Desktop LCD's have few choices

[Hard Ball]

I have recently been building a new computer, and moving half of my dual monitor setup over to an LCD (first time for me on desktop, although I've used laptops for a number of years). I was looking for some choices in terms of screen resolution. I wanted a 17", which fits on my desk perfectly, but I would have preferred to look at the possibility of a UXGA 1600X1200 resolution. But I was stomped, and no where is this being sold. And I definitely didn't want to go 20", so I broke down and bought a Dell 1704.

Why can't the desktop LCDs have the same breadth of selection that laptops have. For example, I can find 15" screen on laptops with XGA, SXGA+, or even UXGA. I can find WXGA on 12", 13.3", 14", 15.4" and sometimes even larger laptop screens. And WSXGA+ also appear on a number of different screen sizes. Similar stories with many laptop screen resolutions and screen sizes.

So why are desktop LCDs almost always 15" at XGA, 17/19" at SXGA+, 20"+ at UXGA and so on. Why can't they give people more choices, each at his/her own preference. This fact confounds and frustrates me; maybe I have just been in the CRT world for too long, and need to get my head out of the sand.

Someone please explain to me.

 

[Excelsior]

Who knows.

 

[FlyBono24]

I wonder when they will start making the desktop LCD's with that "Brightview/TruBright/whatever" screen? (same sh*t, different name)

 

[ChuckHsiao]

It'll come once the market is saturated enough for suppliers to diversify. Right now suppliers are going for the middle bulk of the market -- the bulge in the bell curve. Once that gets saturated, suppliers will look elsewhere for money.

Another thing is that laptops are more luxury items, so they get some of the more tech stuff, like higher resolution. They're also meant to be viewed closer than desktop monitors, making them inherent suitable for high resolution panels.

 

[tfcmasta97]

i dont think there is much demand for a 17" LCD @ 16x12.

I game and figure if you want that res, you would atleast look for 19"

 

[PremiumG]

Originally posted by: FlyBono24
I wonder when they will start making the desktop LCD's with that "Brightview/TruBright/whatever" screen? (same sh*t, different name)

isn't that junk just a piece of filter over a regular screen?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
i dont think there is much demand for a 17" LCD @ 16x12.

I game and figure if you want that res, you would atleast look for 19"

i don't think there is much demand for one either, but i bet there is plenty of demand for a 19" at 1600x1200. and they don't make any of those.

 

[FlyBono24]

Originally posted by: PremiumG

Originally posted by: FlyBono24
I wonder when they will start making the desktop LCD's with that "Brightview/TruBright/whatever" screen? (same sh*t, different name)

isn't that junk just a piece of filter over a regular screen?

Nope... if you compare to two side-by-side you'll see the difference... the BrightView/X-Brite/whatever screens have higher contrast, look sharper, and are much brighter than an old XGA screen.

 

[cbehnken]

Originally posted by: FlyBono24

Originally posted by: PremiumG

Originally posted by: FlyBono24
I wonder when they will start making the desktop LCD's with that "Brightview/TruBright/whatever" screen? (same sh*t, different name)

isn't that junk just a piece of filter over a regular screen?

Nope... if you compare to two side-by-side you'll see the difference... the BrightView/X-Brite/whatever screens have higher contrast, look sharper, and are much brighter than an old XGA screen.

All illusions caused be having no anti-glare coating. CRTs used this before people realized that glare hurts your eyes.

 

[Concillian]

I don't know why either. If you look at desktop LCDs, you will see that they all have very similar pixel pitch (19" have the largest pixels and 20" have the smallest, but they are all about the same size).

I would certainly welcome a good desktop LCD with small pixels, and have voiced that opinion in these forums before. I think resolution is a misnomer when speaking of the number of pixels onscreen, as it really doesn't reflect true resolution (dpi).

Part of the problem is presumably Windows inadequacy in dealing with font scaling and dialog boxes. You will have to scale fonts up for higher dpi so that they remain large enough to read. Fonts have to grow from the 96dpi standard to windows to maybe 125 dpi or so. Windows sucks at this kind of sclaing and it has been a noted problem for laptop manufacturers who deal with customer complaints about this kind of thing.

I'm hoping that since we are getting some very fast LCDs, fast enough that games are adequate, that the next logical step will be to start reducing pixel pitch so we can get fast displays at a size like you mention (1600x1200 @ 17"). I just wonder if the industry will ever push it that much. I know I'd like to see it, but you've seen several comments from people already who would rather simply see larger than something more detailed.

In the quest for 'photorealistic' games eventually this push will come. Because you simply cannot get anywhere near photorealism at ~100 dpi. I mean 300 dpi printers are not really "photorealstic" when they print out photos, so 100 dpi games can never be.

Anyway, something I've been hoping for too, for at least a decade. I'm not overly optimistic, but am still hopeful that eventually we will see some true resolution enhancement on desktop displays.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: PremiumG

Originally posted by: FlyBono24
I wonder when they will start making the desktop LCD's with that "Brightview/TruBright/whatever" screen? (same sh*t, different name)

isn't that junk just a piece of filter over a regular screen?

its just a gloss coated screen. the sony xbrite has 2 backlights also.


sony nec and HP sell desktop monitors with it. i think some viewsonics have it too.


and as to the why there arent 16x12 17" screens and 19" ones. its economies of scale. just to start a 19" 16x12 lcd panel line would be a lot of money, and i donthink the cost savings would be much at all over a 20" screen (and most people want LESS resolution believe it or not, not more it seems).

a 19" with 1600x1200 would have very small pixels and the market wouldnt be huge. since the economies of scale are so small a 19" monitor like that would probabaly cost more than a 20" one.

even worse for a 17" one. i bet almost no one would be buying that because the fonts and such would be too small (well i'd buy one, but i dont think there'd be much savings between this and the 20" either).

i dont know, lots of people who buy lcds are old. i always hear people with 17" lcds or 19" ones wanting to run say 1024x768 on a monitor even though native is 1280x1024.

now that i think about it i bet a 1024x768 17" monitor would sell better than a 1600x1200 17" monitor.