What happened to 1920x1200 monitors?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Achilleslastand

Achilleslastand

Member
Jun 23, 2006
104
0
71
My 7 year old Hans-G is dying a slow death and I am having trouble finding something in the 28 inch range at that resolution.
Ive found several 24 inch monitors but not much higher.
Any ideas for a 3-400 dollars budget with the same size/res?
 
moonbogg

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,731
3,440
136
Achilleslastand said:
My 7 year old Hans-G is dying a slow death and I am having trouble finding something in the 28 inch range at that resolution.
Ive found several 24 inch monitors but not much higher.
Any ideas for a 3-400 dollars budget with the same size/res?
Click to expand...

16:10 monitors fizzled out when HD TV's became popular. The 16:10 ratio was replaced with the standard, television styled 16:9 widescreen format. Some of us went down screaming. We fought well, but lost. Any reason not to look at a 1920x1080 panel in 27"? 1920x1200 choices are limited.
 
ViRGE

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
ViRGE

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
MrTeal said:
Yeah, it's unfortunate. So many things still benefit from the greater vertical resolution. I actually still keep around some 19" 5:4 panels for side monitors .

If you want a new 16:10 in that range, the cheap Monoprice CCFL ones might be your best bet. I haven't tried one, but it's hard to beat the price @ $400.
http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=1130703&p_id=11441&seq=1&format=2
Click to expand...
The only catch with that monitor is that it's DVI. DL-DVI's days are pretty much numbered at this point; that monitor will likely outlive DVI ports on new video cards.
 
cbn

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
ViRGE said:
The only catch with that monitor is that it's DVI. DL-DVI's days are pretty much numbered at this point; that monitor will likely outlive DVI ports on new video cards.
Click to expand...

Adapters will exist though.

In fact, right now I am using HDMI to DVI adapter for one of my monitors.
 
cbn

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
MrTeal said:
I actually still keep around some 19" 5:4 panels for side monitors.
Click to expand...

I'm doing the same thing.

Most of the time I have 21" 1920 x 1080 with two 17" 1280 x 1024. Matches up nicely.

It doesn't work for multi-screen gaming, but is great for productivity.
 
S

soccerballtux

Lifer
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
I think you can disregard 16:10 as long as you're above 1200 vertical. The vertical space is what matters regardless of aspect ratio.

but ok. and right. $400.

though tbh I would just jump for it for the extra $70. well and the extra $50 on top of that for warranty
 
M

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,919
2,708
136
soccerballtux said:
I think you can disregard 16:10 as long as you're above 1200 vertical. The vertical space is what matters regardless of aspect ratio.

but ok. and right. $400.

though tbh I would just jump for it for the extra $70. well and the extra $50 on top of that for warranty
Click to expand...

Probably, though some old programs like to scale GUI elements and don't play as nice as they should.
My primary monitor right now is a Korean refurb LED 27" 1440p I bought for $210 shipped, and other than being too glossy I can't really fault it. If you can deal with 16:9, can deal with dual link DVI-D and are on a budget, it's hard to beat the value of the 27" (or 32") Korean monitors,
 
S

soccerballtux

Lifer
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
the dual link DVI-D is a bonus on that, because you can overclock to 87hz.

why is DL DVI-D something to 'deal with' anyways?
 
A

AMD64Blondie

Golden Member
Apr 20, 2013
1,766
156
106
I miss my old HP A7217A wide-screen CRT.(re-branded Sony FW900).

It sadly died back in June 2013.

(hard to believe it's been dead and gone for almost 2 years now.)

It had that wonderful 16:10 aspect ratio (1920x1200,also up to 2304x1440).

Now I reluctantly use a LG 27EA33 27-inch 1080p LCD.

(Not trying to start a CRT vs LCD debate,just waxing nostalgia.)
 
Anubis

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
AMD64Blondie said:
I miss my old HP A7217A wide-screen CRT.(re-branded Sony FW900).

It sadly died back in June 2013.

(hard to believe it's been dead and gone for almost 2 years now.)

It had that wonderful 16:10 aspect ratio (1920x1200,also up to 2304x1440).

Now I reluctantly use a LG 27EA33 27-inch 1080p LCD.

(Not trying to start a CRT vs LCD debate,just waxing nostalgia.)
Click to expand...

I also miss my boat anchor (FW900)

I got a LG 34" UM95 to compensate


before I went ultra wide I was in the 1200p or nothing camp as well, I was running dual 24s that did 1920x1200. i took the chance with the catleaps running 1440 and TBH it was fine. 16:9 is not a real issue when you get to that vertical rez. my suggestion would be to pick up one of the many 1440p monitors that exist
 
Last edited:
xthetenth

xthetenth

Golden Member
Oct 14, 2014
1,800
529
106
Anubis said:
I also miss my boat anchor (FW900)

I got a LG 34" UM95 to compensate


before I went ultra wide I was in the 1200p or nothing camp as well, I was running dual 24s that did 1920x1200. i took the chance with the catleaps running 1440 and TBH it was fine. 16:9 is not a real issue when you get to that vertical rez. my suggestion would be to pick up one of the many 1440p monitors that exist
Click to expand...

So you'd agree with me that what matters more than the aspect ratio is the pixel height, and that by 1440 a screen has plenty of that? My 1080 screens always felt a bit vertically cramped, and my 1440s feel roomy to the point I'm pretty sure I wouldn't mind losing some too much, while being able to scale out to three windows on the same screen is amazing compared to a twin monitor layout where things get too far to the side to use the second screen very comfortably.
 
XiandreX

XiandreX

Golden Member
Jan 14, 2011
1,172
16
81
ViRGE said:
Indeed. The common 16:10 panel sizes were 24" 19x12, and 30" 25x16. There never were any 19x12 panels at 28", as far as I know.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/panel_parts_content_files/sheet009.htm

Spelunking through the TFTCentral database, there were a handful of 27" 19x12 panels released, but those are very old panels from 2008 and 2009.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/panel_parts_content_files/sheet008.htm
Click to expand...

I owned a 28 inch 1900x1200 back when I lived in the US.
I forget the brand off hand but it was similar to Hans G (Grey thick bezel)
I really miss that screen.
 
M

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,919
2,708
136
soccerballtux said:
the dual link DVI-D is a bonus on that, because you can overclock to 87hz.

why is DL DVI-D something to 'deal with' anyways?
Click to expand...

Just that you need an output that will do DL DVI-D if you buy one of the cheap non-scalar Korean monitors. Usually not an issue, but it can be at times especially if you want to use a laptop with it.
 
M

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,919
2,708
136
xthetenth said:
So you'd agree with me that what matters more than the aspect ratio is the pixel height, and that by 1440 a screen has plenty of that? My 1080 screens always felt a bit vertically cramped, and my 1440s feel roomy to the point I'm pretty sure I wouldn't mind losing some too much, while being able to scale out to three windows on the same screen is amazing compared to a twin monitor layout where things get too far to the side to use the second screen very comfortably.
Click to expand...

For productivity, I prefer the narrower aspect ratios as it brings my side monitors closer in, and the side monitors themselves can be smaller. As an example, at work my 19" 1280x1024 is almost the same vertical height and PPI as my 24" 1080p display but is only 66% of the width. I can get 19+24+19 on my desk, but couldn't with 16:9s. Since the side ones are usually used for email, PDFs, etc, there's no real reason to have all that extra horizontal space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom