Awww, no tech.woot woot-off?

Can the displays be moved so each monitor touches each other in both horizonal and vertical orientations?

Wait, you get two monitors? Okay, let me ask the obvious question for us monitor-ignorant: what's "wrong" with these that they're on woot?

arghhhhhhh just bout two monitors last week totaling $350 frustration

You trying to trick us into buying these during the woot off?
Why not just put a picture of the Brigade of Campers on both the monitors too while you're at it?

I JUST bought the Train Simulator game on the Summer Steam sale too. Complete with Zombie DLC.

GET OUT OF MY HEAD WOOT.

It's an interesting configuration but these monitors are old technology for several reasons:

- Not LED backlit. Fluorescent tubes are more energy hungry, produces more heat, have shorter lives, are more prone to breakage from impact, and produces less dynamic contrast.

- Poor dynamic contrast (see above): 3000:1

- Relatively slow response time: 8ms (gray to gray) 16ms (on/off)

Unless you really need this unusual physical configuration, buying two LED-backlit monitors can give you better specs at roughly the same price.

baillard wrote:Can the displays be moved so each monitor touches each other in both horizonal and vertical orientations?

It looks like the monitors are rail mounted with adjustable knobs. Seems like you can have them touch if you'd like.

neuropsychosocial wrote:Wait, you get two monitors? Okay, let me ask the obvious question for us monitor-ignorant: what's "wrong" with these that they're on woot?

Seems like old technology (see my previous post) and too unusual of a configuration to be useful for most people.

s0xm0nk3y wrote:Awww, no tech.woot woot-off?

I am glad this item is not part of the "off"...I get to sleep (yea, right) on it.

baillard wrote:Can the displays be moved so each monitor touches each other in both horizonal and vertical orientations?

Yes they can (slide left and right) touch each other.

This is a really good deal on a pair of excellent monitors. You could easily spend this much on a single S-IPS monitor, let alone two with a decent stand. If you need the color accuracy or are just tired of looking at washed-out monitors with poor consistency, I'd grab this in a second. A little small for my liking, and I have some monitors I like. I've seen this stand in person, it's quite solid.

I believe these are not true 8-bit panels but at this price it's not to be expected. I prefer 16:10s, but they're becoming harder to find.

sdc100 wrote:It's an interesting configuration but these monitors are old technology for several reasons:

S-IPS is not a particularly old technology in the arena of LCD panels. This design is about two years old.

sdc100 wrote:- Not LED backlit. Fluorescent tubes are more energy hungry, produces more heat, have shorter lives, are more prone to breakage from impact, and produces less dynamic contrast.

Wanting accuracy makes the CCFL a plus in many cases. It reduces bleeding, at a slight expense of gray/black levels-- same reason I go with the fluorescent Ultrasharps. Cost savings are negligible unless $2-3 per year is an unacceptable increase.

sdc100 wrote:- Poor dynamic contrast (see above): 3000:1

"Dynamic contrast" is a marketing term with no set standard for testing. It's practically meaningless. The actual contrast ratio for these panels is about 1000:1, which is quite good for a panel of this type.

sdc100 wrote:- Relatively slow response time: 8ms (gray to gray) 16ms (on/off)

Welcome to IPS monitors. They are not ideal for gaming. Some may be able to tell the difference between an 8ms from a 5ms monitor. I personally can't really. But I don't spend that much time on the action games, either. YMMV.

sdc100 wrote:Unless you really need this unusual physical configuration, buying two LED-backlit monitors can give you better specs at roughly the same price.

A monitor stand is hardly unusual for anyone doing studio or design work. I routinely use up to four at a time. If you can find me two monitors and a stand with better accuracy than these monitors at this price, I'm all ears-- but even most eIPS panels cost over $200 alone on a good day.

sdc100 wrote:It's an interesting configuration but these monitors are old technology for several reasons:

- Not LED backlit. Fluorescent tubes are more energy hungry, produces more heat, have shorter lives, are more prone to breakage from impact, and produces less dynamic contrast.

- Poor dynamic contrast (see above): 3000:1

- Relatively slow response time: 8ms (gray to gray) 16ms (on/off)

Unless you really need this unusual physical configuration, buying two LED-backlit monitors can give you better specs at roughly the same price.

These are S-IPS, which generally has a better color gamut than the trashy TN panels that are all over the market.

Also, LED displays aren't necessarily better. the color reproduction and uniformity often are, but conversely, they can actually flicker due to the use of PWM to dim the backlight.

This is a great price for a pair of S-IPS displays - not including the stand! I think I may be in on this for work to replace my cobbled-together current setup. The loss of 200 lines horizontal will stink though. (I'm on a mis-matched pair of 1920x1200 with a floating arm Ergotron stand that doesn't have enough room to be pushed back on the desk due to the arms hitting the wall behind the desk... )

is there any way to hook these up on an iMac with only 1 display port?

rom wrote:is there any way to hook these up on an iMac with only 1 display port?

With only a single displayport, you'd only get one screen. You'd need a standalone display adaptor, like a Matrox USB2Go or whatever they are called - and I don't know if those work on Macs.

baillard wrote:Can the displays be moved so each monitor touches each other in both horizonal and vertical orientations?

The monitors can be moved horizontally.

bradenmcg wrote:
Also, LED displays aren't necessarily better. the color reproduction and uniformity often are, but conversely, they can actually flicker due to the use of PWM to dim the backlight.

..The loss of 200 lines horizontal will stink though.

I forgot about the flickering, though better LEDs don't seem to exhibit it too much. And it is rather irritating going from 1920x1200 to 1080 but it's a long battle and I feel like I'm on the losing side.

sdc100 wrote:- Not LED backlit. Fluorescent tubes are more energy hungry, produces more heat, have shorter lives, are more prone to breakage from impact, and produces less dynamic contrast.
- Poor dynamic contrast (see above): 3000:1
- Relatively slow response time: 8ms (gray to gray) 16ms (on/off)

Unless you really need this unusual physical configuration, buying two LED-backlit monitors can give you better specs at roughly the same price.

Firstly this is an extremely common and useful configuration for two monitors. It's not unusual in any way.

Beyond that, I'm not too worried about a 50,000 hour lamp. That's what, ~17 years of 8 hours a day 7 days a week (or more like 24 years of weekdays)? Most people also don't drop their desktop monitors a lot and the backlight lamp breaking is likely to be the least of your worries if doing so. The 3 year warranty is also a plus.

A good fluorescent backlit IPS panel can also look far better than a cheap LED-backlit TN panel, especially for viewing angle and color.

Also, contrast ratio specs mean relatively little at this point. It's become almost as bad as the old megahertz and megapixel races. Response times are often similarly fudged to some degree, so there's little substitute for an actual, objective evaluation/comparison if you're picky. If not, look for a good price on a major brand with a decent warranty.

That having been said, 21.5" is a little small for a dual monitor setup. 24" would be a better size (though that could prove harder to find in this price range).

bradenmcg wrote:With only a single displayport, you'd only get one screen. You'd need a standalone display adaptor, like a Matrox USB2Go or whatever they are called - and I don't know if those work on Macs.

thanks that's what I thought. I'm currently using a secondary HP 22" on portrait. Most monitors now rarely come with pivot-enable stands

bradenmcg wrote:With only a single displayport, you'd only get one screen.

You can daisy-chain multiples on one DP, not that these monitors support that.

sdc100 wrote:It's an interesting configuration but these monitors are old technology for several reasons:

- Not LED backlit. Fluorescent tubes are more energy hungry, produces more heat, have shorter lives, are more prone to breakage from impact, and produces less dynamic contrast.

