008WFP 30-Inch LCD 143

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the shiny-new-toys dept.
MojoKid writes "Dell has taken the wraps off their new 30" LCD monitor today and launched the UltraSharp 3008WFP. You'll note that there are more than a few upgrades provided with this newer 3008 version. Specifically, the panel now has a 117% color gamut, in addition to having a 3000:1 contrast ratio, versus the 1000:1 performance of its predecessor, the 3007WFP. The panel also comes with the same pixel response time of 8ms but now has enhanced brightness capability at 370 nits. Also, Dell finally saw fit to add significantly more connectivity options to the panel, with not only two DVI-D inputs, but also HDMI, Composite, Component, S-Video and the new DisplayPort interface. In short, anything you could want to hook up now or in the future, can be hooked up to this new Dell 30" panel."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dell Launches New UltraSharp 3008WFP 30-Inch LCD

Comments Filter:
  • So, it has a color gamut of 117%! I just read the wikipedia description of color gamut and still can't figure how to apply this number. Anyone? Bueller? (Yeah, TFA article describes it, but I want an independent verification!)

    And, I suppose the volume on this puppy goes up to 11.

    I suppose if NASA's Space Shuttle can throttle up to 104% (it actually does), anything's possible.

    • by Bryansix (761547)
      Well it says NTSC color gamut in the article but links to the wikipedia entry for RGB color gamut. RGB has a pretty poor color gamut. Yes it is better then most inkjet printers but it is worse then the printers used for photos printing which means sometimes you have to get a print to really see how a digital photo looks especially if you shoot it in RAW and allow the AdobeRGB gamut. If I read the article correctly, the monitor specifically allows for this wider Adobe gamut to be reproduced on screen.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04, 2008 @07:54PM (#21916974)
      With this new monitor, your computer can correctly display many new, previously unaccessible colors, such as bleenish-grue, hooloovoo, ultrabrown, octarine, light black, dark white, and none more black.
    • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by TooMuchToDo (882796)
      Fun other fact about the shuttle: The fuel sensors that NASA has been having problems with for the past month or so are absolutely critical. If the three main hydrogen-oxygen engines continue to run after the tanks are dry, they're damaged beyond repair.

      Offtopic? Yes. News for nerds? I think so.

  • Anything? (Score:4, Funny)

    by darkhitman (939662) on Friday January 04, 2008 @06:42PM (#21916316)

    In short, anything you could want to hook up now or in the future, can be hooked up to this new Dell 30" panel.
    So how many Slashvertisements can it be hooked up to?
    • by tsa (15680)
      My thoughts exactly. This is the second Dell Slashvertisement in a week! Come on editors, enough is enough.
  • if not then it is useless.
  • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Friday January 04, 2008 @06:52PM (#21916494)

    "... audio signals with 16-bit color per channel"

    Man, give me some of what they are smoking.

  • Bringing you porn thats inches closer to "life-sized"
  • Ok then. I hope the backlight has a wider range as well. I'm OK with my LCDs at minimal brightness, some screens are even too bright for me at their dimmest setting, even with all the room lights on at max. It's as if the panels were intended to be used outdoors in daylight. If your town's lighthouse searchlight fails, then you can probably replace it with a 3008WFP.
    • by karmatic (776420)
      It's funny - I use the 2405FPW for the exact opposite reason. Few panels are bright enough for me to be comfortable, and it's been a long time since I had a monitor (other than this one) that I didn't perpetually have as bright as it could go. (Stupid OS X "I'm going to adjust your brightness for you unless you stop me" aside). I also like to replace all my lights with 100W equivalant "daylight" CFLs.

      As a nice bonus, it keeps other people off my systems and out of my work space.
  • Displayport can't handle the bandwidth at this resolution, but it would be nice. Some LCD TVs do 120Hz, but only through internal interpolation.
    • by modecx (130548)
      That's nice and all, but where can I get my eyes upgraded to 150Hz, so that I can complain about the refresh rate?
    • It's an LCD. You don't need a high refresh rate (unless I'm misunderstanding your comment). The pixels stay on; they don't fade like phosphor.
      • Re:OK, now 120Hz? (Score:5, Informative)

        by sexconker (1179573) on Friday January 04, 2008 @07:57PM (#21917016)
        120 HZ is good because of the whole video vs film thing.

        Film (movies) is usually done at 24 fps (23.976).
        Video (tv, some movies) is usually done at 30 fps (29.97).

        So if you've got a 60 Hz display, you're getting 2 frames of display per frame of video.
        With film, half of the frames of film will be displayed for 2 frames, and half will bd displayed for 3 frames.

        This causes a jerky display.

        With a 120 Hz display, each frame of video can be displayed for 4 frames (4 * 30 = 120).
        Each frame of film can be displayed for 5 frames (5 * 24 = 120).

        It also allows us to drive our computers at 120 Hz, which is good if you want to play Quake II.
        • Native 24Hz on both the player and TV are out now. Sony advertises this feature.
          • by Runefox (905204)
            It's only a matter of time before a less restricted version of this native 24Hz mode is made by a standards body and everyone's favourite whipping boy goes into marketing mode. I can see it now:

            TruSpeed, Sony's 24Hz mode found on Sony TV's and those of several other licensees, offers superior image quality than the industry standard High-Definition Synchronization, or HDSync because its name also functions as a market buzzword. Both standards provide perfect film-quality frame-by-frame synchronization of th
            • by afidel (530433)
              Huh? HDMI 1.3 already has 1080p24 as a standard and it's been available for months on production panels. I know the high end Toshiba Cinema display for 2007 support that mode and they came out last summer. Of course even though I'm using it for mixed uses I couldn't justify a 75% increase in price from the 42HL167 to the 42LX177.
        • by AmiMoJo (196126)
          It's worth pointing out that most 120Hz sets can do 100Hz PAL as well, so you get all the benefits mentioned in the parent and 5x25=125Hz for PAL.
    • by owlstead (636356)
      Yeah, but it matters a lot less for LCD screens since the pixels (or more accurately, the dots) will stay on until they get their new value. Interpolation is a nice feature and there are some LCD's that can do 100 Hz, which is great for moving pictures (action movies, sport games). But I read the December issue of the C'T (German/Dutch computer magazine) and all implementations of the interpolation were pretty bad. So even if interpolation is interesting, I would wait a bit.
  • by gsmalleus (886346) on Friday January 04, 2008 @07:34PM (#21916756)
    I've got two 2007WFP (20") monitors and they are awesome. If I had the money I would probably upgrade to the 3007WFP. The only complaint I have with the 2007WFP is that when the monitor goes to sleep, the USB ports lose power. The USB ports on the side of the monitor are very convenient. Last night I was copying some large files to my thumb drive and turned off the monitor so I could go to bed. I forgot that the files wouldn't copy if the monitor was off.
    • by CJ145 (1110297)
      I have a 2007WFP as well. The USB ports work fine in power saving mode (sleep). They only die when you turn the monitor off as it contains a powered USB hub.
      • by owlstead (636356)
        Don't know about that. I got one too and it works brilliantly, but my USB keyboard and mouse won't work after going into suspend. So there are definitely some issues there. I was about to add that the USB ports are useful only for USB thumb drives in another reply (on the crappy sound bar). I do hope that the back-lighting issues are gone in the 3008 30", because that was one of the other spites I have (you get used to it though).
    • by MaineCoon (12585)
      I have the 2407 WFP (the pre-HC, they released the wider color gamut HC model two months later). Best monitor I have ever used. However, I will say for gaming, I could never go beyond 24". It's at the edge of affecting my reaction times in FPS games like Team Fortress 2.

      The 2407 doesnt kill power to USB when it goes to sleep, but it does if you turn the monitor off entirely.

      Dell makes some of the best LCD displays, in my experience.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Haeleth (414428)

        I have the 2407 WFP (the pre-HC, they released the wider color gamut HC model two months later). Best monitor I have ever used.

        You got lucky. The HC model has nasty issues [tftcentral.co.uk]. I had one briefly. Even after calibration, the ghosting was incredibly distracting just dragging icons across my desktop, and games were all but unplayable.

        (And frankly I was glad I had the ghosting as an obvious reason to return it. It also suffered badly from the colour shifting problem that all PVA displays have: the contrast decr

        • by toddestan (632714)
          You got lucky. The HC model has nasty issues. I had one briefly. Even after calibration, the ghosting was incredibly distracting just dragging icons across my desktop, and games were all but unplayable.

          Maybe he was using the DVI port? I skimmed that link and really couldn't tell if the ghosting was just over VGA or not. I've seen some pretty terrible artifacts when using the VGA input with a crappy video card, with probably the worst I've seen on a Radeon 7000 recently. Why anyone would spent the money o
          • by MaineCoon (12585)
            I've seen bad ghosting on monitors using crappy VGA cables, but haven't had any problem with any of several 2405s and 2407s (pre-HC though). I must say the 2407s are a good sight better than the 2405, and the original 2407 release and first revision have acknowledge serious issues. After a couple revs though, they can be really good.
    • Subject: I love the Dell WFP Series

      Comment:I've got two 2007WFP (20") monitors and they are awesome.[snip]

      Buyer beware: not all "WFP" models are created equal. The WFP models that have an 'E' or 'SP' before the number (e.g. E207WFP and SP2008WFP, both 20") use inferior 6-bit TN panels. TN panels can only display 262,144 colors and only "support" "16 million+" colors through dithering. A TN panel's viewing angles are also inferior. (I wish manufacturers would make this information more clear for their TN panels.)

      In contrast, the UltraSharp 2007WFP models you've got are awesome. They are true 8-bit panels that

      • by cnettel (836611)
        I think that even rececnt 6-bit panels really tend to negate the pros of subpixel rendering (ClearType). I've mostly seen it on cheapo Dell laptops and the MacBook, but also on some desktop displays. I know that there are different opinions of ClearType out there, but I really, really like it -- on a good display. It's one of the first things to suffer if you use VGA or a self-dithering monitor, as that will disturb the very fine balance between fake resolution and blur...
  • I'd really like to know how much this thing is gonna cost. It's like trying to solve a cryptex looking for a price tag anywhere.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by HTH NE1 (675604)

      I'd really like to know how much this thing is gonna cost. It's like trying to solve a cryptex looking for a price tag anywhere.
      Last page says MSRP US$1999.
      • WTF, my TV cost half that. I realize it's not "the same thing," but you're going to have a hard time squeezing 2k out of me for a monitor, even I were going to use it as a tiny TV. I guess it's priced competitively with the Apple Cinema Display.
      • by 40ozFreak (823002)
        Somehow I missed that entirely, silly me. That is a ridiculous price tag. You can get an HDTV twice the size for half the price. I know it isn't the same type of product, but who wants to spend 2 G's on a monitor? :o
        • by HTH NE1 (675604)
          How about 8 Grand [findarticles.com]? 200 dpi, 4x the resolution of HD, in only 22.2". Now that's what I want to edit HD video on! Two source clips up at full HD res, a third for the mix, and still lots of room for the timeline, palette, and asset list. Throw in a 120 Hz refresh rate for working in both 24 and 30 fps and it's golden!
  • by eddy (18759) on Friday January 04, 2008 @07:43PM (#21916846) Homepage Journal

    Happened across these guys [behardware.com] a few days ago while hunting for a clue on what LCD to get in the 22-24" range. I was very impressed by their deep analysis of different monitors; actual measurements of color gamut, response times (ghosting), etc. Good shit. Yes, you'll have to 'suffer' their english. Big deal.

    The first thing I learned was that it's like that old saying of "Fast, Good, Cheap -- Pick two", only with "colors, response, ergonomics". Secondly: It's hell to actually be able to know what the hell monitor you're getting since producers swap in different quality panels under the exact same model. Typically the good panels go out in the first batch (which reviewers will get), and then if there's high demand, or in other territories, they'll put in the cheaper panels instead. Their flippant attitude about it makes me not want to buy a monitor at all. Maybe with Dell this isn't a problem, but on the other hand, they're not cheap, as measured globally.

    • by CJ145 (1110297)
      http://xbitlabs.com/ [xbitlabs.com] is also a good place for monitor reviews. http://xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/20inch-5.html [xbitlabs.com] http://xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/24inch.html [xbitlabs.com]
    • by Orphaze (243436) on Friday January 04, 2008 @09:13PM (#21917800) Homepage
      Unfortunately, Dell is well known for swapping panels. It's referred to as the Dell Panel Lottery [google.com] on forums across the internet.

      In short, Dell has been known to swap S-IPS panels (a kind of TFT technology known for particularly accurate color representation) with various other kinds of cheaper panel technologies, all within the same model number. This is why many manufacturers, including Dell, refuse to list what technology they're using in the monitor specs, in order to reserve the right to use whatever cheapest panel they can find as they become available.

      I purchased a Dell 2001FP a few years back that had a genuine S-IPS panel. When it started to have problems (specifically, a piece of tape or insulation began migrating onto the screen underneath the plastic of the panel) they sent me the newer model of the same line. It looked awful in comparison, despite having virtually the same specs. (It was a PVA panel, from what I found out later.) Luckily, after spending 2.5 hours (persistence is key in these situations; eventually it's cheaper to give in than to continue dealing with you) in a chat with a Dell support tech, and her manager, I eventually convinced them to refund my money in its entirety, despite the fact I had purchased the monitor about 5 months ago.

      In any case, it pays to do a fair amount of research on a monitor before making a purchase. In the end, I ended up going with an HP LP2065, another S-IPS based monitor, which I have been very happy with. Things may have improved more recently though, so it may not be such a big deal these days.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by entrigant (233266)
        It's funny you mention that. I'm not sure about PVA, but if I got S-IPS instead of S-PVA I'd be pissed. The original S-IPS is worse at color reproduction, has over twice the black level, and much smaller viewing angles than a S-PVA or S-MVA screen. Some of the extremely high end IPS types (AS-IPS and H-IPS) come pretty close to a good S-PVA/MVA in black level and color gamut, but still not quite there. You also still get bad viewing angles.

        A great S-PVA w/ led back lighting will exceed sRGB with near perfec
        • It's funny you mention that. I'm not sure about PVA, but if I got S-IPS instead of S-PVA I'd be pissed. The original S-IPS is worse at color reproduction, has over twice the black level, and much smaller viewing angles than a S-PVA or S-MVA screen. Some of the extremely high end IPS types (AS-IPS and H-IPS) come pretty close to a good S-PVA/MVA in black level and color gamut, but still not quite there. You also still get bad viewing angles.

          Sort of. It's true that IPS is worse when it comes to black level and contrast (gamut is irrelevant for anyone but photo professionals), but the viewing angles are much better than on VA panels.

          TN panels mostly suffer from vertical shift. Even when you look at the monitor dead-on, the top of the screen is darker, and the bottom is lighter. You cannot move your head in such a way to prevent it from happening.

          VA panels have horizontal color shifting. When you look at the monitor dead-on, the sides will be co

    • by owlstead (636356)
      Not cheap? Depends on how you measure I suppose. My Dell 21" display has got the exact same screen as an Apple screen, and it was a hell of a lot cheaper, and it has got additional features to boot. Of course, it has got that bit less style, but its ergonomics beat most Apple screens. And I like their dithered dark gray finish a lot, doesn't distract at all. Most Dell screens seem to have pretty good value/performance. Of course, I live in the Netherlands, where pricing is a bit screwed up anyway (it's scre
    • Thanks for the link, these guys look a lot more knowledgable. And despite your comment about English it seems to be more correct than the hothardware one. I'm amazed they include a detailed delay analysis, which is a huge issue in games but seems not to be noticed by most reviewers.
  • Widescreen? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    By the resolution numbers I see that this new thingy is a widescreen. Needless to mention that 16:10 monitor has 7% less space than standard 4:3 screen with the same diagonal, plus the widescreen layout is fairly useless for any programming/web&graphics design work.
    • by owlstead (636356)
      Wide Screen may be less useful for "programming/web& graphic design work", but I think you are forgetting the 2560x1600 pixels here. Screw that 7% less space, look at the number of pixels. I'm having no problem at all programming on my 21" 1680x1050, nice long 120 character screen when the side bars are in use. For GUI design it beats the dual 1280x1024 (5:4) screens at work hands down (for debugging and multi-application use I prefer the dual setup).
      • nice long 120 character screen
        Then you're stuck printing in landscape, though. I always set the little marker bar around 94-97 characters to let me print nicely in portrait. Monitors are just about getting big enough, though, that we should think about two-column displays for programming.
    • by HTH NE1 (675604)

      plus the widescreen layout is fairly useless for any programming/web&graphics design work.

      Isn't that what portrait mode is for?

      Or just don't run your ocde editor maximized all the time. In my work environment with a 1600x1200 display I run xemacs in three 80-column buffers for referencing multiple source files at once. With a QXVGA display at 1600x2560 portrait, that's a lot of code I could see all at once! Get me that in a 25" display (120 dpi instead of 30" at 100 dpi) and I'd be very happy code monkey!

      Really, 100 dpi they call UltraSharp?

      • Ultrasharp is the brand Dell uses for monitors with 8bit panels. It doesn't use 6 bit panels with temporal dithering to fake 8 bits. So yeah, it's sharper because of that. There aren't any affordable high resolution desktop panels. Just like I don't think there would be a whole lot of sales of 15" or 17" 1920x1200 desktop displays, there probably wouldn't be so many sales of the equivalent pitches for 2560x1600.

        I'm not sure why you have to have a smaller display with the same number of pixels. It allow
    • plus the widescreen layout is fairly useless for any programming/web&graphics design work.

      I think your empty hyperbole is useless.

      There are no 30" 4:3 displays or anything close to that size, so it's kind of a moot complaint. 16:10 is optimized to let you fill the screen with two full pages side-by-side, with a little room for a menu bar too. If it has to be 4:3 to be useful, you may stick with a 21" display. I think it's less useful than a 30" widescreen for programming & web.
      • by XaXXon (202882)
        And it's already 1600 pixels tall. That's the same as taking your 1600x1200 monitor and putting it in portrait mode.

        I have a 30" monitor and am a professional programmer. It has plenty of vertical resolution in landscape mode.
    • ...plus the widescreen layout is fairly useless for any programming/web&graphics design work.

      If these were the DOS days where your apps always filled the screen, I might be inclined to agree. With graphic work, you have more room on the sides for palettes. (That's why I don't rotate my display for vertical stuff.) With scripting, you can have your code in one window with the documentation or the application to test the code in another side by side and it'll work reasonably well. The same is true for web development as well.

      I can understand some preferring portrait mode with widescreen LCDs, b

    • by AmiMoJo (196126)
      Widescreen is actually really good for programming and document/web editing. You can have two windows open at once and large enough to show an A4 page actual size, or maybe two source windows, or web editor and browser, or blog edit window and news item etc.

      In fact you only need a 24" monitor to do that.
  • Dang I knew car companies were bad by selling there next year model a 1/2 year early.... but DAMN a whole millennium??
  • by owlstead (636356) on Friday January 04, 2008 @08:14PM (#21917212)
    I've got a 21" Wide Screen Dell display. It took some getting used to (about 5 days) before I came to terms with some back-lighting issues. But I also bought the sound-bar. What a piece of crap that is. I should have returned it just after testing it, but I thought it would be a nice addition to the otherwise feature packed screen. Even the connectors to the headphones were junk, no one should do that to a couple a pair of Sennheiser headphones.

    After a while I have fallen in love with the screen. It's got *very* good scaling and the VGA connector performs brilliantly. Very good value for money. But, as said, DON'T BUY THE FREAKIN SOUNDBAR.
  • What's the contrast ratio with the dynamic contrast turned off? It's not just that I see it as a cheap gimmick to boost the specs, it bugs the heck out of me to have the contrast change drastically when what's on the screen changes. I always turn it off.
    • Since contrast is measured black to white, there wouldn't be a difference with dynamic on or off.
      • by cnettel (836611)
        Dell has stated "dynamic" before the contrast number in the specs, so I think they reference the temporal contrast between the brightest white and the darkest black ever to be shown by the same monitor. Two pixels shown at the same time will always be in a narrower range.
  • by hirschma (187820) on Friday January 04, 2008 @08:17PM (#21917248)
    I just upgraded to two Gateway 24" displays (BTW, they're great for the money. I got two for under $800).

    The truth is that once you get past this size, monitors become un-ergonomic. Bigger monitors make you have to swivel your head up and down; they also will exceed the limits of your non-peripheral vision if you sit at a "normal" viewing distance.

    My $.02.

    jh
    • Bigger monitors make you have to swivel your head up and down;

      I just change where eyes are looking. A 30" is perfectly fine for me. I think it's better than two 24" displays because it gives you more height without being so wide.
    • by DAldredge (2353)
      Where did you find them for that price?
  • The 3007 was always an odd one, unlike the 2407 it was lacking those other inputs and being the premium model, no one could figure out why.
    Some people bought them anyway and coupled it with a monster video card but I know at least one poor sap who didn't do his research and purchased one, only to find it had no component ports (admitedly you should check but he just assumed on a display that large)

    He's since spent hundreds trying to plug a DVD player and regular VGA laptop into it by purchasing component /
    • The 3007 might be a good monitor but with only a single input on a display that large, it really was overpriced, you'll see it absoloutely tumble on ebay in the coming months, if you own one, sell it now while you can.

      I thought it was a fine price, wasn't it the cheapest display of the 30" monitor class?

      Why one would hook up a DVD player to it is beyond me, one should be able to do it all in the computer itself. Maybe if you had an XBox 360 or PS3.

      There aren't any 3007's on eBay right now, I certainly woul
    • by dusanv (256645)
      The 3007 isn't a TV. I'd be nice if it had extra inputs but not essential.

      It's not meant to be hooked up to DVD players because the resolution is too high (2560x1600) and the size is too small (30''). You get no advantage from hooking up a 3007 to a DVD player versus a 30'' 1900x1200 TV except that the 3007 is a lot more expensive than a TV. In fact, you can get a 1200p 42'' LCD TV for less than the 3007.

      I love my 3007 (SIPS display at 2560x1600 is just gorgeous, 2407 is a PVA monitor so it simply doesn't c
      • by AbRASiON (589899) *
        I totally agree that it's not a TV, also yes the native resolution is 'too high'
        That's not to say however it's not perfectly usable as an SD or HD TV if you're sitting 5-10' away based on it's size - at least as a basic alternative, the non native resolutions isn't going to totally destroy the image (that's more for text)

        Also yes I do realise you can get a cheaper and larger TV for less, the fellow who purchased this isn't too bright - but the poor sap just wanted to output 1280x800 or 1680x1050 from his la
        • by dusanv (256645)
          He should be able to output 1280x800 (I can, I hooked up a mini to it and that's what it ran at). I don't get that part. But I agree, it'd be nice if it could natively display something other than 2560x1600 & 1280x800.

          3008 is a better monitor to be sure, at least on paper. Now if it only had an LED backlight...
  • DisplayPort (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HTH NE1 (675604) on Friday January 04, 2008 @09:33PM (#21917984)
    Do we really need another video interface? How many does that make now?

    There's wireless NTSC, PAL, SECAM, and ATSC.
    There's RF cabling to carry those as well.
    There's RCA-composite and S-Video. (Let's not get into all the audio options.)
    You can get composite and audio on a 4-conductor headphone jack too on portable DVD players and some SlingBoxes.
    IIRC Betamax had a monaural 3-conductor version too.
    There's SCART.
    There's component video.
    There's VGA as well as 5-BNC (R,G,B,H,V).
    There's ADC for Apple users, and that DB15F connector Apple used to use.
    There's Sun's 13W3.
    There's DVI-A (also carries VGA), DVI-D (digital-only), and Dual-link DVI.
    There's HDMI, latest version being 1.3b (follows 1.3 and 1.3a, not "beta").
    There's Firewire 400, and even USB 2.0 gets used for video. Multiple sizes too.
    There's Unified Display Interface (UDI).
    And now there's DisplayPort.

    Did I miss anything? I'm sure there's lots more in just the streaming video area.

    Makes HD DVD vs. Blu-ray seem like nothing, doesn't it?

    Oh yeah, there's the TVs with players built into them too, so you could add VHS and DVD to the list so far. (UMD is opening that window too far.)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Facegarden (967477)
      Yeah, but most of those are terrible for displaying computer output - most of what you listed are analog, which we obviously used for a long time, but analog video is obsolete now, so when you ask "do we need another interface?", if you're suggesting the analog methods are suffient, i'd say you're on crack. As for the new digital methods, i really only see DVI-D, HDMI, UDI, and DisplayPort for the dedicated display connections (sure there's USB and firewire, but until we get a universal connection method th
      • by Khyber (864651)
        Analog, obsolete?

        Guess you forget that the very electrical current carrying your digital data down the copper wire is an ANALOG WAVEFORM?

        Analog is not, has never been, and never will be obsolete, as it's what makes digital even possible in the first place. Without that analog wave making a crest or trough to signify a 1 or 0 for digital information, there would be no digital.

        I forgive you, your UID tells all.

"Help Mr. Wizard!" -- Tennessee Tuxedo

Working...