[Rumour] Dell UltraSharp U2711 release soon?

[Katanai]

For all the people who are saying 120 pixels is not relevant, have you run a 1920x1200 screen before?

YES! And I currently use a 1600/1200 20" monitor at work and a 1080p 24" at home. So I do this "adjustment" from 1200 to 1080 you people speak off every day. Guess what? 120 lines is absolutely nothing! If I could have it my way I would use a 1080p monitor at work too. But, I'm outta this thread, I just remembered that it's no use trying to argue with people who think something is superior just because they own it.

[N19h7m4r3]

Surely if you're going to compare 16:10 to 16:9, you would use monitors of the same size?

Only then would you really notice the difference, or do you simply prefer the 1080p monitor because it's also 4" bigger?

[Manicdan]

when i was using a 2560x1600 monitor, i was worried i would have to check myself into rehab when it was time to give it up (it was a gift to someone else and i was making sure it had no dead pixels)

[Zorlac]

Actually, in a properly coded 3D game, 16:9 gives you more screen real estate than 16:10. See here: http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/FAQ

Now in a pixel perfect 2D environment (i.e. Windows desktop), then 16:10 would be better.

I am all for 16:9 as a standard for gaming!

...oh, and I am more excited for the new NEC PA271W than this Dell.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1260108113

[zanzabar]

Actually, in a properly coded 3D game, 16:9 gives you more screen real estate than 16:10. See here: http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/FAQ

Now in a pixel perfect 2D environment (i.e. Windows desktop), then 16:10 would be better.

I am all for 16:9 as a standard for gaming!

...oh, and I am more excited for the new NEC PA271W than this Dell.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1260108113

thats not true at all, properly coded dose not mean that u have a FOV with static height, and 16x9 takes up more space and has less screen area for the same sized monitor

[TheCarLessDriven]

Actually, in a properly coded 3D game, 16:9 gives you more screen real estate than 16:10. See here: http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/FAQ

Now in a pixel perfect 2D environment (i.e. Windows desktop), then 16:10 would be better.

I am all for 16:9 as a standard for gaming!

...oh, and I am more excited for the new NEC PA271W than this Dell.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1260108113

Any word on how much the 24" version will cost? I've been waiting to get into an IPS panel at at least 24" for a while.

[Elitist]

They'll just put horrible anti-glare on it and ruin the whole thing..

[Helmore]

Any word on how much the 24" version will cost? I've been waiting to get into an IPS panel at at least 24" for a while.

I would like to know this as well. I'm on the lookout for a good 24" screen and would like to know if this NEC 24" screen would even come near my budget.

[Levish]

eh, wake me up when we're hitting 120Hz+.

+1, personally i'm going to wait till 240hz native

[Helmore]

+1, personally i'm going to wait till 240hz native

I don't think anything above 120 Hz will give you much of an improvement. You start to bump into the law of diminishing returns.

[Farinorco]

YES! And I currently use a 1600/1200 20" monitor at work and a 1080p 24" at home. So I do this "adjustment" from 1200 to 1080 you people speak off every day. Guess what? 120 lines is absolutely nothing! If I could have it my way I would use a 1080p monitor at work too. But, I'm outta this thread, I just remembered that it's no use trying to argue with people who think something is superior just because they own it.

I don't agree with you on that. I'm currently running on an ancient, but good quality 1280x1024 Dell Ultrasharp monitor (which I want to change for a bigger one soon).

I currently rotate the monitor to portrait mode to read/write documents and so. I can tell you that I see a huge difference between the portrait mode and the landscape mode regarding document and web browsing, and even working with some IDEs (but I can't use it this way because of the tiny horizontal space left). When I upgrade my monitor to a bigger one, I wouldn't like to have less vertical resolution than that, because I would see that particular aspect of it as a downgrade.

And you know what? A 1080 resolution is closer to my 1024 landscape mode vertical resolution while a 1200 resolution is closer to the 1280 portrait mode one. Yes, 1200 lines would be lower than 1280, but I've used 1920x1200 monitors and I can tolerate the lose in exchange of the wider horizontal resolution. I would prefer 1280, but I can't get such a screen. On the other hand, a 1080 resolution leaves me with a screen heigth similar to my current monitor in landscape mode, and this is a no go for me.

