Displays [update: Good news, everyone!] - New Dell U series coming Q3. A downgrade big time

The Dell U2410 in Canada is at a low price of 440$

Dell U.S has it at 500$, great buy
Dell U.K provide free shipping to it, so it's sold at 538.80£ (I don't know much about the U.K Pricing, but I have a feeling it's not very interesting, but I could be wrong.)

 

We get ripped off so badly

 

I'm not too bothered about the aspect ratio change, it's the backlighting issue that would stop me from buying. :-|

 

Dell monitors have black (plastic) frames - so you're going to see black bars whatever the aspect ratio...

 

or if youre worried about dell overcharging, see if they will price match on this: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-036-DE&groupid=17&catid=510&subcat=

which would make it £480 delivered (im ignoring the week only offer on purpose as its not the normal price) or if they wont price match, just buy it from OCUK

 

Didnt know they deliver around the world.

Dell site in my country didnt list the u2410 anymore.

 

Lots of people are saying if you don't like it, buy a 2560x1440 screen then. Well.. great if that's an upgrade for you, but I have 2560x1600, so I'll be downgrading when I replace this screen if this carries on.

That extra vertical res makes a huge difference in software like Photoshop.

I can understand this in cheaper consumer screens, but it's also starting to encroach upon the professional market too. I have no need to watch TV or use my PS3 on my monitor. If you pay 2K for a screen, you do so because you wanted the best screen for a COMPUTER so you can be as productive as possible. WTF do I want 16:9 on a professional monitor for? If I want that, I can buy a good 42" TV for half the price.

16:10 is the ideal computer screen format, and this change is NOT in the consumer's best interest. The annoying thing is lack of choice. Yes, this makes screens cheaper to make... and that's great.. so long as they still made a more expensive 16:10 screen, hence giving the buyer choice. As it is, they have decided to remove that choice. There will be many people who would pay £3-400 for a decent quality 16:10 screen as has been demonstrated by the U2410.

Why remove a product people wish to buy? Whether you hate, or love 16:9, it has a place, and that place is low end consumer products. Why force this choice upon everyone, even the ones who want and are willing to pay more for a 16:10 screen?

 

I'm still using a 4:3 monitor. 1600x1200 F tw !!! In all seriousness though, I really want a huge 4:3 monitor just because Im so used to it. 16:10 can't die, it's the closest well get to having a good screen space ratio .

 

OTE=AstralWanderer;2679117]Dell monitors have black (plastic) frames - so you're going to see black bars whatever the aspect ratio... [/QUOTE]

Its not the end of the world, but if you heavily game on the Xbox and PS3 (or watch a lot of DVD's etc which are natively 16:9) you would sooner have a monitor that matched the aspect ratio of the content you are viewing and not have to put up with black bars or a distorted image if you set it to fit the screen. I know these Dell 16:10 screens are not aimed at console gamers, but I was mentioning it anyway about 16:10 in general. To me, though, you get loads of screen space at 1920x1080p and most people wouldn't even notice that much difference if they gained another 120 pixels of vertical resolution, so I still dont see what the huge fuss is about. If you 'really' need a bigger resolution, go much bigger and buy a 1600p screen

 

And as has been said already in the thread; if a consumer doesn't care about 16:10 and just watches 16:9 content from consoletoys and DVDs then let them buy a cheap 16:9 monitor and leave the high-end 16:10 monitors available to people who want them and who have demonstrably been prepared to pay for them.

I don't see what point you're trying to make there. I accept that there is a subjective element of taste, but what I don't accept is that having fewer vertical pixels and thus a reduced level of choice is somehow desirable for the consumer.
You might prefer watching 16:9 content on a 16:9 screen, but I use my 16:10 screens to display output from consoles and to watch 16:9 movies without any problem and given the outcry fromc onsumers over the industry shift towards 16:9 I'm far from the only one.

120 extra vertical pixels to play with in my daily computer usage completely outweigh the non-issue of black bars on content that's usually already got black bars stamped on it or which barely benefits from a high-end screen anyway.
If the visual output from consoles was actually worthy of anything more than a TN panel, if the monitor had no bezel and if the movie content didn't have black widescreen bars already stamped on it then maybe the argument that 16:9 is more desirable would actually hold up, but in reality it just seems like purchase justification syndrome.

Let's put it in perspective here, because talking in terms of pixels tends not to have the same impact.
120 pixels is an extra 11% on the vertical space offered by a 1080 screen.
Another way to look at it is that 'upgrading' from a 22" 16:10 @ 1680x1050 to a 24" 16:9 @ 1920x1080 means gaining 240 pixels in width and a meager 30 pixels in height.

I don't see how anyone can think that's a good deal for the consumer, regardless of what content they watch on their monitor.

 

want R G B LEDs!!!! not "white" LED are great but like anything u need the correct tool for the job! (or correct LEDS)

 

I use it mostly for gaming (somehow my lofty aspiration that I'd spend as much time sensibly editing photos has never quite come true).

I've never seen the slightest hint of blur or ghosting, input lag etc etc and I think there are reviews out there saying the same. However, it's fair to say FPS is about the only genre of games I don't really play so a second opinion from someone who does might be useful.

 

Second opinion incoming!

The ZR24w is great for gaming.
No blur, ghosting, etc.
I went from a 'fast' TN panel to the ZR24w and didn't notice any differences in input lag, ghosting etc.
I believe the differences are well within the limits of what a human being could actually hope to detect in practice.

 

I wasn't going to respond to this but seriously, 'consoletoys'!? Ha ha, whatever. Have fun crying over losing 120 lines of vertical res (because obviously that gives you 'so' much more productivity in windows that you couldnt have at 1080).

 

This is 120pixel


It's a full ribbon bar. This HUGE.
Probably 3lusive, you don't complain, because you don't multitask or do it on rare occasion. Perhaps you type of people that like maximizing windows (I am not talking about playing games, or when you want to focus on 1 program specifically). When I work on a programming project, I have sometimes 2 Visual Studio instances and sometimes 3, and other stuff too.

Simple example (old picture):
http://www.helpweaver.com/Image1.png

That 120pixel is CRITICAL for me.

 

Did you realize that one of the main professional uses for 16:10 aspect ratio monitors is to edit 16:9 content? Or at least that was the case when 16:9 panels were confined to a resolution of 1920x1080, since "full HD" content can obviously fit completely on a 1920x1200 panel with room to spare (for menus and the like).

You might consider things like that before ridiculing other people.

 

It got a reply, didn't it? But hey, if you're going to be dismissive over one word (a meme from rockpapershotgun, at that, not that you got it) be my guest and knock yourself out.

Your tone suggests that you really haven't a clue at all, but then I got that impression early on from your posts obsessed with black bars when playing console output on a 16:10 screen and acting as if 120 pixels was nothing to be concerned over as a paying customer.
Ignorance like that is the driving factor behind companies being able to get away with anti-consumer decisions like this in the first place.

 

There isnt enough difference to me between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 to warrant all this blowup about it. You get loads of desktop space at 1080, if you have a very specific need for a higher resolution then fine - but surely if you needed that much more space you'd consider going 1600 + (for some major screen real estate). And yes, black bars when doing heavy gaming sessions would annoy me on a console

 

I just showed you how height is important.
Check my screen shots... if I has 1080p.. I would barely have room to see my code. I would probably move the task bar on the right, and have tools bars moved to the left or right instead of on top (which is much less practice).
I am not going to sacrifice 120pixels, because YOU complain that 1-2% of the content you display won't have black lines with 1080p display. Movies that are originally filmed in 1080p are slim to none. Consoles, you play them on the TV, if the oh so dear black lines kills you... not like you notice them in any case, because you don't have any back light bleeding or anything.. it's pitch black.. else get a better display.

 

chill guys, agree to disagree? it's obviously just person preference.

however, my previous statement stands, agree with Goodbyte's view:
buy 23 for 16.9 1920x1080
buy 24 for 16.10 1920x1200
they should not cannibalise high end 16:10 market.

it's all about choice, and they are taking it away from us.