Closing Thoughts

A 27" LCD is definitely an interesting option for people who want something larger than a 24" model but prefer to stick with single-link DVI connections. If that sounds like the type of LCD you're after, the Dell 2707WFP is definitely a viable option. Of course, there really aren't many other alternatives right now. Anyone looking for more modern styling from the LCD is also likely to be pleased with Dell's new offering and it certainly makes a case for being the coolest looking LCD on the market right now.

Unfortunately, the overall good quality and attractive appearance don't come cheap, as the Dell 2707WFP is currently selling for $1169 on Dell's web site (with the "normal" price being $1299). At the current price, it falls almost exactly halfway between the price of most 24" LCDs and the Dell/HP 30" LCDs. It's also halfway between those two in terms of size, so perhaps the price is fitting. Considering that Dell has frequent display sales, potential buyers might want to keep an eye on things and wait for a larger sale to come around, although when/if that will occur on the 2707WFP is anyone's guess.


Perhaps we're just being a bit spoiled, as it was only 18 months back that we were paying nearly as much for a 24" LCD. However, while we might consider the 2707WFP at its currently reduced price, the regular $1300 would definitely be more than we are willing to pay. At that price, we would be more inclined to spend a bit more for the 30" 3007WFPHC or some other LCD - or else just get a couple 24" LCDs.

The other difficulty is that the current price point also competes against HDTVs that typically include even more input options (multiple component and DVI inputs, for example) as well as speakers, HDMI, and CableCARD support. You can get 1080p 37" LCD HDTVs starting at $1000, or 42" models starting at $1200. We can't say for certain whether the quality and other aspects of such displays are able to match what the 2707WFP offers, but for the same price they are definitely tempting. They may not be better strictly as computer displays, but at the same time we would expect them to surpass the 27" Dell when it comes to other uses like viewing TV, movies, or hooking up multiple peripherals.

The 2707WFP ends up being a very good LCD for most uses, but with a price and features that make it a tough sell. It seems like the most likely buyers at present are going to be businesses or users looking for a display with a cutting edge appearance. Dell delivers on the looks and the features, but for imaging professionals, HTPC types, or those with limited funds we would take a closer look at other options.

Printing Results
Comments Locked

39 Comments

View All Comments

  • AnnonymousCoward - Friday, April 6, 2007 - link

    Slightly off topic, but what's the easiest way to get color profiles to apply in games, and not just Windows?
  • JarredWalton - Friday, April 6, 2007 - link

    If you set a color profile, it applies to everything but overlay. So games automatically use it, AFAIK. It's only video content that has problems.
  • AnnonymousCoward - Friday, April 6, 2007 - link

    You're probably right, since I tried changing the color profile to make everything hot pink, and the game also looked that way.

    Whenever Windows is booting up, the desktop first looks slightly lighter, and after a second it seems like the color profile kicks in. When I run the game Dark Messiah, right before the screen switches to the game, the desktop switches back to that lighter appearance, so it doesn't look like it's using the profile. I've also seen a few sites indicate that profiles don't apply for games: http://www.hex2bit.com/products/product_mcw.asp">http://www.hex2bit.com/products/product_mcw.asp says "...to prevent other programs from changing the color profile Windows uses. This is especially important to gamers as most games will change the color profile Windows uses." and http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1064124&...">http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1064124&... someone said "Also, that color profile won't effect videos, games, or your mouse cursor. I calibrated through my spyder2..."
  • sm8000 - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link

    "single-link with a very limiting 1280x800 resolution"

    Isn't single link's max res 1920x1200? I'm pretty sure it is. Is the article saying dual link panels by design won't display more than 1280x800 on single link?
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link

    Right. There are no scaler ICs for 2560x1600 right now, but apparently they can manage a simple doubling of resolution. If you use a 30" LCD with a single-link DVI connection, they will only support up to 1280x800. In the case of the HP LP3065, any other resolution ends up being garbled (i.e. the BIOS, POST, and boot sequence is illegible). Within Windows, you can change the resolution and apparently the GPU will handle the scaling, but outside of Windows you're basically out of luck unless you're running 1280x800.
  • jc44 - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link

    I feel the need to take issue with the assumption in the article that a denser pixel pitches must lead to smaller text. OK - that certianly happens by default, but it is possible to increase the number of dpi that windows associates with amonitor and that should increase the size of the displayed text. I'll admit that support is somewhat patchy with web pages being amongst the greatest offenders - but in general it works.

    Personally I'm a dpi junkie and normally use a 204dpi monitor which can lead to somewhat interesting results on applications & web pages that are convinced that all monitors in the world run at 96dpi!

    These days you don't need to spend a lot on a graphics card to a a dual-link dvi connector - I'm not sure where the bottom of the range is but an nvidia 7600 costs less than £100 and can be found with one dual + one single link DVI connectors.

    JC
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link

    Adjusting DPI is certainly possible, and I believe this is one of the areas that Vista is supposed to be a lot better than XP. (Anyone able to confirm that?) However, my personal experience with modifying the DPI has been less than stellar. I usually end up just increasing the font size in Firefox, using the magnification in Word, etc. There are plenty of other applications that have no respect for the Windows DPI setting.
  • nullpointerus - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link

    Vista is definitely better than XP in this regard, but there are still many areas that could use some polish. For example, Vista still appears to use tiny bitmapped icons, which do not scale very well on the high-dpi title bar and task bar. Moreover, many third-party applications and even many Microsoft applications still have icons and images that scale horribly without the standard 96-dpi setting.

    Nonetheless, font-handling and layout for non-Aero-native applications has improved dramatically since the early Vista RC1 release; instead of merely upscaling the fonts and controls into a blurry mess, the layout engine does proper spacing and the font engine draws crisp, high resolution fonts. Visual Studio 2005 shows *major* progress in this regard.

    For anyone interested in getting a higher density display and using the Vista DPI setting, I definitely trying it first. You could enable 120 dpi on your old monitor and stand back an extra foot or so to mimic the effect of a lower pixel pitch. Or get a friend to do this if you do not have Vista on your own computer.
  • strikeback03 - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link

    I always reduce the size of my windows icons anyway. they are huge in the stock setting.

    on a related note, anyone know how to change desktop icon size and spacing in Gnome/Ubuntu? do you need a whole new theme? icons for mounted drives are way large.
  • nullpointerus - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link

    typo: I definitely recommend trying it first.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now