Print 56 comment(s) - last by averaesaveraes.. on Jan 5 at 2:11 AM

Dell's upcoming 27" display as leaked on the website
An inconspicuous typo reveals one of the most anticipated Dell displays to date

Earlier this year Dell was expected to release a 27" enthusiast display even though no manufacturer had announced plans to build on 27" LCD substrates. However, with Samsung's announcement earlier this month, it looks as though Dell's 27" plans are finally a go.

Yet late last week, the product page for the Dell 2007WFP was updated with a "new" image of the product.  Much to the confusion of enthusiasts everywhere, this was not the image for the 20" Dell display announced last year, but the image of a 27" display that has not been announced yet.

In a conversation to DailyTech, a Dell representative explained that the image came from a training manual for the upcoming W2707C display.  This was later confirmed by a forum post from a Dell employee on the same day. As far as Dell displays go, the "C" suffix denotes a consumer LCD TV.  Dell's W2607C, for example, is a 26" LCD TV.

Typically Dell announces its new displays and roadmaps at the Consumer Electronics Show: the 3007WFP, 2407WFP and 2007WFP were all highlights of CES 2006.  CES 2007 is scheduled to take place the second week of January.

Interestingly, Dell's other LCD TV models do not have USB inputs, even though those inputs are clearly visible in the leaked image.  The Samsung panel specifications claim a 1920x1200 resolution, which is a resolution typically reserved for desktop displays rather than LCD TVs.  Furthermore, this display lacks a coaxial input -- something most other Dell LCD TVs have.  Given just the specifications and ignoring Dell's comments, we would be apt to say this is a desktop display rather than a consumer LCD TV.

Whether or not the Dell representatives have misspoke seems moot: we will have a 27" high end display for 2007, and it will most certainly be introduced at CES next week.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: TV or Moniter
By masher2 (blog) on 12/30/2006 2:45:33 PM , Rating: 2
Time to trade in my Dell 24"...this is the monitor I've been waiting for, ever since the rumors hit several months ago.

RE: TV or Moniter
By Chillin1248 on 12/30/2006 2:50:54 PM , Rating: 3
I personally would wait till there is a HDMI model availible. But with the near-future competition of Component vs. HDMI vs. Displayport, this may be moot.


RE: TV or Moniter
By masher2 (blog) on 12/30/2006 2:56:56 PM , Rating: 1
I don't watch video on my computer...certainly not HDCP-protected video, so an HDMI connector would be superfluous.

RE: TV or Moniter
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/30/2006 2:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need HDMI if you can do DVI-HDCP

RE: TV or Moniter
By Chillin1248 on 12/30/2006 4:06:55 PM , Rating: 3
Whoa, DVI-HDCP is a new one to my ears.

Doing some research on it, thanks for pointing it out. But not we have four or five competing standards for a computer moniter if my tracking is correct:

DVI-HDCP (not sure yet if this belongs above)

But thanks for informing me of yet another technical detail in the wonderful world of connections.


RE: TV or Moniter
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/30/2006 4:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well, jsut to add what you have:

DVI is sort of the grandfather standard. DVI-HDCP, HDMI and UDI are all derivatives of DVI, and backwards compatible. You can use adaptors to interface between all of these standards, although you'll lose some functionality.

DisplayPort was originally to be intended to be compatible with DVI, but I think it no longer is.

And well, component is analog. I would not really lump it together with the rest.

RE: TV or Moniter
By hondaman on 12/30/2006 3:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
Why trade up? There is nothing to trade up to fi you already have a 240*. The resolution is the same, so its not like youre getting any more desktop space.

RE: TV or Moniter
By masher2 (blog) on 12/30/2006 3:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
If resolution was the only factor in a display, then a 60" TV would be no better than a 20". With the Dell 27", I'll have a slightly larger, clearer view. Well worth the upgrade in my opinion. I can sit a bit further away from it, and still see it clearly.

RE: TV or Moniter
By slashbinslashbash on 12/31/2006 1:46:57 AM , Rating: 3
Bigger TV's at the same resolution make sense because you watch them from across the room. Bigger monitors at the same resolution don't make sense because you're generally limited by your desk in terms of how far away you can sit from it. I really don't want to have to swivel my head to see other parts of the screen. The 30" Cinema Display is too big for me at common desk sizes.

I would be more than happy to see a 1920x1200 20" or 21" model. Maybe even 19". Denser pixels all the way! I can't believe they're making great hi-res screens for laptops and we're stuck with the same old crappy dot pitch for our desktop displays. It's almost enough to make me try to mod a 17" hi-res laptop screen.

RE: TV or Moniter
By Ringold on 12/31/2006 1:59:55 AM , Rating: 4
My eyes, sadly, arent what they used to be, and I'm not even that damned old. So... unfortunately... I too see the advantage of this huge screen with the same resolution. :)

1920x1200 on a 21" would kill me.

RE: TV or Moniter
By NoSoftwarePatents on 12/31/2006 11:15:21 AM , Rating: 2
1920X1200 on a 21 inch monitor is bordering on hard-to-see no matter what. There are simply some resolutions where you need a physically bigger screen. I run that resolution on my 24 inch Dell panel here at 60 Hz, and everything is just fine.

For the record I used to own a Sony 21 inch Trinitron and the max I could comfortably use was 1280X1024 at 85 Hz. Anything higher made my eyes swim.

RE: TV or Moniter
By TheMaster on 1/1/2007 10:30:19 AM , Rating: 2
You ran a 5:4 resolution on a 4:3 display? weird.

RE: TV or Moniter
By saratoga on 1/2/2007 2:40:36 AM , Rating: 2
On a 21"? You kidding? Thats damn near perfect for LCDs.

RE: TV or Moniter
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 1/2/2007 9:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
Change the Windows DPI setting, for gods sake

RE: TV or Moniter
By Johnmcl7 on 12/31/2006 5:02:13 AM , Rating: 2
I fully agree, I cannot understand why desktop monitors have such low resolutions compared to laptop screens - my 15.4 and 17 inch screens have a superb 1920x1200 resolution but to get that in a desktop resolution you have to go all the way up to 23 inches.

While there may be some compromises involved, there's clearly a demand for them otherwise no-one would be buying laptop models with these resolutions.


RE: TV or Moniter
By Hare on 12/31/2006 3:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
My thoughts exactly. I have a 17" laptop with 1440x900 and I would gladly take a much higher resolution. Resolution increases details , it doesn't have to make everything smaller! Take a look at Apples OSs. You can scale pretty much everything. Monitors with 1280x800 and 1600x1200 can show content with same actual size on the screen (webpages etc).

If monitors had a higher resolution text editing would be a joy. Nowadays monitors can't substitute prints because of the low resolution. Reading is just slower.

RE: TV or Moniter
By masher2 (blog) on 12/31/2006 11:43:32 AM , Rating: 1
> "Bigger monitors at the same resolution don't make sense because you're generally limited by your desk in terms of how far away you can sit from it. I really don't want to have to swivel my head..."

A couple of points. At my viewing range, a 24" monitor occludes an angle of about 95-100 degrees. That's considerably less than the range of human peripheral vision.

As for head-swiveling, this point might be valid if you only watched movies and played games on your computer. But for multi-tasking text work, it doesn't. I already have 2 21" monitors on either side of my 24", so looking around from one to another is a normal part of my work routine. If I could get a 50" panel at a high enough resolution, I could put it to good use as well.

RE: TV or Moniter
By JeffDM on 1/1/2007 10:10:55 AM , Rating: 2
I would not mind the 27". Most user interfaces are designed for 72ppi, and my understanding is that 100ppi is the upper comfortable limit for most people. This is because it just makes text too small. Once resolution independent UIs are in more common use I would expect to see denser desktop monitors. I want sharper text and images, not just smaller text and images. Notebook computers have denser displays because that's what they need to remain portable.

I don't turn my head to use a 30" monitor. I would love to have this 27" so I can watch HD video at my desk while doing work on the 30".

Anyway, there is a trend for less dense computer displays, because that's what people are more comfortable with, i.e. the non-enthusiast. I've seen an SXGA+ 21" LCD, and the 22" displays are the same resolution offered on 20" widescreens.

RE: TV or Moniter
By paydirt on 1/3/2007 10:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
I gotta have a chuckle because I bought a 29" Samsung/Dell monitor a year ago for under $1000. You can't even get a 27" widescreen computer for less than $1300. You've been pwned!

"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Related Articles
27" Dell Display En Route
December 1, 2006, 2:01 AM
Dell 27" LCD Confirmed
March 27, 2006, 11:24 AM

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki