backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 22 comment(s) - last by erikejw.. on Apr 15 at 4:50 AM
Dell cites technical issue as reason for pulling popular 30-inch display

From a PC gamer’s perspective, there is little better for gaming than a big, high resolution LCD like a 30-inch display. Dell has been pushing 30-inch displays for a number of years now and late in 2007 it announced a new 30-inch called the 3008WFP.

DailyTech reported on the 3308WFP in December of 2007 and the display has a bevy of very nice features and specifications. The display sports the common 2560 x 1600 30-inch resolution and a wealth of connectivity options like integrated HDMI and display port in addition to composite, component, S-Video and DVI.

Engadget confirmed that the 3008WFP has been pulled from the Dell site and is currently unavailable. Those who ordered the 3008WFP will still get a display according to Engadget's sources, but those orders will have an extended lead time. The catch is that there is no set time frame on when the display will be available again.

The reason the display was yanked from the Dell website and is no longer for sale is unknown. Engadget reports a mysterious “technical issue” as the reason the display was pulled from the market. It doesn’t appear that any recall has been issued on units already in the field.

Engadget was told by a Dell source that the technical issue was first seen in February and that the issue was resolved. Dell says it is managing existing orders on a prioritized basis. While the exact reason the display was pulled is unknown, considering there was no recall and the technical issue was fixed it would be no stretch to believe the issue was possibly with the procurement of the 30-inch glass.

Sources at Dell competitors have told DailyTech in the past that procuring 30-inch glass to build high resolution displays is difficult due to limited availability.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
What I'm more interested in
By dflynchimp on 4/14/2008 12:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
is when LCD makers will be able to turn out quality computer screens larger than 30 inches and at higher resolutions. We know that they can do the high res, so what's the holdup?




RE: What I'm more interested in
By Ronin on 4/14/2008 12:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with that will be the hardware able to push the higher resolutions at an acceptable frame rate with newer games, with the eye candy. You'd be forced to use SLI/Crossfire at that point, and while if you're buying a > 30" LCD that has support for > 2560x1600, the cost of SLI/Crossfire probably isn't all that important to you, it's still a hump that needs to be overcome.

At the end of the day, 2560x1600 is pretty substantial from a gamer's perspective. For now, pushing that envelope is asking for quite a bit.

Now, you might bring up the multi-monitor aspect that people currently use. Well, few and far between game on more than one monitor, so that doesn't hold much merit. I'm not saying people don't, I'm just saying very few do (there's various reasons not to game across multiple screens).


RE: What I'm more interested in
By Carter642 on 4/14/2008 12:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
I personally use 2 19" LCD's and I like them better for gaming and everyday use than the 30" I use at work. I've got a 8800GTX and 1600x1200 is about where it's at for gaming with highest detail options and still have good frame rates. I also do a lot of coding and it's nice to have the compartmentalization of dual screens where I can do code in one screen and reference material in the other.

I'm still using XP both at work and at home but I think it would be really nice to have a half width snap for maximizing some apps on a 30" screen. 2560x1600 is plenty to do two web pages/word processing/coding side by side but at least in XP I always end up having to resize things manually to make them fit logically in the 30" whereas the dual 19's pretty much do it automatically.


RE: What I'm more interested in
By AlphaVirus on 4/14/2008 1:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I think it would be really nice to have a half width snap for maximizing some apps on a 30" screen

In WinXP, right click taskbar>TileWindows Vert/Horiz

That should offer you an easy solution, it might not be perfect but it is easy to get in and out of.

And as you are a coder I am sure you already knew about that, but sometimes we need a refresh of what we have not used in forever.


RE: What I'm more interested in
By erikejw on 4/15/2008 4:50:47 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is the low quality builds.
They went too cheap this time.
Older Dells have got great reviews but the 3008 is plaguared with bad colors, black bleeding,uniformity issues and other abysmal charachteristics. It is not what you want when you pay premium prices.


RE: What I'm more interested in
By afkrotch on 4/14/2008 1:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
I prefer a single monitor. Spanning games across multiple monitors looks like ass, not to mention almost unplayable for an FPS. Your crosshair happens to sit right in the middle of that gap between monitors. In MMOs your character sits in the middle, split in two. It works alright with an RTS game, but for the most part. Pretty annoying with that gap.

Supreme Commander had something going with a zoom in/zoom out map on the 2nd monitor, but no one probably bothered with that, as the 1st monitor that you played on did the same crap.


RE: What I'm more interested in
By Carter642 on 4/14/2008 3:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I agree, I don't span the games I just play them on one screen. That way I can check my e-mail mid game in Supreme Commander ;)


RE: What I'm more interested in
By BZDTemp on 4/14/2008 1:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
It may come as a surprise for some but not everything in the world is about gaming :-)

Sure I dig high resolution and a big screen when gaming but it is certainly not like having a lot of real estate hurts when being productive. Be it programming, doing budgets on a spreadsheet, writing, doing layouts... everything benefits from high resolution and a big screen.

