71–80 of 212 posts
This looks awesome. But I'm wondering, how long until we get an iMac using this panel? I guess the thunderbolt display will get it first, but anyway, exciting news.
Awesome. I say this is a sign that the incumbent manufacturers are finally adapting to the heat brought on by Korean and Chinese newcomers. "Industry's most affordable Ultra HD monitor" is semantics. The Seiki 39" is still substantially cheaper, now at less than $500 on Amazon. Technically, that is a television, so I suppose "monitor" is a clever use of words by Dell. If Seiki drops an HDMI 2 version of their monitor…
But the Seiki 39" TV has its framerate capped at 30Hz while on 4k resolution, which makes it inadequate as a monitor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I own the 50" Seiki and I use it as a desktop monitor. I need to modify my desk so I can move it further back but I'm getting used to the size. The lag due to 30hZ is a big drawback, my mousing accuracy is noticeably lower, but I can live with that. What I cannot live with is the fact that the monitor goes blank and then re-detects the HDMI signal all the time -- perhaps 25 times in the first few minutes and then onc…
If you need to move it further back you are essentially shrinking your monitor size and you could have instead purchased a smaller monitor and kept the same distance
Does anyone know, are there any Macs that can drive this in Retina mode? Does OSX on Mac desktops support retina mode for arbitrary monitors, or does OSX tie Retina mode exclusively to Macbook Pro Retina screens?
My 27" iMac can run in 1280x720 "HiDPI Mode", which is just the native resolution of 2560x1440 cut in half (quarters?). It's a native feature in OS X, although it has to be enabled manually before it shows up.
sudo defaults write \
/Library/Preferences/com.apple.windowserver.plist \
DisplayResolutionEnabled -bool true
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you need to move it further back you are essentially shrinking your monitor size and you could have instead purchased a smaller monitor and kept the same distance
It doesn't feel the same. Unless one is nearsighted and/or crosseyed, it's easier to focus and converge on a more distant object. It also provides for a lot more desk space in front of the monitor.
Plenty of free desk space!
(Also, in the pro-sub-30" argument: it's difficult finding affordable movable arms and mounts for 30"+ monitors)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WHY WHY WHY is this so CONFUSING? DELL! C'Mon man! The "24" that you mentioned actually seems to also be a 28" screen? "With the same remarkable, pin-point clarity, the Dell UltraSharp 24 Ultra HD Monitor, users can enjoy color consistency and precision from virtually any angle thanks to an ultra-wide viewing angle on a 28.3-inch screen. "
I think the press release may be incorrect. The "Tech Specs" tab on the product page[1] says the diagonal for the 24 is 23.8 inches. [1] http://dcse.dell.com/us/en/gen/peripherals/dell-up2414q/pd.a...
23.8
I think someone just had a minor dyslexic moment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
50" for my desktop. What? Most people I know can't even handle the current 30" monitors. It feels nicer having two 27" monitors from a not-grossly-exceeding-peripheral-vision viewpoint.
Like jfb says, different strokes. I use multiple 30" monitors on my two workstations and I would prefer a single 50" display. My wife's Seiki has more raw pixels than two of my 30" monitors. I admit that an ideal 50" display would be OLED and concave, but I'll keep those off my wish-list for the time being. I don't want the manufacturers to think I'm being unreasonable. High-DPI and large form-factor seem reasonable…
Not at all. It's practicality. Close enough to read normal-sized text clearly, and the edges fade into peripheral vision; far enough that I can see the whole thing at a glance, and I start having to zoom to read. I'd use one if it was the only monitor available, but I'd prefer a 24".
If it works for you, that's nice. I'm not calling you a freak of nature, so please don't call me a self-flagellating Luddite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is almost certainly a typo.
Even so, The difference between the high-end and entry-level models is the former are "Dell UltraSharp XX Ultra HD Monitor" and "Dell XX Ultra HD Monitor". It doesn't have to be this way.
Dell: Manufacturer
(UltraSharp): The high-end moniker
XX: Size
Ultra HD: The name for that resolution
Monitor: What it is
Maybe it's because I'm an engineer and not a normal person, but the naming scheme seems quite reasonable. Way better than the utterly indecipherable "Dell 324y5943X" crap you get with some other manufacturers. The resolution name, "Ultra HD", is stupid, but that wasn't Dell's decision to make, and the industry has been naming resolutions like that for twenty years.[0] (VGA, SVGA, XGA, SXGA, etc...)
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vector_Video_Standards2.sv...
I'm confused. Under $1000 for the 28"? It goes on to say that the 24" is available for $1399...
Can anyone explain why monitor and TV prices are so vastly different for the same size? Could you not substitute a small flat screen in place of a monitor and save a few hundred?
I find TV's are bulkier, run hotter, have poor refresh rates, worse viewing angles, and look pretty poor up close. None of this matters when you use it as a TV, of course.
They also usually have massive bezels, harsher lighting, and come on fixed stands (no rotation or vertical adjustment, often not even any pivoting up/down).
You totally could use a TV as a monitor if you wanted. I personally stick with monitors for my desk, TVs for my wall.
