When will 30 inch display become mainstream

30" monitors are too much real estate to look at from less than 2 feet away. 22"-24" is the sweet spot for computing. After that they become cost prohibitive and their just too damn big for PC usage.
 
In some occupations 30in is mainstream. Aren't there any technical workers on the forum besides software engineers?

Before I bought my HP3065, I did a performance analysis on myself. While creating complex drawings, I spent 30 percent of my time performing pan and zoom operations while working on a 20in 1680x1050. While working on the 30in monitor I spend only 15 percent of my time doing pan and zoom operations. Plus the work seems less tedious. I estimated that I paid for my HP3065 in about a half of a year. I've been using it for more than a year now so I've had a good return on investment.

The 30in also makes working with two full pages of text easy on the eyes. And, I resolve most layout issues as I work.

I do most of my work on the 30in but also have a 37in Panny for video editing. The two panels fit on my work table with room to spare for a computer and other small stuff.

You know the old saying, you'll have to pry my HP3065 out of my cold, dead hands.:D
 
Just to be clear. What are you guys definition of mainstream? Does that include internet/gaming cafe's, office stations and family pc's?

Not sure what you guys consider mainstream, but those are the ones i look for when considering them as common peripherals. 22" is already a stretch. The only one's i've seen that has anything like it are in personal workstations and enthusiasts, and they make up a very small part of the PC population.

Do you consider pen tablets mainstream if it's a common accessory for a very small and specialized user base?
 
echn111 said:
What point are you trying to make - that you work in an industry where employee costs are not that high, and rapid access to information along with per person productivity not that critical. Perhaps a non-western nation with a less mature technical infrastructure? Am I close?
Click to expand...
Spot-on. However, I still think your company is a bit specific :)
 
Well any large western multinational that "does not make anything" of significance that is physically tangible, where the main commodity is "information" and the employees' real function, regardless of title or what people say, is as "information workers", is going put a premium on readily available visual information, and have a large percentage of employees having two or more monitors. Sure the majority of people don't work in this environment, but these guys strongly influence the overall trends, but there is a growing trend in this direction and in the current mainstream working environment of tens of thousands of people, we're looking at 2560x1024 or 3360x1050 (or similar) as the minimum. There is significant demand that may be hidden to the typical enthusiast on this forum, but it is there, and we "will" absolutely see bigger monitor size equivalents going "mainstream" in the future (e.g. 3800x1200 and above), although whether that will be in the form of 30" LCD's is doubtful as they currently don't add enough value for the price - in other words, they are actually too small for the price.
 
Last edited:
I work in Information Delivery and my request to upgrade from a 19" to 20" (SXGA to WSXGA+) was soundly thumped down :(
 
Employers will buy anything you ask for if:

1. They have funds available.
2. You show them that the purchase will pay for itself and allow the company to earn even more money.
 
i dont think it will become mainstream. . . . people are already shying away from desktops and more towards the laptops so mainstream? probably never.
 
I doubt 30" will become mainstream, but I bet 2560x1600 will.

Just a guess, but, in the future I imagine 24" with 3840x2400, or so.

To compensate for everything being so small, something can just enlarge it all.

The gain? Sharper images, superior detail.
 
aSASa said:
I doubt 30" will become mainstream, but I bet 2560x1600 will.

Just a guess, but, in the future I imagine 24" with 3840x2400, or so.

To compensate for everything being so small, something can just enlarge it all.

The gain? Sharper images, superior detail.
Click to expand...

Problem is though that you get a case of diminishing return at that high a resolution. You have to keep in mind of how close you need to be situated before a higher resolution's advantage becomes evident.

To your credit, 1080p/ 1920x1200 display, require people to sit about 3 feet to note the advantage of the dot pixel resolution. 1440p/ 2560x1600 shortens this by no more than 2-3 inches. At the general distance of 1-1.5 feet/12- 20 inches away from the display, you will get a notable difference.

Those big displays unfortunately are too expensive to be justified. Generally, the mainstream display are no more than 1/3 the cost of the tower itself. Even if 30 inchers drop in price, there will be no display at this size cheap enough to come to 1/3 the cost of a $300-400 tower. Even wallpaper like display of this size would hog too much of the cubicle.

It is all too likely that 19" -22" will retain the position of being the dominant size for some time for mainstream usage. They require smaller substrate area, so one can get higher yield, and they are just about the right size for everyday use.

