Dell and Samsung Release 23" QWXGA Monitors

Status
Not open for further replies.

jeffunit

Distinguished
May 19, 2008
14
0
18,560
0
"While a resolution of 2,048 x 1,152 would seem extremely high, it does not actually offer significantly more pixels than current 1,920 x 1200 resolution displays; 236k-pixels versus 230k-pixels."

Did someone fail math class?
Hint: 2048*1152=2,359,296
 

TeraMedia

Distinguished
Jan 26, 2006
185
0
18,630
0
Font-scaling features have been around in Windows since XP at least, if not earlier. Step 1: right-click empty desktop, and select properties. Step 2: select "Settings" tab. Step 3: Click "Advanced". Step 4: Choose a different DPI setting (e.g. 120).

Alternatively, just go to the "Appearance" tab instead of the "Settings" tab, and change the font size.

Regardless, I don't like them making yet another resolution that games, video and other stuff will need to scale to. If they had tried to make it 2133 x 1200 so that they could fit full-res 16x12 and 19x12 games and images on it, but with a 16:9 ratio, fine. But this seems to be just an arbitrary resolution with no clear raison d'etre (^).
 
G

Guest

Guest
@frozenlead

You also need to learn math. it's 2.36M pixels (right) vs 236k pixels (wrong). Toms' didn't do the math right and you just sounded stupid.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Ah not sure but think jeffunit, is making light of it being 236k and not 2,360 K
 

jorgisven

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2008
1
0
18,510
0
CJDavE2, you forgot to factor in the Magic Number Decimal Point, wherein you can arbitrarily place a decimal point wherever you want to determine the "Right" number. :p (see also "Factors of 10") Agreed. Toms goofed on their math.

Also, what basis is the assumption that 16:9 is going to be THE aspect ratio for monitors by 2012? Movies seem to be going even wider like 2.39:1, which would still create bars at the top and bottom. I think Hollywood and the Tech industries need to agree on a standard. While Art films can do what they want, they can't expect the experience of squinting at a super wide angle screen to be pleasing to the general population.
 

Shadow703793

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2007
696
0
18,940
9
Microsoft is aware of this high pixel-density issue however, offering a feature in its Windows Vista
operating system that attempts to solve this issue. The feature (DPI Scaling) allows users to increase the size of icons, interfaces and fonts to compensate for the high pixel-densities, keeping the display crisp and sharp. While this feature in Windows Vista is not quite yet perfect, or well known by many users, the upcoming Microsoft Windows 7 operating system is expected to make further improvements to this feature.
How would that work? Wouldn't these setting be over ridden with drivers from nVidia/ATI?
 

Alternator

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2006
24
0
18,560
0
[citation][nom]Jorgisven[/nom] Also, what basis is the assumption that 16:9 is going to be THE aspect ratio for monitors by 2012? Movies seem to be going even wider like 2.39:1, which would still create bars at the top and bottom. I think Hollywood and the Tech industries need to agree on a standard. While Art films can do what they want, they can't expect the experience of squinting at a super wide angle screen to be pleasing to the general population.[/citation]

It does seem to be the standard being pushed, based on the new Hi Def video formats so I think it is a fair statement that this is the ration being targeted.

I just hope that computer displays don't go past the 16:9 (at least as the defacto ratio) to try and cater to the movies being made... a computer monitors primary purpose is not to watch movies.
 

bornking

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2006
5
0
18,510
0
The math is incorrect, I saw that too. As for the monitors they seem to me to be a waste of cash as we can get the Samsung 26" for about $400 CAD right now. Even if it is fewer pixels, there is so much more size on the screen that it is really worth it, even if the pixel sizes/density is higher.

To frozenland, the math is RIGHT? are you drunk? they missed it by a factor of 10! How about I work to build you a pc and instead of charging you $30/hour labout I charge you $300?

Furhtermore why are samnsung and dell not investig more money and marketing into oled? bah, this is just a cheap ploy to increase their market size by creating a niche.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I just picked up the Samsung 2343BWX from Costco for $259 (with a $70 off discount). I hooked it up to my work pc with a low end Q35 Intel embedded analog video adapter and it was able to display the full resolution at 32bit, and it looks great! Not at all too small of fonts like I was initially concerned about. The controls are embedded touch-sensitive on the bezel and they work great. There is no USB, No sound and no HDMI ports... just a single D-Sub and a DVI port (which is all I need). Warranty is three years though Canada service. There was a sheet taped to the monitor that says DVI video cards might have a problem displaying full resolution on the monitor, and if so, go D-Sub (which I did and it works great) or go with a DVI dual...something (sorry, the sheet is at the office and I'm not). I can speak to the 5ms speed, since I'm just using it as an office monitor. No height adjustment, but it tilts up and turns left and right. At the price I paid for it, or less, I think it's well worth choosing over a much lower res. 21-22" solution, or a much more expensive 24" monitor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY