Dell 30" or Westy 37"?

S

SelRahc

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
389
OMG I hate decisions like this...... ~_~

Ok so its time to get a new monitor. I want to go with a bigboy and the 2 monitors I am looking at are the 30" from Dell and the 37" from Westinghouse. I have heard great things about both.... and im having a hard time deciding /cry

Here are some of the pros and cons (as relative only to eachother) that I can think of in my case:

Dell 30"
Pros:
Higher resolution 2560 x 1600
Better warranty I think.
Dude, its a dell.

Cons:
Can't use as a HDTV monitor I dont think.
30" < 37"
I will need to upgrade my rig in order to support the full resolution. To me that means build a whole new computer as I hate just "upgrading". (con? lol)
Fewer inputs.

Westy 37"
Pros:
True HD Monitor 1080p so I can use it with my HD reciever. Can also move into livingroom later if I desire.
37" > 30"
No need to upgrade computer. (pro? lol)
Many inputs.

Cons:
Lower resolution. 1920 x 1080

I have heard fairly great things about these 2 monitors. The dell's resolution is awsome. Even if its a lower resolution, the westy is still 37" of in your face awsomeness. With monitor prices for these 2 being about the same, I am really torn here.

What do you all think? Anyone out there by chance own both and have an opinion as to which is better? I look at the dell and say thats the one, then I look at the westy and say thats the one. Man I hate decisions like this...... and no, I cant get both ;;
 
Well depends on what you're using you system for...

If you only play games and watch movies then I'd say go for the 37".... If also you do a lot of desktop work on your pc (multitasking basically) then I think you're better of with the 30"
 
Having a lower res than 2500x1600 is not a con - its a pro. You cannot play newer games at that res (older games yes) unless quad SLI can provide the horse power when it comes out (does not matter what rig you build). If you are not a gamer, you probably wont see a ton of difference other than size.
 
SelRahc said:
O
I will need to upgrade my rig in order to support the full resolution. To me that means build a whole new computer as I hate just "upgrading". (con? lol)
Click to expand...

You are just upgrading your monitor aren't ya? Kinda throws your whole build a new computer whn upgrading theory out the window unless you subconciously are already planning a new rig.

Anyway, your GPU doesn't support Dual-Link DVI, or are you worried about trying to run games at full res? From what I have seen graphics scale nicely at non-naitive resolutions on the 3007. I wouldn't try it for text though.

Also why not the 42in Westy?
 
apcor said:
Having a lower res than 2500x1600 is not a con - its a pro. You cannot play newer games at that res (older games yes) unless quad SLI can provide the horse power when it comes out (does not matter what rig you build). If you are not a gamer, you probably wont see a ton of difference other than size.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the scaling pics in the main 3007 thread? From what I can tell they look good. I think your point is invalid.
 
I only wish I were in the position you're in, and have two such nice choices to choose from. Personally I think you can't go wrong with either. But then that's not very helpful of me, is it? ;)
 
it all depends on how far away you're planning on sitting from your monitor

0-3 feet and i'd get a 30"
3.5-however far you want and the 37" will be perfect as the text won't be too big and the screendoor is gone, where the 30" im guessing you certainly couldnt read a web page across the room

i find 3.5-6 feet to be the most comfortable distance from my westy
 
The monitor is a "upgrade" in a sence I guess. I just done see it like that I guess as its a more long-term purchase. I am the type that hates to upgrade only internal stuff. 1 upgrade ends up being a chain reaction lol. If I get the dell Ill need a new video card, which nmeans a new MB, Processor, Memory etc etc lol. Not that its a bad thing... ;)

My rig is for gaming, videos and work. More gaming than anything else. I know that my video card (x800xt) cant drive the dell at full res... thats for sure. If I got the dell I would hafta run below native for a few weeks. Are you saying that even the best duel SLI cant drive the resolution with newer games? Farcry @ 2500 would be sweet.

Either monitor would be sitting on my desk. If I got the westy it would sit about 3 ft away. Any closer and Id probably go blind. :cool: The dell probably the same or alittle closer.

Hey Cesium, did your westy come in good condition? No dead mixels or anything? How does it perform for games, especially FPS. Anything you dont like about your westy?

You can get a dell 30" for alittle over 1500$ these days. Indecision was always my biggest weakness..... /cry They are both so nice :) I wonder if my wife would be upset at a TV and computer monitor upgrade at the same time? LOL :D
 
SLi will easily do it for games like BF2 , CSS,even Call of Duty 2 . He was referring to Unreal 07 and Crysis, the up and coming ones. These games will be playable as well but not with all available options on. I have been running dual 7900gtx sc on my 30 and for the short time they both worked , it was bliss. I am awaiting an rma card to return to sli and eventually i will post fraps using that config in the Dell 30 thread if i ever get two working cards together before Quad arrives.
 
I own both and would have to say I love my Dell 30" more. I was using the Westy as a monitor for a while but have just been using it for the past 2 months as a TV only. The next computer I'll hook up to it will be a Vista MCE box. I'd tell you to go with the Dell 30" unless you're really looking for more inputs and can't wait for the BenQ coming later this year. As should be expected, if you get the Dell, you're going to have to drop some chunks of money every year to keep it running all the games nicely.
 
I own a Westy W1, a couple co-workers own the Dell 30". Mine and one of the 30's are used primarily for gaming and movies, the other 30" is for work with occasional entertainment.

Both of the Dell guys had the same opinion after trying out my Westy...for gaming and movies, my 37" was a better experience, and both raved about their Dells before seeing my Westy in action.

They came to this conclusion partly because of the extra size/immersion factor for movies and games, and partly because at native resolution I got better gaming framerates, smoother gameplay and subjectively better IQ, though granted both Dell guys are running Nvidia SLI setups (7800GTX and 7900GTX) and I'm running X1900 Crossfire.

One guy stated that the "wow, it's so big" factor between the Dell and the Westy was the same as he got when moving from a 24" Dell to the 30".

He was the same one that thought that 1920x1080 at 37" was a better desktop resolution at 3 feet than 2560x1600 was at 1.5-2 feet, in terms of readability and fatigue. Then again, the other thought it was just "too clowny big" to suit his tastes when not gaming (that guy multi-tasks like a fool, 20+ apps/windows open at one time, but what can I say, he's a coder, and he's talking about getting ANOTHER 30" to run on the same rig).

Don't get me wrong, the Dell is one helluva monitor, and for "real" work, it's clearly superior, with more pixel real estate, and does more than an adequate job at gaming and movies. But it takes a lot of horsepower to run games at native res, and no matter what some people might say, it DOES look worse when you scale it down, except at 1280x800. And who wants to spend $1600+ to play at 1280x800?

Personally, (and I have 20/20 uncorrected vision), I'm not comfortable with the text and icon sizes of the Dell at 2560x1600, but then again, I wasn't comfortable with the 1920x1200 sizes with a 24" Dell 2405 either, so I'm more than happy with the Westy in that regard. I don't need that kind of pixel real estate for what I use my home PC for, generally with just a few browser windows open, an instance or two of Word, email, etc.

And now onto the multi-purpose strength of the Westy. I've got a 47" very good quality HD RPCRT upstairs in the living room, connected to a very good progressive scan DVD, and Cox Digital Cable/HD DVR with the full HD channel package. Since I bought my Westy, I now seem to watch most of my DVD's and TV down here in my office (2nd HD (non-DVR) cable box connected to the Westy via DVI #2).

That tells me a few things...one, I need a bigger HD TV upstairs, 60" at least, to compete with the percieved screen size of the 37" Westy at 3 feet. Two, I need to revamp/tweak my surround solution upstairs, the soundfield in my 10x14 office is MUCH more immersive, even though I'm using a much less expensive reciever and speaker setup downstairs. And three, the Westy is just a darned good LCD panel.

The only upside to upstairs is that the couch and recliner still rules for kicking back, and it's damned hard to entertain guests in the office. ;)
 
apcor said:
If you are not a gamer, you probably wont see a ton of difference other than size.
Click to expand...

Heh, what a fabulously misguided statement. The Dell is the far superior computer monitor, with the only exceptiomn being games. The greater res of the Dell gives massively more desktop space and a much sharper picture. The Westy makes for a pretty crap PC monitor for most purposes, the pixel pitch is way too big. The Dell is very problematical as a gaming diaply, however - you'll need masses of horsepower to drive it at native. Evevn the fastest current solutions (say, x1900 crossfire) aren't really powerful enough to handle the huge res in game slike Oblivion.
 