- Poor dynamic contrast (see above): 3000:1

- Relatively slow response time: 8ms (gray to gray) 16ms (on/off)

Unless you really need this unusual physical configuration, buying two LED-backlit monitors can give you better specs at roughly the same price.

do u know ANYTHING about S-IPS? you need to do your homework.

suggest you get started at:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/content/panel_technologies_content.htm#s-ips

ThunderThighs wrote:I've had dual monitors for years. Once you go dual, you never go back.

That's what she said.

Shinespark wrote:I forgot about the flickering, though better LEDs don't seem to exhibit it too much. And it is rather irritating going from 1920x1200 to 1080 but it's a long battle and I feel like I'm on the losing side.

i'm with u on that. I want my 120 pixels.

I have the 'larger brother' of the monitors in this deal.

I have the HP ZR24W, granted, not only is it larger, and is a 1920*1200 resolution screen. I have found it to be a great monitor, albeit a little bright. I have the backlight down all the way, and it still is damn bright.

I use mine for both web development (programming and graphic design) as well as gaming, and it performs well all around.

Color and contrast of the monitor are great for design, and text is sharp.

Lag is not noticeable to me when playing FPS style games, and it does well with movies and fast paced action.

deibs wrote:do u know ANYTHING about S-IPS? you need to do your homework.

suggest you get started at:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/content/panel_technologies_content.htm#s-ips

I tried to say more or less the same thing in a less condescending manner than I normally do. It really is night & day though, once you go to a good panel. I cant recommend enough that people at least try using an IPS panel.

redspecial wrote:That's what she said.

Shouldn't have laughed so hard.

Shinespark wrote:A monitor stand is hardly unusual for anyone doing studio or design work. I routinely use up to four at a time. If you can find me two monitors and a stand with better accuracy than these monitors at this price, I'm all ears-- but even most eIPS panels cost over $200 alone on a good day.

Well, you hit the nail right on the head. How many people do "studio or design work"? Those people would likely not be buying their equipment from Woot. That's why this is a niche configuration. Indeed, few home consumers (aka Wooters) have the desk space for this. It is much easier to put two monitors separately on the desk (as I do). This is only useful if you need to have the monitors be extensions of each other, or otherwise need to see both images simultaneously, i.e. for comparisons. This is simply not the case for most people, hence this is a niche bundle.

As for energy, all I can say is that these monitors uses about 44W each, while my 23" LED monitors use about 25W each. And as I've said, fluorescent tubes are simply less hardy. I've only had two monitors failed on me and both had broken tubes (one burned out, one broke due to impact).

deibs wrote:do u know ANYTHING about S-IPS? you need to do your homework.

suggest you get started at:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/content/panel_technologies_content.htm#s-ips

That's irrelevant because my points are still valid. Most people value the features I listed over the advantages of S-IPS. My comments were about the features of this monitor as it applies to most consumers, not about the advnatages or disadvantages of S-IPS.

sdc100 wrote:Well, you hit the nail right on the head. How many people do "studio or design work"? That's why this is a niche configuration. Indeed, few home consumers (aka Wooters) have the desk space for this. It is much easier to put two monitors separately on the desk (as I do). This is only useful if you need to have the monitors be extensions of each other, or otherwise need to see both images simultaneously, i.e. for comparisons. This is simply not the case for most people, hence this is a niche bundle.

With the increasing movement towards "everything" being electronic, I think more and more people may find dual monitors useful. For me, I am frequently writing about something that exists in another electronic file and I would love to have (say) my stats output/graphs on one monitor and my word processor on the other, so I can simply look side-to-side; I lose my train of thought flipping back-and-forth between windows. And yes, I'd like the monitors to be right next to each other, touching - but I'd really like them to be displayed vertically, not horizontally, and it looks like these can't do that.

ETA: SDC's gif wasn't giffing on my "row boat air." Apparently they can be mounted vertically.

sdc100 wrote:Well, you hit the nail right on the head. How many people do "studio or design work"? That's why this is a niche configuration. Indeed, few home consumers (aka Wooters) have the desk space for this. It is much easier to put two monitors separately on the desk (as I do). This is only useful if you need to have the monitors be extensions of each other, or otherwise need to see both images simultaneously, i.e. for comparisons. This is simply not the case for most people, hence this is a niche bundle.

It's extremely useful and convenient for a lot more than design work, that's just an area where it's just about required.

sdc100 wrote:As for energy, all I can say is that these monitors uses about 44W each, while my 23" LED monitors use about 25W each. And as I've said, fluorescent tubes are simply less hardy. I've only had two monitors failed on me and both had burned out tubes.

These consume 26.7 Watts each using the US Energy Star method. 44 Watts is the theoretical maximum power consumption.

I've also seen quality CCFL LCD panels last well over a decade.

sdc100 wrote:As for energy, all I can say is that these monitors uses about 44W each, while my 23" LED monitors use about 25W each. And as I've said, fluorescent tubes are simply less hardy. I've only had two monitors failed on me and both had burned out tubes.

Both points are true. These monitors would indeed cost about $8/yr more if on torch mode for 4 hours per day.

As far as "hardiness," by what measure does one measure the robustness of a panel (aside from anecdotes, I mean)? The half-life? Good LEDs can have a half-life expectancy in the range of 50% longer than a typical CCFL, though this is sometimes complicated by the tendency for the fluorescent to start brighter and change color less. I would expect a good 5-6 years out of this panel, and the fact that they're sticking by a 3 year warranty on this is rather interesting.

neuropsychosocial wrote:but I'd really like them to be displayed vertically, not horizontally, and it looks like these can't do that.

They could be mounted vertically, if that's an acceptable compromise.

so is there a way to use both of these at one time with a macbook air? i don't believe the question was definitively answered earlier. thanks in advance. I'm at work so i can't do any research.

sdc100 wrote:That's irrelevant because my points are still valid. Most people value the features I listed over the advantages of S-IPS. My comments were about the features of this monitor as it applies to most consumers, not about the advnatages or disadvantages of S-IPS.

While YOU might personally value those particular spec numbers and features (for whatever reason), it seems more than a little presumptuous to speak for "most people," or to consider these monitors somehow inadequate.

Even among Wooters, your opinion on the subject seems to be in the minority.

mangee1234 wrote:so is there a way to use both of these at one time with a macbook air? i don't believe the question was definitively answered earlier. thanks in advance. I'm at work so i can't do any research.

Not without some sort of separate multi-display adapter, such as the Matrox Dualhead mentioned earlier or (shudder) a USB adapter.

mangee1234 wrote:so is there a way to use both of these at one time with a macbook air? i don't believe the question was definitively answered earlier. thanks in advance. I'm at work so i can't do any research.

Yes, it was, and the answer is no, not without additional hardware.

An air has either mini-displayport or Thunderbolt, depending on the revision.

You'd need a Mini-DP to (DP standard, DVI, VGA - pick your poison, but they are ordered best to worst here). That would get you one display externally. You'd need an additional display driver ("video card") to drive another screen. USB video cards exist, but I don't know if they work on Macs. You'd need one of these + the aforementioned adaptor (for the internal port) in order to push two displays with any modern Apple other than a row boat Mini or row boat Pro.

[Wow, really Woot? I fracking hate the stupid filters when I'm trying to educate people. The short form of "Macintosh" is being changed to "row boat". :rolleyes:]

Shinespark wrote:You can daisy-chain multiples on one DP, not that these monitors support that.

I thought it had to be Thunderbolt enabled on Macs for daisy chaining...beyond just having the DP's.

I've been wondering about that because my 27" cinema display that I use at work is DP but has no pass through for daisy chaining.

Or is there some other method of connecting multiple DP monitors on Macs?

Edit: Nvm I just saw bradenmcg's post.

seems like many people have dual monitors as well! it would be great if woot can sell the monitor stands by itself~ do consider