[John__B]

".02 millisecond response rate"
2 millisecond, maybe, but 20 microseconds? That's gotta be a typo.

[jpmhughes]

karlfranz said:

Too bad the resolution isn't all that great. Also, if you click on the NEC site you can see other pics from different angles. It's actually very deep.

That's what I thought too.
One of the things I love about the new monitors is how light and portable they are.
This thing is very deep, seems unnecessary.

The first thing I thought, when I saw it from the front, was "cool!"
After looking at it some more, ehhh.

[flybynight]

2 decent 21" monitors are each going to have a resolution of 1920x1200 - and I even wish that spec would go up. So no, it's not like having 2 of them. Maybe it's like having 2 17" monitors on your desk... except with $7000 less in your bank account.

[patchu]

As many have already pointed out, this product doesn't make sense unless you're paying for the "wow" factor.
I have 2 Acer 24" screens on my desk right now, each running 1920x1200 = 3840x1200. Been quite happy with them. Since I'm in my 40's, I don't think I want the resolution any higher, since I probably can't read text any smaller.
I bought these about 3 years ago when they first came out for around $700, they're now $370 on Newegg.
Plus, let's say you want 2 more 24" screens. Right now you can get 4-way monitor mounts for flat screens, whereas this curved screen would probably not fit those mounts.
I don't want a curved screen, I'm happy with 2 flat screens.
Again I reiterate: this product makes no sense. It's probably more for bragging rights of "largest screen" than anything else.

[AnubisIV]

And if you wanted bragging rights, you could save yourself $6500 and just buy an HDTV with better resolution and a bigger screen.

[TerenceOB]

Acutally, at 900 pixels tall, it's not full HD.... NO BUY

[robinh]

I wonder how many of these screens you'd need to form a complete circle if you arranged them side by side?

[whitedog]

When comparing monitors you need to use more than resolution specs. Cheaper monitors always mean less picture quality. I have a 24" NEC MultiSync 2490WUXi which is customizable beyond what any Apple monitor can offer. Though it is an excellent monitor that cost around $1,200, it is only in the middle of NEC's quality options.

The color range of the NEC CRV43 is superior to anything you will find in a sub-$1,000 monitor. Still, the price is daunting. I'm sure uses for it will develop as it works its way into the market, but given the current state of the economy I imagine the process will be a slow one. As for the depth of the monitor, it is not a conventional LCD, but uses projection technology to achieve the curved viewing surface, utilizing four projectors. It was demonstrated four months ago at Macworld running on a MacBook so there should be few compatibility issues.

In regard to the resolution, I suspect comparisons with LDC monitors are apples & oranges arguments due to the different capabilities of the two technologies. Whether the 900 pixel height is sufficient will have to be tested in the wild by real users before we can say with any degree of certainty. Any conclusions drawn now are just random speculation.

Would I buy one, if I could afford it? Probably not. For me even a 30" monitor is too much. I would drown in a 42" screen. I'm sure the CRV43 will have limited appeal, even without the exorbitant price. But I don't use even one spread sheet, let alone the multiple sheets used in many business situations. If I did, though, I can imagine the CRV43 making the job easier. Likewise in video production. And once they start selling, the price may come down. Wait a year and the resolution may go up as well. Nowhere is change more the rule than in computer technology.

[Artifex]

Definitely a nice piece of candy to place on a desk.
Sadly curved screen makes it useless for professional apps of almost every kind. Graphics, Photo editing, 3D etc... and the 900p limits it for editing/viewing HD content.
I'm not sure who the target audience is for this very attractive display, but for the things I use my displays for, it has no compelling reason to replace my twin 30"s at more than twice the price.

[Martian]

Is the res so low:
..... because the viewer must sit back so far to comfortably use this wraparound design, OR

..... because the manufacturing scrap rate at a higher pixel density would be too high to support at even $8000, OR

..... because like some over-the-top designer dresses, this display is intended for publicity for the brand rather than actual sale or use.