New Dell 30" LCD

[taodr]

Quote from nitro:

That is amazing.

I wonder how all these monitors compare to the AAPL equivalent LCD monitors?

nitro

Why not just buy the apple monitors. I know someone who just bought the adapters and it is awsome.

 

[illiquid]

Quote from winter:

Maybe this will push the prices down on the 21-24" LCD's even further.

How likely will the 24" drop in price after the new year? Due to a Dell delivery mix-up, I think I have the option of waiting a bit before re-ordering my system.

 

[just21]

From the comments on engadget......"they are also releasing the 2007 and 2407, refreshes for the 2005 and 2405 with HDCP support, in Feb/Mar"

 

[gnome]

Quote from syrre:

Actually, 3 x 19" would only be some 20% bigger than ONE 30"...

R U counting pixels or measuring real estate? Thumbnail... 3 x 19" diagonal = 57. 2 x 30" = 60. Depending upon the aspect, 3 x 19 might actually be more screen area.

 

[syrre]

Quote from gnome:

R U counting pixels or measuring real estate? Thumbnail... 3 x 19" diagonal = 57. 2 x 30" = 60. Depending upon the aspect, 3 x 19 might actually be more screen area.

Thats completly wrong. Im quite surprised.
Yes I mean "real estate". But we are not comparing diagonal lines. A fast check:
3*19^2=1083
2*30^2=1800
2x30" have about 66% bigger screen area than 3x19".
In fact you would need 5x19" to get a bigger screen area.
Get it?

 

[gnome]

Quote from syrre:

Thats completly wrong. Yes I mean "real estate". But we are not comparing diagonal lines only. A fast check:
3*19^2=1083
2*30^2=1800
Get it? That is at least not what I would call a slight difference.

I don't know what "^2" signifies... and we can't know for sure until the length and height measures are known (that is, a traditional or wide aspect)... but I think your estimation here is completely whack!

 

[winter]

Quote from gnome:

I don't know what "^2" signifies... and we can't know for sure until the length and height measures are known... but I think your estimation here is completely whack!

^2 means squared. You really shouldnt square the diagonal since thats not fair either, but simply counting diagonals is definitely wrong too. You need to multiple the heigh & width which we could probably derive fairly easily from the diagonal....

 

[gnome]

Quote from winter:

^2 means squared. You really shouldnt square the diagonal since thats not fair either, but simply counting diagonals is definitely wrong too. You need to multiple the heigh & width which we could probably derive fairly easily from the diagonal....

I presumed "^2" meant squared, but it's meaningless in his/her illustration. And no, you can't estimate area from the diagonal. Maximum area would come from length = width, but that's not the case. If we knew the aspect ratio, then we could calculate area.

When I proposed the relative areas of 2 x 30, and 3 x 19, I was presuming a wide aspect ratio on the 30" vs a traditional aspect on the 19".

 

[syrre]

Quote from gnome:

I don't know what "^2" signifies... and we can't know for sure until the length and height measures are known (that is, a traditional or wide aspect)... but I think your estimation here is completely whack!

Your estimation is far more close to "whack" than mine.

It is true we need the length and height to complete the estimation.
A differ in 16:10 from 4:3 would count slightly in the 19inces favour.

But there is not a chance in the ocean that 3x19inches would even come close to 2x30inches!

If you are willing I am willing to take on a bet, you choose the amount.

 

[gnome]

Quote from syrre:

Your estimation is far more close to "whack" than mine.

It is true we need the length and height to complete the estimation.
A differ in 16:10 from 4:3 would count slightly in the 19inces favour.

But there is not a chance in the ocean that 3x19inches would even come close to 2x30inches!

Well, I'm sitting here with 3 x 19" to measure.. and presuming that the 30"ers are narrower in height, it's closer than you presume. Your 60% estimation and 5 x 19" to excede 2 x 30", appears totally ridiculous.