• 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.

Who else is waiting for a 1920x1200 17" desktop LCD?

B

BroadbandGamer

Senior member
IMO this is the perfect size for a desktop.

It really bugs me that I can buy a notebook with this screen but I can't get a desktop version. What are these LCD manufactures thinking? I know I'm not alone. There's lots of people that don't want a big 20" display like the Dell or Apple that doesn't even do 1920x1200.

So will a screen like this every show up or am I dreaming?
 
I'd buy one (well, or at least a 20" that did 1920x1200....I don't want to go down in size from my 2005FPW 😉). I'm not very optimistic about such a thing ever coming to market though (or at least, not in the near future).
 
Umm, I guess my eyes aren't as good as yours. The text size on the 2001FP at 1600x1200 is just right for coding and document work. Any smaller and and I'd have to change my prescription.

Why wouldn't you just want a large monitor with high resolution? The 2405FPW does just that res and you won't need a telescope to read it.

All TVs that aren't HD run the same res, why not just get a 13" instead of that 36"?
 
1920x1200 on a 17" is ALMOST too small..

It looks good on some 17" WS notebooks,(Sony A790) but I would prefer 1600x1200 on a 17" LCD..

 
Jesus, i need better eyes.
I use 1280 by 1024 on a 17in and i think thats pretty small. The icons in 1900 by 1200 would probably just be dots to me. I have barely any icons on my desktop anyway so i dont see the point of having such a high res.
 
Originally posted by: cbehnken
Umm, I guess my eyes aren't as good as yours. The text size on the 2001FP at 1600x1200 is just right for coding and document work. Any smaller and and I'd have to change my prescription.

Why wouldn't you just want a large monitor with high resolution? The 2405FPW does just that res and you won't need a telescope to read it.

All TVs that aren't HD run the same res, why not just get a 13" instead of that 36"?
Click to expand...

Because I don't sit with my face two feet away from my HDTV like I do with my PC.

A 24" monitor on a desktop is just to damn big IMO and the 20" widescreen displays that are out there use a goofy resolution IMO.
 
I too would like a high-res smaller display. I can easily handle my 15" notebook monitor @ SXGA+, so I would really like a 17" monitor at W/UXGA.
 
WHY do the screens on notebooks have such high-res? I saw a 15.4" screen with like 1900x something...?! What's going on? Is there some catch to the resolution of the notebook LCDs or something? Yes I do really want a 1920x1200 17" LCD screen.
 
Originally posted by: xtknight
WHY do the screens on notebooks have such high-res? I saw a 15.4" screen with like 1900x something...?! What's going on? Is there some catch to the resolution of the notebook LCDs or something? Yes I do really want a 1920x1200 17" LCD screen.
Click to expand...

No, it's just that since a laptop can't have a 24" screen, they find a way to put 1920x1200 into 15.4".

 
Personally I'd just like to see higher res lcd's in general. I mean, why are both 17" and 19" lcd's 1280x1024? Why can't they make 19" monitors 1600x1200? 1280x1024 isn't even the standard 4:3 aspect ratio. It's 5:4, but jammed into 4:3 screens. That doesn't even make sense. I run my CRT at 1280x960 (the actual 4:3 aspect for this horizontal resolution) and will continue to do so until LCD panel makers get their heads out of their a$$es.
 
Originally posted by: Fricardo
Personally I'd just like to see higher res lcd's in general. I mean, why are both 17" and 19" lcd's 1280x1024? Why can't they make 19" monitors 1600x1200? 1280x1024 isn't even the standard 4:3 aspect ratio. It's 5:4, but jammed into 4:3 screens. That doesn't even make sense. I run my CRT at 1280x960 (the actual 4:3 aspect for this horizontal resolution) and will continue to do so until LCD panel makers get their heads out of their a$$es.
Click to expand...

Not true, a 17" LCD IS a 5:4 screen, it isn't 4:3 physically or resolution wise. I have no idea where people get this idea unless they read that one stupid review on anandtech that posted incorrect info.
 
Originally posted by: cbehnken
Originally posted by: Fricardo
Personally I'd just like to see higher res lcd's in general. I mean, why are both 17" and 19" lcd's 1280x1024? Why can't they make 19" monitors 1600x1200? 1280x1024 isn't even the standard 4:3 aspect ratio. It's 5:4, but jammed into 4:3 screens. That doesn't even make sense. I run my CRT at 1280x960 (the actual 4:3 aspect for this horizontal resolution) and will continue to do so until LCD panel makers get their heads out of their a$$es.
Click to expand...

Not true, a 17" LCD IS a 5:4 screen, it isn't 4:3 physically or resolution wise. I have no idea where people get this idea unless they read that one stupid review on anandtech that posted incorrect info.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is annoying. 17-19" LCDs are 5:4 screens. displaying pixel perfect images - nothing is squished.

However you do end up running into problems if you ever play a game that supports only 4:3 resolutions (1280x960 isntead of 1280x1024). But that is a pretty rare case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top