Dell 2010 Product Line

FitzRoy said:
No. I use my TV and my monitor for my console/movie usage. 2 people can't use the TV at the same time. Sometimes the computer is all you have. It's absurd to use this line of arguing, you may as well be arguing for a taller than wide rectangle aspect, so long as it has more pixels than anything else. Aspects matter, and media creators don't want 50 million different kinds of frames.
Click to expand...

I don't see why media creators would give a crap about what aspect ratios computer monitors are using, considering the VAST majority of people watch TV and movies on, guess what, A TELEVISION. HDTVs have always used the 16:9 aspect ratio, so theres no confusion there (as SDTVs always used 4:3). Theres no legitimate reason why this has to be forced onto computer monitors considering MOST people use their computer to actually get shit done rather then use it to play video games and watch movies all day like you do.

EDIT: Actually, there is a legitimate reason for panel manufacturers. 16:9 screens are cheaper to produce, nothing more. Though I know many people like throwing out other bullshit excuses to try and explain it away.

I'm with Snowdog. If I want to play video games or watch movies in native 16:9, I'll use my HDTV for that. That's what I bought it for. I did NOT buy my computer monitor to act as my HDTV, so I don't see why I should be forced into a 16:9 aspect ratio for it. For people who do other things on their computer besides play video games and watch movies (which, y'know, is most people) it is not unreasonable at all for them to want the greater vertical space that a comparable 16:10 or 5:4 resolution provides (I actually prefer 4:3 myself, which is dead unfortunately).

If you want a second HDTV for your console and movies, get a second HDTV. Don't try and shoehorn computer monitors into being something they're not.

Media is not and will not be made at 2133x1200, it's made at 1920x1080, thus it makes sense for monitors in a certain size class to match that exactly.
Click to expand...

Basing computer monitor characteristics on television and theater standards is retarded. Everyone who isn't FitzRoy will use their TV as their TV, thanks.
 
Last edited:
FitzRoy said:
I'm hoping someone comes out with a 2880x1620 or something at 26" so that certain people stop whining about having to take a measly 4% vertical hit in the 24" class to conform to the new aspect.
Click to expand...

Good idea, but you could also use your TV as a TV and your computer monitor as a computer monitor, and stop whining about the 0.5% hit to viewing area you take when watching 16:9 content on a 16:10 screen. Half of that content is actually 2.35:1 anyway, making TV usage even less of an issue on 16:10 displays.
 
nomu said:
Good idea, but you could also use your TV as a TV and your computer monitor as a computer monitor, and stop whining about the 0.5% hit to viewing area you take when watching 16:9 content on a 16:10 screen. Half of that content is actually 2.35:1 anyway, making TV usage even less of an issue on 16:10 displays.
Click to expand...

Earth to nomu:

(a) all television and console content from hereon out is 16:9.
(b) people don't always have access to their television. Could be that your kids are using the tv, could be your wife. Could be that you're at work. Could be that you're in your home office and you just want to stream some baseball game highlights without getting up, walking to the fucking living room, and turning on your tv to get the proper aspect. If your monitor is 16:9, you can conveniently enjoy the same content without stupid black bars or stretching.
(c) small pc displays are cheaper better suited for both purposes than televisions for people on a budget. Most quality manufacturers like Sony and Samsung don't even bother offering small tvs, you have to buy craptastic dynex or something.
(d) Many games like Starcraft are likely to use a single frame type to avoid fairness issues in competition. If one player can see more map than another player at one time, that's an unfair advantage. Digital cameras take photos of a certain frame. They're not going to choose a frame that cuts off info when viewed on the living room tv for the whole family to see.

The industry has to pick a frame to mass produce, and it makes no sense to continue picking some arbitrary deviation that no content is designed for. The bloody end. Why not 16:11? Why not 16:16? Why not 16:82? This is nonsense, you are arguing nonsense. We had uniformity between the markets with 4:3 and we're doing it again with widescreen.
 
Last edited:
FitzRoy said:
Earth to nomu:

(b) people don't always have access to their television. Could be that your kids are using the tv, could be your wife. Could be that you're at work. Could be that you're in your home office and you just want to stream some baseball game highlights without getting up, walking to the fucking living room, and turning on your tv to get the proper aspect. If your monitor is 16:9, you can conveniently enjoy the same content without stupid black bars or stretching.
Click to expand...

If maintaining proper aspect ratio is what matters, then I don't see why black bars would be an issue. Its not as if the content is cut off, and you get it unstretched. And as nomu already pointed out, current HD movie content already adds black bars even with a 16:9 screen, yet I don't see anyone complaining about that.

I can only see it as a problem if you're easily distracted?

(c) small pc displays are cheaper better suited for both purposes than televisions for people on a budget. Most quality manufacturers like Sony and Samsung don't even bother offering small tvs, you have to buy craptastic dynex or something.
Click to expand...

If you're already buying on a budget then why would getting a Dynex be a problem? The quality of computer monitors at the same price point would be equal to or worse than the Dynex anyway. Also, dedicated computer monitors are better suited for both? Really? I can't think of a few of reasons why that's not true:

First, even the 'craptastic Dynex' you brought up have built-in HDTV tuners. So if you're jonesing to watch OTA DTV or your HD cable television, all you have to do is plug in your coax and you're good to go. Most computer monitors don't have this, so you'd have to rely on an internal or external HDTV tuner and all the potential driver and HDCP bullshit that goes with it. Computer monitors that DO have this (like, say, Samsung's T240/T260 series) are advertised as, surprise surprise, HDTVs.

Second, besides having multiple native HDMI ports (in comparison to most cheap computer monitors that have 1 along with a DVI port, which would require an adapter), even cheap HDTVs typically sport several legacy analog inputs like composite, component, or S-Video for plugging in your old VCR, DVD player or game console. Good luck getting that on a cheap computer monitor, unless you have a VGA adapter for those which are pretty difficult to come by.

Third, a remote control, which NO computer monitor comes with. This allows you to sit back at a distance (which is what you're supposed to do to best appreciate HD content) and still have control. To get this on a computer you'd have to get it paired with the above mentioned 3rd party TV tuner, and again you have potential conflicts and driver bullshit to deal with.

On top of that, you can still use one of the native HDMI ports to plug in your PC and use your LCD TV as a monitor.

So, there you go. If you think about it, an HDTV is actually BETTER than a computer monitor for use as a TV and a monitor. Most cheap, dedicated computer monitors lack the features that would make it an effective television. In other words, a computer monitor is only good....at being a computer monitor (which should go without saying). The only advantage the monitor holds over the HDTV is that it has a higher resolution at the same screen size (24-inch and 26-inch HDTVs are all 720p). But hey, if proper aspect ratio is your primary concern, than 720p (the actual resolution is usually 1366x768 anyway, which would still require stretching or black bars) is fine. Most HD content, outside of Blu-ray movies, is 720p anyway, and it doesn't make any sense to pair an expensive Blu-ray player with a cheapie screen.

The industry has to pick a frame to mass produce, and it makes no sense to continue picking some arbitrary deviation that no content is designed for. The bloody end. Why not 16:11? Why not 16:16? Why not 16:82? This is nonsense, you are arguing nonsense. We had uniformity between the markets with 4:3 and we're doing it again with widescreen.
Click to expand...

The thing is, the 16:9 transition is only happening with 1920x1200 --> 1920x1080. They're STILL cheerfully pumping out brand new 1680x1050 monitors. If the industry really gave a crap about a universal aspect ratio to push forward, they'd have phased that out and switched over to 1280x720 (or 1366x768) a long time ago (much to the fury of PC users everywhere, I assure you). On top of that, the transition only encompasses monitors at a certain price point (around $250 and below by the looks of it). Again, if they actually gave a crap about pushing forward a universal aspect ratio ALL monitors at ALL price points would be getting shifted over. That's not happening.
 
Last edited:
FitzRoy said:
Earth to nomu:

(a) all television and console content from hereon out is 16:9.
(b) people don't always have access to their television. Could be that your kids are using the tv, could be your wife. Could be that you're at work. Could be that you're in your home office and you just want to stream some baseball game highlights without getting up, walking to the fucking living room, and turning on your tv to get the proper aspect. If your monitor is 16:9, you can conveniently enjoy the same content without stupid black bars or stretching.
(c) small pc displays are cheaper better suited for both purposes than televisions for people on a budget. Most quality manufacturers like Sony and Samsung don't even bother offering small tvs, you have to buy craptastic dynex or something.
(d) Many games like Starcraft are likely to use a single frame type to avoid fairness issues in competition. If one player can see more map than another player at one time, that's an unfair advantage. Digital cameras take photos of a certain frame. They're not going to choose a frame that cuts off info when viewed on the living room tv for the whole family to see.
Click to expand...

a) Yeah, big surprise?
b) Oh no, if that and that and that you might end up with black bars - the horror. If you actually bought a decent monitor it might not be such an outrage.
c) Quality manufacturers like Sony and Samsung? Sony doesn't even make monitors anymore and Samsung barely makes anything but TN coupled with the worst stands imaginable, so much for quality.
d) Yeah, and what frame (for a computer game) do they choose? 16:10 or 4:3. Either way - 16:9 will be left out, as of now at least.

FitzRoy said:
The industry has to pick a frame to mass produce, and it makes no sense to continue picking some arbitrary deviation that no content is designed for. The bloody end. Why not 16:11? Why not 16:16? Why not 16:82? This is nonsense, you are arguing nonsense. We had uniformity between the markets with 4:3 and we're doing it again with widescreen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you mean the nice uniformity we had with 4:3 and (the ever so stupid) 5:4, yeah those were the times.

If all you're gonna do is watch series and play console-games you can ditch the computer all together. If you are going to sacrifice the usability of your computer monitor just because your TV-content won't fill the screen without black bars, then by all means - go 16:9. The popularity of 16:9 however mainly comes from peoples ignorance and the constant push to buy the cheapest crap you can find, no matter what.

I've got a 16:9 23" monitor alongside my 20" 16:10 monitor right now, it's absolutely ridiculous. People think of 23" as a cheap 24" when in fact it's just a poor 20". And with that in mind they are quite expensive as well, at least for what you get.
 
Brahmzy said:
I'd love it. I cannot stand using my 24" 1920x1200 on my secondary box after using my 30" er on my main box. I HATE big pixels.

I'd snatch up a 2560x1600 27"er in a heart beat. Text is fine to me, but I do sit rather close sometimes. Bring it. Ain't gonna happen, but bring it.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think it would be lovely. The dot pitch would be phenomenal, the size would be just about right not to be too big to fit on the desk, imo. And for the people afraid that the text would be too small, Windows has font scaling. I use 96>120 dpi so that I can see everything just fine.

Dell 2710WFP 2560x1600, E-IPS, HDMI, DVI, VGA, adjustable stand, 2209wa-like input lag, and at a sub $700 tag would be really really nice.
 
Dell Germany seems to be taking orders for the UltraSharp U2410 if you are an "Enterprise" customer, and there seems to have been some field test of this monitor in large corporations in Germany.

Tim
 
I refuse to lose 10% of my vertical screenspace just because some 1% of the purchasers out there want to use their monitor as a TV.

TV's are great in 1080, I have a few of them. But losing 10% of my vertical forces a device to suffer at it's main job (being a monitor) in order to avoid the black bars that are used on it's vastly tertiary duty, viewing 1080 content.

This was done to save costs. Its dumb. And by appealing to the cheap folks who can't afford a TV in addition to a monitor they are alienating the folks who actually have money to spend on both. That is also dumb.

But that is why this is being done on the cheap end of the spectrum. The mid and upper end of the spectrum is now moving to 30" because even 1200 isn't enough vertical.
 
As someone who prefers 4:3, which is much better for real work, a 16:10 is already a compromise. 16:9 is ludicrous. One should not need to move their head to look at a monitor.
 
tdoran1 said:
It seems that everyone here wants to start a new thread for each new model, so I gather this one is rather "dead".

However these are the official Dell specifications for the new UltraSharp U2410:

http://www1.jp.dell.com/jp/ja/busin...aspx?refid=monitor-dell-u2410&s=bsd&cs=jpbsd1


Tim
Click to expand...

I can't read kanji... The main things I see are 110% color gamut, so it's a wide gamut monitor. Boo. And 80000:1 dynamic contrast ratio is meaningless. We all know monitors pretty much max out at 1000:1 static contrast. If this monitor is retailing in the $750 price point, it's unlikely to outsell the 2408FPW. Input lag of course is unlisted. Monitor manufacturers should start including that info by default AND per output.

I noticed that it was not given the WFP designation so there's still hope that the 2410WFP would still be useful to us.

PS Can we keep the 16:10 vs 16:9 eternal debate in a separate sticky made just for that alone?
 
DELL US admits existence of UltraSharp U2410!

Today, Dell's Forum Moderator Chris M. stated this about the Dell UltraSharp U2410:

"...that it was released to sell on 8/7/2009 but it does not specify regions."

More details to follow. . . Also pressing to obtain details on Dell UltraSharp U2710!

Tim
 
tdoran1 said:
DELL US admits existence of UltraSharp U2410!

Today, Dell's Forum Moderator Chris M. stated this about the Dell UltraSharp U2410:

"...that it was released to sell on 8/7/2009 but it does not specify regions."

More details to follow. . . Also pressing to obtain details on Dell UltraSharp U2710!

Tim
Click to expand...

Tim can you confirm that the U series is replacing the WFP series or can we expect to see a line of 2X10WFPs in addition to the U series?
 
tdoran1 said:
DELL US admits existence of UltraSharp U2410!

Today, Dell's Forum Moderator Chris M. stated this about the Dell UltraSharp U2410:

"...that it was released to sell on 8/7/2009 but it does not specify regions."

More details to follow. . . Also pressing to obtain details on Dell UltraSharp U2710!

Tim
Click to expand...



Wow! Wide color gamut though...
 
Any idea how much yet?

EDIT: Never mind I saw the price $750 forget it. Its to bad Dell went that high. They could have released a E-IPS 24 inch for around $400 and it would have sold like hotcakes. I bet this LCD will be very small in sales....
 
^I for one will seriously consider this monitor if the reviews of it are good. If there are coupons around, this will make it an even better price. I would have gotten the Apple 24", but according to them my DVI Macbook Pro is obsolete.
 
zod96 said:
EDIT: Never mind I saw the price $750 forget it. Its to bad Dell went that high.
Click to expand...

People must not know that the cost of living in Japan is high, and their electronics are also equally high priced. They're able to produce very little in comparison to the US or a lot of other countries on their own, especially in electronics. The NA price will be a lot different, probably closer to $525 as Tim said in either this thread or another. Dell is smarter than that.

Now if only we could convince Dell that Wide Gamut is a no-no for most people.
 
Senryo said:
People must not know that the cost of living in Japan is high, and their electronics are also equally high priced. They're able to produce very little in comparison to the US or a lot of other countries on their own, especially in electronics. The NA price will be a lot different, probably closer to $525 as Tim said in either this thread or another. Dell is smarter than that.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it will go that low. These seems to be dells first stab at a "pro" monitor with 12 bit LUTs, factory calibration, I think this will always be more expensive than a 2408wfp.
 
Snowdog said:
I don't know if it will go that low. These seems to be dells first stab at a "pro" monitor with 12 bit LUTs, factory calibration, I think this will always be more expensive than a 2408wfp.
Click to expand...

You can be pretty sure that the MSRP for the US for the new Dell UltraSharp U2410 will be at or near $ 699.00; but as we all know Dell sells a very small percentage of any of their products at their posted list price. Coupons and other discount always “factor-in”, to reduce the average selling price, and I am sure that Dell looks at this as a “rolling” six-month adjusted average number, much like the US airlines do, to increase market share, keep inventory low, and average retailing price as high as possible.

What I have posted elsewhere, it seems that Dell has had a serious disagreement or falling-out with Samsung several month ago, probably at or near the Winter CES (Consumer Electronic Show – January 2009). Dell now seems to be pulling away from using almost any Samsung panels and in turn probably struck a very favorable deal with LGD (LG Display) to use solely or mostly LGD panels. And in turn, Dell was “rewarded” with extremely aggressive pricing for LGD panels, and “first availability”. Coupling those facts and that Dell has tremendous Asian manufacturing capabilities and resources, the cost of manufacturer for the Dell UltraSharp U2410 could even be lower or much lower that the comparable HP LP2475w.

Given the above paragraph, that would mean that the Dell UltraSharp U2410 could probably be sold “retail” below $ 500.00, but it is doubtful that such would happen for the first six months or so. Then there is the question of how much Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP inventory there is available, actual cost of manufacturer, cost of money, as the two will exist for a few months (through the holiday period) I do not foresee a massive “dump at all cost” blow out for the Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP.

Also Dell wants to avoid the artificially low average retail selling price that happened with the Dell UltraSharp 2209WA, where the combination of coupons and discounts just went wrong (for Dell).

Dell is aware that the HP LP2475w is or about $ 525.00 through US websellers, but with the holiday period, and shortage of availability, Dell may try to run a tad higher, say with an average retail of about $ 550.00, quickly dropping after the New Year’s to $ 525.00 or slightly lower as the usual slow months for computer items begins. If LGE does import their 24” model into the US, this could make a real mess for everyone, and there will then probably be a “free for all” grab for market share, subject only to availability with massive retail price erosion.

Tim :cool:
 
rosh said:
Do u expect that the LCD will be released this week?
Click to expand...

Dell UltraSharp U2410 should be US "price-able" next week, availability is questionable, but there is "stock", just the question of when it will be "released for shipment".


Tim
 
Is it a good idea that going from 2408wfp to u2410 by spending may be additional couple of hundreds?. Can we expect a good homogeneity of the backlight and no pink tint?
 
tdoran1 said:
Dell is aware that the HP LP2475w is or about $ 525.00 through US websellers, but with the holiday period, and shortage of availability, Dell may try to run a tad higher, say with an average retail of about $ 550.00, quickly dropping after the New Year’s to $ 525.00 ...
Click to expand...

I doubt it this time. This is more full featured panel than the 2475w. Things that add significantly to price even more than the better hardware (12bit LUTs) is the individual treatment each panel gets with a factory calibration.

There may be room for a basic 2209wa type panel in 24" to undercut both the 2475 and the new U2410 or I can hope so... But I see the u2410 panel keeping a fairly high premium.
 
Snowdog said:
I doubt it this time. This is more full featured panel than the 2475w. Things that add significantly to price even more than the better hardware (12bit LUTs) is the individual treatment each panel gets with a factory calibration.

There may be room for a basic 2209wa type panel in 24" to undercut both the 2475 and the new U2410 or I can hope so... But I see the u2410 panel keeping a fairly high premium.
Click to expand...

I am a "reseller", and have been for almost thirty years, I know what HP carries the LP2475w on it books for, and it "real cost" (though I cannot say through NDA); if Dell wanted to they could go with the same 2408 pricing with the 2410 and still laugh all the way to the bank.

I think what you saw last week with OnSale and the LP2475w a selling under $ 400.00, was not a "mistake", but a deliberate "test market" sampling by HP US. This is all I can legally say about this now.

From another source outside Dell, but another way to pretty exactly count returns, the 2408 and 2709 are rather "expensive" to support to Dell, so the testing of the 2410 may reduce this issue to a degree. You hear the issues in these and other similar forums, they are just not a "one off" issue.

The big unknown here is LG Electronics, and if either their 22" or 24", or both models are imported into the US, an all out "war" could begin, but I believe availability is going to be a limiting factory here, and HP may have an upper hand here by stockpiling panels for the last few months. I also believe that LGD corporate Korea has pressured LG corporate Korea not to allow LGE NA (US @ NJ) to import either model.

I am hearing that the 2209WA will be "refreshed", but no firm details, all seem to indicate that a HDMI interface will be included, resolution is another issue that may change and is not yet clear.


Tim
 
Sounds like the only way we don't win is in price, but somehow it'll work out
 
Senryo said:
Sounds like the only way we don't win is in price, but somehow it'll work out
Click to expand...

Not for the first few months, but some great values probably will be had later this coming winter after the holidays, and depending on how the economy is, how much Dell wants to grab market share.

Tim
 
I was totally waiting for Dell to release a 24 inch like the 2209WA at a good price. This new 24 inch falls far far from that....If its 12 bit I wouldn't be surprised if it sells for well over $1000 and in today's economy that is pure madness
 
tdoran1 said:
I am hearing that the 2209WA will be "refreshed", but no firm details, all seem to indicate that a HDMI interface will be included, resolution is another issue that may change and is not yet clear.
Click to expand...

Where did you hear this? If you heard about it on the web, then I'd like the link please.
 
Whoisthisreally said:
Where did you hear this? If you heard about it on the web, then I'd like the link please.
Click to expand...

In some of the Dell forums, the U2210W model number has appeared, no main details as yet, but it seems like all will come together sometime this week, odd that there has been no official press release, yet there are internal memo's regarding the U2410 (and ?others?).

Just one example is the following URL:

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&oc=MLB1036&s=biz

And note toward the bottom what Dell has to say:

Mounting Options
Mounting options ship separately from system. Monitor mount only supported on select Dell monitors – UltraSharp 2410W, 2210W, 1909W and Entry E Series E2209W, E2009W, E1909W, E1709.



Seems like Dell is just getting all it web pages and web sites lined up.

Tim
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top