1920x1080 monitors ..... why?

[FelixDeCat]

Can you change your thread title so it says 1920x1080, and not 1900x1080. Makes you look like a fool/tool with your rant 😛

Done and done. ()🙂

 

[AnonymouseUser]

This is why I have my tab bar on the right now. It's nice having those few extra vertical pixels.

BTW, you aren't alone.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Will only have 1920x1200 or higher for monitors for me.

 

[TheVrolok]

Try buying a laptop now...It seems that 99% out there have 720p screens....I settled for a 1400x900 screen on my 14" Dell E6410....still way better than 768 rows...

I thought I would HATE my 16" 720p laptop, but I've actually gotten used to it. Honestly, though, I don't really use it that often so that may be why it's bearable .. if it were my primary computer, it would be awful. I agree with the OP, though, I love my 24" 1920x1200, 1080p just seems a bit too short for productivity.

 

[busydude]

Videos and games look even better in 1200p from my perspective.

Games are better in 16:9 cos.. Games depend on the aspect ratio and not on the native resolution.

FOV is wider in 16:9 than 16:10 for Hor+ games. You can see more on a 16:9 monitor than a 16:10 one.

 

[Schfifty Five]

Pshaw. Videos and games look even better in 1200p from my perspective. Plus, I can have bigger spreadsheets and looking at JPEGs is more awesome at 16x10.

With 16:9, games can get a wider field of vision.

But with anything else, 16:10 is nice for the extra real estate.

Videos that are 16:9 native, essentially they should look the same on a 16:9 or 16:10 monitor (1920x1080 vs 1920x1200). it's just that the 1920x1200 screen will have some black bars top and bottom.

 

[disappoint]

You can get used to almost any resolution, especially between ones so close in specs. Comeon 120 lines really? I have a 27" 1920x1200 monitor that I use for my PC and PS3. The PC is obviously set to 1920x1200 but the PS3 only does 1920x1080 and so there are small black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. I don't notice them AT ALL. I know they are there, and if I look for them I'd notice them but I'm more interested in the content on the screen than 120 dark lines.

You can get used to anything, just stop obsessing about it and enjoy the content that is on the screen.

 

[lothar]

Sorry, but how can you say a return policy where you have to SHIP something back's better than being able to drive down the street and return it in 5 minutes? BB has no restocking fee either, when I bought my LCD 5 years ago I ended up returning 3 because they had hella dead pixels. That would have been hell if I had bought it online, even if the company I bought from paid for my return shipping.

I've returned things to Dell that had 1 bad pixel and they had no qualms about it.
Replacement product received within 3 days, shipping costs refunded.
Why should I waste my own time and gas money to return a faulty product?
The UPS man can pick it up at my job or my house.

BB just started their new "no-restocking fee" policy recently...Lets see how long it lasts.

 

[destrekor]

WTF is "p"... monitors don't have "p"

Oh, monitors have P. All flat-display type technologies have P. There used to be a time when monitors with P were very rare, so that was how they were distinguished. The number with P at the end.

Progressive-Scan.
It is what P means.
😉

 

[yh125d]

But, but why? Maybe you just havent been spoiled to the extra length like I have. This whole 1080 stuff is for the birds. The birds I tells ya!

No, I actually had 1200 a long time before I had 1080. I had it in a 15" laptop and a 24" mon after that. I prefer 16:9 because it fits my FoV better. My FoV is shaped by my glasses, and I have 16:9 glasses.


I prefer it for movies, gaming, internet, AND productivity.

 

[Murloc]

I just got used to having less vertical space, it's enough.

 

[Arkaign]

Answer is cost. Add to that a ton of makers use the same panels for PC monitors as well as HDTVs for the intermediate sizes.

Anyone who thinks 1920x1080 is better than 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 for internet/productivity is on mind-altering drugs. 1080 is not very many vertical pixels, particularly considering the standard was 1600x1200 not all that long ago, along with internet and code being heavily vertically oriented.

Running games in 16:9 is no problem either, just disable monitor and video scaling, and games run with 1:1 pixels at 1920x1080 on a 1200p screen, just with black bars on top and bottom. Best of both worlds as long as the size is good (I'm using 25.5" Samsung 1920x1200 right now, so it ends up being approximately identical to a 24" 1080p screen in that mode).

1080p is good enough for most uses, and is far better than smaller resolutions like 1680x1050, 1600x900, 1440x900, etc. But it's definitely weaker than 1200 / 1600 vertical pixels for anything but *some* gaming and most movies/tv.