A 1920x1200 gives me True Full HD resolution for watching movies or other multimedia uses (1920x1080 resolution, I don't mind if the top and bottom borders are of the same kind of plastic than side ones or not), while giving me nearly the same vertical resolution for desktop usage as my current monitor in portrait mode. A 1920x1080 monitor misses the second part of the deal, and since I use my computer as a workstation even more than a multimedia device, that's a pretty big deal to me.

It seems pretty clear that the way to go for me it's a monitor which can do Full HD (1920x1080) plus some vertical extensions that I could use for document and web browsing/editing, programming, and so. That's it, 1920x1200+. I don't need, not even want*, more than that horizontal resolution. So making that one constant, it seems pretty obvious that going wider and wider (or even better said, shorter and shorter...) is not exactly like a good thing to me.

*and why not? Either interpolating the Full HD content to a higher resolution, losing the True Full HD representation, or wasting my screen size by going with 1:1, is not the way that I want to take advantage of my investment in a screen.

[noXqzs]

YES! And I currently use a 1600/1200 20" monitor at work and a 1080p 24" at home. So I do this "adjustment" from 1200 to 1080 you people speak off every day. Guess what? 120 lines is absolutely nothing! If I could have it my way I would use a 1080p monitor at work too. But, I'm outta this thread, I just remembered that it's no use trying to argue with people who think something is superior just because they own it.

Comparing a 20" to 24" monitors is not really a valid scenario. For me, the extra 120 lines is something. There are others here that share my oppinion.
Your last comment, reaks of hipocrisy. I read every post, and the only person using the word SUPERIOR is you. It has been stated by oppinion that some prefer the 16:10 layout and would rather use that. How can you consider that whining, and not include yourself in the list?

[Particle]

As a side note, the whole discounting of a person's opinion solely because they own it thing is a bit of a debate cop-out. Some people like to put their money where their mouth is and buy products they promote as being worthy of purchase. That doesn't invalidate their view. If anything, it should be seen as a credit. Instead, it's often a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation where if you don't buy what you say is good you're open to being labeled a hypocrite/non-genuine but if you do buy what you promote you're seen as being a fanboy or simply promoting what you own.

[iTravis]

I'm still waiting for Dell to "fix" their U2410.

What's wrong with the U2410?

[trinibwoy]

Pink tinting, dithering, graininess....

[Kingcarcas]

Well for some the 16:10 Gateway i was looking at had higher TDP and was more expensive, i went with a 16:9 Samsung, they're all 60hz crappy TN panels anyway right

[Salavat23]

If it is under $800, then I'd buy it.

[Helloworld_98]

If it is under $800, then I'd buy it.

it's a U series, so if you're lucky it will be $750, probably around $900 actually.

[LedHed]

blah, more 16*9 stuff

not for a gamer, almost every PC game supports 16x10. Now if you are using the display for a media display (Blu-Ray/HDTV Cable/Satellite/PS3/360/etc) then yes there is more 16x9 content. But I've even found some Blu-Rays in 16x10, for example Dr. Strangelove is in 16x10.

[Loque]

still waiting for a fast response ips panel or something with good quality and fast... :|

[LedHed]

still waiting for a fast response ips panel or something with good quality and fast... :|

I have been gaming on a 6ms GTG P-MVA panel for years and I never notice any quality or ghosting problems. The FP241W is an awesome monitor and so is the FP241WZ.

The new IPS monitors are better, but the cost difference levels them all out. The higher you pay the newer the technology.

[Manicdan]

whats good about new ips monitors? mine from early 2007 feels just fine

[LedHed]

whats good about new ips monitors? mine from early 2007 feels just fine

Deeper blacks, faster response, brighter, wider viewing angles, longer lasting back lighting, borderless, 3DTV, just to name a few (not only IPS of course).

But when you have a premium panel already the gains are small and not worth close to the cost.

[Loque]

I have been gaming on a 6ms GTG P-MVA panel for years and I never notice any quality or ghosting problems. The FP241W is an awesome monitor and so is the FP241WZ.

The new IPS monitors are better, but the cost difference levels them all out. The higher you pay the newer the technology.

Hope so ! I'll have to confirm that next time I go to a shop and see for myself

[zanzabar]

+1, personally i'm going to wait till 240hz native

are u being sarcastic, u can run 1920x1200 120hrz max on dvi and since we have nothing with more bandwidth for video than dvi until the new hdmi and DP are out but then they up the color to 10bit and do not up support for resolution or frequency