Is a 30" monitor too big?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by Wingnut330, Mar 21, 2008.

  1. Wingnut330 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    Central Ohio - USA
    #1
    Hey all,

    I'm looking to upgrade my monitor and am trying to decide between a 24" and 30" Dell monitor. I currently have a 17" ViewSonic that I have been very happy with, but I'd like something with more real estate for programs like iMove and iPhoto. I plan to connect it to a new 15" MBP. Any thoughts?
     
  2. thepandamancan macrumors member

    thepandamancan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Location:
    Burbank, CA
    #2
    If cost is not an issue, I say get the 30". I think it might be a bit overkill for what you want to use it for but if you ever need to watch some movies and whatnot, it's great for that. Just make sure you have about a two to three feet of space between your eyes and the monitor. If you don't have that kind of space, don't get it or it can really be a pain on your eyes.

    Although, I think the 24" is just what you need. I have a 24" iMac and it's just enough for me as an Avid/FCP editor.
     
  3. Fonzijr1964 macrumors 68000

    Fonzijr1964

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Location:
    Maryland
    #3
    i would say 30in apple but if you dont want apple that go 30in dell
     
  4. katejones macrumors regular

    katejones

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
    Location:
    Australia
    #4
    Depends where your putting it I think. I had a 17inch and then bought a 26 inch which looked kinda small in the store (next to the 40 inch etc) but when I got it home it looks gigantic (it's in my bedroom)
     
  5. Wingnut330 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    Central Ohio - USA
    #5
    Great points. I'm gonna go check them out tomorrow. I'll likely end up with the 24" for a couple of reasons: space, price and I can pick it up locally. I'm worried that I might not have the room for the 30", plus if I ever get an iMac, the 24" would pair nicely.
     
  6. David G. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Location:
    Alaska
    #6
    Your current computers and possibly future iMac cannot push as many pixels as in a 30 in. display. :( Take a look on each specific computer's tech specs page if you don't believe me.
     
  7. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #7
    He'll be fine so long as he doesn't plan to do any gaming with that huge resolution.
     
  8. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #8
    I've always thought the phrase "that monitor is too big" was an oxymoron...
     
  9. Genghis Khan macrumors 65816

    Genghis Khan

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #9
    get a 24"...a 30" becomes pro

    expose and spaces give you soo much screen real estate for free it's not funny
     
  10. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #10
    BTW, no iMac atm can drive a 30" at native resolution - only 1280x800.

    Also, 30" is a serious overkill for that kind of use.
     
  11. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
  12. stainlessliquid macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    #12
    30" is monstrous, way too big for me. Imagine planting a 30" tv on your desk and sitting 2 feet away from it. You cant really sit farther away either, since the DPI is relatively the same as a smaller monitor, if you sit too far away then you wont be able to read the text since it wont be any bigger.

    24" is probably the biggest you would want to have for a monitor

    The 30" is really only for hardcore multitaskers that need tons of windows open, its also is nice for professional photo editors since the 30" monitors have the best color out of all the other sizes and youll be able to fit photos on the screen without having to zoom out. It is not good for regular users or most pros, it can be quite difficult to get a handle on such a large resolution, theres a lot of arm movement to get to the other side of the screen and its easy to get unorganized, it can definitely hurt your workflow if you dont have an important reason to use all that extra space.
     
  13. Mitthrawnuruodo Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #13
    Huh?
    So, 24" is the biggest you can drive at native (with the iMacs), but 1280x800 was a bit pessimistic... ;)
     
  14. dog24 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Location:
    Estonia
    #14
    Well, previously the biggest monitor I had was 19" LG and it was fine, but when I got my Dell 2408, I said to myself, damnit I need a bigger desk, cause that thing is HUGE, I believe 30" is insane.
     
  15. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #15
    Ask your wife if 30" is too big. ;)

    I think bigger is better.
     
  16. pastrychef macrumors 601

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #16
    Don't get a 30" unless your video card can drive it in it's native resolution. If it indeed handles it, 30" is awesome and definitely worth getting.
     
  17. Mo Tiggas macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #17
    You've got to go for the 30" if money is no problem...
     
  18. stagi macrumors 65816

    stagi

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
  19. srl7741 macrumors 68020

    srl7741

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Location:
    In my world
    #19

    This is what i used in part to determine which would work best for me. I was torn between the two sizes and finally came to the conclusion that the 30" was just too large for what I need. Sounds weird saying "too large" but I kept thinking I would have "Sega Face" (from the old commercial) I was laughing at myself thinking my eyes would be bulging out of my head since I would be setting so close to such a large screen. I realize none of that would happen but the 24" does fit much better on my desk and it's large enough to accomplish what i do while setting at the computer.

    If i had to room and cost was not a factor I would still love to have a 30" even tho I think it's too large for my needs. Who knows tho? I may make the change and just see how it goes.

    I'm happy with the 24"
     
  20. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #20
    Yes, this is true, but unsupported video card (like in iMac) can drive 30" only at 1280x800 max. I can't believe you didn't know it - its a well-known fact.
     
  21. netdog macrumors 603

    netdog

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #21
    No, every Mac that does not have dual-link DVIs (i.e. anything but a MBP or Mac Pro from the current lineup) can only drive the 30" at 1280x800. To go to a higher resolution, the 30" REQUIRES a dual-link DVI connection. That's a fact, and anybody who tells you otherwise is wrong.

    As for the original poster's question, the MBP will run the 30" just great, but if you run it in clamshell mode, expect your MBP to roar like a Harrier jet. If you run dual-display, however, it works like a charm.

    Once you try a 30", you'll never go back. It is amazing.
     
  22. mperkins37 macrumors 6502a

    mperkins37

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #22
    I have an ACD 30" on the way! I found it used on Ebay, Paid $1275.00.
    Still under Applecare. SCORE!
    I can't wait, as I have FCP, & Soundtrack Pro, As Well as Adobe Master Suite.
    Being able to have all the windows opened that I need will be awesome!
     
  23. Mitthrawnuruodo Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #23
    I know, I know (though I've not actually read about anybody trying to hook up a 30" to a "regular" dvi, for that "fuzzy joy", yet)... but after the OP asked about the 30" and MPB, and I'd "filed" that part under "OK", then I came down to the native resolution of the iMac I went into "general" resolution mode and didn't consider that most (all?) 30" monitors, including the ACD and Dell WS, have dual link dvi, so I just read that as a general "the iMacs cannot support more than 1280x800", and I knew "my" office iMac can do more than that at least... :eek:

    Clearly a small misfire in my brain, but the main point I was trying to make, that the iMac doesn't support a 30" at native resolution should still be valid...right? ;)

    And, to explain why my brain was so slow this morning: it was before my first cup of coffee... :p

    Note to self: Stay out of the technical threads until at least the second cup of coffee... :D
     
  24. neiltc13 macrumors 68040

    neiltc13

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #24
    Just to put this into perspective, we have a 26" LCD TV in our lounge which is large enough to watch TV on every day.

    I can't imagine using a 30" display right up close as a computer monitor. Seems like a huge excess.
     
  25. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #25
    A computer monitor and a TV are completely different uses. You want a big computer monitor because you're multitasking -- it's not that you're looking at the whole screen at once like with a TV.

    If you're editing HD video, you need enough room to see the video and the controls. And you might want to have a web browser window or some other window open at the same time.

    I have a 20-inch display connected to a 17-inch iMac, so I have almost as many pixels as a 30-inch display, and I'm happy using every one of them.
     

Share This Page