Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by cube, Jun 7, 2010.
But at least 1920x1200
Good luck with that one. It's all 1080p panels.
That's why I'm not buying.
How is that few extra pixels so critical?
You can't play old games in stretched 1600 x 1200.
It is not a few. 1200 is the minimum required for normal computer use.
Hmm, it's 10% though, didn't expect it to be that much. I can't see much difference when moving windows from my iMac to 1080p external monitor. Hopefully we'll see more 3D monitors in near future
Hyundai has just come out with a 24" 1920x1200 3D monitor, but the HDMI is only 1.3
And it's 1399 euro for a TN panel!
Damn, what's that say about my 900 pixels?
I hope you realize that nothing in OS X will let you do 3D because there is no support for it anywhere. If you use Bootcamp and load up Windows with an Nvidia card you can use their 3DVision stuff I guess. Plus if you have an external Blu-ray player hooked up to the display you can use it if it has 3D support.
Not really very appealing to hook up that display to OS X though because there is nothing to support it.
If you really are still interested though there isn't much choices at the moment, as already mentioned they are all 1080p or they are TN panels.
So you're suggesting that it's impossible to use any MacBook or MacBook Pro for normal computer use? What do people do with laptops? Abnormal computer things?
I'm using 1024x768 on my hackintosh with a 23" monitor...
Whether you can personally accept less than 1200 vertical pixels is offtopic. The point of the thread is to identify those 3D monitors with at least such resolution, of which there is now at least one.
ASUS, Acer, Alienware, and a few brands that aren't brought to you by the letter 'A' have 3D monitors out.
It's a TN panel arena though and the 3D benefits are still a work in progress.
The point is that almost all the 3D monitors are only "Full HD".
DisplayPort 1.2 is out, and still no news about this.
When you brought up comical requirement in the post quoted below
You chose to open the discussion up to include what you said. Where did you get the minimum requirement for normal computer use from? I have worked in IT for over ten years and can tell you that there is no minimum requirement for normal computer use and that what you said is completely bogus.
I will not downgrade. Anything below 1200 is unacceptable. And I'm being generous, given how old such resolution is.
What exactly do you do that requires 1200 vertical pixels?
Web browsing. And it is not enough.
I am not even programming now, where it is MORE required.
I don't think web browsing needs 1200 pixels? Are you going to be web browsing and coding in 3D?
Then take your 1920x1080 and turn it 90°. Boom! 1920 > 1200.
What someone think they need and what they actually need are often very different things.
This is the unfortunate truth lol.
But back to the OP, can you really explain why you "need" 1200 vertical pixels for web browsing? Why don't you get a normal 1080p monitor and rotate it 90 degrees to make it perfect for lots of vertical pixels? And then get a normal 3D monitor for whatever you do that requires 3D.
You will still have to settle for 1080p. Not much has changed since then. Getting a 3D monitor with an IPS based panel is hard enough.