Viewsonic launches an ultra-fast display

Nice pixel response but the vert refresh rate is so slow it's not even suitable for stereo gaming. C'mon folks. 70Hz is a SLOW monitor. Can't help wondering why they didn't give it at least a 120 or 240 refresh rate.

I totally understand that display manufacturers want a piece of the TV pie, but if it's at the expense the PC display market, what's the point.

I'd upgrade my displays if there was anything out there worth buying, but displays have gone backwards in the last few years, and frankly, if I wanted a my computer connected to a TV,
I would do that, and I do.

Displays and TVs are two different markets with very different requirements, these halfway products are less that optimal in both conditions.

The sooner displays manufacturers work this out and actually start "competing" again the better. Bring on the innovation!

High(er) Rez(10MP+)/Low(er) Dotpoint(<0.05)/HiPPI(400PPI+) + 100-200Hz + quality panel(IPS+) + 30-32inch(16:10) + realistic price = Me buying new displays.

Viewsonic how about a refresh of the VP2290b-3 with display port?
And a 30inch with the same PPI?

Its all about "economy of effort".

Manufacturers are being "lazy" as they are trying to cut costs by converging monitor and TV production.

TV resolution was way behind monitors and now is catching up, but monitor resolution development has stalled completely.

Current monitor tech is really the spin off of new TV tech. Presumably the TV market is larger and its better to develope that product with limited R&D budget. What this means is that monitor tech is being hobbled by TV (and console) data rates.

The other thing this means is the PC monitor market with 2xDVIx2 potential on most modern graphics cards is not being exploited, ie there is a gap in the market for nicer monitors.

Instead they are trying to flog gamers three TVs instead of one really good monitor, which will currently cost you four times as much from DELL and is crap for games anyway with a stupid 8ms response time.

It deserves a rant.

a 27-30´ 2560x1600 @ 120 and fast.
if you are 25cm close to a screen, dotpitch also matters.

I work in a computer store and am absolutely sick and tired of these bloody 16:9 monitors, I use 2 x true 24" screens (16:10 1920 x 1200) and am dreading the day one of them dies and am unable to buy another. If I wanted to watch a movie I'd do it on my 50" plasma, not my computer monitor. I am a gamer and when someone comes in for a gaming system I have to tell them these 1080 monitors are great for games when I know they arent. People say they're great because you get no black bars in movies...SO FUCKING WHAT! the screens are physicaly smaller (most of them anyway as they end up cut down to 23.6") so the movie isn't any bigger and there's quite a few 21:9 ratio movies out there...are people gonna start getting pissy when they get black bars on those movies as well...actualy if I remember correctly someone's already started making screens for those as well *shudders*

The day that I cant buy a 16:10 screen is the day I stop using a computer. I am sick of this communistic approach some manufacturers take to their products.

Lawrence and the Grulger - please can we all know the manufacturers of 27" panels of greater than 1080P resolution with the firmware trick of 1ms GTG or B2B response ?

If your just fantasizing of products that cannot be manufactured with present panel supply you just need to STFU.

I've had requests for motherboards when I worked for a now dead tier 2 mainboard company with 2 AGP ports and been sworn at when responding with the fact that we were sorry but it was not a possibility.

The point being - don't criticize something at a price point for what is probably a A-Si panel rather than PVA or MVA and offering a lot of bang for buck.

Knobs.

Native resolution of 2560 x 1440 pixels would be best for this size and Still 16:9. Come on they can do better, I'm getting tired of bigger monitors and smaller resolutions.

I totally agree with 16:10 being superior.
Even if you want to watch movies or play games without 16:10 support (mainly console games), 1:1 pixel mapping will only mean insignificant black bars that you can just pretend it's the monitor frame. This is minor in comparison of unable to add screen estate when you do desktop work.

Regarding 'That's one opinion'

You're right, 16:9 is good for games. 16:9 is also good for movies and TV

16:9 is not however much good for anything else. It seems strange even with a 1080p monitor we now have even less vertical resolution that we had a few years back.

I honestly wish they would give us the choice of 16:10 and 16:9 monitors. It seems 16:10 monitors have all but disappeared overnight apart from a vew small selection of 'Professional' screens.
1920x1200 resolution is so much better for general day to day work than 1920x1080 is.

1080 is great for games, even on a 27"
Full specs http://www.viewsonic.com/assets/073/16334.pdf
Only thing I would like to see improved is the Hz frequency, so that it will be awesome for 3D, but that will likely be in the next model. I'll wait, but if buying today, looks good.

The resolution for Gamers is pretty good, much resolution will mean to get a higher board. if you see it that way, the monitor is very well specced.

IMnsHO
:)
Ty