Where are the WQUXGA 3840x2400 displays?

[Doc69]

As far back as 2002, there were 22" monitors out by IBM and Viewsonic, with a native resolution of 3840x2400, or around 200 Pixels Per Inch (same PPI as the new Nano). Since then, it seems that not much has happened on the high resolution monitor front, it even seems like both IBM and Viewsonic have discontinued theirs.

Does anyone know if any manufacturer is making larger than 20" panels with more than the usual 100 PPI? After getting used to reading on my crisp 17" 117 PPI MacBook Pro, my 23" 100 PPI ACD looks pretty fuzzy. I would love to have a 23" or 30" monitor with that pixel density as well. The high-resolution 17" screen for the MacBook Pro even has 133 PPI.

So for the next 30" ACD, I really hope for a slightly higher resolution than 2560x1600, to make it crisper. It doesn't have to be all the way up to 3840x2400.

 

[plumpan]

hoping for the same thing with the next gen 30" ACD...

 

[houkouonchi]

Yeah, I don't know what the hell is wrong with people and their love for low resolution/PPI screens. I am currently writing this post from my system at work which runs 3840x2400 and I love it.

Of course from what I have heard about running this resolution on mac's is that the screen doesn't refresh past 2560 pixels or something on the width so if you drag a window to that section of the screen then it won't refresh or something. I think the OS might need to get fixed first to get past this limitation before mac owners can even think of running resolutions higher than 2560x1600.

PS: I am running this display off linux

 

[MisterMe]

... I have heard about running this resolution on mac's is that the screen doesn't refresh past 2560 pixels or something on the width so if you drag a window to that section of the screen then it won't refresh or something. ...

You have heard?
You don't think it might have something to do with the graphics card?
It didn't cross your mind that the monitor cable might affect the maximum number of pixels on the screen?
You accepted the assertion that MacOS X can support a single desktop across multiple high pixel-count monitors, but that it doesn't support the same number of pixels on a single monitor?

Um-m-m.

 

[houkouonchi]

This might have been fixed in newer versions of os X but I heard this from several people on a yahoo group specially for people who own the monitors capable of doing 3840x2400. I know for 100% certainty that this wouldn't be cable-related and since it was exactly 2560 pixels wide leads me to believe its a problem with the OS itself as it wasn't designed to have a single monitor run at more than 2560 pixels wide.

I do have mac os X installed on my home system so I guess I could test it out when I get a chance in the next couple days. It is using leopard I believe (10.5 I think) which is a pretty new version so then I could say for sure whether it does or not when I know the exact same hardware/cable configuration works on windows/linux.

 

[velocityg4]

Yeah, I don't know what the hell is wrong with people and their love for low resolution/PPI screens. I am currently writing this post from my system at work which runs 3840x2400 and I love it.

Well not everyone has perfect vision. My friends always complain when they look at my screen since everything is too small for them and much ends up appearing blurry.

But since I use a really nice CRT I just lower the resolution for them. However LCD's just look awful when not run at native resolution so manufacturers probably do not see the point.

I do not think this will change until MS and Apple rasterize there OSes like like Adobe does with fonts. Then no matter the resolution your menu bars and text can still look the same size.

 

[houkouonchi]

Well not everyone has perfect vision.

Then maybe these people with perfect vision should get glasses? High/max res on a CRT will definitely be blurry but not on an LCD. 2560x1920 was definitely blurry back when I was running a 22 inch CRT but 3840x2400 on a 22 inch LCD is not blurry. Also without my glasses my vision is horrible (over -5 diopters in my right eye and over -4 in my left) so I am pretty much blind without my glasses. Unless the people you are talking about are over 45 and need reading glasses there really is no good reason why someone with bad vision (corrected) can't read this monitor.