Am I the only one who would rather see more work around thinner bezels for better multi-mon experiences? Seeems like all the large panels have at least an inch to inch and a half bezel space; two next to each other and the non-lit area get obstructive.
I personally prefer a big screen over multiple screens, if only for the ability to place windows anywhere I want on my screen real estate. Bezel space is thus secondary for me.
We (sadly) moved away from 4:3 permanently, but 16:10 is hardly gone. Sure, as they make a lot of FullHD panels nowadays, a 1920x1080 display is very common, but you still can get 1920x1200 displays from almost any manufacturer, albeit at a higher price (and quite often higher quality).
And you can get 16:10 versions of those IPS panels, which then sport a 2560x1600 resolution. About $550+ if you buy from the same Korean dealers (search for e.g. "Crossover 30Q5").
16:9 is a lot more tolerable when the "short" side is still 1440px tall. The aspect ratio makes a lot more sense at a 27" size than it does in a 13" laptop.
Sure, I'd prefer 2560x1600 than 2560x1440, but it really isn't a big deal.
Forget about the aspect ratio of the panel - with enough useable pixels, it's all but irrelevant.
I use one of these cheap 2560x1440 displays. 99% of the time, I treat it as two portrait displays, each with an effective resolution of 1280x1440 (8:9 aspect ratio). My ideal monitor would be an enormously wide curved display, providing a similar workspace to a triple-monitor setup but without the inconvenience of bezels.
It's under "Adjust ClearType text" on the control panel in Windows 7. It's also known as "ClearType Text Tuner."
It doesn't specifically ask you to pick your subpixel layout, but rather shows you a bunch of different renderings and asks you to pick the one you think looks best.
You realize we are talking about a 2560x1440 monitor right?
Depending on your DPI settings, one can consider turning off subpixel smoothing at this res. At 4k you should certainly consider it. Plus, I'm sure various implementations are better than others. Does the iPad have this problem?
True, it's a 2560x1440 display, but it's not “retina“ yet. There is still a big difference with and without subpixel rendering, especially for smaller texts. Well, at least to my “retina” spoiled eyes. YMMV.
iOS does not use subpixel rendering at all, possibly due to the inconsistence of text rendering in different orientations.
That requires having a stand that can accommodate the monitor that orientation - something neither of my existing displays can do. And you've just moved the problem around since a wider display would still be preferable.
I'd be really happy with three huge 4:3 displays but that will never happen.
The output quality depends on the panel type. If it is IPS like these, then viewing angle doesn't matter but some other panels look awful even from a slight side angle.
I have both an HP LP2475w (24" 1920x1200, IPS) and a 27" 2560x1440 monitor--the same resolution as mentioned here. (I didn't want to deal with potential dead pixels and scaling issues, so I forked over the $700 for the Asus PB278Q instead of buying the off-brand.)
Honestly, I hate using my HP now. It's a great monitor, but the 2560x1440 resolution on the Asus is amazing. Side by side, the Asus knocks the HP out of the park.
TLDR: It is not worth the downgrade in screen size and resolution just to get a 16x10 aspect ratio. You will never regret going for the 2560x1440 monitor instead.
It's a pain to cart around, but I love my 10-year-old 2048x1536 CRT, and am alternately amused and saddened that modern displays still have a smaller smallest dimension.
New technologies are usually better in some aspects in worse in others. Like LCD was a lot better for the thickness factor, but it took ages to make them the same quality as CRT and for the same reasonable price.
Now we're seeing this with OLED displays, too. Much better contrasts, and even having some special properties like being bendable, but cost more than regular LCD's or even IPS LCD's.
I had one of those at home. I took the hit on resolution and color to go LCD because the LCD's at work didn't make me feel as tired as the high-res CRT at home did.
I had the opposite; for a long time LCDs gave me headaches, I think because they were all 60Hz. (Recently I've bought a laptop with a 120Hz display, which doesn't give me headaches).
I have a 28" and a 24" both running 1920x1200 so that wouldn't be an upgrade. I think I bought almost the last monitors running at that resolution! I'd be happy replacing the 24" with something larger but it looks like the 27" 16:9 will actually be less vertical space.