I would love to bigger screens AND higher resolution screens especially if resolution is improved more than size. Having small pixels and lots of them is really what you need :-)


RE: What I'm more interested in
By gochichi on 4/14/2008 9:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
Disagree. Whoever the hell did this "so called" productivity research about bigger screens must have been biased. Not saying that it doesn't help some, but it's overrated as a "need".


RE: What I'm more interested in
By nilepez on 4/14/2008 11:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
I guess it depends what you do. If you work on photography or other imaging, desktop is king. I find it much MUCH easier to write software with more desktop space.

I really don't see how people live with less than 19x12 (and my CRT did 1920x1440...actually more, but flicker was too much)


RE: What I'm more interested in
By jadeskye on 4/14/2008 2:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
Thats very true. i consider myself quite a hardcore gamer as i own 2 3008wfps and two examples i can give are.

graphics, I LOVE gaming at 25x16 but the framerate on most newer games is just impossible even though i have SLI. Don't even mention Crysis, it's just not possible...

dual monitors, To be honest the only game i play that supports multi-monitors is Supreme commander. i do love to have a screen as a map and it works well in game too but man does it drop your framerate at 25x16 (or even less when you have 2000+ units on the field).


By smokedturkey on 4/14/2008 1:02:19 PM , Rating: 1
is lower prices. Also, I can't imagine using a bigger screen than that, I hav e a 22" widescreen now and I love it. I would think a 30"+ would give me whiplash trying to play games. Does anyone really sit more than 24" or so from their monitors?


RE: What I'm more interested in
By nilepez on 4/14/2008 11:30:34 PM , Rating: 2
What I'm more interested in is a quality screen at 24". Unfortunately, it looks like the only option is the NEC.

I avoided LCDs for years, picked up a Dell 2408 with 20% off, but it's still only so-so. Blacks are just awful and back light bleed is pathetic.

Times like these, I wish they still made CRTs. HQ picture at higher resolutions (than anything under 30")


Uhhh define " gamer "
By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2008 2:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
I know some hardcore gamers and they would never consider this monitor for gaming. Infact LCD's in general are almost frowned upon by the ultra gamer elite because most of them have severe display lag. Which in an FPS could mean the difference between you getting shot and not.

Sadly LCD's have taken a turn for the worse lately when manufacturers realized they can use a TN panel almost exclusively and make a larger margin. Most people don't understand, or care, about the difference in the quality of LCD panels. Gamers do.




RE: Uhhh define " gamer "
By Carter642 on 4/14/2008 3:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you get what you pay for. That $75 on sale panel just doesn't compare with a $300 high quality graphics panel with a low response time and high contrast.

If you ever have the chance to get a cheapo panel and a high quality panel in the same room side by side with the lights off you'll notice a huge difference.


RE: Uhhh define " gamer "
By TreeDude62 on 4/14/2008 3:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
Generally anything under 1650x1050 will not have any input lag. It is only the super high resolution monitors that seem to have that issue. I have gone from a 17" CRT, to a 17" LCD, and now I have a 20" LCD at 1650x1050 with a 2ms response time. I have never had any input lag on either of my LCDs and I play Battlefield 2 and Team Fortress 2 enough that I should know.


RE: Uhhh define " gamer "
By B3an on 4/14/2008 4:30:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well i have this monitor and it's great for gaming. The input lag is actually lower than smaller monitors, like the Dell 2408. The "ultra gamer elite" (lol) you talk about is a joke, even the most hardcore gamers these day buy LCD's, the tech has come a long way.

The 3008 has a S-IPS panel, and can produce 117% NTSC colour gamut. It's the best LCD i've used, especially when it comes to image quality, viewing angles, and colour accuracy.


Input lag
By Bekali on 4/14/2008 12:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
Let me guess, input lag problems?

3008wfp appear to be a nice monitor, rich color with 117% gamut...but are some rumour about lag input. The old generation, Dell 3007wfp-hc and HP LP3065 appear to be with little or no lag input.




RE: Input lag
By jkresh on 4/14/2008 4:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
the input lag (on the 3008wfp and gateway xhd3000) comes from the scalar. The big issue with the 3008 (in terms of input lag) is that the scalar runs even if the input is native res (ie it takes a 1600p input and scales to 1600p) while what the gateway does (and what the dell should do) is to scale any non native input and just pass the native input (which would dramatically reduce the input lag at native res). I am considering getting one of those two monitors (or maybe a 3007 and an external scalar if gefen ever releases one that can do 1600p) hopefully dell will actually fix some of the issues with the 3008 (input lag, lack of accepted resolutions for the scalar and backlight bleed) and re release it fairly soon.


RE: Input lag
By Bekali on 4/15/2008 1:17:02 AM , Rating: 2
You don't need a scalar for the 3007, the graphic card will do the scaling. I have HP LP3065, and even the bios will be displayed correctly, when no driver is loaded. But problems could appear if you have a console or HD player.
And forget about Gateway xhd3000, it have a regular CCFL backlight, and a meager 72% gamut.


Will Apple be the only ?
By greylica on 4/14/2008 11:38:02 AM , Rating: 2
I can't believe this is happening, and, unless they give us another 30" monitors with all of the goods, we will have a few choices...
Pray for another "better than apple 30" for 2k "cinema edition.




Dreams differ.
By