Cesium said:
it all depends on how far away you're planning on sitting from your monitor

0-3 feet and i'd get a 30"
3.5-however far you want and the 37" will be perfect as the text won't be too big and the screendoor is gone, where the 30" im guessing you certainly couldnt read a web page across the room

i find 3.5-6 feet to be the most comfortable distance from my westy
Click to expand...

I really dont understand this suggestion to sit a long way away from the Westy when using it as a PC monitor. Sitting further away to reduce the screen door effect and smooth out the big pixels shrinks the apparent size of the Westy and defeats the whole object, surely?

I don't doubt the Westy is better for HD video, and unless you have massive graphics power, better for games. In all other cases, the Dell is a far superior general usage PC monitor.
 
I have a 37" Westy. I sit an arms length away from mine and I love it. I don't have that great of vision (20/25 right eye, 20/50 left eye), but I do love the monitor.

If you are a gamer, DO NOT GET THE DELL. The Dell will laugh at a 7900GTX SLi or X1900XTX CF. I have enough trouble keeping my framerates high with my 7900GT SLi on my Westy(I like 2xQ AA, 4x AF, Vsync + triple buffering applied globaly :D ).
 
Hey, I worked at Best Buy and we sold lots of the Westy. I know exactly what model you are talking about, and personally I would go with the Dell. It has a better resolution, and we personally had a lot of returns on Westinghouses in general. I think Dell will give you a better warranty is something were to go wrong with it. Also, if you want to use it as an HDTV, all you have to do is pick up an HDTV TV tuner for your computer. Personally, I would go with the Dell.
 
caboosemoose said:
I really dont understand this suggestion to sit a long way away from the Westy when using it as a PC monitor. Sitting further away to reduce the screen door effect and smooth out the big pixels shrinks the apparent size of the Westy and defeats the whole object, surely?
Click to expand...

3 feet is what I've found to be the best, and that's hardly a "long way", just further than most small monitor people are used to.

Luckily, that ideal distance for me works out well, since my desk is just under 3 feet deep (with the keyboard tray extended), and with my monitor flush with the wall puts the actual screen 6.5 inches out from that. My head ends up right at 3 feet away when I'm sitting upright in my chair, for instance while typing this, and goes back as far as four feet when I'm in full-on lounge mode with my feet on a footstool and the chair reclined watching a movie or TV.

desk05.jpg


At 3 feet, it's STILL bigger in perceived size than the 30" Dell at 1.5 to 2 feet..that 7 inches is bigger than you may think. You still need to use your peripheral vision to see either side of the screen without turning your head/moving eyes (that's part of that immersion factor).

But at that distance the text is crisp and very readable, and without the screen door effect you'd get by sitting as close to it as you need to with a smaller monitor.

caboosemoose said:
I don't doubt the Westy is better for HD video, and unless you have massive graphics power, better for games. In all other cases, the Dell is a far superior general usage PC monitor.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree and disagree with that statement at the same time. Depends on the definition of general usage, which is pretty damned variable.

For an entertainment based PC and utility beyond simply being a PC monitor, the Westy has a better feature set (in terms of inputs, Faroudja deinterlacer and upconverting, so-so speakers, remote control, and of course size), while still being quite a capable PC monitor for doing actual "work" (Don't forget that 1920x1080 is still a LOT more real estate than the average desktop resolution, most folks get by with 10x7 or 12x10, and displays smaller than 20").

For a serious work rig that still likes to play, but with most or all of its input coming from the PC via DVI, then yeah, the Dell is a better choice, especially in applications like photo-editing, where a higher resolution/more pixels really matters.

Just to make this clear, I love the Dell 30". If the Westy 1080p hadn't been out there at the price point it was, I'd be reading this on my Dell 30". But the Westy was a better choice for my needs, and the fact that it ended up being cheaper was just gravy.

EDIT:

Here's a screencap, and in that picture, pretend that the entire IE window is a Dell 30", sitting in front of the desktop that is the Westy 37". That's the difference 7" diagonal makes, roughly (I may be a fraction of an inch off on any given side of the IE window).

westdell.jpg
 
I sit about 1.5' away from my 3007 and I'm pretty sure it would entire obscure a 37" westy placed behind it. I really dont see the inputs or deinterlacing being terribly relevant for a PC display - are you saying that you plug other devices into your Westy other than a PC. And when do you use the built-in deinterlacer?

