[GSixZero]

I'm thinking about buying a new 24" Dell 2408wfp but don't want to buy if the new model is right around the corner. Anyone know how Dell's upgrade cycle works on stuff like this?

Thanks.

[mduell]

The 2009W (20") has already been announced, but it's hard to say when the 2409 will come out.

LCD (monitor or TV) updates, from any company (Apple, Dell, etc), are very hard to predict; there's no public roadmaps.

[CharlesS]

The 2408wfp is a great monitor. It has a true 8-bit S-PVA panel with good viewing angles. There's no guarantee that Dell's next model will be as good. The general trend seems to be to phase out monitors with quality panels and replace them with cheap TN panels. This is what happened with Dell's 20" UltraSharp - it used to use the same IPS panel that Apple's Cinema Display uses, but they replaced it with a cheap TN panel. And it's happening across the industry - last February or so, I looked around and there were quite a few MVA and PVA monitors available in the 24" size, and I could even find some MVAs at Best Buy and OfficeMax. Those have all been replaced by TNs, and now the 2408wfp is the only 24" S-PVA I can find anymore that isn't horrendously expensive.

In a nutshell: get it while it lasts.

[mduell]

The SP2309 just leaked and it will have the slightly wider 16:9 aspect ratio like most TVs instead of the 16:10 aspect ratio like most monitors, while retaining the higher pixel count of monitors. For ~$400 it looks like a good buy.

[CharlesS]

2 ms response time, though, suggests it's a TN panel.

[Simon]

The vertical pixel count has been reduced (although fortunately not so much that it would cut off 1080 material).

16:9 "while retaining the higher pixel count of monitors" would have been 2133x1200. Instead they chose to remove vertical pixels and skimp on the horizontal. That's how you save almost 10% total screen resolution.

That plus the fact that it's TN indicates to me that $400 looks like a much better deal than it actually is. IMHO Dell has done better with other screens.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Simon 

The vertical pixel count has been reduced (although fortunately not so much that it would cut off 1080 material).

16:9 "while retaining the higher pixel count of monitors" would have been 2133x1200. Instead they chose to remove vertical pixels and skimp on the horizontal. That's how you save almost 10% total screen resolution.

That plus the fact that it's TN indicates to me that $400 looks like a much better deal than it actually is. IMHO Dell has done better with other screens.

1920 * 1080 = 2.07MM
1920 * 1200 = 2.30MM
2048 * 1152 = 2.36MM
They retained (actually slightly increased) the pixel count; I didn't say anything about retaining dimensions.

Yes, of course it's TN at the $400 price point.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Yes, of course it's TN at the $400 price point.

I wouldn't consider a TN panel to be an acceptable alternative for someone who's considering a 2408wfp.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

1920 * 1080 = 2.07MM
1920 * 1200 = 2.30MM
2048 * 1152 = 2.36MM
They retained (actually slightly increased) the pixel count; I didn't say anything about retaining dimensions.

You missed my point.

The right way to do 16:9 on a 24" display would be to do 2133x1200. The wrong way to do it is 2048x1152. The latter gives customers 8% less pixels than the former. It actually removes vertical pixels these customers had on previous 16:10 screens. Obviously Dell chose the latter lower resolution because it's the cheapest way to do it. And as usual with cheap products, there's another "price" to pay. Well hidden. Unless of course people look at the details.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Simon 

You missed my point.

The right way to do 16:9 on a 24" display would be to do 2133x1200. The wrong way to do it is 2048x1152. The latter gives customers 8% less pixels than the former. It actually removes vertical pixels these customers had on previous 16:10 screens. Obviously Dell chose the latter lower resolution because it's the cheapest way to do it. And as usual with cheap products, there's another "price" to pay. Well hidden. Unless of course people look at the details.

Keeping the panel cost about the same by keeping the pixel count the same seems pretty reasonable. Reducing the vertical resolution when increasing the aspect ratio and decreasing the diagonal size also seems pretty reasonable. Why are you trying to make up reasons to fault Dell?

[CharlesS]

Dunno about looking for reasons to fault Dell - I mean, they make some really nice monitors. Just not that one.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Why are you trying to make up reasons to fault Dell?

Umm, making up? Have you read my replies? I've pointed out in detail why this screen is a bad offer compared to others. And I actually said:

Originally Posted by Simon

IMHO Dell has done better with other screens.

So obviously this isn't about Dell, but about this specific monitor. Also it's quite obvious you aren't talking about the Dell monitor anymore, but about me. How about we cut that right now? I resent this notion that just because people happen to disagree on a technical/business issue, it's suddenly ok to go ad-hominem. It's also against the forum rules. So let's keep this one purely technical for once, shall we?

[mduell]

Oh please, there's no personal attacks in this thread.

[Simon]

Right.