• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

1920x1080 monitors ..... why?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
FelixDeKat said:
Yes, but was the dot pitch .26 or .33? 😀
Click to expand...

It was a Chroma Clear CRT which had the benefits of a shadow mask and aperture grille monitor minus (most) of the drawbacks. It was equivalent to a .22 dot pitch IIRC. Definitely made a believer out of me for 1600x1200 on a 17" (15.9" viewable!) CRT!

Then again I'm 20/15 close and have no issues with reading small fonts on displays. I have an older Dell notebook with a 15.4" WUXGA (1920x1200) display and with small fonts it's terrific. Everyone asks me how I can read it! Makes a good security feature as if someone is close enough to read it they are practically in my lap which is definitely within power cord whipping range! 😀
 
Ok seriously, the high end displays are moving to 2560x1440. Look a the Apple Cinema Display 27" and the Dell 2711.

They're going back to 16:9.

Maybe before those monitors came out it was justifiable complaining about 16:10 vs 16:9 when 1920x1200 ruled.
 
FelixDeKat said:
Which is great if you have $1000+ to spend on each moniter.
Click to expand...

23" Dell Ultrasharp U2311H owner. IPS panel. Bought this last July for about $350 (Dell India). Currently on Dell.com for $319. Pretty kick-ass for what it is and the price. If I'm not mistaken, people in the US can routinely pick up this for $250 on sale.

The fact that it is 1920x1080 instead of 1920x1200 doesn't bother me at all. The extra width (compared to my prior 1280x960 days) really helps with Excel and gaming is a blast too. Would I have bought a HP ZR24w instead? Absolutely, except that the last time I checked, HP likes to add on a 100%+ markup on their premium offerings in the market here. So what costs $500 on Newegg ends up around $1050 here. Dell did something similar with the pricing on their U2410 which is why I couldn't even consider that.
 
theprodigalrebel said:
23" Dell Ultrasharp U2311H owner. IPS panel. Bought this last July for about $350 (Dell India). Currently on Dell.com for $319. Pretty kick-ass for what it is and the price. If I'm not mistaken, people in the US can routinely pick up this for $250 on sale.

The fact that it is 1920x1080 instead of 1920x1200 doesn't bother me at all. The extra width (compared to my prior 1280x960 days) really helps with Excel and gaming is a blast too. Would I have bought a HP ZR24w instead? Absolutely, except that the last time I checked, HP likes to add on a 100%+ markup on their premium offerings in the market here. So what costs $500 on Newegg ends up around $1050 here. Dell did something similar with the pricing on their U2410 which is why I couldn't even consider that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, $250 is regular sale price. More rare to find it at $200.

Regardless, it's 1920x1080 and that makes it really annoying.

I was hoping to get another 1920x1200 monitor, but the only good one seems to be the $450-$500 Dell U2410. (I rather wait for the 2412/2411 at this point)
 
Rubycon said:
1600x1200 looked quite good on a monitor that size. Heck my NEC P750 (1996) looked great at 1600x1200 at 85Hz. 🙂
Click to expand...

i used to have a decently high end sony crt 19", it did that res at 85hz as well, but it wasn't pin sharp, you had to scale the interface. i don't think they made a dot pitch low enough to really resolve crystal clear down to 1600x1200. it looked good for video/images but it wasnt crisp as a retina display iphone or such, you could tell it couldn't do clear pixels at the smallest detail.
 
Well, the bumfucks will be working on bigger screens with higher resolutions. If you dont like HD, go for the 30".
 
No one seems to care about the vertical resolution any more. I was running my CRT monitor at 1280x1024 in the mid 90's...now we're up to 1080...56 more lines in ~15 years of evolution.

Widescreen is great for games and movies, but at the Windows desktop, I prefer a more square-ish display. Otherwise you end up making all your windows super short and wide, which doesn't fit the content, like a vertical list of files or a website. It seems websites are getting narrower and taller at the same rate as displays are getting wider and shorter..
 
Last edited:
yh125d said:
Just as you (and most people it would seem) strongly prefer 1920x1200, I (and a few others) strongly prefer 1920x1080. Also, it helps that I want a huge screen, and TVs are all 1080. But even for standard monitors I prefer it...
Click to expand...

id take a 1920 x 1200, gladly, but when i was building a pc a couple of years ago and needed a monitor, i got a good price on a 23" 1080p so i said f00k it and went with that.

i have since resorted to auto-hiding my task bar. meh, its ok though.
 
