Why don't they make higher resolution desktop monitors?

[natty1]

We recently bought a laptop that has a 15 inch widescreen with 1920x1200 native resolution. Gaming on this display looks beautiful. You don't see any jagged edges and you don't have to use AA.

Why can't someone make a 22 inch widescreen for desktops that does 2560x1600. I would certainly buy one.

 

[Mech0z]

Normally the panels in 22" are budget panels, and normally the maximum resolution is 1680x1050. And even in 24" I think the maximum is 1920x1200. Why this is different on laptops I have no idear. But I don't think you should get your hopes up tbh.

 

[natty1]

Originally posted by: Mech0z
Normally the panels in 22" are budget panels, and normally the maximum resolution is 1680x1050. And even in 24" I think the maximum is 1920x1200. Why this is different on laptops I have no idear. But I don't think you should get your hopes up tbh.

I know what the normal resolutions are

 

[Kakumba]

I know what you mean, I would love a 24" with 2560x1600 resolution. But for some reason, the powers that be have decided that there isnt a market for it. So, unless we can prove that there are enough people who would buy it to warrant panel manufacturers setting up production for such panels, its not gonna happen.

 

[natty1]

Originally posted by: Kakumba
I know what you mean, I would love a 24" with 2560x1600 resolution. But for some reason, the powers that be have decided that there isnt a market for it. So, unless we can prove that there are enough people who would buy it to warrant panel manufacturers setting up production for such panels, its not gonna happen.

I'm thinking gamers and movie watchers would jump all over it.

 

[angry hampster]

I would LOVE 19x12 on my 19" acer monitor. I'd even be happy with 1650.

 

[ther00kie16]

T221
22.2" at 3840×2400.
Good luck finding it though. You can find them occasionally on ebay and awhile ago it was on amazon for $4500.
Edit: There are actually a couple of better monitors out there. One by Viewsonic you can buy at a couple of places for $4500 (refurb) and the Iiyama AQU5611DT actually boasts 75Hz but is nowhere to be found.

 

[BassBomb]

I was on some OEM site awhile back and saw a 22" 1080p lenovo monitor.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: natty1

Originally posted by: Kakumba
I know what you mean, I would love a 24" with 2560x1600 resolution. But for some reason, the powers that be have decided that there isnt a market for it. So, unless we can prove that there are enough people who would buy it to warrant panel manufacturers setting up production for such panels, its not gonna happen.

I'm thinking gamers and movie watchers would jump all over it.

Why? The best you can get for movies is 1080p. As for games, the G280 struggles to render Crysis on very high even at 1920x1200. There's no real support for monitors above 1920x1200.

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: natty1

Originally posted by: Kakumba
I know what you mean, I would love a 24" with 2560x1600 resolution. But for some reason, the powers that be have decided that there isnt a market for it. So, unless we can prove that there are enough people who would buy it to warrant panel manufacturers setting up production for such panels, its not gonna happen.

I'm thinking gamers and movie watchers would jump all over it.

Most definitely not.

The ideal resolution for any given monitor is the lowest resolution that isn't visibly pixelated when viewed from normal view distance (2-3 feet for your average desktop user). Going higher than that is in many ways pointless - text becomes harder to read, forcing you to increase font and text sizes or zoom levels, and it taxes your GPU more to render your game in it, yet you don't actually notice any positive difference because once you're past the minimum resolution that doesn't show any visible pixelation, anything more is excess.

And for movie watching it's even less important once your vertical pixel count is >= 960 pixels (or 1,080 for HD), particularly the further away from the screen you sit while watching a movie.

 

[airhendrix13]

Unfortunetly, at this time, I think the best option without spending a fortune is to go with a monitor with a small pixel pitch. Not a great solution but what can you do. lol

 

[taltamir]

oh god, can you imagine trying to READ Something on such a panel? I want to get a 27 inch display because those are still 1920x1200.

Windows has serious issues with scaling its interface for different dot pitches, If that was fixed, then we could have REALLY revved up the resolutions.

font size AND icon size are measured in PIXELS, the more you have per inch, the smaller your font and icons are, also, bar hight is also measured in pixel... so if you have a 20 pixel start menu, or a 10 pixel bar at the top of a window, or a 30 pixel sidebar on another...
They will be relatively thinner the higher your resolution, causing the desktop to look completely different at different resolutions.

 

[Foxery]

Seems like an odd question - current LCD resolutions already blow away the common settings most people used on CRTs for ages. Resolution is also related to the size of the display; most humans can only discern so much detail, plus at some point, manufacturing the pixels becomes difficult (read: expensive) as well.

What would you do with the extra level of detail on such a small screen?

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Foxery
Seems like an odd question - current LCD resolutions already blow away the common settings most people used on CRTs for ages. Resolution is also related to the size of the display; most humans can only discern so much detail, plus at some point, manufacturing the pixels becomes difficult (read: expensive) as well.

What would you do with the extra level of detail on such a small screen?

Have more stuff?
Just because LCD's are similar to common settings on CRT's isn't a reason not to offer better resolution desktop LCD's.
I used to run 1600x1200 on a 19" CRT and never found it problematic.
I specifically got 17" and 20" monitors instead of 19 and 22" because there's no real advantage to a larger screen with the same number of pixels IMO.

Some people like more pixels instead of larger ones.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I guess some people are just more sensitive to jaggies then others. I absolutely love my 1680x1050 22". I pretty much never use AA except for when I'm testing different things out, but when I game for the sake of gaming I never use it as I really don't notice the jaggies. They are certainly there when I leave the image static, if I don't move my character or take a print screen, but they just don't take away from the experience for me. <shrug> It's also nice not to have to buy a $500 video card to drive my native res.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: natty1

Originally posted by: Kakumba
I know what you mean, I would love a 24" with 2560x1600 resolution. But for some reason, the powers that be have decided that there isnt a market for it. So, unless we can prove that there are enough people who would buy it to warrant panel manufacturers setting up production for such panels, its not gonna happen.

I'm thinking gamers and movie watchers would jump all over it.

Why? The best you can get for movies is 1080p. As for games, the G280 struggles to render Crysis on very high even at 1920x1200. There's no real support for monitors above 1920x1200.

Crysis isn't the only game in the world worth playing, in fact some would say it isn't even all that worthwhile...just a really awesome tech demo...

That being said, a huge advantage of having a resolution such as 2560x1600 or higher is that you can scale it down to something like 1280x800 and still maintain a good looking image because you'd need no interpolation as pixels would be perfect 4:1. Even if you did chose a different resolution that would require interpolation it wouldn't look as bad because the pixel pitch would be so low.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Foxery
What would you do with the extra level of detail on such a small screen?

Squint, of course.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: natty1
We recently bought a laptop that has a 15 inch widescreen with 1920x1200 native resolution. Gaming on this display looks beautiful. You don't see any jagged edges and you don't have to use AA.

Why can't someone make a 22 inch widescreen for desktops that does 2560x1600. I would certainly buy one.

Hi OP, you are forgetting not everyone has 20\20 vision and reading text on a 15" laptop screen with a res that high would be painful to me.....I dont like being closer than 2-3 feet from my screen, I couldnt read 15.4 WS 1680x1050 laptop screen the pitch of the text was so awful....

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Foxery
What would you do with the extra level of detail on such a small screen?

Squint, of course.

+1

:laugh:

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: SolMiester

Originally posted by: natty1
We recently bought a laptop that has a 15 inch widescreen with 1920x1200 native resolution. Gaming on this display looks beautiful. You don't see any jagged edges and you don't have to use AA.

Why can't someone make a 22 inch widescreen for desktops that does 2560x1600. I would certainly buy one.

Hi OP, you are forgetting not everyone has 20\20 vision and reading text on a 15" laptop screen with a res that high would be painful to me.....I dont like being closer than 2-3 feet from my screen, I couldnt read 15.4 WS 1680x1050 laptop screen the pitch of the text was so awful....

No one suggested that ALL monitors should have much higher resolutions, but that some options should be available.
You are right, not everyone has 20/20 vision, but that doesn't matter.
Suddenly introducing higher resolution monitors isn't going to suddenly force everyone to buy them. The existing screens will still be around.

The question in the OP was why NO ONE offers this kind of product for the desktop market, when throughout the laptop market you see a wide variety of resolution options at each screen size. This is totally absent from the mainstream consumer desktop market, which seems (to the OP and to me) to be incredibly weird.

No, not everyone would want one, but surely, SURELY there is a reasonable market for such a product.

 

[Phynaz]

No, not everyone would want one, but surely, SURELY there is a reasonable market for such a product

Surely if there was such a market some company somewhere would have jumped into it.

If you really want high resolution, look into medical imaging displays. Then you find out why there are no consumer displays at those high resolutions (price).

 

[natty1]

Everyone is complaining about small text. Isn't there some option in Windows to make the interface larger? If not, I would think Microsoft could easily add that in. Higher resolution would actually make text easier to read if you were able to use a bigger interface.

 

[Kakumba]

As has been said, we don't suggest making ALL panels with super high resolutions, but they should be available. I would buy one (or 3) for sure.

 

[postmortemIA]

90% of PC users don't even know what resolution they are running
Same percent hates small text on large display.

 

[taltamir]

honestly this will all be solved with proper text/UI/icons scaling to the screen size, rather then its pixel amount...

It is silly to choose between "tiny text and buttons" and "display sharpness". You could easily have both with a minimal effort on the part of OS makers.

And if you did, then you could get much MUCH sharper image at the same size of things, so text would be ever MORE readable.