Best 27" Monitor F. U.

[WHiiP]

I *really* like my 27" iMac . . . ecret:

[Black]

WHiiP wrote:
I *really* like my 27" iMac . . . ecret:

No Vesa mount, and I'm not sure my mini would be interested in driving it.

[Black]

Buck wrote:
I will be inheriting the boss's 32" Plasma. I hope it's 1080p.
The wall is about 4 feet behind the desk, making the viewing distance about 7 feet depending on how far I lean back. I'll have to adjust the height so I can look over my toes when my feet are on the desk.

Got a 1080p TV now (a 24")-- doesn't cut the mustard.

[Black]

mattkime wrote:
$690 shipped. I got lucky. Sometimes impulse buys are good.

Great. Now anything short of a 30" IPS panel for $690 is going to suck.

[Trouble]

Black wrote:
[quote=mattkime]
$690 shipped. I got lucky. Sometimes impulse buys are good.

Great. Now anything short of a 30" IPS panel for $690 is going to suck.
I mentioned where to get one for $800. You said you didn't want the size or heat. I think he has the 3007wfp, not the 30008wfp. Oh, and if you get a monitor with a resolution higher than 1920x1200, you are going to need an Apple DisplayPort -> Dual Link DVI adapter. Runs about $100. That is assuming you have a mac mini with a displayport. Older mac minis only support single link dvi.

I was in the market for a new monitor and I was thinking about getting the dell u2410. But why spend $500 for a monitor when I can get the absolute best, and double the resolution, for $300 more?

[Black]

Trouble wrote:
[quote=Black]
[quote=mattkime]
$690 shipped. I got lucky. Sometimes impulse buys are good.

Great. Now anything short of a 30" IPS panel for $690 is going to suck.
I mentioned where to get one for $800. You said you didn't want the size or heat. I think he has the 3007wfp, not the 30008wfp. Oh, and if you get a monitor with a resolution higher than 1920x1200, you are going to need an Apple DisplayPort -> Dual Link DVI adapter. Runs about $100. That is assuming you have a mac mini with a displayport. Older mac minis only support single link dvi.

I was in the market for a new monitor and I was thinking about getting the dell u2410. But why spend $500 for a monitor when I can get the absolute best, and double the resolution, for $300 more?
I don't want a 30." But now even a 27" at anything near $690 will hurt because I know Matt got a 30" for that price.
Looking to stay under $600 if possible, and it was not the heat but the wattage.

[Trouble]

Black wrote: I don't want a 30." But now even a 27" at anything near $690 will hurt because I know Matt got a 30" for that price.
Looking to stay under $600 if possible, and it was not the heat but the wattage.

I doubt is there is much of a wattage difference between a 27" and 30" display. There is a big honkin' backlight in both. You can try to find one with an LED backlight, but I think Apple is the only game in town so far.

[Black]

OK, you gave me an excuse to start a "Best 30" Monitor" thread tomorrow, thanks . . .

[Black]

So, the thing is, the 24" seems like about the right size for its current application, it's just a little not-so-great to look at and the colors get very washed out from anything but the perfect angle. A really good 24" would fill the bill =I theenk=, but a really good 27" would fill the bill for sure. A 30" would simply be overkill.

I still don't have a good understanding of why a 1080p LCD TV is significantly poorer than a dedicated computer monitor of the same size-- the best answer I've been able to get is "it just is."

[Trouble]

Black wrote:
So, the thing is, the 24" seems like about the right size for its current application, it's just a little not-so-great to look at and the colors get very washed out from anything but the perfect angle. A really good 24" would fill the bill =I theenk=, but a really good 27" would fill the bill for sure. A 30" would simply be overkill.

Once you jump from 24" (1920x1200) the only real option is 30" (2560x1600). Before I purchased my 3008wfp, I tried a 25.5" 1920x1200 monitor and I hated it. Too big for the resolution IMO.

Black wrote: I still don't have a good understanding of why a 1080p LCD TV is significantly poorer than a dedicated computer monitor of the same size-- the best answer I've been able to get is "it just is."

I don't see why as long as the TV has at least a 60 Hz refresh rate and a 1080p resolution. One thing you need to be careful of is the input. My mac mini sees ANY direct hdmi connection as a TV and the computer treats it as such with overscan and it looks terrible. I only use the second monitor to watch movies and for that it is fine, but no way I would use an HDMI connection for my main monitor.