RSSGateway Unveils First 'Quad HD' Display
By the Betanews Staff | Published October 4, 2007, 12:00 PM
Gateway introduced its new top-of-the-line "Quad HD" display on Thursday, a 30-inch display that it says is capable of 1600p resolution, more than four times that of the traditional 720p display. The display upconverts standard definition to look like high definition, and can even convert 1080p -- the current highest resolution in which video is delivered-- to 1600p. Consumers could use a variety of inputs, including HDMI, DVI-D, VGA, component, S-Video, and composite interfaces.
Other features include a built-in six-port USB 2.0 hub and anti-theft software, allowing the display to be set to work with one PC only. Additionally it will include a built-in speaker system, and up to 2560x1600 resolution. The display is available through the computer maker's own channels and select retailers for $1,699.99.
that is not 4 times higher than 720p if it was 4 times higher it would be 2880p may be 2 times 720 but definitely not 4 times. 2 times 720 is 1440 and that is a lot more closer to 1600 than 2880
Score: 0
|its simple math man
Take something that is 2 inches by 2 inches. If you put 4 of those together, you get a block that is 4 inches by 4 inches....twice the height...but 4x the size.
Score: 0
|^This^
I suppose it's not simple if you just look at the numbers, but if you think about it for a minute it all fits in to place.
Score: 0
|2880p would be 16 x 720p.
Remember there's also a width. We're talking two dimensions here even though only one is given.
Score: 0
|SO i guess this is why you need the "tri"-sli configuration from Nvidia? Don't get me wrong...i would love to game at 2560x1600, but...damn is that going to be expensive.
Score: 0
|forget the graphics card, does the refresh rate on this thing make it worthy for gamers? how about contrast ratio? where are the GOOD stats?
Score: 0
|Does nobody else remember that we've had displays capable of this resolution for years? Heck this isn't even the first LCD panel to do it - Apple's 30" Cinema display has been able to do this for years:
http://store.apple.com/1...home&nplm=M9179LL/A
Also the anti-theft idea is only useful if the thief knows about it. Otherwise they'll steal it anyway and find out later. Whether the device is there or not you're out a monitor in any case, with the device you just have the satisfaction of knowing the thief can't do anything with it. Hooray. :p
Score: 0
|Great.
Now we're going to be barraged with "4x HD", "8x HD" and such BS.
The customer started catching on to the facts about HD, so now they have to find some new ways to add more confusion.
Score: 0
|That's ok, the confused customers can just stick with their AOL and keep out of trouble :-p
Score: 0
|Bah, it's just getting silly now.
Score: 0
|I wonder if companies realize that fixed pixel computer displays start to become useless after about 800 lines of resolution.
I had a 1600 by 1200 notebook years ago, I hated that display more than anything, the icons were tiny and if you changed the resolution to make them look bigger, you got the blurry scaled versions.
My latest HP desktop has a 19" widescreen that is 900 lines but it's fine due to the size of the monitor. I cant imagine 1600 lines of resolution.
Score: 0
|It's all about detail. If you have great eye sight then its perfect, Doing graphics for a living, my life is about the many fine details, having a 1680x1050 res on my laptop and a 31 inch apple screen is a must for me.
You can't always upgrade one thing and not the other. if your going to run a display like apples, or gateways new Quad HD, you have to have the hardware and power to support it.
With the 8800 GTX, can easily play games in satisfactory fps on a screen this large. 8800GTX Sli would produce more then enough video power to play a game full Screen, just remember it requires 4 12v rails with 28amps to each. Just to use one of these screens for gaming your looking at a $220-$300 power supply alone, then add in a $450-500 graphics card, that will give you again satisfactory gaming, You want better, you can go for sli with a running cost of around 1300-1400 on psu and two 8800 gtx's.
Score: 0
|Perhaps you need glasses.
Score: 0
|Not really sure what you're talking about here. Perhaps for "Mom and Pop and Grandma", but for me, I'm a developer and I have dual monitors that are 1600x1200 (3200x1200 total) display area and I could /definately/ use another one on top of that. There's something to be said about the productivity to have the code on one screen, a virtualbox session on the other screen testing.........
Score: 0
|^This^
Score: 0
|This will come into play for operating systems which are capable of resolution independence. This is (i think) supported by OS X 10.5 (the beta) as they've bumped up the icon size for all the native mac icons from 128 to 256. potentially, in a modern OS that supports resolution independence, you can have the same size everything with much better detail. that, from my understanding, is the idea. of course, if you're a windows user you might have to wait for a while for this sort of experience. i think vista only just made the jump from 48 to 128. I'm totally pulling numbers out of my a** here but that's what i think i remember hearing/knowing without spending the time to look it up.
Score: 0
|Yeah, but what size was your screen? 17"? I have a 22inch monitor that does 1680 X 1050 and I love it. My icons are just as big as anyone else's because I have more screen space to fit those pixels on.
What you're talking about is the size of the actual pixels. When you've got a 30" display, 1600 lines isn't a waste in any sense.
Score: 0
|The resolution of the screen has nothing to do with your inability to change the font size or Microsoft's lack of Vector support in XP.
Bigger resolutions are ALWAYS better, it helps create more detail and less jagged edges. They're only a problem if things like fonts aren't scaled and the actual screen size doesn't get any bigger.
Score: 0
|