I aslo can't agree with your point about the Westy's res being quite high compared with 10x7 and 12x10. For the price of the westy, you're talking at least 1,920 x 1,200 from a conventional display.

Ultimately, however, it;s horses for courses. I for one don;t really even like the 24-inch 1,920 x 1,200 displays much due to their slightly larger pixel pitch comapred with 23-inch 1,920 x 1,200, so the pixel pitch of the Westy is just totally out of the question for me as a PC display. For exclusive movie and gaming use, the Westy is the better choice, but I just can't get my head around the Westy as a PC display, simply doesn;t work for me.

Overall size isn't that big an issue - I actually find my 3007 arguably a little too big for really ergonomic use. 27 icnhes at 2,560 x 1,600 might be just about eprfect, plus you'd have a really nice tight pixel pitch.
 
never, ever will trust Westy's...


after working at best buy and seeing how many would be returned, westinghouse will have to go through a few more generations of products that don't break down before they can wash the bad taste they left in my mouth out.
 
I sit about 1.5' away from my 3007 and I'm pretty sure it would entire obscure a 37" westy placed behind it
Click to expand...

With the Dell at 1.5 feet, the Westy at 3 feet would still be peeking out 'round the sides of the Dell, clearly visible.

I really dont see the inputs or deinterlacing being terribly relevant for a PC display - are you saying that you plug other devices into your Westy other than a PC. And when do you use the built-in deinterlacer?
Click to expand...

I guess relevance is relative...as I clearly stated above, the Westy is MORE than just a big ass PC monitor, with more utility than the Dell in that regard, and I'm certainly using it as more than a PC monitor.

Take a look in the first picture in my post above, note the cable box sitting in the stack of electronics to the right? That's connected to my Westy via DVI #2 (and the DVD changer via component #1). I have 300+ cable channels, but only about 15 of them are HD, the rest are SD, and that's where the upconverting/deinterlacing comes in real handy. If I ever decided to drag it out of the closet, my Xbox would connect to Component #2, and that still leaves me an S-Video for rediscovering my old VHS pr0n collection, a composite for connecting my Mini-DV camcorder...and a VGA input if I decide to hook my laptop up to it.

That's one, two, three, (count 'em) four, five, SIX more inputs than the Dell has, and I can use every one of them..and I have LAST YEAR's model..the current W3 adds HDMI to that.

See where I was going with the "utility" aspect?

EDIT: I should also mention that I can PiP any two inputs (in three different sizes and ANYWHERE on the screen), or side-by-side them, or one large and one small side by side. I'm watching HBO HD in the picture above, PiP in the upper right, for example

I aslo can't agree with your point about the Westy's res being quite high compared with 10x7 and 12x10. For the price of the westy, you're talking at least 1,920 x 1,200 from a conventional display.
Click to expand...

We're not talking price comparison with a $300 monitor here, we're talking usability...people saying that a Westy's desktop resolution is "too small" in comparison to a 3007..I was just pointing out that the delta between "average" desktop resolution and the Westy's 1920x1080 is about the same or greater than the delta between 1920x1080 and 2560x1600. 1920x1080 is NOT small.

Ultimately, however, it;s horses for courses. I for one don;t really even like the 24-inch 1,920 x 1,200 displays much due to their slightly larger pixel pitch comapred with 23-inch 1,920 x 1,200, so the pixel pitch of the Westy is just totally out of the question for me as a PC display. For exclusive movie and gaming use, the Westy is the better choice, but I just can't get my head around the Westy as a PC display, simply doesn;t work for me.
Click to expand...

And as I said earlier, *I* feel the pixel pitch and resolution of the Dell 3007 is too small to be as comfortable for me as the Westy is, for what I'm using it for. And that's not just based on looking at screenshots, that's with hands-on (eyes on?) use. I had problems with the 2405 for the same reason...and I have good eyesight. And I have to ask, have you actually SEEN a Westinghouse LVM37-Wx used as a PC monitor IN PERSON? If not, you may be surprised.

I guess that's why there's an ass for every seat, as we used to say down at the used car lot.
 
