DELL 30" Ultra Sharp

ElectricSavant · Nov 12, 2006

kewl nightlight on that mouse...you can work in the dark!

newbbee · Nov 12, 2006

Quote from Frey:

I used to have 2x19" but what sucks about it is that basically the frames are in the center of your view and to me that's pretty annoying. So, now I have a 30" in the center and the 2 19" on the sides and am very happy with it.
Most of the people here never actually sat in front of a 30" and worked with it so their comments are pretty unqualified because it's an awesome experience working with it and I bet you'd like it, too.

I can see that you trade agricultural futures?

gnome · Nov 12, 2006

Quote from saxon22:

Yes but you cannot get them up to the same resolution as the 30" one. Less resolution = higher strain on the eyes at least in my case.

Your "eye strain" thing must be all in your head [pun]. If pixel size were the cause of eye strain, you should suffer MASSIVELY from watching TV.

Trader28Lite · Nov 12, 2006

Quote from gnome:

Your "eye strain" thing must be all in your head [pun]. If pixel size were the cause of eye strain, you should suffer MASSIVELY from watching TV.

Incorrect, TV is watched from about 6 feet away, doesn't need the high res

gnome · Nov 12, 2006

Quote from Trader28Lite:

Incorrect, TV is watched from about 6 feet away, doesn't need the high res

Can't get anything by you...

saxon22 · Nov 12, 2006

Quote from gnome:

Your "eye strain" thing must be all in your head [pun]. If pixel size were the cause of eye strain, you should suffer MASSIVELY from watching TV.

Watching TV and working on a PC 20 inches away from the screen are two different animals. Most people have at least 10 ft. between their eyes and their TV, the same cannot be said for monitors. Like I said before, I am not looking for the cheapest replacement, but one that will provide the best viewing experience and the safest environment for my eyes.
I actually like that 30" in the middle and
x 19" on the sides. Looks like the ideal set up, where most work would be performed on the big screen and the two 19s would have secondary information to glance at from time to time.
Naturally, 3 x 30" would be ideal, but I would have to postpone the purchase of other toys that much farther, and I am not going to wait to drive my beloved nsx till I am 40.

saxon22 · Nov 12, 2006

Quote from gnome:

Your "eye strain" thing must be all in your head [pun]. If pixel size were the cause of eye strain, you should suffer MASSIVELY from watching TV.

What makes you think I watch TV????? As a matter of fact there was a period of my life where for 2 years I did not watch television at all.

Best time of my life if you ask.

Something I recommend to all my friends. Unfortunately for most people letting go of tv is as easy as having a crack addict throwing away his crack pipe.

ElectricSavant · Nov 12, 2006

from what I understand...eye strain...would be referring to the muscle controlling the contraction and the dilation of the pupil for focusing and making cognitive signals to the brain. right?

when you work a muscle what are you doing to it? now in longer periods of this working...you get strain correct...

I really do not have a point here, just trying to understand...

Michael B.

Quote from saxon22:

Watching TV and working on a PC 20 inches away from the screen are two different animals. Most people have at least 10 ft. between their eyes and their TV, the same cannot be said for monitors. Like I said before, I am not looking for the cheapest replacement, but one that will provide the best viewing experience and the safest environment for my eyes.
I actually like that 30" in the middle and
x 19" on the sides. Looks like the ideal set up, where most work would be performed on the big screen and the two 19s would have secondary information to glance at from time to time.
Naturally, 3 x 30" would be ideal, but I would have to postpone the purchase of other toys that much farther, and I am not going to wait to drive my beloved nsx till I am 40.

saxon22 · Nov 12, 2006

Quote from Tums:

here are different ways to skin the cat:

3007WFP $1,274
30" 2560x1600
total dots = 4,096,000
each dollar buys 3,215 dots
total surface area ~ 384 sq in
dots per sq in ~ 10,651
each sq in costs $3.31

2407WFP $719
24" 1920x1200
total dots = 2,304,000
each dollar buys 3,204 dots
total surface area ~ 246 sq in
dots per sq in ~ 9,361
each sq in costs $2.92

2007WFP $359
20" 1680x1050
total dots = 1,764,000
each dollar buys 4,914 dots
total surface area ~ 171 sq in
dots per sq in ~ 10,321
each sq in costs $2.10

E207WFP $260 (old model?)
20" 1680x1050
total dots = 1,764,000
each dollar buys 6,785 dots
total surface area ~ 171 sq in
dots per sq in ~ 10,321
each sq in costs $1.52

if you put 2x 24" together, you will get:

-- 492 sq in (28% more than 1x 30")
-- 4,096,000 dots (13% more than 1x 30")
-- costs $1,438 (13% more than 1x 30")

if you put 2x 20" together (cheap $260 model), you will get:

-- 341 sq in (89% of 1x 30")
-- 3,528,000 dots (86% of 1x 30")
-- costs $520 (41% of 1x 30")

other considerations not explored:
-- dot pitch size
-- image brightness
-- response time
-- color quality, etc.,

Buying cheap monitors = economical
Going blind because you wanted to save couple dollars = priceless

saxon22 · Nov 12, 2006

Quote from newbbee:

I can see that you trade agricultural futures?

BTW

What mouse is that????????????????
Would be an excellent Christmas gift from me to ... me.