My monitors are CCFL so they use a lot of power hence the desire to replace them eventually.
16:9 are physically smaller and use less material yet able to maintain the same screen size specification as a 16:10 monitor. Hence such difference is often missed/ignored by the ordinary customer and hence manufacturers are able to get away with this. In other words, 16:9 monitors == higher profit margins
The way I understand it, these panels are all basically cut from one continuous sheet in the factory, so it's difficult to re-tool a line to produce "taller" panels.
These 27" 1440p displays are still only 110 PPI. Compared to tablet screens surpassing 300 PPI, reading on lcd monitors becomes so painful when you get spoiled on those tablet screens.
I'll be interested in 1440p when the displays hit 22 - 24" inch range and the PPI approaches 150. I'd really like to wait for 4k resolution displays to take off, and get shrunk down to 27". That would be much more reasonable pixel density. Using classic displays (or heavens forbid, an 800p laptop at 17") is just so jarring compared to my 250 PPI tablet.
Really? If ~300 ppi is enough at 10" away (retina iPhone) and ~200 ppi is enough at 18" away (retina MBP) then ~100 ppi should be enough at 30" away (large desktop monitor), right?
But what does "enough" mean? Regardless of eyeball distance, more resolution -- certeris paribus -- will mean the ability to display a superior image. I want 300ppi on a 30" screen.
"Enough" specifically means that if you increase it, or even double it, you won't be able to tell the difference. With 20/20 vision, your eye cannot resolve details finer than about one arc minute. (Note that 20/20 vision is, in practice, a limitation of the lens of your eye and not really the retina part.) So if you have better-than-average vision I guess you might need more pixels... or just sit a bit further back :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20/20_vision#Normal_vision
I'll consider it enough when I no longer get light headaches reading subpixel-rendered text on a desktop LCD at 18 - 24". My 1080p 22" display has ~100 PPI and that makes my head ache. That 27" 4k resolution display would have 160 PPI, which might be enough for me. But the 1440p 27" display only has 120 PPI and I still get headaches off that.
It is the same thing as FOV in FPS games. Some people get really bad headaches with narrow FOV on widescreens, some don't. If the 1440p 27" display is good enough for you, then just don't buy a more expensive 4k display at that resolution. Or get a 32" 4k display and get more space. I'm gonna get the 27" one because it feels easier on my eyes, probably at a price premium. I'm fine with that, I just want the pixel density.
You don't really need 4K at 27", even if your vision is very good you shouldn't sit that close to your monitor. 4K is awesome for large sizes, 32" and up, I would say.
4K at 27" would still be considerably lower pixel density (~160 ppi) than my old Motorola Atrix phone (275 ppi), which had lower density than my current HTC Rezound (342 ppi). I found the difference between the Rezound and the Atrix to be striking, so I think 4K at 27" would not be overkill by any means at half the density of the Rezound, even taking into account that the display will be a little farther from your eyes.
For larger displays - yes. For smaller - not really. After a certain density at a given viewing distance you stop seeing the difference, but doubling the density requires 4X more powerful hardware (and battery) to keep up.
One thing to be aware of is that all of the cheap 27" monitors I've seen (including the Monoprice one) have a DVI-Dual link cable only. If you have an old Macbook Pro then it will have a port for this built in, modern Macs don't have this and PC's may do.
I tried to skimp and buy a cheap passive Dual-Link DVI - Display Port adaptor but it didn't work so I had to buy an active one. I'm pretty sure that Dual-Link DVI adaptors have to be active and they start at $70 http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&c...
There always seems to be a compromise with these. The 27" Auria from Microcenter has several different inputs (display port, hdmi, dvi), but the included stand is short and non-adjustable.
I started out with the Monoprice thunderbolt to dual DVI adapter. The version I have is buggy and won't function properly when coming back from sleep mode. You need to reboot the adapter a couple of times by unplugged the USB cable.
The early Apple thunderbolt dual DVI adapters also reported had problems. However, I have a recent version and the problems are worse. Occasionally when waking up the laptop the screen will have pixel snow. Rebooting the adapter solves the problem.
I tried a bunch of cheap DisplayPort -> Dual-Link DVI cables with my 27" Shimian, and none of them worked.
I gave up, splashed $100 on the official apple (active, USB powered) one, and it worked straight away.
It did work straight up with my PC desktop though (almost all decent new GPUs have DL-DVI output), so you don't always need to compromise with a wire purchase.
The $64k question... How can I get one at 20-22" ~ 200+dpi? Like the IBM T221 from ten years ago? Every geek site I go people are on their hands and knees begging to get their hands on one at any price.
27" is too big for my desk and would rather not have to move my head side to side to see everything.
If you're a bit paranoid about quality/support for some of the cheaper 27" monitors out there a good compromise is to wait for the Dell U2713HM to be on sale. It's regularly 30% off which brings it down to ~$500 (+ GST in Australia, AUD and USD are comparable). I'm happy with mine!
I've got a Dell U2711 which also has the same panel as the Apple Cinema displays and yet was only about 2/3 of the cost...
3 years warranty (though i've heard they replace your broken display with returned ones which might or might not be faulty) , color calibrated and no-dead-pixel-guarantee...
Edit: Ah, seems the display mentioned by parent has LED backlighting compared to CCFL in mine - of course i'd prefer the LED too ;)
Be sure to do a coupon google search if you're using the Dell Store. Everything that I've bought from there has had some 10% or 15% discount voucher which works ON the sale price also
The article is contradicting Monoprice's product page, which indicates only a one year warranty, like Micro Center:
> As you've come to expect from Monoprice, we stand behind our products and offer a full 1 year warranty, which is at least 3-4 times what is offered by other monitor manufacturers.
I have three of these monitors and while they're great for coding, don't expect the color to be anything close to Apple displays. No matter the amount of calibration I do, if you sit one of these next to your MBP Retina, it will look drastically different.
Compare GMail's grey highlights to see the difference.
I've followed this a bit by googling, reading posts and checking slickdeals and it doesn't output the 2560 resolution on anything but dual-link dvi and display port.
They were originally a reseller of the Korean small batch monitors and decided to seek their own distribution channel. The company is focused around gamers (hence the questionably cheesy name), offering an "overclocked" model capable of reaching 120Hz refresh rate (which lets you play games at 120 frames per second), but I use their ME model (60Hz, but multiple inputs, including Display Port) for my office. I had nice screens before, but the Overlord screens have blown me away so far. The real estate is fantastic.
In the display world, Apple, Dell, and Samsung pretty much get top pick of all display panels being created for 27" IPS screens; so other brands have to settle for panels that aren't rated at A+ (which means no dead pixels, no ghosting, no light bleed, etc). Most A- and A panels might have a small (nearly indistinguishable) amount of bleed or one dead pixel.
The reputable resellers or new brands offering these screens typically offer a 'Pixel Perfect' guarantee at a small up-charge ($20-ish) to guarantee the screen was inspected and had no dead pixels in the warehouse before shipping to you.
I'm not an expert by any means, but I did substantial research before purchasing.
I was excited when Anandtech announced that Nixeus would be selling a 27" @ 2560x1440 for $430 4 months ago. I bought one as soon as they went on sale, and when I started my new job I asked them to buy me another one. Now I have dual 27"ers. I will never be able to go back to smaller screens and less resolution.
I can have my IDE split my files into two panes @ 120 character widths and they'll comfortably fit in a single monitor, including the sidebar containing the tree. This is great for TDD!
Looks like these are back ordered until March. Bummer.
I was considering jumping on the 27" Korean monitor bandwagon a few months ago when it was all the rage and decided to wait and now it seems like the prices have gone up across the board, like monitors that were just about $300 before are now $450+.
Yes, the prices are definitely higher than they were at that time. The deal a few months back was too good to be true. It has to be. I keep waiting for the FSM-270YG I bought for $350 to catch fire and burn down my house, but it hasn't happened yet...
In case anyone doesn't know... Monoprice is an incredible site with high-quality, budget products and really good customer service. The fact that these cheap monitors are now backed by a company I trust makes a big difference. (Don't work for them... just a satisfied customer).
Yes! From Monoprice's low prices, I figured they'd be selling junk. But a friend recommended them highly, so I tried them out. Now they're my go-to place any time I need cables. And overnight delivery is a flat $5 in CA.
I don't expect Windows PC manufacturers to use that resolution anytime soon. Some of them might start using it towards the end of the year, perhaps for 15" laptops, but it won't be en masse, so you might have to wait until 2014 for that. I don't think I'd get any device that is 10" or larger without that resolution (or 2560x1600) anymore, though.
High-DPI doesn't work in Windows (officially it does work, but if you try it you'll find that every app is broken), so that's effectively an unsellable product.
Windows' approach is by just upscaling each window, which makes things blurry.
Linux' approach is by letting you set the DPI in dozens of config files (eg one for GTK+, one for QT, ...), but at least the end result looks "reasonably" what you want.
Windows upscales applications that do not support scaling automatically. This gives it perfect backwards compatibility. Windows applications that do support arbitrary scaling just get to see the world as it is, and also work perfectly because they have been designed to do so.
The Apple approach is some kind of misguided middle ground. Applications are fooled in to thinking that they are rendering on a "normal" sized screen but they are actually rendering 2x2 blocks for every single pixel. Then the whole screen is resized in to whatever resolution that it actually has.
Lets say you pick the "Looks like 1920 by 1200" option (why not just give me a percent scale?). The app thinks it's rendering at 1920 x 1200, it's actually rendering at 3840 x 2400, and then the thing gets scaled down to 2880 x 1800.
Can't you just let the damn app render at the actual resolution of the screen and give it a percentage scale?
Have you seen the results? It's crazy, but it works, and has the added advantage of not having to wait until "just next year" when all existing applications will be ported to our New Hot Vector Based display tech.
I've been using high-ish DPI in Windows for a few months now ("Windows XP style"), and I pretty much never encountry any problems. Only apps I've encountered that don't scale are some Java apps.
Apparently some models are good for gaming. Must be privileged a model with a single input to avoid input lag, and a model with a potential overclock: In that regard, the Yamakasi Q270 SE seems to be the one standing out.
I was in the market for a new Mac in December. Our old machine was a 24" iMac 1920x1200 which was great. My default choice was a new 27" iMac, but trying one out in the store I found the resolution was so high that the menus, buttons and icons were too small and fiddly. They'r gorgeous displays, but the usability isn't there, especially since this machine would be used by other members of my family, some with significantly degraded eyesight.
My ideal would have been a 27" display at the same DPI and aspect ratio as our old iMac, the same panel just cut a bit bigger, but those don't seem to exist. In the end I went for a mac Mini with a Dell 24" at the same 1920x1200 as our old monitor.
My understanding is that you can set a 'virtual' screen resolution and the system will interpolate everything in the same way that computer games do, but at a significant reduction in display quality. I don't think OSX supports changing the system font size or display element sizes directly.
It's not. Monitor resolution peaked in 2004 and then went down. Also, much of the cost reduction since then appears to be due to quality reduction, not efficiency.
I'm there with you. I'd proverbially kill for something like a 27" Thunderbolt with a 260+ PPI that I could actually afford. I don't think it's happening for a long time though.
Be careful.. maybe my experience isn't typical but I bought one of these 27" Yamakasi Catleap monitors off ebay about 4 months ago and its already unusable. For a month the monitor was flickering and now the left half of the screen is dimmer then the other because the LED burnt out or something. I replaced it with a dell. More costly but at least I have a three year warranty. Maybe if monoprice gives that it'd be worth it. The display was nice, but man I wish I didn't cheap out originally. :(
From Monoprice on the warranty: "we are guaranteeing these monitor will have less than 5 dead pixels. [...] By comparison, the industry standard, even for industry leaders like Apple and LG, is 10 dead pixels or even more."
Is this true? None of my Apple devices have ever had a dead pixel, but I always assumed that even one dead pixel would be enough to convince the Genius Bar to give me a replacement. Anyone have first-hand experience with dead pixel warranty replacement on Apple devices?
They're probably all LG panels under the hood[1]. Different resellers have different pixel policies, and they can be a bit hard to keep track of.
On these size screens, Apple won't replace <11 dark (dead-looking) or <9 light (stuck-looking) pixels. HP's policy is about half that. Lenovo is like 4 or something. Some of the other manufacturers have even more complex policies which depend on the position of the stuck/dead pixel.
And in practice, if you complain well enough in the store, Apple may replace for you even if you're under the line.
[1] When I say "they", I mean these 27" IPS panels, whether they're from Apple, Dell, HP, or some random Korean company.
The problem with Dells return policy - at least according to much i've read about it on the interwebs - is that they indeed have a pretty liberal policy regarding returns, but you seem to be almost guaranteed to receive an already returned (i.e. not new) display...
I've found this out because i wanted to swap out my U2711 which has some issues when it's warm in the room - it might just go blank for a few seconds and then go back on again...
However since that is quite seldom (sometimes once a week, sometimes 3-4 times in an hour and then returns to normal) i've refrained from returning it cause one could get an even worse model - or so i've read..
For what it's worth, Apple replaced my Retina iPad that had a single stuck pixel, and it was only noticeable on a dark background in a dark room. While it's a small screen, the number of pixels is about the same as on the 27" Cinema display.
What their official policies say and what they actually do are pretty different, it seems.
I never had issues with an Apple big screen but they replaced my 13" MBA for a single dead pixel. And the Apple Genius was very surprised as he never saw faults on those.
For months, people who know what’s up have been buying Cheap Korean 27-inch monitors because they’re made from the same panels as high end monitors. But for a third of the cost. Monoprice is selling 2560×1440 IPS monitors for $390, in that same spirit. They use the same LG panels as the 27-inch iMac (except Apple only takes the best; these are the rest), but Monoprice is offering a 3 year warranty and they check every panel for dead pixels–most Korean monitors, which are imported or sold on ebay, don’t do that.
Are these as good as the Apple Cinema Display? Still haven't found anything with text as crisp my ACD (waiting for ACD retina). I've seen better for graphics but not text. Dell Ultrasharps for example are awesome for graphics and yes better than ACD but for programming the anti-glare on Dells is annoying like looking at a vampire from Twilight in the sunlight.
Boy will that be a rough day for my checking account. I think we're looking at a multi-year wait though, considering the difficulty Apple is having shipping 27" iMacs with the same old display bonded to the front-glass.
I remain optimistic though. We won't need 300dpi on standard computer monitors, because we sit so much further away from them. My current cinema display still looks pretty decent compared to 'retina' portable devices.
These Korean IPS monitors are a solid value. I picked up a Shimian for $390 and it is the best monitor I've ever owned. TA Planet (http://stores.ebay.com/TA-Planet) seems to be the preferred ebay seller. I had a great experience with them. This monoprice deal looks very promising too.
They are IPS panels, so color reproduction should be pretty accurate. Of course it will always be better if you calibrate it yourself using something like a Spyder colorimeter.
I bought one of these cheap 27-inch monitors at Microcenter a few months back. It was a great display for the price (I paid $300), but after a couple weeks, smoke literally started coming out of the power brick (which always seemed to run really hot). Now I'm pretty wary of any of these cheap displays.
The warranty is what makes this really attractive. I rolled the dice, getting two from ebay, and managed to luck out.
Now I can recommend these to people who are less able to cope with dead pixels, etc. Have to love monoprice for doing to monitors what they've done for cables.
Have had a Catleap 27" monitor at that resolution for over a year now. Bought for around $360 (including 3 day express shipping to Australia). Highly recommended.
Macbook Air (2012 at least) with the dual link DVI adapter can. Source: I use it with my MBA.
It's really funky. Intel HD 4000 has the ability to drive this high of a resolution but only over DisplayPort, HD4K+HDMI or HD4K+DUAL_DVI is a no-go, so be warned. If you have integrated graphics, you will need an external card (unless your mobo has DisplayPort out). I've got an Nvidia now driving it over Dual link DVI.
