Why are the specs different? Is the original manufacturer really different? I thought not.

At this point, I think Dell has a far better go at it. Their offering is substantially (Almost $500) Less than HP, and a lot less than Apple. But at the same time, if people are going to be spending that much money on a monitor, they probably want to spend some more and get the best monitor they can get.

I vote for Bald Bull.

There has to be some kind of mistake here. The HP product page says 1280x1024 native resolution, but that is much lower than the other two and shouldn't even require 2 DVI cables like it says.

If that is the resolution, then its waaaay overpriced....

I love that game.

I was just playing it the other day.

Doesn't HP suck with lower res?

Is it a typo on their spec sheet on the HP website? I mean, a 30" display with only a 1280 x 1024 resolution? That would make this teh suck.

What about the 30" samsung?

pfff...it says on the HP page "Dual-link DVI graphics required"...so that 1280x1024 sure as hell better be a type-o.

Mr. Sandman is one of the harder ones to beat, until you know his secret...

i cant wait until the day i can upgrade to the 30". Personally i love my 20.1 (why .1? idk) dell 2007FPW (or whatever it is).

Yes the quality of picture is a bit under, but its definitely above quality of bargain screens and i love the USB hub feature and the way it handles lower res and has PBP and PIP, and all the inputs....its awesome

yeah, some kind of extremly bad typo on the hp website, google tells me it has a max res of 2560 x 1600, that sounds pretty cool, now can someone lend me 1700$? :D

Correct specs here:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06a/382087-64283...
HP's site says Native resolution 2560 x 1600@60 Hz

Soda Popinski gets my vote.

I vote for King Hippo, which would probably be Westinghouse? Where are they when I need a low quailty cheap 30 inch monitor?

screw that! i'll take another of my 24" widescreen dells.. i love that thing to death!! plus, their sub-1k price is nice!

All I can say is, I remember when I bought my 21.3" Planar monitor for $1,200... with a 400:1 contrast ratio and 250 cd/m^2 brightness. It was hot stuff, for Fall 2003, and I completely broke the bank.

You whippersnappers have it easy these days, what with your fast rise/fall rates, your high contrast ratios, and your bargain prices. Just goes to show ya: in February, I'm buying two 24" monitors to replace this puppy.

Dell and HP may have a not-so-pretty version of Apple's 30'' cinema display, but Apple's still sexy.

30" for $1200 is tough to beat.

We're supposed to guess? Please send me my evaluation set of 3 (or just the one you want to win), and I'll be glad to give you my expert opinion.

These things seem best suited for "tradeshows". In line with some of the previous comments, I think I will also stick with my dual 24" setup (mine are Samsung 244T's) - it's plenty of real estate, and I don't have to sit 3 feet away to take it all in.

Anything larger should be my HDTV so I can surf between TV shows from across the room.

3 Dual Link DVI Inputs saves $1,000 for a switch we won't need. It's already only $1619 at Tiger Direct. I wonder why HP isn't bragging about the Cold Cathode Florescent Lamp in their Specification Chart. This monitor is all but impossible to find on the HP website. Search for it there and it will not appear to exist. HP thinks their only market is Gamers and is also not bragging about the 3 Dual Link DVI inputs much at all. Marketing is really missing the point.

Can you really power one of these 30" screens with two separate DVI ports? I get the impression that it takes a dual link DVI port, not two DVI ports, to make these things work. I'd be careful to be sure that it works that way before spending the money on an assumption that an ordinary dual head card will do the job.