Ihave heard of earlier problems with westys, especially the models of before. I havent heard of too many problems at all with the 37" m3. Then again it hasn't been out that long. I have seen it in BB but ont as a computer monitor. If I had a laptop id take it to BB to check it out. (anyone in the orlando area using a westy as a monitor? ;) )

I can say for sure my use would be Games > Movies / Work. Besides web surfing the only real text I look at would be in WoW lol. I do plan on doing a whole new system in July when the new Intels come out. Hopefully quad sli will be out by then too.... do I don't think the dell would give me too much trouble by that time lol.
 
I've seen a 37-inch 1080 LCD running in desktop mode, had one in the office for a month or so, it wasn't a Westy but would have had the same pixel pitch more or less, obviously, and pixel pitch and res is my only complaint about the Westy.

I also think you're wrong about the westy sticking out when placed1.5' behind the Dell at my 1.5' viewing distance. I don't think it would. Either way, there wouldn't be much in it, which for me defeats the object of the extra size (it defintiely defeats it a bit, since you are having to sit further away, that's not debatable).

For me extra pixels is key. For PC use, a bigger display with far fewer pixels simply offers less utility.
 
PC displays used to do interlaced on CRT at one point ;). (showing me age).

anyway, to the original guy, it depends on how much time you intend to spend computing or gaming. with just work, Dells are made for that because of the extra lines of resolution for the height. but if you game, watch movies more than you work, than westy it is. you can't have it both ways =^).
 
Not really misguided at all. Dell 30" is not a "far superior Monitor" especially when you consider the updated 37"lvm3. Check the specs for yourself. Plus there are plenty of owners who would disagree with you the that Westy makes a "crap PC monitor". Pixel pitch is subjective to where you are sitting whether or not you will see a difference. So depending on the application you wont see a "ton" of difference. I did not say you would not see a difference. If you are into desktop real estate and video editing sure you will notice a difference at 2500x1600. HD movies and gaming are tough to do even as you state on the 3007. General pupose there would be no stark contrast other than size.

caboosemoose said:
Heh, what a fabulously misguided statement. The Dell is the far superior computer monitor, with the only exceptiomn being games. The greater res of the Dell gives massively more desktop space and a much sharper picture. The Westy makes for a pretty crap PC monitor for most purposes, the pixel pitch is way too big. The Dell is very problematical as a gaming diaply, however - you'll need masses of horsepower to drive it at native. Evevn the fastest current solutions (say, x1900 crossfire) aren't really powerful enough to handle the huge res in game slike Oblivion.
Click to expand...
 
apcor said:
General pupose there would be no stark contrast other than size.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are contradicting yourself. There is a stark difference other than size:

1. Resolution - the Dell has literally double the number of pixels.
2. Pixel pitch - the Westy has pixels approaching double the size.

On the latter point, you can't argue that if you sit further away you offset the pixel pitch coarseness at the same time as not conceeding that the sitting further away concels out the size advantage to some degree. Sorry, but the Dell 3007 very definitely IS the far superior computer monitor. That doesn't mean it's the best display, but it is a superior PC monitor. It seems that some people think that gaming is the only function for a PC display. I'm a gamer but I'm realistic enough to know that gaming is very much a niche activity on the PC - and that's why the 3007 is the far superior display. The higher res and finer pitch gives it an advantage in the vast majority of PC usage models. I also realise that I only spend about 5% of my time on gaming, so the productivity advantages of the 3007 massively outweigh any drawbacks.
 
I vote for the Westinghouse. I use it as a PC display. I think people are really overstating the pixel pitch. At even 2.5' back it's just fine. People make it sound like the pixels are effin huge. They are not. I do not notice screendoor with this display unless I'm sitting damn close to it. And this is coming from someone who had a 2001FP and noticed screendoor immediately.

For movies, gaming, and any other basic PC use the Westinghouse 37W3 is the way to go IME. If you are a serious about photoshop or CAD then you might consider the higher resolution (but smaller) displays.

Read avsforums if you want more info. There are HUGE threads there on both the 37W3 and 37W1. And also 42W2. The 37W3 isn't perfect but it doesn't have quite the same QC issues the 37W1 had.
 
