30" LCD for $579 YMMV warm at best

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
W

Waco10

Member
Jul 27, 2001
50
0
0
Go ahead and crush me.

I'm bored here at work.
I'm frustrated in my Quest for the perfect 17" LCD with DVI for $320 (just like gouda96)
I'm not taking myself too seriously, so don't you.

Here is dual 15" LCD rig for $579:



Techforless

Actually, I've ordered from them when they were firesale.com several years ago, and I was satified.

resellerrating

Yes, the title is misleading. It is to laugh!
 
N

Nova13

Member
Jul 4, 2001
71
0
0
sorry accidentally posted this blank the first time...

I went with dual 17" lcd's nec 1760nx's they work great and were relativly cheap. I got them during the dell fiasco with the coupons back in june.. came to like 650 for both shipped.

My setup.

They work great for me and work nice with my setup.

Id highly recommend those lcd's. Also the dual monitor setup is great for when im programming... If only i could get my geforce 4 to work dual monitors in linux then id be set...

edit: linkified
 
A

anxman69

Senior member
Jun 27, 2001
635
1
0
I'm running twin Planar PL170M's. A necessity for programming, imho. Check out eBay, can get two for $350ish.

-Ankur
 
V

VisionsUCI

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2000
1,834
0
0
I think the 30" LCD in the title is a little misleading. I guess you could say something like ' 30" LCD (dual 15" displays) ' or something like that.
 
G

gwlam12

Diamond Member
Apr 4, 2001
6,946
1
71
Originally posted by: VisionsUCI
I think the 30" LCD in the title is a little misleading. I guess you could say something like ' 30" LCD (dual 15" displays) ' or something like that.
Click to expand...

read his post. he's bored :)
 
A

a2k

Senior member
Oct 12, 2002
259
0
0

From their description: "Virtually eliminate time lost to minimizing and switching applications"

I dare their sales people to try to figure out the ROI on that one.

In fact, I'll give it a try. Let's assume you switch between applications 20 times an hour and each switch takes 7 seconds. Your employees work 8 hours a day and get 2 weeks of vacation. So, this thing would save you .7 seconds x 8 hours a day x 5 days a week x 50 weeks a year / 60 seconds per minute / 60 mintues per hour= .39 hours per year. You'd only have to be paying your employees $1488.86/hour to make this thing pay for itself in 12 months. I suppose if you're trading futures on cocaine, this thing is totally worth it.

Can you guess who else is bored at work today?
 
I

icantiwont

Senior member
Jul 20, 2001
646
0
0
Originally posted by: gwlam12
Originally posted by: VisionsUCI
I think the 30" LCD in the title is a little misleading. I guess you could say something like ' 30" LCD (dual 15" displays) ' or something like that.
Click to expand...

read his post. he's bored :)
Click to expand...


Being bored is not a license to post misleading titles.
 
S

shawnz28

Guest
Nov 17, 2002
474
0
0
a2k i think your math was a bit flawed. you multiplied .7 times 8. I think it should have been 7 seconds x 20 instantces x 8 hours x 5 days a week x 50 weeks divided by 60 for minutes and then 60 again for hours. and I get 77.7 hours. Though I could be wrong :D
 
T

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Originally posted by: Nova13

Id highly recommend those lcd's. Also the dual monitor setup is great for when im programming... If only i could get my geforce 4 to work dual monitors in linux then id be set...
Click to expand...

I'd send you a PM, but your profile isn't enabled and neither are your PMs. If you want any assistance with nView in Linux, I'd be more than happy to oblige. I've got *cough* just a little experience with it *cough*.

If you want, send your XF86Config file to my e-mail address. I'll fix it, comment the changes, and send it back. Need to know LCD or CRT, res, and valid refresh rates.
 
N

Nova13

Member
Jul 4, 2001
71
0
0
it's actually split screen on the one pc. If i hit the device switch on the side the right monitor switches over to my sun ultra 10 machine i use for work. Normally though it's a split screen.
 
T

Tuan

Member
Mar 6, 2001
156
0
0
Originally posted by: a2k
From their description: "Virtually eliminate time lost to minimizing and switching applications"

I dare their sales people to try to figure out the ROI on that one.

In fact, I'll give it a try. Let's assume you switch between applications 20 times an hour and each switch takes 7 seconds. Your employees work 8 hours a day and get 2 weeks of vacation. So, this thing would save you .7 seconds x 8 hours a day x 5 days a week x 50 weeks a year / 60 seconds per minute / 60 mintues per hour= .39 hours per year. You'd only have to be paying your employees $1488.86/hour to make this thing pay for itself in 12 months. I suppose if you're trading futures on cocaine, this thing is totally worth it.

Can you guess who else is bored at work today?
Click to expand...

You made quite a mistake there! You said you save ".7 seconds per hour", if each switching takes 7 seconds and 20 per hour that's 140 seconds per hour, not .7! So, the .39 hours you originally said * 140/.7 = 78 hours saved.

Taking the $1488.86/hour and multiplying it by .39 you get the ~$580 figure you started with. So now instead of $580 / .39, it's $580 / 78 hours which is $7.44/hour. So from your arbitrary numbers, it does save money! Little difference there :)
 
A

a2k

Senior member
Oct 12, 2002
259
0
0
Originally posted by: Tuan
Originally posted by: a2k
From their description: "Virtually eliminate time lost to minimizing and switching applications"

I dare their sales people to try to figure out the ROI on that one.

In fact, I'll give it a try. Let's assume you switch between applications 20 times an hour and each switch takes 7 seconds. Your employees work 8 hours a day and get 2 weeks of vacation. So, this thing would save you .7 seconds x 8 hours a day x 5 days a week x 50 weeks a year / 60 seconds per minute / 60 mintues per hour= .39 hours per year. You'd only have to be paying your employees $1488.86/hour to make this thing pay for itself in 12 months. I suppose if you're trading futures on cocaine, this thing is totally worth it.

Can you guess who else is bored at work today?
Click to expand...

You made quite a mistake there! You said you save ".7 seconds per hour", if each switching takes 7 seconds and 20 per hour that's 140 seconds per hour, not .7! So, the .39 hours you originally said * 140/.7 = 78 hours saved.

Taking the $1488.86/hour and multiplying it by .39 you get the ~$580 figure you started with. So now instead of $580 / .39, it's $580 / 78 hours which is $7.44/hour. So from your arbitrary numbers, it does save money! Little difference there :)
Click to expand...

Good thing I don't work for Nasa, isn't it? God knows where I'd be sending those astronauts. Anyway, yes, my math was flawed. The correct hours per year savings is 7.78, or about $75 an hour. Include benefits, overhead, and the like in the hourly cost per employee and this thing may very well pay for itself in a year. I gotta go talk to the boss about this!

(Tuan, you used 7 seconds per switch, not .7 seconds, which is why we are a decimal point off). Off course, my assumptions might be off, but it's Saturday night and I'm no longer bored, so I'm gonna leave it where it is.

-a2k
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom