Why don't they make higher resolution desktop monitors?

[Blazer7]

The cost of producing such a high res monitor would be much greater than what it is now for std res LCDs. That would mean that only those few that can afford to spend that much would benefit of the tech and that means not that many sales. For those here that forget, manufacturers live on sales and the cost of changing the production lines to churn out high res panels is no peanuts.

As already mentioned the dot pitch for such monitors would be a problem to many and windows are not doing very well with font scaling. yacoub made a very good point there about what the ideal res for a monitor is but there?s more to it.

The pixel (and subpixel) count on such panels would be astronomical and the fact that the transistors would be so small, and in such numbers and density, would undoubtedly cause ?yield? problems for the manufacturers. Most of them, if not all, are following ISO stds when it comes to defective pixels/subpixels. Do you think that they can afford to mass produce extremely high res monitors and release only those that compy to ISO stds ? Even if they do what do you think will happen with warranty issues ? The only way to get past this is to have a very ?relaxed? ISO std for LCDs with ultra high res.

That means that the potential customer for such a monitor would not only have to pay an extreme price for it but would also have to suffer many more defects on the monitor before being eligible for a replacement. I don?t see many of us willing to go with that.

 

[natty1]

Originally posted by: 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.

Exactly. I was assuming that Windows already allowed you to scale the interface. What the hell is Microsoft doing? This is the most obvious improvement they could make to their OS.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Blazer7
The cost of producing such a high res monitor would be much greater than what it is now for std res LCDs. That would mean that only those few that can afford to spend that much would benefit of the tech and that means not that many sales. For those here that forget, manufacturers live on sales and the cost of changing the production lines to churn out high res panels is no peanuts.

As already mentioned the dot pitch for such monitors would be a problem to many and windows are not doing very well with font scaling. yacoub made a very good point there about what the ideal res for a monitor is but there?s more to it.

The pixel (and subpixel) count on such panels would be astronomical and the fact that the transistors would be so small, and in such numbers and density, would undoubtedly cause ?yield? problems for the manufacturers. Most of them, if not all, are following ISO stds when it comes to defective pixels/subpixels. Do you think that they can afford to mass produce extremely high res monitors and release only those that compy to ISO stds ? Even if they do what do you think will happen with warranty issues ? The only way to get past this is to have a very ?relaxed? ISO std for LCDs with ultra high res.

That means that the potential customer for such a monitor would not only have to pay an extreme price for it but would also have to suffer many more defects on the monitor before being eligible for a replacement. I don?t see many of us willing to go with that.

Then tell me how we can have reasonably affordable laptops with incredibly high resolution displays, such as 17" with 1920x1200, but we can't have a 17" desktop monitor with even say 1680x1050?
Pixel pitch on laptops goes as low as 0.173, and is mostly below 0.250. A 22" display with 1920x1200 would barely be any different to a fairly typical laptop in terms of individual pixel size.

What would make, say, a 22" 1920x1200 or 19" 1680x1050 magically astronomically unfeasible when it's barely that much different to what we have now, and certainly less of a problem than many laptop displays?

 

[Blazer7]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Then tell me how we can have reasonably affordable laptops with incredibly high resolution displays, such as 17" with 1920x1200, but we can't have a 17" desktop monitor with even say 1680x1050?
Pixel pitch on laptops goes as low as 0.173, and is mostly below 0.250. A 22" display with 1920x1200 would barely be any different to a fairly typical laptop in terms of individual pixel size.

What would make, say, a 22" 1920x1200 or 19" 1680x1050 magically astronomically unfeasible when it's barely that much different to what we have now, and certainly less of a problem than many laptop displays?

Laptop displays are quite a different story. If you take a good look at them you?ll find out that they cannot be compared to desktop LCDs. Viewing angles, response times, panel types, connection options etc etc. When it comes to laptops things are quite different and IMO a comparison between a laptop and a desktop display is not a serious one.

When buying a laptop the first thing one learns is the magic word, compromise. Everything that has to do with laptops is a compromise and the same goes for the displays. Yes, there?re some laptops with some very nice high res 15-17? displays but the compromise is still there.

Do you think that you can find a laptop with a 17? IPS panel that does 1920x1200 and has the viewing angles, response times, brightness, low input lag etc etc as a desktop LCD? If you do find one do you think that you can afford it? It?s not just of having the option of buying a high res monitor but you should also afford it. If the customer can?t afford it why should the manufacturer bother to produce it?

We all know that the technology is there so it?s not that such displays are unfeasible but this does not negate the fact that the cost is beyond the reach of the average Jo. The smaller the dot pitch the more expensive the monitor as the transistors get significantly smaller and much more dense compared to std res LCDs. The cost of modifying or making new production lines for such panels is indeed great and no one is gonna take it unless profit is certain.

To my knowledge such ultra high res displays are intended mostly for medical or military research where extreme precision is a matter of life and death and cost is of no significance. AFAIK such displays are Class I as described in the ISO 13406-2 std which dictates the acceptable number of defective pixels. As you can probably understand, when talking about ultra high res monitors you cannot tolerate faulty pixels because your precision goes to hell and there?s little use for a high res monitor if its precision cannot be guarantied. Class I means no faulty pixels of any type so you can possibly start to get the picture of the costs involved.

I do understand that your approach to the whole issue is quite different than mine but you do not seem to be taking all things under account. I recently replaced my 19? for a 24? and one of the reasons was its low res. With my limited space I would really appreciate a 22? ultra high res LCD but c?est la vie.

 

[IlllI]

22in 1,920 x 1,200 http://www.engadget.com/2007/0...xga-thinkvision-l220x/

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Blazer7
<snip>

Ah, that's what I was looking for.
Some causes which didn't depend on pixel size etc.
I hadn't considered the finer points of LCD's, i.e. all the other things which make up a good display, and just focused on the fact that you can produce a (comparatively low quality) LCD for a laptop, so you should be able to do the same as a desktop monitor. But it makes sense to also consider the other aspect which I conveniently ignored!

(And clandren seems to have discovered that at least one does exist!)

 

[BurnItDwn]

I always ran my 19inch CRTs (18 inch viewable) at 1600x1200, 1920x1200 on my 24inch LCD makes the print look giant. I would love for it to be 2560x1600, but the truth is the vast majority of the population are the type that used to run their 17 or 19inch CRTs at 800x600. Most people have bad eyes.

 

[Blazer7]

@ Lonyo

I'm sorry but I don't get that, it's probably my english. If you're happy with the one that clandren found why are you complaining? This is some proof that monitors like this are out there (although not available where I live).

And are the causes that I mention above untrue? Or are you saying that laptop displays are on par on quality and features with desktop LCDs?

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Blazer7
@ Lonyo

I'm sorry but I don't get that. If you're happy with the one that clandren found why are you complaining? This is some proof that monitors like this are out there (although not available where I live).

And are the causes that I mention above untrue? Or are you saying that laptop displays are on par on quality and features with desktop LCDs?

Eh? No, I was agreeing with you!

 

[deepinya]

LCD's work best at their native resolution so you better have some serious hardware to run that high a res and get decent frames.

I guess that why Im still on my 21" CRT.

 

[Blazer7]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Blazer7
@ Lonyo

I'm sorry but I don't get that. If you're happy with the one that clandren found why are you complaining? This is some proof that monitors like this are out there (although not available where I live).

And are the causes that I mention above untrue? Or are you saying that laptop displays are on par on quality and features with desktop LCDs?

Eh? No, I was agreeing with you!

I'm sorry Lonyo,

I was editing my post while you were typing As you can see from my edit it's my english.

No offense taken. It's nice to discuss things with open-minded people even if they do not agree with you all the time. We're cool.

 

[mooncancook]

Small high res LCD is not as practical on a desktop. With laptops you always sit very close to it because the LCD is pretty much attached to the keyboard, while on a desktop your keyboard is sitting far from the monitor on the slide-out keyboard tray. For me 16x10 on a 20" is pretty much the max resolution that is comfortable to read. Any higher res would requires either a larger screen or I have to pull the screen closer to my face.

Another problem would be that the cost to produce say a 19x12 20" LCD would probably be no less than a 19x12 24" LCD, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to choose the small LCD in a desktop environment when the cost is about the same.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
What would make, say, a 22" 1920x1200 or 19" 1680x1050 magically astronomically unfeasible when it's barely that much different to what we have now, and certainly less of a problem than many laptop displays?

Acer makes a 19" 1680x1050 monitor, the X193W+. Newegg sells it. I'd love a 20" 1920x1200 screen though.

 

[ther00kie16]

Back before 2000, weren't 1600x1200 17" and 19" LCDs quite common? Granted they were probably $800, but they were the norm for awhile I thought. Then they had to go and switch to 1280x1024.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: natty1

Originally posted by: 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.

Exactly. I was assuming that Windows already allowed you to scale the interface. What the hell is Microsoft doing? This is the most obvious improvement they could make to their OS.

windows technically allows size changes, but ONLY for fonts... so everything explodes and looks completely wrong when it does that, text gets cut off (parts of it are missing), only the text changes size (icons and UI does not), and various other issues. It is TERRIBLE and barely useable... completely inexcusable. My parents both tried it for a while and ended up just using a lower resolution (at the same aspect ratio) to get readable size, but fuzzy text. It is the one feature most missing for the OS.
I wouldn't expect it anytime soon.

 

[IlllI]

Originally posted by: ther00kie16
Back before 2000, weren't 1600x1200 17" and 19" LCDs quite common? Granted they were probably $800, but they were the norm for awhile I thought. Then they had to go and switch to 1280x1024.

uh..no. back then 17in lcd was 1024x768 and 18/19 was 1280x1024

 

[ther00kie16]

18" was like 2002-2004. I'm talking before then. I think I read in a PC gamer magazine from 2000/2001 about LCDs having lower resolutions than before.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Lonyo
What would make, say, a 22" 1920x1200 or 19" 1680x1050 magically astronomically unfeasible when it's barely that much different to what we have now, and certainly less of a problem than many laptop displays?

Acer makes a 19" 1680x1050 monitor, the X193W+. Newegg sells it. I'd love a 20" 1920x1200 screen though.

I'd love huge a*s monitor, not 20".

 

[IlllI]

1,920 x 1,080 21.5in lcd http://www.engadget.com/2008/0...-e2200hda-lcd-monitor/