Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Dell Selling 30" Flat Panels 417

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • 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 []

  • 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.
  • 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. ppleStore?family=AppleDisplays []

  • by cnettel ( 836611 ) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:24PM (#14422053)
    Anandtech [] says it's a newer panel with higher contrast ratio* and lower response times.

    * A higher contrast ratio is of course also possible if you get a different backlight and chooses the measuring point to give you that number, but if the response times are indeed lower, or different, it seems they realyy have a different panel. On the other hand, one could technically squeeze a bit of response time difference from using a different signal chip in the monitor.

  • 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?
  • 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 [] that gives me up to 300inches of view space. Not to mention I can watch movies on it, too.
  • by bling..bling ( 603514 ) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @01:58PM (#14422229) Homepage
    Seriously what the heck are you talking about? HP doesn't make a 30" display the biggest LCD flat panel monitor they sell is the HP L2335 which is a 23" widescreen display. As for Apple they have only been selling the 30" monitor for about a year now. So in terms of the technology being commercially available, yeah it's kind of new. With Dell just releasing the second 30" flat panel monitor on the market. So it's news... Not seriously big news in the grand world of computing, but news none the less.
  • 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.
  • by __aailob1448 ( 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.

  • by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @02:26PM (#14422357)
    Maybe I'll re-run the calibration right now and get actual numbers and post them

    Done. Here are the results for my 2 month old Dell 2005FPW, which has been on for about 2 hours before calibration.

    Max brightness: 250 cd/m^2 at 100, but dropped 1 cd/m^2 EVERY SECOND I left it at that setting(and oddly enough, when I brought the setting back to 0, luminance climbed slightly over 5-10 seconds, then dropped back to 178-179). 0 is anywhere from 178.2-180.

    Guess what? 250cd/m^2, or 250 lumens, is run of the mill. Dell claims an additional 50 lumens. To put that in perspective, that's as if the display had a brightness setting of around "200"(well, a little less, but you get the idea.)

    Dell also claims a 600:1 contrast ratio. Except the calibration device measured a minimum luminance of .4 cd/m^2. 180 divided by .4 = 450:1 contrast ratio.

    Apple claims a contrast ratio of 400:1 and a max luminance of 250cd/m2 on the Cinema 20", which is supposedly the same exact screen (but different front "glass" and backlight, I believe). How 'bout that.

  • 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.)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08, 2006 @02:29PM (#14422386)
    The Dell version also has better response time, brightness, and contrast ratio. It might be an updated version of the panel used in the Apple display.
  • by dr.badass ( 25287 ) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @02:31PM (#14422396) Homepage
    You're confusing dual connections with dual-link. A dual-link connection is required for any resolution over 2048x1536. If you want to drive two monitors over 2048x1536, you need two separate dual-link DVI connections.

    Most video cards don't support dual-link at all. Those that do tend to support only one dual-link connection, even if they have two DVI connectors. So, you can only have one 30" display and one smaller (2048x1536 or less) display.

    The only current card that I know of that supports two dual-link connections (i.e., can drive two 30" displays) is the nVidia Quattro FX 4500, which costs over $1500.
  • by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Sunday January 08, 2006 @02:32PM (#14422401)
    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 equipment page ppleStore.woa/70507/wo/Bza6pLFRfdLh24gquUX1i6iw2QS /,67 []. They don't have 30" ones at this time, but they do and they are cheaper than Dells and often 1/2 of the regular Apple retail price.

  • by mczak ( 575986 ) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @03:15PM (#14422641)
    Actually, the limit for single link dvi is 1920x1200 with somewhat "standard" timing (reduced blanking but still 60Hz). It's possible to drive much larger resolutions if you're willing to sacrifice refresh rate, though the problem is a lot of monitors (and possibly graphic drivers as well) won't support it.
    The radeon x1800 series also have dual dual link dvi, not exactly cheap but a lot cheaper than those workstation cards.
  • Re:USB on a display (Score:4, Informative)

    by pe1chl ( 90186 ) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @03:31PM (#14422736)
    This monitor does not have an external AC adapter.
    It uses about 59W when running normally, 3W in standby, 1W when "powered off" using the frontpanel button.
    Of course the powerconsumption does not drop merely by blanking the display, as with a CRT monitor. Powermanagement can set it to standby.

    These numbers are consistent with observation: it gets moderately warm when normally operating, and is cold when it is in standby.
  • by AndreiK ( 908718 ) <> on Sunday January 08, 2006 @04:05PM (#14422914) Homepage
    55'' minimum - This is a plasma tv replacement, not a replacement for the LCD sitting on your desk.
  • duallink powerbook (Score:2, Informative)

    by mbaudis ( 585035 ) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @04:13PM (#14422951) Homepage
    all the new 15 and 17in powerbooks have duallink; so works with both apple and dell.

    but even with some small difference in price ($100-300 is small as fraction of the total), i definitely would prefer the apple. 30in monster with black plastic frame and dell logo? and with apple, i know about their rather helpful policy if problems appear.
  • by cassius2002 ( 675501 ) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @04:34PM (#14423064) Homepage
    Well, you might checkk out my review [].

    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 ;-)

  • Re:Input (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08, 2006 @05:04PM (#14423204)
    With these mammoth LCDs that require dual DVI inputs... Is it possible to hook them up to a lower-end video card (eg, my laptop) and run them at a lower resolution?

    I recently went to an Apple store and asked the fellow behind the Genius Bar the same question, and we did some in-store experimentation. So my experience has been:

    1) It doesn't require "dual DVI inputs", it requires a single "dual-link DVI input". The difference is basically that the DVI bus can actually have two transmitters running over a single line, which allows it to pump way more pixels. So instead of taking a dual-head DVI video card and hooking up both connectors to this monitor, you take a recent, powerful DVI card and hook up only one connector to this monitor. (I was under this misconception for a while, so I post this in order to clarify for others...) You can find out more detailed information about the DVI analog and digital, single- and dual-link configurations here [].

    2) As long as you have a genuinely digital DVI feed (rather than, e.g., an analog one generated by a VGA-DVI converter-- again, see the DataPro link above for details)... yes you can hook up a card using a single-link DVI transmitter to such a monitor. The Apple Cinema Display scales up the resolution as necessary, so that your 1600x1024 will in fact fill the entire screen; I can't speak for the Dell, but I imagine the behavior's the same. However, the final effect looks pretty terrible.

    The upshot: I used to have two machines hooked up to a single 20" CRT, and both were managed by KVM. When I buy a 30" Cinema HD display from Apple sometime in the next few weeks, I'm going to hook it up to the G5 and operate the PC in a window through Remote Desktop, or VNC when I have it booted from a Linux drive. But since I write Windows drivers for a hobby (that's loadable kernel modules to you Linux folk :) I have the potential to periodically turn my computer into a non-booting doorstop. For those times when I'm in such a pinch, I'm going to buy a cheap $50 single-link DVI card to hook up to the big-ass monitor for troubleshooting. I'm sure the BIOS and boot disk video will look horrible, but then I hope I won't have to spend much time at all in there anyway :)

    *snort* Today's captcha == "optical" :)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08, 2006 @05:49PM (#14423417)
    There is: it's a program called Ultramon (there is also a much buggier free program which does the same thing). Most vid cards will also let you stretch the task bar across both monitors.

    It also adds such nice things as an extra button at the top right of the window to send it to the other monitor, and I believe keyboard shortcuts to do the same (and to turn off a monitor).

    Granted, it'd be nice if windows came with such functionality built in and in all honesty I'd probably find having my menu bar on the other monitor much more annoying than my taskbar.
  • Cheaper in Canada (Score:3, Informative)

    by muyshiny ( 944250 ) on Sunday January 08, 2006 @07:48PM (#14423883)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08, 2006 @09:40PM (#14424322)
    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.

    I can't speak to "the majority", but I've never heard of any studies done on a 9" screen.

    In "Tog on Interface" (p.202), he mentions some user testing he did do:
    - first, on a 12" screen
    - then, on a 21" screen to the left of a 13" screen that the actual app is on

    In the second test, users had to change the color of 10 folders, one at a time, by selecting it on the right display, and choosing a menuitem from the menubar on the left display. And this was *not* "pull-down menus from a single menubar, vs pull-down menus in the window". This test compared pull-down menus in a single menubar (on the wrong display) to pop-up menus directly under the mouse pointer! (Spoiler: the menubar won.)

    His results were similar to those reported by Walker and Smelcer, CHI'89.

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

    The problem with solutions of this type is that when presented with two ways to do something, people tend to take longer deciding which one to use, than if they'd simply used the slower of the two methods.

    As somebody who's done a decent amount of user testing, yes, this is weird, but it's also quite true: adding a second, faster way to do something often slows people down. (Amateur psych: maybe it's because people think if there are two, there must be a difference, so one is right and one is wrong.)
  • by Phae ( 920315 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @12:56AM (#14424990)
    Each 24" monitor has a resolution of 1920x1200, so it would actually be 3840x1200... which wouldn't be to shabby.
  • Re:USB on a display (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09, 2006 @01:10AM (#14425032)
    Just in case anyone reads the above:
    The 2045FPWs built in USB does not support high speed 480 mbps transfer. It runs at the slower 12 mbps

    not to worry, this is false. I have a 2045FPW in front of me, and I use its USB ports and the builtin card reader a lot. Depending on the actual card or USB stick used the speeds are different, but always ABOVE 12 Mbps. My MP3 player gives ~ 3MBytes/sec both ways, which is the same it gives on any of my other USB ports (and above 12 Mbps).

    The parent may have a USB1.1 device on the same USB header (mouse, keyboard,...), which kills the speed for all devices connected to it. It's easy to do that if you don't know your motherboard layout well, as different external USB ports may go to the same internal controller.

    So don't worry, the 2405FPW is gorgeous, and the USB support is fantastic: 4 card readers and 4 open ports.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09, 2006 @09:50AM (#14426805)
    I wrote: "2. Can this monitor rotate 90 degress like the other larger Dell flat panels?".

    No, according to this chart []. It also lacks the picture-in-a-picture feature that I did not realize that the less huge Dell monitors have.

    Still, it's a really cool product, and I am still leaning toward requesting one.

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling