[craig @ Apr 12th 2007 9:31AM]

"Why do pixels have to be tiny just because you print at a higher resolution, that makes no sense."

Of course it makes no sense, so why did you make it up? It's not that pixels should be tiny but that they should not be huge. At typical monitor viewing distances, they eye can resolve 150dpi so there's no reason for pixels to be as large as this monitor has.

"Also if you go to a higher resolution it causes all kinds of problems with cabling, graphics cards..."

Yeah, it would require dual-link DVi, a single cable standard that already exists and is supported by existing cards.

"...games, movies..."

I thought this was a professional monitor? Why does this cause a problem for movies?

"...and will cost a heck of a lot more too."

Really? The Apple 30" is much larger, offers the resolution this one does, and is cheaper.

"The only complaint I have is the lack video inputs. I say well done NEC and I hope all the fancy electronics in this monitor pay off."

Yes, you've proven your ignorance on the matter so this comes as no surprise.

"Oh and by the way, it sounds more intereesting if you count the % of Adobe RGB space it covers..."

Why is that? A monitor with inadequate resolution is uninteresting regardless of its gamut. People seem to think that wide gamut is valuable when it is not, yet they have no idea how valuable it is to stop looking through a soda straw at their images. Try an IBM T221 and you'll see what a real monitor is like.