 

[imagoon]

1080p is all about "Hi-Def" and cost since a computer panel and a TV panel is identical. The consumer falls for it all day. I used to joke online (in games etc) when people were bragging about 720p and later 1080p by saying that my monitor has been 1200p since the early 90's.

Computer monitors have been "progressive" for a very long time. Interlaced monitors were simply cheap versions of the progressive tubes.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Answer is ALMOST cost.

What it is is simple. You say HD, why bother putting in more pixels/panel/plastic to house it all?

Also, the same way that movies got chopped to bits because people thought they were wasting TV space with the "letterboxed" videos, they will think the same here for some reason. Having a screen that would not be filled when watching a movie would be unacceptable to the general public.

To most of the rest of us, a 60 pixel black bar is nothing on the top and bottom. AAMOF, that is sometimes better as it would allow less interference with subtitles, if you needed them.

So, why bother spending the $$ on an extra 120 pixels in depth when most people do not spend all their time on spreadsheets, do not like letterboxing, will NEVER rotate their screen to vertical (to go next to a larger screen in the future?) and who do not understand that if you chop off the top and bottom from your FOV, you will still be seeing the same damn hoizontal space you would on a "Widescreen HD" monitor.



/me waits grumpily for the 30" screens to drop below $1000......

 

[FelixDeCat]

No, I actually had 1200 a long time before I had 1080. I had it in a 15" laptop and a 24" mon after that. I prefer 16:9 because it fits my FoV better. My FoV is shaped by my glasses, and I have 16:9 glasses.


I prefer it for movies, gaming, internet, AND productivity.

Just spend $3200 on Lasik surgery like I did back in 2002. It beats being a four eyed geek.

 

[yh125d]

Just spend $3200 on Lasik surgery like I did back in 2002. It beats being a four eyed geek.

Hey, I have nice glasses. and I'm not that geeky lookin!


but I prolly will some day. There are channels gronw into my skull around where my temples go around my ear

 

[AstroManLuca]

I'd prefer 1200p over 1080p as well, but you can't beat the price of those cheap TN 1080p panels. Sure, they might not look outstanding, but you can get a 23" LCD for under $200.

There are products at all price points. TN and 1080p fill in the bottom end prices. If you don't want to put up with those, get ready to pay up.

 

[Ichinisan]

I really *REALLY* wish someone would make a 30" with 1920x1200 rez. My eyesight isn't so great and I also don't want a native rez that requires 3x SLI cards to play the latest games.

 

[AstroManLuca]

So using a 32" 1080p TV is an unacceptable compromise because you're missing 120 vertical lines?

 

[zCypher]

Right before 1080p monitors became the 'standard', I bought a 2048x1152 23" Samsung for $170. Now you can definitely buy 1080p around the same price but most are actually more expensive. Definitely all about money.

 

[busydude]

I really *REALLY* wish someone would make a 30" with 1920x1200 rez. My eyesight isn't so great and I also don't want a native rez that requires 3x SLI cards to play the latest games.

The closest you can get is a 27" I guess, but they all have TN panels. 🙁

 

[SlitheryDee]

What are you using all that screen space for anyway? I run my HTPC connected to my HDTV at 720p even though is supports 1080p and I don't feel cramped at all. Having the native resolution be 1080p means that your graphics card isn't under quite as much stress when gaming as well.

 

[CurseTheSky]

I have both by my side. On one computer, a 23" NEC EA231WMi, 1920x1080 e-IPS. On another computer, a 24" Dell 2408WFP, 1920x1200 S-PVA.

Panel technology aside, I don't see the big deal. The NEC is a bit smaller (being 23" rather than 24"), but the lower resolution makes virtually no difference in my day to day usage.

Would I take a higher resolution monitor - even just 120 vertical pixels - if everything else (including price) was equal? Yeah, but it's something that I'm not willing to pay extra or sacrifice specs / convenience for. 1080P gets the job done perfectly fine.

 

[FelixDeCat]

1080P gets the job done perfectly fine.

You sound like one of those guys who couldnt get the girl he wanted so he settled for a heavy mamma. 😀

 

[BurnItDwn]

I agree with Felix on this.
I'll also continue with this, what the hell is with fvcking laptops!!!!
They are all super shit resolution 1366x768 nowadays, whatever happened to 1000+ vertical lines of resolution?

The worst is when they have big 14 or 15 inch screens that SHOULD be like 1920x1080 or whatever, and they are pretty much at 720P... yech!!!!


anyhow...
I use a 16:10 24in as my main monitor, and then I've got an old 5:4 turned on it's side to 4;5 running 1024x1280 as my second.... and that combo works pretty good for most things...