According to Steam's hardware survey of 2009 July, it's found that, amongst single display config, 1280 x 1024 has 21.7% adoption, 1440 x 900 at 11.59%, 1680 x 1050 18.27%, 1024 x 768 17.82%, summing up at 69.38% of the entire audience that uses Steam. 1920x1080 onwards account for <12%. So from this alone, we can deduce that even the now commonly pushed 19 inchers still isn't at the point of being ubiquitous, let along the glorious 1600/1440p.
 
Last edited:
I love my old 3007 monitor but was surprised at the scheer lack of any new suitable stocked choices for 30 inch monitors. Clearly an ignored segment by the panel makers themselves. They keep improving on large TV screens and even smaller lcd monitors, but nada in the 27-30 inch range. Same old tecnology. Very dissapointing. LG Electronics should be taking the lead on this, but they seem to be stalled out in this area for some reason.
 
probably never.
most are not tech oriented: whats a pixel?
mainstream thought: bigger is better.
55 1080 lcd will give u a bigger penis than hi res 30 for the general public
 
maverick786us said:
How much time will it take for 30 inch display having resolution of 2560 x 1600 come into Mainstream? Right now it is on less demand therefore extremely expensive. I can't wait to get one for my next upgrade.
Click to expand...

When space is not at a premium.

In NYC a small non-luxury 1 bedroom apartment of about 425 - 450 square feet rents out for about $1,500 - $1,600 per month. Small luxury 1 bedroom apartments start at about $2,400.

You need a desk large enough to put the monitor on. You also need a room big enough for such a desk. You also need to be able to afford a 30" monitor after paying rent and other things.
 
JaguarSKX said:
When space is not at a premium.

In NYC a small non-luxury 1 bedroom apartment of about 425 - 450 square feet rents out for about $1,500 - $1,600 per month. Small luxury 1 bedroom apartments start at about $2,400.
Click to expand...

Yuppies are happy with 14" screens on laptops. I don't see them driving sales. :D
 
Never. I think 30" is to big for a monitor. 24" is pretty much perfect.

Recently The mainstreamsize has been reduced.

24" 16:10 is bigger than 16:9 24".
 
I think a 26" or 28" monitor with 2560x1600 would be perfect. I cannot stand the dot pitch of my old 24" - pixels are just too darn big. I love the pixel sizes of my old 20" and my 30" now, but the 30" is just a tad too large, but only by a few inches. It takes just a little bit too much head movement to track across it at times. Games, no problem, but multitasking, it can be a bit of work. That said, I wouldn't trade it for the world. The more resolution/desktop real estate the better.
 
How close are you sitting to your display Brahmzy? If you need density, the most tightly packed of LCDs that I can think of would be TN 1920x1200 17"...
 
I'm sittin' fairly close. These 34 year old eyeballs aren't what they used to be....

Wow, 1920x1200 in a 17" Holy cow that'd be awesome.
 
How close?

I personally consider 1920x1200 on 24" monitors to be a bit too much, and 1680x1050 on a monitor that size would be perfect for me.
 
i certainly cant afford close to 3k for a 30" monitor. New Zealands prices suck
30744361.jpg
 
I spent $660 after tax and delivery for a 32"! Take that!

(but it's only a 1080p :rolleyes:)
 
Onething I didn't get quite well. If 1920 X 1080 takes the place of 1920 X 1200, then the next generation of graphic cads which I believe should have sheer power compared to 4870X2 won't be able to utilize their full potential. Dell annouced 30 inch displays because 4870X2 came into horizon because it can run all the games smoothly on 30 inch except for crysis.

The reason more powerful cards are launched, because they can support gaming at high resolution. Now what will be the point of using 58XX cards 1920 X 1080 display? It will not even use half its power (unless next generation games comes up with far better graphic than crysis)?
 
There was 2560x1600 LCDs way before the 4870x2 was launched. 30" is usually for graphic design etc, not gaming,
 
Is dual-link DVI even capable of doing more than 2560x1600 at 60fps? I know it can do a higher resolution, but I thought it was at a lowered Hz.

Until displays start moving away from DVI and onto something like HDMI 1.4, I think that 30" displays will continue their premium pricing.
 
"i certainly cant afford close to 3k for a 30" monitor. New Zealands prices suck"
I live in denmark and just ordered a 3008 from dell.com. The screen is going to be delivered at the address of shopusa.com and they will take care of shipping to Denmark and danish taxes. Even with the added expences it is still way cheaper than buying from dell.dk. I'll let you know how it went when i (hopefully) receive my new screen.
 
2560x1600 30" monitors will become mainstream once 4K video (4096×2304) becomes mainstream, at least to the extent of 1080p video, and 4K monitors/TVs become widely available in some form.

The other possibility is some new display tech or manufacturing innovation which greatly reduces the production cost of large monitors in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top