Thursday, August 1st 2013

ViewSonic Launches VX2770Sml 27-inch Monitor with MHL Connectivity

ViewSonic rolled out the VX2770Sml0, a stylish, virtually bezel-free 27-inch PC monitor. Decked in piano black, and with a glossy screen, it features 1920 x 1080 pixels (full-HD) native resolution, HDMI and MHL (mobile high-definition link) inputs, in addition to common DVI/D-Sub PC inputs. MHL makes pairing the monitor with smartphones, tablets, and the new breed of consumer cameras easier.

"Our new VX2770Sml-LED display offers the best combination of performance and features in the industry, and we've sweetened the deal by packaging it up in a beautiful frameless bezel design," said Brian Huang, Sr. Product Manager at ViewSonic, adding: "...and with MHL connectivity, this display provides mobile device convenience in a large screen format for consumers, gamers, and multimedia enthusiasts alike." Pricing of the display varies with market.
Add your own comment

26 Comments on ViewSonic Launches VX2770Sml 27-inch Monitor with MHL Connectivity

#1
InnocentCriminal
Resident Grammar Amender
I like this (apart from the 1080p) and the MHL 2.0 connectivity. Does anyone know if MHL 2.0 is backwards compatible?
Posted on Reply
#2
LAN_deRf_HA
This is just sad. Could have been a pretty interesting monitor but 1080p? No.
Posted on Reply
#3
Shinshin
Whoa look at that bezel width!
Or is it just looking thin?

Not that i have the money to go Eyefinity.....
Posted on Reply
#4
Solidstate89
Why do companies insist on continuing to sell 27" monitors with 1920x1080 as the resolution? It's horrible.
Posted on Reply
#5
acerace
Why do people insist on complaining about 27" 1080P monitors when they are sure as hell will not going to buy it? It's horrible.

Edit: In before mad people.
Posted on Reply
#6
Solidstate89
by: acerace
Why do people insist on complaining about 27" 1080P monitors when they are sure as hell will not going to buy it? It's horrible.

Edit: In before mad people.
To piss people like you off.:cool:
Posted on Reply
#7
Prima.Vera
Everytime a new 1080p monitor is announced, the mods should also copy/paste the comments from the previews article(s). They are pathetic identical every time. :)
Posted on Reply
#8
acerace
by: Solidstate89
To piss people like you off.:cool:
Like I give a f.
Posted on Reply
#9
NdMk2o1o
by: Solidstate89
To piss people like you off.:cool:
by: acerace
Like I give a f.
Now now kids :slap: :laugh:

I must admit that is one sexy monitor, loving the ultra slim top and side bezels, I could care less about any of the 1080 crap comments and I'm running 1440p
Posted on Reply
#10
THE_EGG
by: Shinshin
Whoa look at that bezel width!
Or is it just looking thin?
Having a look at other pictures (including on Viewsonic website) it seems as though the bezel is about the same as the AOC i2757fh. Where there is about a 5mm bezel with a flat finish to the edge of the case.
Posted on Reply
#11
Octavean
by: NdMk2o1o
Now now kids :slap: :laugh:

I must admit that is one sexy monitor, loving the ultra slim top and side bezels, I could care less about any of the 1080 crap comments and I'm running 1440p
It looks like an OK monitor IMO but I'm not crazy about what "looks" like the lack of a mounting option on the back. The input connection also look like they are on the stand which I find a little questionable.

But yeah, I have two 2560x1440 monitors which I think are great but I have no problems transitioning from them to my triple monitor 1920x1080 27" (5760x1080) setup. I'm also considering a 4K monitor or UHDTV.

Perhaps this sort of thing is subjective as some people seem to take real issue with 1080 while others don't care. I suspect its more of a desire for cheap high performance hardware though as what they want may be out of their price range so they vilify 1080.

BTW, they still make ~19" 1600x900 monitors too but no one seems to complain about their right to exist,....
Posted on Reply
#12
Prima.Vera
by: Octavean

BTW, they still make ~19" 1600x900 monitors too but no one seems to complain about their right to exist,....
I have home an 18.5" with 1366x768 resolution, and cannot be more happy. I use it together with my 26 incher just for keeping the browser and stuff opened when playing a game, etc. No more alt-tab for me. I love that the PPI size is exactly as the 26 incher. ;)
Posted on Reply
#13
Patriot
by: acerace
Why do people insist on complaining about 27" 1080P monitors when they are sure as hell will not going to buy it? It's horrible.

Edit: In before mad people.
Why do people insist on being content with 1080p.