0roo0roo said:
i used to have a decently high end sony crt 19", it did that res at 85hz as well, but it wasn't pin sharp, you had to scale the interface. i don't think they made a dot pitch low enough to really resolve crystal clear down to 1600x1200. it looked good for video/images but it wasnt crisp as a retina display iphone or such, you could tell it couldn't do clear pixels at the smallest detail.
Click to expand...


It was more of an issue with RF problems - easily checked by dropping the refresh rate to a headache inducing 60Hz. Most monitors were very clear. As you climbed up to 75Hz (still intolerable to me) you could see it getting softer. Good monitors using either 13W3 (rare) or BNC (common on better displays) were much better at displaying high refresh rates at high resolutions. The best CRTs could handle > 100Hz at 1600x1200 (21" class) and looked superb providing you had a video card that could handle the task. At the time the Matrox G200 was the best. The Voodoo3 cards also had surprisingly good 2D sharpness. The TNT cards were rather lousy. It was such a compromise to have good 3D AND 2D sharpness. That's what really messed up the Voodoo standalone cards. When the Voodoo2 came out the passthrough cables were better, however but still caused issues at the top of the scale.

Even though analog (VGA DB15) inputs on TFT displays are driven at 60Hz, many - especially with onboard video - show weird things when run at native resolution. These disappear completely when using DVI-D. Digital also eliminates the need for constantly hitting that AUTO button or worse (doing manual adjusting of parameters yourself!).

Of course LCDs eliminated the need for manually setting and saving geometry parameters for all resolutions and refresh rates. 😀

I was always absolutely obsessed with having the image on the tube perfectly square and ending exactly where the active phosphor area ended and would literally spend hours getting it right on all resolutions I used. 😱
 
spidey07 said:
Keep costs down. Any business machine is going to have pretty kick ass resolution.
Click to expand...

Maybe whatever company you work for likes to spend lots of money on their hardware, but where I work , they don't spend more than they need to.
My work laptop runs 1280x800 ... yech! (I do have a 1280x1024 monitor as well, but still... lots of alt tabbing)
 
Short wide screens are a PITA for things like Word and Excel.

Why?

Look at your menus, for one. They only take up a small portion of the width of the screen unless you have really started customizing. This is wasted space at the edge.

And what about the title bar, you really need it to say "Foo.xls" and have the rest of your 1920 pixels wide just sitting there displaying a blue bar with a grey outline?

Bottom line is, it all depends on what you use it for the most. Games and movies, sure, pay less for 1080 vertical. Office work? You may want more pixels, regardless of where they are put, but not in something with an aspect ratio not geared for it.

One interesting combo I had not too long ago was simply rotating a 17" display to go along my 20" display. You ended up with one monitor perfect for word documents and the other as your main desktop.

Now, with 2x1600x1200 LCD's, I am wondering if I want to get a 1920x1200 from dell, or if that extra 20% of desktop will really be worth giving up that desk space and STILL having 2 DVI cables and power lines running under my desk.

16:10 is fine so long as they do not skimp on the actual horizontal space.
 
cost and advertising. more people want to pay less for "1080p" and not for the extra 120 pixels.

1920x1200 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1920x1080. i refuse to buy any monitor that has a native resolution of 1920x1080.
 
AstroManLuca said:
LOL, at my work, everyone (EVERYONE) runs their 1280x1024 LCDs at either 1024x768 or 800x600.
Click to expand...

I know someone who runs their monitor at 800x600 because they want an old program to run full screen (I've tried to change it, but it only runs @ 800x600 D🙂. It's terrible, especially since the monitor is widescreen and has a default resolution of 1440x900!
 
I use a Dell U2410 1920x1200 at work and a U2311H 1920x1080 at home. The U2410 is better but is it worth $150-200 more than the U2311H? IMO not if I'm paying for it, but if work is buying it... :sneaky:
 
AstroManLuca said:
LOL, at my work, everyone (EVERYONE) runs their 1280x1024 LCDs at either 1024x768 or 800x600.
Click to expand...

How many have you shown that you can just set the res for higher and increase the font size/personal settings?

It is REALLy bad on an LCD monitor too. At least on a CRT doing different resolutions was sharp, on an LCD you get that annoying banding (seeing letters fuzz our or get "thick")

People are idiots.
 
Ninjahedge said:
How many have you shown that you can just set the res for higher and increase the font size/personal settings?

It is REALLy bad on an LCD monitor too. At least on a CRT doing different resolutions was sharp, on an LCD you get that annoying banding (seeing letters fuzz our or get "thick")

People are idiots.
Click to expand...

Actually, ever since we switched to new Windows 7 boxes a few months ago, people seem to be getting better about this. They seem to have discovered the ability to make text and interface elements larger without dropping the resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top