People talk about Retina displays etc ... but back in 2003 (yes, 10 years ago) ViewSonic had even higher resolution display called the "ViewSonic VP2290b" [1]<p>It was 3840x2400 in just a 22" display. It has a 204dpi and again, that was 10 years ago.<p>Any for the nay sayers, yes - this was mass produced to the point that IBM was selling them as the T220 display [2]<p>[1] <a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/viewsonic-vp2290b-lcd-monitor/4505-3174_7-30967920.html" rel="nofollow">http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/viewsonic-vp2290b-lcd-m...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors</a>
I have been waiting for this for years [1]. I am salivating at the thought and I'm eager to know the price. Will I be able to afford to retire my 30" monitors that were first manufactured eight years ago?<p>ASUS, if you're reading this: I'd say add an option to drop the integrated speakers because I still want a very thin bezel so that I can orient two or three side-by-side.<p>Edit: Ars has a photo of the PQ321 [2].<p>[1] <a href="http://tiamat.tsotech.com/displays-are-the-key" rel="nofollow">http://tiamat.tsotech.com/displays-are-the-key</a><p>[2] <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/05/asus-brings-4k-to-your-desktop-with-massive-31-5-3840x2160-monitor/" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/05/asus-brings-4k-to-you...</a>
This is great! I probably annoy my friends with how much I tell them I wish there was an (affordable) high-resolution monitor available.<p>In fact, the retina MBP's screen is the only reason I switched from Windows to a Mac; that display alone was worth it.<p>Looking forward to a non-pixelated future. I'm surprised ASUS was the one to take the initiative though!
It's disappointing that every new display I see is still stuck with the archaic 16:9 resolution.<p>Sure, humans may have more periphery side-to-side. This is great for television. But, when you read a book, I doubt you read it horizontally.<p>So, if we do a lot of text manipulation with our computers, why not use a <i>taller</i> aspect ratio, like 3:2 or 4:3?<p>It makes no sense why this display still has less resolution than some ThinkCentre monitors from the early 00's. It makes no sense why there's still that crap 1366x768 being sold now.<p>We went from 1280x800 to 1366x768 (fewer vertical pixels), from 1440x900 to 1600x900 (same vertical), from 1680x1050 to 1600x900 (far fewer vertical pixels), from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 (fewer), from 2560x1600 to 2560x1440 (far fewer).<p>You could keep the vertical resolutions the same, and simply increase the width, but that would be more expensive to produce, and for the same cost, you'd get a more proportional 8:5 display, so why would you bother?<p>It's an extremely sad, sad, thing.
I can't wait to see all the broken applications/unreadable small fonts on my Linux.<p>I've been excited for a high density display since Apple announced the retina display, but I have a gut feeling that it will take a lot of time for the Linux desktop to support it properly, if ever.
Finally some movement in the desktop display market. I've been hoping for this every time I dragged a window from my retina display to the desktop monitor and it lost 3/4th of it's pixels.
More than 10 years after the IBM T220/T221 came out, but the IBM monitor still has a significantly bigger resolution (3840x2400) and PPI (203.98 vs 139.56).
Honestly I think my next monitor will have to be a 120Hz 4k screen.<p>I'm not sure I could take the step back down to 60Hz after getting used to it, for me it's a much bigger deal than resolution.
Would do anything for an affordable ultra high resolution 24" or 30" monitor for development. Think of all the tmux and vim panes you can cram into one of these puppies :)
Seiki has a 4k 50 inch screen for $1300. It has poor inputs and is currently sold out, but it signals things to come.
<a href="http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7674736" rel="nofollow">http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det...</a>
Disinclined as I am to use Apple's "Retina" marketing term, it is a conceptually useful distinction. On a given display at the real world distance you use it for work, you can't see the pixels.<p>That is what we as users want, and it is also the limit of what is useful: packing additional pixels into the same surface area doesn't help anything.<p>This monitor isn't quite there. But it is still a big leap in terms of progress over the standard 2560x1440 27" inch panels currently used by Apple, Dell, etc.<p>We already have similar monitors in Japan for like $4000... it will be interesting to see how this one is priced.<p>I have a couple 30" and a newer 27" monitors, but I'd trade all three of them for one 24" truly retina monitor.
Can anyone explain how 10 bit color would work for a monitor? Would we even notice it since most image formats are 8-bits-per-channel... and what does the OS do?<p>Is the monitor able to more accurately show the difference between the sun vs a desk-lamp? (Where today both would appear as RGB 255 in a photo, unless you took 3 exposures and combined them into a 32 bit HDR file... but anyway...)
I just bought a 2560x1080px monitor just to discover that there is no way to use it with my laptop. It seems that most laptops are limited to 1920x1080 despite that the graphics card may support higher resolutions.