I have a Crossover 27Q (similar to this, probably sourced from the same place as other brands on ebay: Catleap, Shimian, wherever Monoprice is getting them, etc). Gorgeous minimalist metallic shell. Swivel display. Adjustable height. $375 from Ebay. Pixel perfect. I can't exaggerate how amazing these displays are. They're the same LG panels used in Apple Cinema displays at nearly a third of the cost. It's wonderful to be able to have three files up side-by-side in Sublime without feeling cramped and have a Terminal and VLC stuck to top.
So, yeah, if you're bummed about these not being available, there's tons on eBay, alibaba, etc.
A few other tips:
First, Intel HD4000 can drive these displays but it must be over DisplayPort. Yes, this means that my Macbook Air (2012) with the Apple Dual link DVI adapter works fine with it. However, my desktop with HD4000 mobo does not have DisplayPort so I'm now driving it with an NVIDIA GTX660 over Dual-link DVI.
Second, many of these displays output incorrect EDID information requiring that you manually modeset in Xorg to get it to work with Nvidia's proprietary drivers. (Nouvaeu seems to figure it out on it's own, but it's a bit of a dog at that resolution).
Third, most of these lack upscaling support meaning you must be able to output at its native resolution; no hooking an xbox up to one.
edit: Sorry to link downthread, but turtlebits stumbled upon one that might not have these limitations/faults: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5040906 before anyone jumps on the ebay link below.
About the HDMI/DVI issues, heres an overview of my (possibly incorrect) understanding, for those wondering (Note the resolutions listed can be fudged a bit by messing with display rate, ie it may be possible to get a single link dvi to display 24401400 @ 33hz)
DVI-A/I/D Single link supports up to around 1920x1200
* DVI-I/D Dual Link supports 2560x1600+
* HDMI <=1.2 supports up to 1920x1200
* HDMI 1.3 supports up to 2560x1600
* HDMI 1.4 supports up to 4096×2160
* HDMI1.3 intro'd different category cables, cat1 and cat2 (Sometimes called 'High Speed'). cat2 supports the higher res.
HDMI and DVI Single Link are compatible (you can get simple adaptors and hdmi-dvi cables). Note, single link only, ie HDMI to DVI adapter connected to a dual link cable and display will be act like DVI Single Link
HDMI w/Type B connector and DVI Dual Link are compatible, however as far as I know there were no HDMI Type B products ever made.
So you cannot convert HDMI>DVI to achieve 2560x1600
* To get 2560x1600 over DVI, you need a dual link card, display and cable
* To get 2560x1600 over HDMI you need a card with a >1.3 port, display and a >1.3 cat2 cable.
* Additionally, regardless of the HDMI standard supported by your card, it may not be capable of outputting 2560x1600 (The presence of a display port or dual link DVI is a good indicator)
So in theory most modern setups should support 2560x1600 over HDMI. In practice not so much, a few problems:
* Some displays and adaptors may claim to support >1.3, or not specify the version, and actually be <1.3
* Some displays and adaptors may be >1.3 but limit what they will output or display.
* Some displays may be >1.3 but report a lower max resolution in their EDID. Bypassing this/setting a custom mode may work just fine.
* Even if you do manage to get everything working together, you may experience general instability and errors.
TL;DR avoid HDMI for high resolutions if you can, it'll save you a lot of hassle.
To add to this problem, some graphics cards (such as ATI/AMD's Eyefinity) only have two display clocks and cannot output over hdmi/dvi without a special active (non-passive) adapter.
I don't doubt this info, it jives with what I know, but I know that HD4000 will not drive this display over HDMI on my friends mobo (which coincides with the other anecdotes I've seen).
Sorry I meant to include this about the HD4000, you're totally correct. It and it's 3rd gen sibling actually support HDMI1.4, but fall into the 'Some displays and adaptors may be >1.3 but limit what they will output or display.' category, unfortunately.
Here's my rudimentary/half forgotten understanding gleamed from the PCH datasheet and random internet browsing:
* HDMI/DVI both use TMDS and share the same encoding/formatting for video and control. The Intel chipsets defines 9 TMDS lines for a port which are identical/interchangeable between the HDMI/DVI ports: 3 Data pairs, 1 control pair and the hot plug detection.
* The 3 data pairs, the control/clock pair and the hotplug pin form the connections of a single link DVI-D connector.
* The DVI spec identifies the max pixel clock of a single link DVI connection as 165Mhz
* Higher pixel clock requires dual link, via an extra 3 data pairs, which are not defined by intel in the datasheet
* HDMI uses a single link connection, with 3 data pairs, control pair, and hotplug. (Except type B connections which were dual link, but never actually produced by anyone)
* HDMI <= 1.2 defined a maximum pixel clock of 165Mhz (same as DVI). So at this point the video and control data is compatible with DVI, same pins and max clock
* HDMI1.3 upped it to 340Mhz over a single link. Which is incompatible with DVI, which increased max res by adding more lines, rather than change the existing ones
This is where I make a bit of a leap: as far as I know, since the lanes used for HDMI/DVI are defined interchangeably, they are limited to a max clock of 165Mhz, the DVI maximum.
So even though these cards are listed as HDMI1.4, the video data produced is effectively maxed at DVI-D single link/HDMI<=1.2 compatible.
TL;DR again: the intel HD graphics (Specifically the HD4000 and HD2500, but assumably the earlier ones as well) are limited to single link DVI-D and the equivalent pixel clock over HDMI, effectively 1920x1200. DisplayPort does doesn't share this. If you have an Intel adaptor, and want >1920x1200, you're gunna want to use DisplayPort.
I have had very good results buying from sellers with >99% rating. I have had fairly poor results with sellers having 98% rating or lower.
I think that most people don't give bad reviews even after a bad experience. You might expect a bad experience once out of 50 times with a seller having a 98% rating, but I have found it to happen much, much more often.
I am using a Potalion brand 27in IPS screen from eBay right now and I am very pleased with it. It arrived from Korea in a few days and it has been working flawlessly for about a year now. I payed under $300 shipped, which is pretty amazing, I think they have gone up just a bit since then. There are a few sites/forums/blog posts that compare them, here is one: http://www.swiftworld.net/2012/04/14/budget-korean-27-ips-mo...
To your second question, it's funny to me that my old Macbook Pro (2007) could drive it out of the box, as it had the large DualLink DVI port on the side. My newer Macbook Pro (2011) has to use Apple's Thunderbolt to DualLink DVI adapter, which works great, but is one more thing to think about.
1. I bought mine from green-sum on Ebay, no problems and his feedback is pretty spotless.
2. the Catleap range takes Dual-link DVI, which requires the powered adapter for (I use Apple's one for the MBP, and bought an extra minidisplayport -> displayport adapter for my work laptop).
I bought Apple's dual link adapter (http://store.apple.com/au/product/MB571Z/A/mini-displayport-...) . Was on special at a local store. It's not without problems, particularly awaking from sleep sometimes leading to "static" image blur requiring reconnection of the adapter.
When that happens, you can just put the display to sleep instead, then wake it a second later. That fixes the problem for me at least. The standard keyboard shortcut to put all displays to sleep is Shift-Control-Media Eject (⏏)
Odd, I bought the dual-link adapter from monoprice and I thought I got gypped when my wife's Yamakasi Catleap would wake from sleep that way. I guess mini-displayport is just flaky in general.
That will not work. You, unfortunately, need the expensive USB powered/assisted adapter. (I have both. Had to buy the other to drive the high resolution.)
1. I wasn't shipped a lemon, so I can't testify as to what happens if you get one. That having been said, the person I bought from had tons of 99.8% reputation and I swear, I have no idea how it go to my doorstep from China so quickly (custom stickers and all indicating it erally moved that fast).
2. I have no idea why HD4000 won't drive that 2560x1440 resolution over DVI/HDMI. I just know that HD4000 has that prowess to output it and I read somewhere that it only works over DisplayPort. So far, based on my HD4000 MBA and desktop, that seems to be true. I'll see if I can find you a source on that.
Oh, I thought you meant that it was a limitation of the screen. That's a relief, then. I have currently had a 22" LG for a few years, it might be time to get a new screen!
HDMI 1.3 supports this resolution and there are numerous sources that indicate that the HD4000 will not drive a 2560x1440 resolution over a DVI port. Also, me and everyone else with a Dual link DVI port and HD4000 will tell you that it flatly doesn't work.