The Dell will actually have more space, because it has higher resolution. You could look at a picture that would take up the entire screen on the Westinghouse and have plenty of room on the Dell. The Westinghouse's drastically lower size to resolution make don't suit it for being viewed up so close. Infact the Dell could be positioned to take up more of your field of view than the Westinghouse because of it's higher resolution. The Westinghouse would work much better as as a mixture between a monitor and a TV however. If you can just swing the price of Westinghouse and don't plan on upgrading your hard ware when DX 10 comes out get that. If you can afford a 3007fpw, you can afford two G80 or R600's in crossfire/SLi when they come out, and that's what you'll need to run it. The 3007fpw comes with a higher price tag and higher game requirements, but also much better image quality. The 3007 fpw is not a good choice as a TV though, so if you plan to use it as a much go with the Westinghouse. However if you're just using it as a PC monitor and have the money the 3007 is better for you.
 
JediFonger said:
PC displays used to do interlaced on CRT at one point ;). (showing me age).
Click to expand...

It hasn't been all that long. I was so happy in 1999 (just seven yrs ago) when I bought my new 19" KDS monitor that could go up to 1600x1200 NI.

It had just replaced an NEC monitor that could only go up to 1280x1024 (which was really pushing it!), the image was interlaced (actually a friend laughed that it looked like the screen was actually only 512 pixels vertical, and was just swapping the display...)

Did I mention the refresh rate of 48?

Ugh. Sometimes it is disgusting to remember the days of being broke...

FWIW - at a refresh of 48 (or whatever low low number it what), your monitor doesn't look so much like a computer image as much as it will resemble a strobe light!
 
I would vote for a larger DLP or LCos monitor over the Westinghouse.

I have a Sony SVD 60" with a HTPC attached. It games nicely at a 3-4' viewing position. Many of the recently released DLP sets can be had at great prices compared to LCD or plaama panels.

The idea of having a finer pixel resolution is to permit more information on the screen subsequently a closer viewing position (Yes, I realize there is a bit more to it than that.). What is the sense of 37" if you need to sit 3 feet away to cancel the SDE. At that point, consider a 20" widescreen monitor and pull up your chair.

I will be purchasing a Dell 30" very soon, unless someone can suggest a reason to wait for a soon to come larger or sharper option.

Have a great evening
 
To the original poster:
Ask yourself how you like to sit when you work / game on the computer. Do you sit back? Or do you sit forward. That subtle difference by itself could be the deciding factor on this whole debate. If you hunch over your computer montior, you might want the dell. If you sit back and relax while you are at your computer then perhaps you should try the westy.

We generally conform ourselves to the computer we own. Why not conform the computer to what you want to do.
 
The Westy is a nice display, I have the 37w1 and though there are some minor faults with it I could never see going down to a 30" screen anymore. Ive had mine for 8 months with no major trouble yet. The price at Best Buy this week on this monitor is unbeatable.
 
1. Resolution - You wont be using 2560x1200 in any new game or movie now or most likely in the future (unless you are v-editing or quad sli matures substantially) so whats the point. General purpose - I have a 27" monitor and I dont even like to look at text at 1280x1024. I could just imagine trying to read text at 2560x1200 with binoculars.

2. Pixel pitch - May be double the size but you will be sitting back 2X the distance from the screen unless you want to go blind. Subjective to viewer taste and maybe valid point, but does not fly as "far superior".


caboosemoose said:
Sorry, but you are contradicting yourself. There is a stark difference other than size:

1. Resolution - the Dell has literally double the number of pixels.
2. Pixel pitch - the Westy has pixels approaching double the size.

On the latter point, you can't argue that if you sit further away you offset the pixel pitch coarseness at the same time as not conceeding that the sitting further away concels out the size advantage to some degree. Sorry, but the Dell 3007 very definitely IS the far superior computer monitor. That doesn't mean it's the best display, but it is a superior PC monitor. It seems that some people think that gaming is the only function for a PC display. I'm a gamer but I'm realistic enough to know that gaming is very much a niche activity on the PC - and that's why the 3007 is the far superior display. The higher res and finer pitch gives it an advantage in the vast majority of PC usage models. I also realise that I only spend about 5% of my time on gaming, so the productivity advantages of the 3007 massively outweigh any drawbacks.
Click to expand...
 
i have a 37" 1080p sceptre on the way should be here tomarrow, it should be almost the same as the westly, ill take close up pics if you want.
 
I would get the 3007 because I would use applications/programs that will benefit it, but yeah if you want HD then get the Westy.

3007 FTW !!! :D
 
Croak said:
...
That's one, two, three, (count 'em) four, five, SIX more inputs than the Dell has, and I can use every one of them..and I have LAST YEAR's model..the current W3 adds HDMI to that.
...
Click to expand...

personally, I'm looking for a monitor, not a Swiss Army Knife (going to get the Dell 24" or 30" - depends on the income side of things..) Pixel pitch is most important to me.
 
apcor said:
1. Resolution - You wont be using 2560x1200 in any new game or movie now or most likely in the future (unless you are v-editing or quad sli matures substantially) so whats the point. General purpose - I have a 27" monitor and I dont even like to look at text at 1280x1024. I could just imagine trying to read text at 2560x1200 with binoculars.
Click to expand...

What's the point? More open windows to do more things at once. You can have your web browser (or multiple browser windows), IM app, some tv show playing in a window or a dvd or something, word processor opened up if you are trying to get some work done too, etc.

I know when I am on my computer at least, I am generally doing many things at once, it is very rare that 1 app fills the whole screen. Desktop real-estate is always at a premium, the more pixels, the better.
 
jen4950 said:
personally, I'm looking for a monitor, not a Swiss Army Knife (going to get the Dell 24" or 30" - depends on the income side of things..) Pixel pitch is most important to me.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I stated like three times in this thread that if you're looking for purely a monitor, connected only to your PC, the 3007 is probably a better choice.

But as a versatile entertainment display that can still be used for credible productivity, the Westy is hard to beat.

Just as a silly example, I had Lone Wolf McQuade via VHS playing in a PiP window while installing Vista yesterday evening (and Vista in a PiP while watching LWMq as the main). It made my lengthy Vista install a lot more entertaining.

Granted, you can do that with a 2405 too, but Chuck Norris does NOT like it when he's that small, even if he does have more pixels. ;)
 
apcor said:
1. Resolution - You wont be using 2560x1200 in any new game or movie now or most likely in the future (unless you are v-editing or quad sli matures substantially) so whats the point. General purpose - I have a 27" monitor and I dont even like to look at text at 1280x1024. I could just imagine trying to read text at 2560x1200 with binoculars.

2. Pixel pitch - May be double the size but you will be sitting back 2X the distance from the screen unless you want to go blind. Subjective to viewer taste and maybe valid point, but does not fly as "far superior".
1. Resolution - You wont be using 2560x1200 in any new game or movie now or most likely in the future (unless you are v-editing or quad sli matures substantially) so whats the point. General purpose - I have a 27" monitor and I dont even like to look at text at 1280x1024. I could just imagine trying to read text at 2560x1200 with binoculars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by caboosemoose
Sorry, but you are contradicting yourself. There is a stark difference other than size:

1. Resolution - the Dell has literally double the number of pixels.
2. Pixel pitch - the Westy has pixels approaching double the size.

On the latter point, you can't argue that if you sit further away you offset the pixel pitch coarseness at the same time as not conceeding that the sitting further away concels out the size advantage to some degree. Sorry, but the Dell 3007 very definitely IS the far superior computer monitor. That doesn't mean it's the best display, but it is a superior PC monitor. It seems that some people think that gaming is the only function for a PC display. I'm a gamer but I'm realistic enough to know that gaming is very much a niche activity on the PC - and that's why the 3007 is the far superior display. The higher res and finer pitch gives it an advantage in the vast majority of PC usage models. I also realise that I only spend about 5% of my time on gaming, so the productivity advantages of the 3007 massively outweigh any drawbacks.
Last edited by apcor : Today at 05:30 AM.
Click to expand...

Jesus, did you even read a word I posted?

In general, Croak has it right - he's a Westy owner who can see the strengths and weaknesses.
 
Yes I did read.

I have no problem with what Croak is saying. He is not calling the 3007 "far superior". "Probably a better choice" in one situation, and "Westy is hard to beat" in the other. You argument is not on those terms. I am not arguing in favor of either because it depends what apps you will be using that determines which is best.
caboosemoose said:
Jesus, did you even read a word I posted?

In general, Croak has it right - he's a Westy owner who can see the strengths and weaknesses.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top