Log in

No account? Create an account
Now that's impressive. - Her Most Regal Majesty, the Queen of Snark
void where prohibited, except by law
Now that's impressive.
Half an hour from order to dispatch

Dell 2405fpw monitor

Now I have to pray for no dead pixels.

Quite why a company based in Letchworth have qprfootballclub.co.uk as their domain, I'm not really sure though.

Now can I please get my shiny new tech spending habits under control. Please?
17 comments or Leave a comment
wimble From: wimble Date: September 30th, 2005 10:39 am (UTC) (Link)
Oooh. Shiny.

I've noticed in the past that you can't get a flatscreen monitor above 21 inches. Beyond that size, you can only get flatscreen televisions. And televisions have a lower resolution than monitors.

For example, my 32 inch TV (a Sharp Aquos... Mmm. Nice!) only supports a resolution of 1366 by 768. zandev's TV supports the same resolution, despite being the 36 inch (I think: it might be larger still) model.

In contrast, my 17 inch flatscreen at work supports 1280 by 1024 (and my 17 inch CRT at home supports 1600 by 1200!) and you can get 21 inch monitors with a resolution much higher than that. But as soon as you go above 21 inches. Wham! Not only do your pixels simply get larger because you've got the same number on a larger screen, they actually get larger because there are fewer of them

It's nice to see a 24 inch monitor, at last.
bellinghman From: bellinghman Date: September 30th, 2005 10:55 am (UTC) (Link)
I suspect what we're seeing is the result of a production line that can produce screens either for use as HDTV-ready widescreen TVs and as computer monitors.

For HDTV, you ideally want 1080 lines, and a 16:9 ratio. Multiply 16:9 by 1080 and you get 1920. Hence that horizontal resolution.

For computer monitors, 1200 lines is less confusing than 1080. So you have 1920 x 1200. In other words, you'll get 40 pixel top and bottom borders when running in HDTV mode, and 160 pixel left and right borders running in classic 1600 x 1200 PC mode.

I find it amusing that after all these years, we're going to be running computers attached to TV screens again.
_nicolai_ From: _nicolai_ Date: September 30th, 2005 11:02 am (UTC) (Link)
I raise you the apple 30" cinema display.
Or the Apple 23" display.
Or the Dell 24" widescreen display.
sesquipedality From: sesquipedality Date: September 30th, 2005 11:21 am (UTC) (Link)
Erm, that *is* the Dell 24" widescreen display.
wimble From: wimble Date: September 30th, 2005 11:51 am (UTC) (Link)
Err, yeah, that's my point: 3 computer quality displays above 21 inches. That's not really a large number (in comparison to either the range of monitors, or the range of over 21" screens).
pjc50 From: pjc50 Date: September 30th, 2005 11:42 am (UTC) (Link)
Well, as the number of pixels goes up, the problems with one-in-a-million defects mean that it's more likely you'll have a dead pixel on the monitor. And people buying >£1000 huge screens tend to be unwilling to put up with dead pixels. I suspect there just isn't a market for £10,000 4096x2000 screens...
wimble From: wimble Date: September 30th, 2005 11:49 am (UTC) (Link)
While a higher resolution might mean more dead pixels in total, those pixels would be smaller.

So, with my screen, if I had a dead pixel, it'd be "such-and-such" a size. If the resolution were doubled in both directions, then I might have four times as many dead pixels, but they'd each be half the size and most likely would be distributed across the display, rather than in the same area.

I have absolutely no idea how relevant that might be :)
bellinghman From: bellinghman Date: September 30th, 2005 10:42 am (UTC) (Link)
Cute - I want one. I've long been holding out for a 1600 x 1200 before I dump the CRT, but the 1920 x 1200 screens coming along are even more tempting.

But only if they get the refresh rate above 12 Hz.
From: senji Date: September 30th, 2005 11:48 am (UTC) (Link)
I'd settle for a 1400x1050...
bellinghman From: bellinghman Date: September 30th, 2005 11:56 am (UTC) (Link)
Ah, but I'm running a 21" 1280x1024 CRT (well, it can do 1600 x 1200, but that gets small). So 1400 x 1050 isn't worth moving for.

emperor From: emperor Date: September 30th, 2005 10:48 am (UTC) (Link)
hairyears From: hairyears Date: September 30th, 2005 03:00 pm (UTC) (Link)

I am sooo tempted. Would it do service as a TV screen too, if I could find a compatible tuner and DVD player?

Said Nile, whose home PC displays 1280x1024 on an Hewlett-Packard L1825 18" LCD Flat Panel monitor. £800 from a bankrupt dotcom four years ago.

sesquipedality From: sesquipedality Date: September 30th, 2005 04:40 pm (UTC) (Link)
It would appear to have standard TV inputs (composite and S-video), yes.
bellinghman From: bellinghman Date: September 30th, 2005 03:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
BTW - did you have to add VAT to that price (if so, it's still good) or not (in which case it's very good indeed)?
sesquipedality From: sesquipedality Date: September 30th, 2005 04:41 pm (UTC) (Link)
That included VAT. Can you see why I snapped their arm off?
bellinghman From: bellinghman Date: October 3rd, 2005 01:14 pm (UTC) (Link)
Err, yes.


In fact, as far as I can tell, they're now missing both arms and will shortly be hopping. </HolyGrail>

I now have one behind me. Well, I got my bonus on Friday. Bid Friday evening. And just went and collected it from their premises an hour or two ago.

So here's hoping any stuck pixels are stuck off, not on.
sesquipedality From: sesquipedality Date: October 3rd, 2005 01:38 pm (UTC) (Link)
To the best of my ability to tell, mine is defect free. Hopefully yours will be too.
17 comments or Leave a comment