Maybe because we want 27" monitors... and we want bevel-less but they ruin it with 1080p.
Also... that bottom bevel kinda ruins portrait mode.
I have used 3x 2048x1152 23" since 2009, switched to a PLP setup this year.

For the price of this... you can have a korean IPS 27" 2560x1440

This looks good...till they fumbled.
Posted on Reply
#14
Octavean
I have had a number of different Viewsonic products over the years. The old CRT monitors where fine and never gave me a days trouble if I recall correctly. However, my Viewsonic N3250W HDTV died just out of warranty due to notoriously cheap capacitors in the PSU (in the entire line not just my unit). I also have a Viewsonic VX2235Wm monitor that developed brightness and color issues. At least it still works though,....

Needless to say I'm not crazy about Viewsonic these days and would be a little concerned with buying anything they made but thats just me.

I say there is nothing wrong with wanting higher resolution monitors anymore then wanting or being happy with what is already readily available at a lower resolution. There is room for both and there is a market for both.

There is no shortage of 2560x1440 monitors or higher even if 1920x1080 is more prevalent.

Just pony up and buy what you want.
Posted on Reply
#15
Wile E
Power User
People complain about 1080p on big monitors because we can get that resolution in small devices like tablets and phones. Why can't we have that kind of pixel density in big monitors?
Posted on Reply
#16
Prima.Vera
by: Wile E
People complain about 1080p on big monitors because we can get that resolution in small devices like tablets and phones. Why can't we have that kind of pixel density in big monitors?
Answer for me is simple. Why don't we have video cards that can output the same FPS on 2160p(even 1440p) as they do on 1080p? (And for the same price...)
Posted on Reply
#17
Fourstaff
by: Wile E
People complain about 1080p on big monitors because we can get that resolution in small devices like tablets and phones. Why can't we have that kind of pixel density in big monitors?
4k in 30.5", we are slowly getting there. Its exponentially harder to maintain pixel density with big screens.
Posted on Reply
#18
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: Wile E
People complain about 1080p on big monitors because we can get that resolution in small devices like tablets and phones. Why can't we have that kind of pixel density in big monitors?
Scaling. Especially in Windows, don't know how the various Linux distros would do.
Posted on Reply
#19
Wile E
Power User
by: Prima.Vera
Answer for me is simple. Why don't we have video cards that can output the same FPS on 2160p(even 1440p) as they do on 1080p? (And for the same price...)
Granted, but monitors are useful for more than just gaming. In fact, most people don't game.

by: Fourstaff
4k in 30.5", we are slowly getting there. Its exponentially harder to maintain pixel density with big screens.
4k is a step in the right direction for sure. I don't necessarily want matching ppi, but 1080p at 27" is just too low. Big inch, 1080p monitors aren't even worth mentioning anymore.

by: Frick
Scaling. Especially in Windows, don't know how the various Linux distros would do.
I've messed with scaling on high ppi screens. It works fine in Windows 8, and I imagine 7 would as well.
Posted on Reply
#20
Prima.Vera
by: Wile E

I've messed with scaling on high ppi screens. It works fine in Windows 8, and I imagine 7 would as well.
Well, except for the Java, Flash and ActiveX applications.
Ever wonder how Yahoo Messenger or standard Winamp will look on a 27" with 4K resolution? :)))))
Posted on Reply
#21
Wile E
Power User
Didn't try any of those, but I would rather have that than having to sit 6 feet from my screen to get acceptable viewing sizes. I have to sit further back than I like with my 24" 1200p monitor as it is.
Posted on Reply
#22
Octavean
by: Prima.Vera
Answer for me is simple. Why don't we have video cards that can output the same FPS on 2160p(even 1440p) as they do on 1080p? (And for the same price...)
That sounds like an issue of performance.

Performance is something we have always had to pay for with respect to video cards. You want better performance, you pay for better performance. Its really that simple,...

When has it been different,....?
Posted on Reply
#23
3870x2
I specifically opted for 1080p on 27" because it is easier to get along with when I use my TV to duplicate instead of messing with a very difficult extended desktop and primary desktop switch.
Posted on Reply
#24
Octavean
It's more and more common to see 27" 1920x1080 monitors under $200 USD. There are some that cost more (and probably try to be more) but I basically consider this class of monitor to be budget or quasi budget for the most part.

I see little reason to complain about the merits or specs of a budget product.
Posted on Reply
#25
Wile E
Power User
by: Octavean
It's more and more common to see 27" 1920x1080 monitors under $200 USD. There are some that cost more (and probably try to be more) but I basically consider this class of monitor to be budget or quasi budget for the most part.

I see little reason to complain about the merits or specs of a budget product.
That's actually a fair point.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment