Why is 1920x1200 being abandoned in the mobile market?

[Emulex]

actually people with vision problems can see close up better than folks with 20/20. it will be interesting to see if folks will make displays off the retina2 ipad size. maybe a 19" laptop with 4K resolution 😉

 

[corkyg]

actually people with vision problems can see close up better than folks with 20/20...

Not true - especially as you get older. Also, it depends on the vision problem. When you get into things like glaucoma, retina surgery, cataracts and cataract surgery, the scenario changes greatly.

If you said "some people," then I would agree. 🙂

 

[Anubis]

i think its funny that my old dell inspiron from 2002 does 1920x1200 on a 15.4, 9 year later and you can hardly find it

 

[pyjujiop]

It's simply because LCD manufacturers in Asia aren't producing a lot of screens that do 1920x1200 anymore. They're making screens that conform to the most demanded aspect ratio (16:9). What's available is dictating the market.

Personally, I could care less, I don't like straining my eyes to see a ridiculous number of pixels crammed into too small of a space. But you'd still see 19x12 a lot, if the manufacturers could get the screens in quantity at a reasonable price.

 

[Emulex]

19x12 on 17" with proper contrast/brightness is do-able. not sure how much smaller but with retina(iphone/ipad2) i bet we are about to find out. i mean you can get an eizo for big $$ to do insane resolution at small size (think radiology or surgery with CT) where a large display (or 4) is impossible to fit in. the rejects from these panels i'd gladly take 😉 (i'm not a doctor nor surgeon lol)

 

[cbn]

Maybe Apple will give us higher resolutions than the 1920x1200?

http://www.dailytech.com/Reports+iP...n+Adds+Dual+Core+CPUGraphics/article20675.htm

2048 x 1536 on a 10" 4:3 aspect LCD screen?

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Because movies and gaming looks better at (16:9)1080p, it's cheaper, and it's what the people want.

 

[PlatinumGold]

problem with 16x9 is, the height is too short for stuff that's made for the old 4x3. plus, how often on a web page do you scroll side to side, you always scroll up and down. i like taking a 16 x 10 monitor and turning it 90 degrees so that you have a 1200 x 1900 monitor, it's amazing how much more you can do with your screen. you can put up a web page or word document on the bottom half 1200 x 950 and have plenty of real estate for browsing, etc and putting a streaming app on the top half, again 1200 x 950.

 

[Rubycon]

I don't mind 16:9 vs. 16:10 as long as the former does not sacrifice vertical pixels. In the case of 1920x1200 that's a big whoopsie but oh well. In any case I'm crying typing this on an hp mini with a ridiculous resolution of (drumroll!) 1024x576! YIKES!

OTHO this size display at 1600x900 would rock. 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 on this hp mini would probably be pushing it for even my eagle eyes but if I had to choose I'd take the higher rez. The other thing is the onboard video would probably struggle to scroll pages that big.

That's my biggest fear with the 2048x1536 ipad2 display. Will it be able to scroll full screen web pages smoothly? That's one of my biggest peeves with computers - when the display cannot scroll smoothly. You can have a 200GFLOP CPU and 256GB of RAM with 20TB of SSD BUT if your webpages scroll like molasses that super duper computer is going to seem slow. Slow computers are about as fun a root canals.

 

[simonizor]

Gotta be more than that. It seems like even desktop displays are going to 16:9 now to match TV. It's ridiculous. 🙄

Really, it's not. People want cheap laptops so manufacturers cut costs wherever they can. One of the easiest ways for them to do it without most people noticing is to reduce the resolution of the display.

 

[Emulex]

Honestly 16x9 isn't enough i still see black bars on movies. and 16:10 is the only way to go for work.

I'd love to see a 17" 2560x1600 laptop. that would be dope as hell.

I love my ZR30w,LP3065 i'm staring at now. Both are quite nice.