POST A COMMENT

66 Comments

Back to Article

  • zero2dash - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    Horrible decision.
    That thing will be filthy in hours.
    Reply
  • Flunk - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    You can't have a touchscreen with a matte finish, the two features have to go together. If you don't like it you can always get a matte non-touchscreen there are lots of those on the market. Reply
  • JanieMartin - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    Love my job, since I've been bringing in $5600… I sit at home, music playing while I work in front of my new iMac that I got now that I'm making it online.(Click Home information)
    http://goo.gl/q9r5k
    Reply
  • Beaver M. - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    Funny, I have one of those right here. Works fine. Given it is also transflexive, but it is matte. Reply
  • Beaver M. - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    Transflective of course. Reply
  • shtldr - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    I've seen a matte touch desktop display about 7 years ago. It was probably the resistive type as one had to use some force.

    Not sure if they're still being produced with all this tablet/smartphone glass capacitive fad of late, but they can be had.
    Reply
  • Tams80 - Friday, February 08, 2013 - link

    Absolute rubbish! I'm using a Tablet PC with a matte touchscreen right now. Reply
  • roberto.tomas - Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - link

    Is that true for proj. capacitive as well as optical? 2-point multitouch systems should probably need glossy, because they are optical. But 10-point is usually more expensive projective capacitive (and I didn't know if they needed matted too).

    My take on the monitor: horrible, disturbingly bad color gamut for a monitor that is glossy. The sRGB % for this thing is as low as a $60 commodity 11.6" laptop matte from AUO. But; full 10-point multitouch in the sub-$1 grand range, good range of pivot, and not entirely small 23". I'm lukewarm to the thing, if it went onf half off sale I might pick one up ... maybe.
    Reply
  • Homeles - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    Read the article, genius:

    "I worried a lot about fingerprints and smudges with the glossy finish, but I didn’t find myself having to clean it that often, and typically they were hidden away well."
    Reply
  • zero2dash - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    When you grow up, have sex, and have kids, you'll realize that glossy screens get fingerprints all over them.

    Maybe this monitor works for 1 person who cleans their hands every five minutes.

    In a normal household with more than 1 person and normal use, the thing would be filthy in no more than 24 hours. I have fingerprints on all my monitors, flat screens, and every other glossy screen device in our house...and half of those devices aren't even touch screens.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    When you grow up and have kids, you'll realize that ANY and ALL touchscreens will get filthy if you let your kids use them. Matte screens will be just as bad -- says the guy with three kids (10, 3, 1) who have already left more than their fair share of fingerprints on my matte displays. Reply
  • zero2dash - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    It's a lot less noticeable on matte displays though, which is why I'm surprised anyone would release a touchscreen with a glossy coating.

    It's bad enough that every smartphone and tablet is inherently glossy, but a monitor is even worse.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    Lenovo had a matte finish on a touchscreen at CES that I liked, but I'm still curious how such a finish will hold up over the long term. I look at my keyboards and the smooth, glossy appearance on the well-used keys, or the glossed out spots on laptop palm rests that have been around the block for a year or two, and I can't help but think the same thing will happen to an LCD with a matte finish -- and it won't wear evenly, so you'll get glossy sections where people have used the screen more. Ever notice that no one does matte smartphones or tablets? Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    I disagree entirely with this.

    I have 2 27" monitors, a Dell U2711 and a Overlord X270OC. The first comes with a fairly heavy anti-reflective screen, the second is glossy. While the Dell is better in every other way (and cost a lot more money) except the fact I can't overclock it to 120Hz, the anti-glare is awful.

    The least amount of dirt on it makes the screen look, well, dirty. And, it's a pain in the butt to clean becasue it takes getting every little bit of dirt and grease off it to make it look clean again. The Overlord though is super easy to clean; a little spot doesn't turn into a smear of yuck, it just comes off.

    Now, the industry seems to have gotten the message here, and even Dell's replacement of the U2711 has a much lighter anti-glare. I really think this is the right way to go. (I don't understand why they had to figure it out again when people got the idea back in the days of the CRT. My Sony GDM FW900 has a coating which in my opinion is perfect, easy to clean and cuts down on the worst of the reflections without being too heavy.)

    Now, I don't use my monitors as touch screens, obviously, and what looks worse to one person will be different than another, but the decision between the 2 for me (a really anti-glare screen or a glossy one) would be hands down glossy for touch use. They are both going to get dirty, but the glossy will be far easier to clean - and, in my opinion the anti-glare looks worse when clean, and looks much worse when dirty.

    As far as kids - well, most of them don't care one way or the other, and they will NOT be using my screens, they will be using their own, so it's not an issue in my house.
    Reply
  • theduckofdeath - Saturday, April 13, 2013 - link

    If you touch anything with greasy fingers, it will get dirty. Doesn't matter whether it's a matte or glossy display. Monitor or smartphone. Reply
  • designerfx - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    maybe you don't understand what happens to a glossy finish. the fact that he had to clean it at all simply tells you that it is an actual problem. Reply
  • lexluthermiester - Friday, February 08, 2013 - link

    I'm with you on that one. I can't stand it when people touch my screen. where it comes to my PC, NOTHING annoys me more than fingerprints on my screen! And while I acknowledge that I may be an extreme, I'm far from alone. And some people really think touch screens will become? Good grief I hope not! Reply
  • lexluthermiester - Friday, February 08, 2013 - link

    will become the norm?* Reply
  • SNORK - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    I have never been able to tolerate it when my wife, my kids or now my grandkids have to touch the monitor to point at something. Let's now view everything with 4k monitors through finger prints and jelly smudges.

    "The radar's jammed sir".
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    I've occasionally wondered if it would be possible to charge up the front of a monitor with a Tesla coil without interfering with its use as a display. Reply
  • EJ257 - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    Or just put a label on the bezel that say "Screen coated with contact poison" Reply
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    *laugh*expect people to read*laugh*not to mention expecting them to believe it*laugh*

    After a few shocks most will get the hint.
    Reply
  • cjs150 - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    Take away the touch screen and what you have is a poor monitor. Out of the box it is just not good enough, with correct calibration it becomes adequate and because of the touch gimmick overpriced

    Then there is the touch gimmick. On my work computer, which only has a 17" screen, I have placed at a comfortable distance to read, which means to touch it I would have to lean forward. On a bigger screen it would be even further back.

    W8 on the desktop will no doubt be a benefit for chiropractors and physiotherapists having to deal with the RPI injuries caused in the workplace caused by dealing with touch screen, for anyone else touch on a desktop is of very doubtful use.
    Reply
  • Homeles - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    There's essentially a whole half of an operating system that is designed around touch. There are plenty of applications where a touch screen is useful. It is unfortunate that you appear to be unable to come up with any besides the asinine benefit of lining the pockets of doctors. Reply
  • Zak - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    @Homeles: I take it you actually tried using a large desktop monitor with touch GUI for real work and extended period of time and actually liked it? Reply
  • Kiste - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    Neither chiropractors nor physiotherapists are usually doctors. In fact, chiropractors are mere quacks.

    Other than that, why don't you name a couple of these applications where a touch screen is useful and offers a clear benefit over mouse on a desktop computer?

    .
    Reply
  • cjs150 - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    Homeles: if you look at tablets and smartphones there are many examples of applications that work well with touch but when you are talking about a WORK desktop you should consider what the majority of people actually do on the computer:

    email
    word processing
    data entry
    excel
    graphic manipulation (if you work in media)

    Graphic manipulation requires precision which lends itself to a graphic tablet and the rest involve typing which means a keyboard and if you ever tried word processing using touch you will understand why a mouse and a keyboard is better
    Reply
  • ejdrouillard - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    If I'm spending over $500 on a monitor, I expect way more than 1080p. Reply
  • Golgatha - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    For a primary display, I would absolutely not want a touch screen. I agree with the previous posters about kids. I have 2 of them and I have to clean the tablet, iTouch, and laptop screens (not to mention my desktop's mouse) on a regular basis. 24hrs and that screen would be filthy.

    Now if I could have a cheap secondary screen that was wireless, I might be interested as it could replace a tablet in the house. The range on such a device would need to be pretty exceptional though.
    Reply
  • HardwareDufus - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    Actually I plan on buying this monitor to preemptively solve crimes like Tom Cruise in Minority Report. Reply
  • djshortsleeve - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    If you want to use Windows 8 with touch, get an AIO. IMO, touchscreens are pointless in a desktop where your main use is gaming or some sort of production.

    $500, are you kidding?
    Reply
  • wperry - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    "The Dell U2312HM, which is also IPS and performs better on all tests, is available for $225 online. "

    Seems a bit disingenuous to say that it's a poor value and cite the above... while ignoring the fact that Dell also has a 23" 1920x1080 IPS touchscreen at $699 (model S2340T).
    Reply
  • cheinonen - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    I don't have any performance data on the Dell touch-screen, but I do on the U2312HM. My concern wasn't with touch, but with the poor uniformity and light output for the price. Reply
  • wperry - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    That statement was taken from a paragraph explicitly addressing the value proposition that this product presents. The main difference between this product and most of the hundreds of monitors already on the market is touch capability. Ignoring that when addressing value is a disservice to the product and to the readers of Anandtech, all of whom, I would assume, already know that non-touch monitors can be had for far less than the price of this Acer. It would probably be more fair to do a little bit of legwork and present the prices of the direct competitors while explaining that they haven't yet been tested. Reply
  • Defhammer - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    Reading this article reinforces a thought I had about a use case for touchscreens in a multi-monitor desktop setup.

    I think what would work is a small touchscreen monitor that sits right next to the keyboard.

    Take for example a setup of 3 big normal monitors and a small touch screen directly to the left of the keyboard . The small touch screen has your live tiles and your desktop icons. Using a touch gesture, you can control which monitor that desktop application opens on (eg. flicking the icon to the upper left will open that application to the left monitor).

    In this configuration, the live tiles allow you to check on things at a glance and the big monitors can focus on the work on hand. It also gives the ability of using modern UI apps in a non-obtrusive manor.

    The setup also removes the need to dragging a window to the correct monitor after you open it.

    In the end you essentially have a fancy app launcher and a notifications screen that can run modern UI apps.

    How valuable the added functionality would be is questionable, but I think it works better than reaching to the main monitor and poking at it.
    Reply
  • The0ne - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    This is how my PC set up is with two monitors. One is my main while the other is more for display. This includes movies, music and info that I really just need to glance at occasionally and have easily, simple navigation. That is where Windows 8 metro comes in. I love it on the 2nd monitor. I don't have to move my mouse away from the desktop environment on my main screen but just use my fingers to swipe, navigate, pause, play, forward, whatever. It's quick and easy and gets rarely gets me sidetracked from what I'm currently doing.

    I am thoroughly enjoying this setup and having 30" LCD's is a huge bonus as to what I use them for. Bing maps is a pleasure to browse through because of the fluidity for example :) And although I still think the desktop/metro integration is poor when you have to switch between the two, having them separate either as a main display or from multiple displays is a huge bonus. And if ever you need more desktop space, it's only a shortcut key press away or a tap.
    Reply
  • QQBoss - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    I tried to patent something like this when I worked at a major computer company- a visual touch pad with programmable or user configurable icons/pictures, basically a mini-touch screen exactly like you suggest.

    I was told by the big bosses that touch screens would never be meaningful on the desktop and too expensive on a notebook, so they refused to file for it... about 10 years ago. Sigh.
    Reply
  • Death666Angel - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    2nd page: "I found the experience a bit strange and even often, and I imagine many people moving onto Windows 8 may have a similar initial reaction."
    Seems like it's missing something after "even often"? :)
    Good review though! But not my kind of product. :D
    Reply
  • random2 - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    Hope you don't think this to anal, but if it were my name on the article I'd like to know.

    " I found the experience a bit strange and even often, and I imagine many people moving onto Windows 8 may have a similar initial reaction."

    I've also recently installed Win-8 on laptop so I can get familiarized with it. Until your article I never really thought of the issues that might occur trying to set up Win-8 on a multiple monitor set-up.

    I'm still trying to rationalize the need for a touch screen PC vs the speed and efficiency of a PC or LT used in conjunction with keyboard shortcuts and a mouse. I guess at my age I really don't care if I look like I'm on the deck of a space cruiser with may arms flailing about in front of a glass panel. Like Vista it's not likely this will ever be my primary OS.

    Thanks again Chris for another no nonsense review.
    Reply
  • Beaver M. - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    There is no reason. I think the main reason is that MS is panicking when they look at the tablet market. Also they saw a few science fiction movies and thought it would be cool, not thinking about actual usability. Reply
  • pandemonium - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - link

    The only way I can use a touchscreen for a desktop computer will be with a drawing table layout with the screen actually in the desk. *patent!!* Reply
  • Operandi - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    Bring on 4K IPS/VA panels and stop making worthless crap. Reply
  • Dribble - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    It just doesn't work. You want your arms relaxed in front of you - hence the design for mice + keyboards.

    Where touch screens work you tend to be looking down at them and have them close to your body so you arms stay relaxed. This is not the case for a desktop monitor - you cannot keep your arms vertically out in front of you for any length of time - it's very tiring.

    Hence the whole concept is flawed which anyone with half a brain could have told MS/Acer.
    Reply
  • Beaver M. - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    Exactly. Though I can imagine, that a hype would press it anyway. Doesnt matter that spine and arm problems will skyrocket after that. Reply
  • TheGreenFoX - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    If you have a primary gaming screen with a fullscreen game on, and a touch screen with the metro interface as 2. screen - will the game minimize if you make a touch input on the touchscreen, or can you use the metro apps without minimizing the game? Reply
  • chaoticlusts - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    Will be interesting too see how the interface devices due out this year compare with touch screen desktop monitors for convenience.

    I don't really see touch on a desktop screen being very convenient for most people unless you rearrange your setup around it... and even then it would hard not to be awkward. Touch works great on laptops and smaller devices but I really think if people want the 'hands on' approach with desktops things like Leap Motion or the Kinect 2 will take off rather than products like this. even more so when it means adding a $100 device rather than paying hundreds extra for a touch monitor.
    Reply
  • beck2050 - Thursday, February 07, 2013 - link

    Touch my screen on a desktop is uncomfortable and unacceptable for me.
    I would never want a touchscreen there.
    Reply
  • ypsylon - Friday, February 08, 2013 - link

    It is really one environment where touch screen is nothing more than a nuisance. Imagine situation like this.

    You have a desk, on a desk is LCD 27"-30". LCD is standing as it should ~50-60 cm from user so his/her eyes won't bleed after 10 seconds. How the hell somebody thinks (Microsoft for that matter) that user will sit even closer, virtually next to a big LCD pushing buttons on the screen. Really laughable idea. Imagine writing something in the office or doing really complicated spreadsheet just with virtual keyboard stretching you arms across the desk. And if user must keep his/her beloved keyboard and mouse because nobody else on the market cares about touch screen software then idea of a touch screen for desktop is as dead as ISA slot on motherboards.

    There are environment where touch screen is used for ages: manufacturing, finances (stock exchange), military, engineering and so on. For now home-desktop area is a no-go zone. We haven't exactly reached Star Trek level of computerization where with few taps on a pad you can run a starship. :D
    Reply
  • JimmiG - Friday, February 08, 2013 - link

    The whole reason Apple went with touch on the first iPhone was to get the most effective use of the limited screen real estate and surface area of a phone.
    It is *not* the best interface for large screens or desktop computers where a mouse and keyboard is available. This silliness needs to go away.
    Reply
  • DagB - Friday, February 08, 2013 - link

    Comments like this really bugs me, especially on a site like this... Where is the forward thinking? Do you actually think people will sit with a mouse and keyboard in 20 years to the same extent they do today? There are lots of interesting things happening; touch, motion sensors, haptic technologies and so on. I agree that this is probably not an optimal interface if you mainly type or do normal "office" work. But there are people doing other stuff as well on there desktops. For example all types of "creative" activities (film editing, photo editing, music producing etc).

    For me as a music producer this is something really interesting, that has the potential to totally change the way we produce, mix, create and edit music. Ipad is way to small/limited for more advanced work, but is still very interesting. If you put a large desktop screen (more) horizontally, you will not get tired after hours of work and would have all the real estate you need. Also, that is the work position producers and sound engineers have worked for decades. I hope this is just the beginning of a change to a more intuitive and "direct" way of interacting with our digital tools. We should embrace it!
    Reply
  • JimmiG - Friday, February 08, 2013 - link

    "Do you actually think people will sit with a mouse and keyboard in 20 years to the same extent they do today?"

    No, but I don't think we'll be leaning over our desks, arms stretched forward in order to use oversized touch-displays, nor will we be waving our arms in front of motion sensing devices all day either.

    Voice control is another technology that was thought to replace the keyboard ("Keyboard. How quaint."), and the technology exists today. Yet it's rarely used because it's impractical in an office environment.

    When realtime 3D graphics became possible, there were a lot of experimental 3D UI's being designed. It was also thought that the whole web would eventually become fully 3D. While we have 3D MMORPG's etc., the web and user interfaces are still 2D because it's the most convenient way to present information. In fact, Windows 8 is even going back to a more "flat" UI than what we've had since the late 1980's.

    Just a few examples of how new technology isn't "better" just because it seems exciting and forward thinking at the time. All these technologies have their applications and uses (easily control mixer faders and pan pots in a DAW, for example), but there's a temptation to shoehorn new tech into everything just because it's the current buzzword.
    Reply
  • Beaver M. - Friday, February 08, 2013 - link

    Why should one think that? But 20 years ago they already hinted that thought-control would be the next big thing. Instead you now see crap like touch-control, which SIMPLY doesnt work well on desktop computers. Touch-control was invented for simple input and mobile input, where you cant have complex inputs.

    It would be like controlling a kitchen with a steering wheel. It simply isnt effective!

    Seriously, it bothers me a lot that even on a site like this, that such simple things isnt grasped by many people.
    Reply
  • Patanjali - Friday, April 05, 2013 - link

    Touch doesn't have to REPLACE everything else, but it is nice to have as one of many altenate interaction methods. With Windows, you never use ONLY a mouse OR a keyboard, so why should having the availability of touch suddenly preclude those other methods?

    I find which I use depoends on what I am mainly using at the time. If typing a lot, I tend to use keyboard shortcuts more. If shifting things around a lot, the mouse gets used. Now with touch, I can opt to just reach out and touch a link or swipe to scroll a web page. Horses for couses!
    Reply
  • Icehawk - Friday, February 08, 2013 - link

    Just saw my friend's Dell version of this (basically) and I don't get it - first off with the screen where it normally goes, and his was, you can't reach the screen without leaning all the way forward and/or hitching yourself forward on the seat. Then you get to leave nice fingerprints everywhere. In that time I could have used the mouse like six times over to do the same thing.

    And Win 8 looks TERRIBLE. Both the "Metro" skin - too much going on, ugly, ugly, too much clutter - and the old desktop, 'cause no one wants the Start button /sarcasm.

    Last thing - while one of my Samsung monitors is going on 7+ years I've had other LCDs last just 2. Would kinda suck if the monitor on one of these goes out since you are pretty much out the whole PC.
    Reply
  • ryanbrancel - Friday, February 08, 2013 - link

    Do you need to use HDMI for the touchscreen to communicate with the PC? Or does all that transport over the video signal, even for CRT? Reply
  • Lonyo - Saturday, February 09, 2013 - link

    USB connection for the touch data.
    HDMI/VGA/DVI for video.
    3.5mm cable for sound when using VGA/DVI (I assume sound can go over HDMI but I haven't tried yet on mine).
    Reply
  • Magnus101 - Friday, February 08, 2013 - link

    I use a Nexus 7 with TouchDAW installed as a remote control for Cubase.
    I can move mixer sliders, pots and a lot of things with the tablet, at the same time looking att he big monitors.

    I think they have gotten this totally the wrong way around.

    It would be awkward to have to have your arms raised so high all the time.
    It will also obscure parts of the screen when you point with your hand.
    Reply
  • Patanjali - Friday, April 05, 2013 - link

    Touchscreen monitors with Windows means that ANY window or dialog can be touch WITHOUT anf setup.

    Try setting up TouchDAW to control only the Control Room as quickly as just moving the dialog to a touchscreen.

    I have Cubase setup with two touchscreens at low angles with the mixers, control room and other dialogs spread across them. And I wish the LG 2560x1080 monitors were touchscreen as they would be perfect for such use.
    Reply
  • Patanjali - Friday, April 05, 2013 - link

    If you duplicate a local and remote monitor, you can control the dialogs from both.

    It is a pity the remote display software people that produce MaxiVista and Air Display, which allow using another computer's display, haven't got their Win8 act together.
    Reply
  • JKflipflop98 - Saturday, February 09, 2013 - link

    LeapMotion is leagues better than this. Reply
  • Patanjali - Friday, April 05, 2013 - link

    And it ISN'T here yet. In May we will see whether it lives up to the hype. We still don't know how fine the control is, and whether you can use it in existing apps as easy as touch.

    Certainly, if the supplied software allows acurately touching a button in an existing app then it will be a winner. However, "But with the Leap Motion Controller and our apps, nothing's holding hands and fingers back." reads like it ONLY works with stuff programmed for it, which severly limits its general use. It may well end up as ANOTHER interaction method, along with keyboard, mouse, touch and whatever else comes along.

    As it is now, using a touchscreen with Windows allows ANY app to be touch controlled. Of course, it may not be optimal, but having got used to accurately touching tiny links in web page on my phone, touching the tiny X button in the upper right of a window to close it is no big deal.

    With Leap Motion, how will it be used with multiple monitors?

    How fine-grained can control be when you are holding your hand in mid air? And what about arm fatigue?
    Reply
  • UltraTech79 - Monday, February 11, 2013 - link

    Great! Now my arm can get tired while my arm gets tired. Reply
  • Patanjali - Friday, April 05, 2013 - link

    I have been using multiple 30" monitors with two Dell ST2220T touchscreens for the last year. I bought the touchscreens to use for DAW work to place mixing windows and various other dialogs that would be useful to be able to touch.

    The touchscreens I have at a low angle sloping up to the bottom of the two 30" monitors. The single biggiest maintainability issue with the touchscreens is NOT fingerprints but DUST. It is amazing how much dust accumulates on a horizontal surface in 24 hours. Fortunately Dell supplied excellent cloths which makes it easy to clean off the dust and finger smudges. Such low angles are the ONLY way to use touchscreens a lot.

    However, after having touchscreens, I wish ALL the monitors were touch as even with the large vertical monitors it would be nice to just reach out and do the occasional scroll of a web page or document or adjust a DAW control that I couldn't fit on the touchscreens. Touch is so direct whereas reaching for a mouse just to do such things that are so quick for a hand seems a distraction to workflow now.

    The Dell touchscreens worked for Win7 OK, but using optical tech, are not really up to being used with all the Win8 geatures, which is why I am reading reviews like this. I am still wanting 27" 2560x1440 touchscreens like those used on the Dell all-in-ones. I would get four of those!

    As for glossy screens, they work OK for small portable devices where you can easily adjust the viewing angle to avoid reflections, or when sitting in low light watching TV, but they are a MAJOR pain when used in fixed situations in normal illumination. The touchscreens, being at a low angle, reflect the image showing on the bottom part of the 30" monitors above them! If it was your only monitor, you would have to position it so that it didn't reflect your overhead lighting.

    The 30" monitors are the Dell non-glare, wide colour gamut ones which are excellent for viewing and, in my opinion, should be what ALL monitor screens should be like. Excellent colour and illumination and NO reflections at all.

    Apparently the Planar Helium 27" touchscreen is matte, but it would take up a lot of deskspace while only providing 1920x1080. The LG 2560x1080 monitors would have been great if they were touchscreen (and matte).

    I hope when 4K monitors (3840x2160 = 8Mpx) start appearing, they are are available with matte touchscreens as well.

    As for multi-monitor usage with Win8, I don't know what people seem so uptight about. Yes, it is best to have the start screen mainly on a smaller, close-at-hand, sloped monitor, but default behaviour on my system is that the start screen disappears as soon as the mouse is clicked in ANY 'desktop' area, so it is basically a popup screen when you need it rather than the principal interaction area as when used on a tablet or single monitor.

    It may well stay alive if the touchscreen is a Win8 certified one, but someone else would have to let us know if that is the case.

    I have an Acer W511 3G Win8 tablet and it is very easy to use and, because of the instant on and constant internet connection, it is very quick for me to check email in Outlook or look on the internet, whereas it was a slow pain with my previous laptop, waiting for it to boot up and for the 3G modem software to kick in. And Win tablets are SO much easier to use with a home network.

    For me Win8 works both on a tablet and my large multi-monitor system, and its operation is appropriate to each. Oh, and while some so-called tech bloggers and commenters made a big noise about the loss of the start menu, MS telemetry showed that most users had got the hint with Win7 and shifted their focus to the taskbar, which is alive and well and on every desktop screen in Win8. Basically, on a multi-monitor setup, the start screen is like a big visual menu which can be configured to put all your commands into groups in any order you want.
    Reply
  • osx77 - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link

    Hi i have a question is this monitor led or lcd?Because i try to find info on amazon.com and it said LCD so which is it.
    and other pages said is Led so...

    thanks
    Reply
  • dpars - Monday, December 30, 2013 - link

    Using acer t232hl with mac mini?? Reply
  • dpars - Monday, December 30, 2013 - link

    I'm connected with HDMI and USB 3.0 using bluetooth keyboard and magic trackpad. I have a fully-functional, unresponsive touchscreen monitor… Thoughts? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now