Small, High-Resolution LCD Monitors?

An anonymous reader writes "I'm a veteran user of an old 17" Dell Trinitron CRT monitor. I run it at 1400x1050 with an 80Hz refresh rate — about as high as it goes before it'll go out of the monitor's scan range. More recently I've been looking to finally upgrade to an LCD monitor but found that, for the most part, every 17" monitor on the market runs natively at 1280x1024, as does every 19" monitor — I have to go for a 20" to go higher. Now yes, I know I'm complaining about just 120 pixels horizontal and 26 pixels vertical, but my laptop's 15" display runs natively at 1400x1050. Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?"

Comments

Syncmaster

[samriel]

19" SyncMaster 943BWX is what I'm using right now at 1400 x 900. Not quite your bag on the vertical end of things, but the SyncMaster line is probably worth looking into.

Re:Syncmaster

[Barny]

Just like every other 19" wide screen, from the sound of it though the OP wants a 19" 4:3 ratio screen.

Re:Syncmaster

[SignalFreq]

ASUS VW192T+ 19", 1680 x 1050, $120
http://www.superwarehouse.com/ASUS_VW192T+_19_Widescreen_LCD_Monitor/VW192T+/ps/1562122

ViewSonic VX1940w 19", 1680 x 1050, $150
http://www.superwarehouse.com/ViewSonic_VX1940w_19_Widescreen_LCD_Monitor/VX1940W/ps/1504859

Or if you want really high resolution (and have too much money):
EIZO RadiForce GS310-CL Single Head 20.8", 2048 x 1536, $6k
http://www.superwarehouse.com/EIZO_RadiForce_GS310-CL_Single_Head_20.8_LCD_Monitor/GS310-CL-SH-MMP3P/ps/1543964

Re:Syncmaster

[Anonymous Coward]

"May I suggest the SAMSUNG SYNCMASTER 743N. 17" 1280x1024 resolution."

May I suggest reading the fucking question prior to spout a stupid answer?

Re:Syncmaster

[Antidamage]

Well now nobody's going to help you shop.

Re:Syncmaster

[644bd346996]

That EIZO monitor doesn't do color. It's a grayscale monitor for looking at medical images like x-rays.

Re:Syncmaster

[afidel]

Sanyo-Epson has a 7.1" 1080P display! It's even in color =) link

Re:Syncmaster

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask a radiologist what LCD he uses for digital mammograms...those are ~5mega pixels...might be grayscale only...and $$

Re:Syncmaster

[SignalFreq]

True, that particular one is. They do sell color versions though, like this one with 1536 x 2048:

http://www.superwarehouse.com/EIZO_RadiForce_R31-BK_20.1_Black_LCD_Monitor/R31-BK/p/1503373

Re:Syncmaster

[Neil Hodges]

My 20" SyncMaster 203B runs at 1400x1050. It was the highest-resolution thing of reasonable size I could find in the LCD range, and that was years ago.

Re:Syncmaster

[Anonymous Coward]

Have the moderators and posters gone mad? Read the freaking requirements. Parent is +4 Informative for some reason. For phrackin sake:

'ASUS VW192T+ 19"'

Besides reading the link, divide the pixels. This is a 16:10 widescreen. Obviously not 4:3. Less pixel density. Smaller height than a 17" CRT. Fail.

'ViewSonic VX1940w 19"'

Same.

'EIZO RadiForce GS310-CL Single Head 20.8"'

Like you said, it's a $6k monitor. Second, too large. This one is a 4:3 monitor but by being so, it in direct comparison with a 4:3 CRT tube, so being a 20.8in monitor is larger than a 17in LCD by 3.8 inches diagonally. Not to mention what's already been stated that a 17" CRT screen diagonal is less than actual (it's tube diagonal, which isn't all real estate, unlike most LCDs which is actual diagonal (although that's changed too)), making the difference morethan 4.6 inches diagonally. Fail.

Fail on all 3. Again, the 19" LCDs have less pixel density than the 17" CRT. And again, the 17" CRT even accounting for a smaller screensize due to how CRTs are measured is still taller than a 19" LCD.

A 20in widescreen LCD may get you closer to the height of a 17" CRT and maybe pixel density if it bumps up, but still, you're increasing monitor width at the same time due to the usual 16:10 widescreen breakdown.

Here's a crappy worksheet with things badly rounded and significant digits taken at the wrong place and what not and lacking () but you should get the picture:

17
289
4x2 + 3x2 25
3.4 13.6 10.2 138.72
1400x1050 1470000
10597

16.2
262.44
3.24 12.96 9.72 125.9712
11669.333942996494436823654930651

19
361
16x2 + 9x2 337
1.035 16.56 9.315 154.2564
1680x1050 1764000
11435.506079488436136199211183458

Re:Syncmaster

[anonymousbob22]

Why is this marked troll?

Re:Syncmaster

[hacker]

Or if you want really high resolution and don't need color (and have too much money): EIZO RadiForce GS310-CL Single Head 20.8", 2048 x 1536, $6k

((emphasis mine above) The EIZO is only 10-bit grayscale, NOT color.

Re:Syncmaster

[SignalFreq]

[copied from another reply to a comment about it being grayscale]

True, that particular one is. They do sell color versions though, like this one with 1536 x 2048:

http://www.superwarehouse.com/EIZO_RadiForce_R31-BK_20.1_Black_LCD_Monitor/R31-BK/p/1503373

Re:Syncmaster

[White Flame]

Funny that a few years ago, 2048x1536 was standard for ~$300 19"-21" CRT monitors. LCDs still haven't caught up with price per pixel, and pixel density (at least on the desk. The 800x480 handhelds have great density). 1920x1200 is a giant step down in certain desktop operations requiring vertical space.

Re:Syncmaster

[Miamicanes]

I had a VX1940w. Nice display (not counting its stuck-on green pixel in the lower right corner), until the backlight died ~3 weeks ago. It's under warranty and getting repaired/replaced and will be a birthday gift for my Dad in 2 weeks, but I had to spend almost 1/4 of its present value just to ship it back to Viewsonic. In the meantime, I bought an Acer H233H from CompUSA (a.k.a. Tiger Direct in Drag) for $179 on sale to replace it. For a 23" display that does 1920x1080, I'm pretty happy with it. I could have gotten the 24" for $229, but decided it wasn't worth an extra $50 for one additional inch and the same resolution.

As far as resolution goes, I'd have loved something like 2560x1440, but there are two factors that make it nearly impossible to buy a display with resolution higher than 1920x1080:

* TVs use 1920x1080 panels. Way more TVs get sold than PC monitors. All things equal, a panel that can be used to make EITHER a TV or a computer monitor will probably be cheaper than one that's only suitable for PC use. When it was a difference of $600 vs $750, the extra $150 was fairly easy to rationalize. When it's a difference like $199 vs $499, well... that's a big difference, and roughly the point where it becomes worthwhile to say "fuck it", buy two, and use them side by side in portrait mode.

* Single-data-rate DVI maxes out somewhere in the neighborhood of 1920x1080. I'm not sure whether 1920x1080 is slightly below its max, or pushing it slightly beyond its official max, but I know it's pretty close to the limit one way or another. Going higher means you need double data rate... which also probably means an ungodly expensive cable, and quite possibly a more expensive video card (unless you normally buy top of the line video cards).

Either way, it does kind of suck. I've always owned high-end monitors and ran resolutions that were significantly higher than the mainstream norm (1024x768@15", 1152x868 and 1280x1024 at 19"), and really do hate being stuck in the "1080 jail" like everyone else.

IMHO, half the problem lies with Windows, OS/X, and the mainstream Linux window managers... none of them have ever really come up with a good, low-drama low-ceremony way of actively managing dozens of small windows. Windows is more dysfunctional in that regard than the other two mainstream platforms... but not much. And recent incarnations of all three seem to actually be WORSE than their ugly predecessors, because they're NOW a lot pickier about precise mouse alignment for things like dragging and resizing. The visual cues keep getting smaller, and the sweet spots where you can click and have the Right Thing(tm) happen seem to be shrinking every year, too. In more than a few ways, a system with 3 portrait-mode displays side by side and a thirdparty app like MultiMon is MORE usable than a system with a single huge display of equal total resolution.

Re:Syncmaster

[klui]

The parent is correct: it appears the submitter wants 4:3 displays. The Asus and Viewsonic have 16:9/16:10 ratios. Unfortunately more companies will be selling widescreen monitors due to the size of the TV market as monitor companies can leverage off TV's scale. Read it in some article within the last 6 months. Wikipedia has a page that displays most standard resolutions and 1680x1050 is the closest that will meet the submitter.

Pricegrabber (and other places will probably show you similar results) shows 17" higher than 1280x1024 is 1440x900. Going up to 19" and you'll get 1680x1050.

Personally, I'd get 1920x1200 or at least 1600x1200. They take less space than a 17" CRT depth wise, which is more important than a wider display.

Re:Syncmaster

[Penguinoflight]

Single Link vs dual link DVI is not a matter of the speed of information, or even cable quality for that matter. Dual link uses two transmitters and Single link uses only one. Dual doubles the theoretical throughput without raising the cabling quality requirement.

It's irrelevant, with a VGA cable and a dual link-vga adapter you need worry about only above 2048x1536 (QXGA) @ 85hz. I don't know about you, but 4 times the most common resolution is enough for me.

Re:Syncmaster

[lupis42]

I use a third party app called winsplitrevolution to make the giant (30", 2560x1600) display work properly. It works out very well, about as much multi-tasking productivity as two 1600x1200 monitors side by side, but less vertical scrolling, and for smaller stuff (file managers, for example), I go to 1280x720 2 pane windows, which means looking at 8 directories at once.

You're point about TVs is well taken, but remember that most TVs simply aren't in the same size category as monitors, so there isn't much panel sharing going on.

Finally, single rate DVI maxes at WUXGA (1920x1200), but dual like cables aren't that expensive, and it isn't all that hard on a video board, $20 should cover it if you aren't a gamer. (If you are a gamer, you probably know the price/framerate/pixels sweetspot you like best).

Re:Syncmaster

[iamhassi]

google 17" LCD 1400x1050

Very first link is a KDS K-726MWB 17 inch WIDE SCREEN LCD 1400 X 1050 0.291MM 500:1 8ms (Black) for sale for $166.

I really can't believe this made it on Ask Slashdot. Shouldn't the requirement be to get on Ask Slashdot that someone can't find it with a 10 second google search?

Re:Syncmaster

[Chatterton]

I have bought for 2700 euro the 20" SyncMaster 204B who is 1600x1200. But i can't find it anymore or one similar :-( Now they are all with less pixel density or with a price tag over the top :-(

Re:Syncmaster

[fbjon]

Really? As I remember, a 19" standard CRT monitor could handle only up to 1600x1200, if it was a good one. Anything more than that usually resulted in lost or diminished pixels, because there's a limit to the number of phosphor sites and holes in the mask.

Re:Syncmaster

[Anonymous Coward]

... and that is 1280x800 display.

Hint: Widescreen 1400x1050 means non-square pixels
The description shows the physical resolution as Optimum Resolution.

FAIL.

Re:Syncmaster

[Bert64]

You can buy Sun and SGI CRT monitors very cheaply these days, and they go up to 24" in size... They tended to be very good screens because they were intended for high end workstations. I used a 21" Sun for years, it took several years before i had a machine powerful enough to drive it at it's maximum resolution.

Re:Syncmaster

[Bert64]

I would say windows is far more disfunctional when it comes to high resolution screen management with lots of small windows... The fonts don't scale according to screen DPI, and windows is very much geared towards having one app running full screen at a time - and many of those apps (and many poorly designed websites etc) just look stupid when used at a high resolution.
The mainstream Linux window managers suffer from trying to be too much like windows and having many of the same flaws... You really need a completely different WM for a small low resolution netbook than for multiple large high resolution screens, one size does not fit all.

Re:Syncmaster

[dintech]

The expensive RadiForce one has a response time of 50ms. Those aren't skeletons, they're ghosts... :)

Re:Syncmaster

[dintech]

without killing my desk space?

Might I add that most LCDs are going to take up less space than your current CRT. What you loose in width by having, say a 24" screen, you're going to gain so much depth.

Re:Syncmaster

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps because there's no 'retard' moderation option...

Re:Syncmaster

[wjsteele]

Seriously, why would someone do a Google search if their question can be answered by 100 people all doing slighly different Google/Bing/Yahoo searches.

It basically comes down to an economy of scales, the way I see it. Slashdot becomes the "human powered search" engine.

So, the poster now has his answers (plus a billion others), along with several alternative products and didn't do any more work than the general search on Giggle.

Actually, I think Bing is sort of similar to Slashdot in that arena.

Bill

Re:Syncmaster

[Miamicanes]

> You're point about TVs is well taken, but remember that most TVs simply aren't in the same
> size category as monitors, so there isn't much panel sharing going on.

I'd argue that's 99% of the reason why you can now get a 1920x1080 22" to 24" panel for *literally* just a few dollars more than a 17"-19" panel. A 17" panel isn't good for much BESIDES a computer display and a few ultra-niche laptops. Ditto, for most 19" panels (which are really the equivalent of a 15-17" 4:3 display when you get down to it). On the other hand, a 22-24" panel ends up being the same effective size as one of the most common sizes for low-end secondary TVs, as well as the larger-without-being-crazy end of computer displays.

Remember -- in the CRT era, computer monitors had much denser shadow masks than TV displays, so there wasn't as much potential for dual-use. You could either get a CRT with low dot pitch and bright display to use as a TV, or a CRT with a high dot pitch and dimmer display to use as a monitor. Making a non-HD CRT with higher dot pitch would have been counterproductive, because it would have looked just as blurry across the room, and would have been dimmer to boot.

In the case of TVs vs monitors, it's mainly a difference of backlighting. From what I understand, the practical limit of fluorescent/cold-cathode backlights is mainly, "How much power can you get away with drawing to light it up"? Use one that's highly efficient (but dimmer), or even LED-based, and you have a laptop display. Use one that's bright and burns power like a 500W early-90s halogen torchiere, and you have a cheap TV. Use one that falls somewhere in between, and you have a desktop monitor or small TV.

Re:Syncmaster

[Ozy_Wizard]

I can't believe you don't know what Optimum Resolution: 1280 x 720 is.

Re:Syncmaster

[Anonymous Coward]

The numbers on that page do not compute. At 0.291mm dot pitch, the physical width and height quoted come out to 1280 x 720 pixels. Note that it says it's capable of DISPLAYING 1400x1050, not what the actual number of pixels is.

Basically, a 0.25mm dot pitch gives you about 100dpi. To get to about 120dpi (typical of those high density laptop displays) you need to get down to about 0.21mm dot pitch.

Re:Syncmaster

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not high density or 4:3. Try reading first, then posting.

Re:Syncmaster

[bofkentucky]

This, I love my HP A1295A (rebadged Sony GDM-900) 24" Widescreen tube. I got mine for less than $200 three years ago due to it having a dent in the plastic. I don't know what I'm going to replace it with when the time comes.

Re:Syncmaster

[MrAngryForNoReason]

It's irrelevant, with a VGA cable and a dual link-vga adapter you need worry about only above 2048x1536 (QXGA) @ 85hz.

What isn't quite so irrelevant is that it the picture will look like shit if you use a VGA cable. DVI gives much higher picture quality for LCD screens.

Re:Syncmaster

[keithpreston]

Yeah, but have you ever seen how much power these things draw? I used 2 - 21" CRT tubes that were from the early 90s for probably 10 years. I had to reinforce my desk, because they were so heavy. In the end I found out the pull 1 KW of energy and replaced them with a 24" LCD (50w).

Re:Syncmaster

[ShakaUVM]

>>The parent is correct: it appears the submitter wants 4:3 displays.

He's not alone. 4:3 displays make more sense than widescreens for pretty much every use I have on a computer: gaming, word processing, and coding. Honestly - have you ever seen MS word used on a widescreen monitor? It either displays two pages side by side (which breaks your flow) or just throws away half your usable screen space.

Re:Syncmaster

[default luser]

Don't forget that a 17" CRT is really 16" viewable best-case. I'll bet almost everyone has forgotten that by now. LCD is fully-viewable, so a 19" screen is really 19".

Also, NOWHERE in the article post does the author request another 4:3 monitor, so if a 19" widescreen has similar vertical viewing range and the same (or better) DPI, then we can assume it is a winner.

Some math for you

16" CRT (viewable) 1400x1050

We know the hypotenuse = 16. for a 4:3 monitor:

4^2 + 3^2 = 5^2. 16" / 5 = a factor of 3.2, so multiply all factors by 3.2 to get true screen dimensions.

Screen is 12.8" by 9.6", with a DPI of 109

19" widescreen LCD (16:10) 1680x1050

16^2 + 10^2 = 18.87^2, 19 / 18.87 = 1.007

Screen is 16.1" by 10.07", with a DPI of 104

With the 19" LCD, you get a VERY SLIGHT drop in DPI, with the same vertical resolution/area, and MUCH INCREASED horizontal area. Sounds like a win to me!

Re:Syncmaster

[default luser]

Oh no, you're absolutely correct, most mid-range 19" CRTs topped-out at 1600x1200, and the top-end hit 1920x1440. Really, you could only resolve pixels up to the monitor's dot pitch, so anything above 1600x1200 was a waste. But it was a sign of good dot clock hardware if they could advertise such a high resolution as 1920x1440, especially with a refresh rate of 85Hz (like my Iiyama Visionmaster Pro 454). At higher resolutions, you wanted dot clock hardware that wasn't bandwidth-limited (results in blurred images).

Re:Syncmaster

[GuyWithLag]

Indeed, as I found out recently when I moved to 2x 1920x1200 monitors. I've mitigated the problems somewhat with a lot of keybinding customization (toggle max horizontally/vertically + throw window left/right/bottom/up did help a lot), but it's still clunky at times.

Re:Syncmaster

[Mal-2]

> * Single-data-rate DVI maxes out somewhere in the neighborhood of 1920x1080. I'm not sure whether 1920x1080 is slightly below its max, or pushing it slightly beyond its official max, but I know it's pretty close to the limit one way or another. Going higher means you need double data rate...

True, but largely irrelevant unless you insist on recycling your single-link DVI cables.

> which also probably means an ungodly expensive cable, and quite possibly a more expensive video card (unless you normally buy top of the line video cards).

Not true at all. Even my GeForce 6200 did dual-link DVI, and a 10 foot cable cost me $18. I would not exactly call that "ungodly expensive", since 10 foot cables are somewhat exotic. The normal 6 foot (actually 2 meter) length was $10.

Mal-2

Re:Syncmaster

[BoomerSooner]

1400x1050 isn't a "wide screen", it's 4:3. A wide screen display at that resolution would be 1680x1050.

But you're obviously a friggin genius and couldn't see through a technical error on the site. I guess google doesn't make you intelligent after all.

Re:Syncmaster

[BoomerSooner]

Oh here you go, just as an update to see that the monitor doesn't actually do what you said:

http://www.kdsusa.com/k726mwb.asp

1280x720.

Re:Syncmaster

[gstoddart]

I bought an Asus X233H 23" widescreen monitor that runs natively at 1920x1080 about 2 months ago for $219 CDN. It's also got a contrast of 40000:1 and a 5ms response time.

It's a really sweet monitor -- the screen size is huge. It also freed up 2-3 square feet of desk space in comparison to my 19" Samsung multi-sync monitor.

Maybe not quite as small as the OP was asking for, but I highly recommend this monitor. The best LCD display I've ever seen.

Cheers

Re:Syncmaster

[Anonymous Coward]

Have the moderators and posters gone mad? Read the freaking requirements.

Ok, from the original post, the requirements:

Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?

Nowhere does the poster ask for a 4:3 ratio. You sir, are an idiot, and worse, an idiot who incorrectly believes he is intelligent.

Re:Syncmaster

[petermgreen]

you can indeed get 19 inch widescreen with decent resolution but a 19 inch widescreen is probablly going to be more of a deskspace killer than a 20 inch conventional and offer lower resolution so it's no real gain unless you are trying to keep the money down.

I hate the way the PC monitor market has gone mostly widescreen recently, widescreens may be good for movies but the fact is they take up a lot more deskspace for a given screen area than 4:3 screens.

Re:Syncmaster

[petermgreen]

Also, NOWHERE in the article post does the author request another 4:3 monitor
He doesn't say it explicitly but he strongly implies it. All the resolutions he quotes are 4:3 and he says desk space is a major concern.

The fact is a 19 inch 19:10 will up almost exactly the same ammount of desk space as a 20 inch 4:3 while providing a lot less screen area.

Re:Syncmaster

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows itself is actually pretty good at handling high DPI these days (Vista and Win7), but there are far too many apps (including Microsoft apps) that are not high DPI aware, so actually trying to run in high DPI mode can be frustrating.

http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/yochay/Windows-7-Graphics--High-DPI/

Re:Syncmaster

[leenks]

Or you do what everyone with a sensible widescreen display does (which includes most HP, Dell etc office panels) and rotate it 90 degrees so it goes portrait.

Re:Syncmaster

[HTH NE1]

Yeah, the 2048x1536 is a dying resolution. What was the highest resolution you could get through a VGA connection now is becoming unobtainable. 21" CRTs for it are only available refurbished (and are deep) and LCDs are priced for those in the medical profession who can afford the exorbitant markup (I'm talking prices of $400 vs. $8000). And that 4:3 displays are becoming rarer in general.

The highest resolution you can get these days at reasonable prices is a 23" 2048x1152 LCD (Dell, Acer, Samsung), with a better value per pixel than Dual-link DVI displays, and in excess of 1080p HD.

Re:Syncmaster

[HTH NE1]

And then maybe even two. 16:9 or 16:10, two in portrait side-by-side still get you more height per width than a single 4:3 (5:4 or 9:8 if you don't count the bezels). But the footprint limit the submitter has may preclude it considering the same DPI limitations. Though VESA arms can help.

Re:Syncmaster

[DelShalDar]

I had a CTX 17" that did 1600x1200 back when the Voodoo3 3000 was a kick-ass video board. And my 14.1 inch laptop display does 1920x1200 native, so why don't they just take the laptop displays and put a case and connectors on 'em so they can be used as desktop displays?

HD Capable

[knothead99]

While you're at it, has anyone seen an HD capable (or higher) monitor smaller than 23-24 inches? Editing HD video at 1680x1050 isn't fun but I don't really want bigger than a 21 inch monitor.

Re:HD Capable

[acid06]

Samsung T220M (or HD) should suit your needs.

Re:HD Capable

[click2005]

Why not get a TV? Tesco in the UK do 1920x1080 TVs around 20.1 inches.

Re:HD Capable

[MrHanky]

There are loads of 22" LCDs with 1920x1080. How about this: Link.

Re:HD Capable

[Anonymous Coward]

This is where CRTs still win out. I used to have an old 17 in CRT that did up to 2560x1600, made it really painful to read stuff on websites that specify font size, even from up close. Anyone know why LCDs don't do that? Even my 26" here only goes up to 1080i, which is a heck of a lot smaller than that.

Come to think of it, I may have just answered my own question. Stupid low resolution HD junk.

Re:HD Capable

[knothead99]

From what I can tell online, that only runs at 1680x1050 even though they advertise "Full HD" support. They must be downscaling. http://www.samsung.com/ar/consumer/detail/detail.do?group=computersperipherals&type=monitors&subtype=lcd&model_cd=LS22TDSSU/ZB Also, I couldn't seem to find an english language page for that product and a search on samsung's website for Canada and US turned up nothing.

Re:HD Capable

[knothead99]

Hey that's pretty good. Bonus points if you know of one that does 1920x1200.

Re:HD Capable

[HeronBlademaster]

I have a pair of Samsung 21.5" SyncMaster 2233SW monitors on my desk; their native resolution is 1920x1080. I know you said you don't really want bigger than 21", but 21.5" is close ;)

I got them for $180 after rebate on newegg, but no free shipping. Shop around, YMMV.

Re:HD Capable

[Anonymous Coward]

My ThinkPad T61p has a 15.4" LCD that does 1920x1200 and I love it. My previous TP T60p was 15" 1600x1200 and this was a nice upgrade. A lot of 17" laptops can do 1920x1200 but I haven't seen desktop displays that are that high in resolution under 20". You'd think there might be something out there.

Re:HD Capable

[geekboy642]

In a CRT, there are two practical considerations that set the upper limit for resolution: One is the dot pitch of the phosphor, the other is the speed/flexibility of the onboard signal processor. There's also, I assume, some upper limit for switching the electron gun. CPU is fairly cheap, and dot pitches of 0.22mm were common in the CRT era. At that pitch, the highest resolution would be something like 2048x1536.
Contrast that to an LCD monitor, where every pixel is a discrete LCD element, complete with wires and transistors for addressing. LCD dot pitches are in the 0.5-0.6mm range, and making them smaller is very expensive currently. Sadly, only us geeks seem to care that there is such a disparity with the "new and improved" technology.

Re:HD Capable

[BrokenHalo]

I replaced my dual-screen CRT/xinerama arrangement with a single Samsung 275T, which does 1920x1280. Given it's a 27" screen, a little bigger than the OP was asking about, it suits my purposes nicely, and is quite affordable.

My opinion is that there is no reason for any flatscreen LCD to "kill your desk space" given (a) their small footprint and (b) the range of mounting options available.

Re:HD Capable

[The Grim Reefer2]

I buy the majority of my computer equipment from either Newegg or Tigerdirect. When it comes to monitors I would suggest purchasing from Tiger. Newegg's policy is that they will not accept an exchange for a monitor unless there are at least 8 dead pixels where Tiger will do so for one dead pixel.

Re:HD Capable

[The Grim Reefer2]

I have no affiliation with either company.

Re:HD Capable

[mako1138]

I have a Lenovo L220x, which is a 1920x1200 22" PVA. They seem to have discontinued it, though, unfortunately.

Re:HD Capable

[digitalchinky]

Right you are good sir, though for most of us plebs, we're happy with our 128kbps MP3's and our crappy dot pitch, we don't want none of your valve amp is better than transistor stuff around here, now get on my lawn so I can tell you to get off.

Re:HD Capable

[RoyPardee]

God bless you for spelling "discrete" correctly.

Re:HD Capable

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung seems to make very good panels though. My work has purchased at least 50 Samsung monitors, and we've only had 1 defective one which was obvious. It had an entire line of blue pixels, regardless of what was displaying on the screen.

Re:HD Capable

[Sawbones]

LCD dot pitches are in the 0.5-0.6mm range

Where are you seeing these ridiculously huge pixels advertised? I'm actively seeking larger dot pitch LCD monitors since they're easier on my eyes for longer periods of time, and the largest I've ever seen is .3. Most are right in the .27-.25 range, granted not as fine as a CRT but still hardly the double you're claiming.

Samsung T260HD for example (what I'm getting), is .282mm

Re:HD Capable

[acid06]

Hmmmmm... you're right. It seems I was deceived by some marketing trick as I assumed being "Full HD" meant it would support a higher resolution.

I know the Samsung T240M supports 1900x1200 for sure. But that's 24 inches.

And yes, I'm not in the US. I just assumed the product was available worldwide as it's unusual for a tech product to be available here in Brazil and not on the rest of the world.

Re:HD Capable

[XDirtypunkX]

The BenQ G2220HD is 22 inch and its native resolution is 1920x1080. The quality of the display on them is fantastic too.

Re:HD Capable

[iamhassi]

google 21" LCD 1920x1080 There's a ton of options.

Seriously doesn't anyone google anymore? It took you longer to type your question then it took me to find the answer on google.

Re:HD Capable

[jones_supa]

I'm actively seeking larger dot pitch LCD monitors since they're easier on my eyes for longer periods of time

Yep, me too. It also makes it possible to move the monitor further which also should reduce eye stress. One option you could consider is a television - you can get even 32" at 1366x768, which equals to about .52mm pixels.

Re:HD Capable

[fractoid]

All of the pixels on MY display are VERY discreet. They hide their wires and transistors and whatnot so all I see is a bright colourful dot!

Re:HD Capable

[j_sp_r]

Why not increase your DPI, so you still have a sharp image with big letters?

Re:HD Capable

[Ant P.]

I bought one of those TVs. They're 1680x1050 physically, everything else is scaled. Also the EDID is broken so you have to jump through hoops to get the native resolution.

Re:HD Capable

[shitzu]

They're 1680x1050 physically, everything else is scaled.

All LCDs have one physical resolution and everything else is scaled

Re:HD Capable

[OneAhead]

You guys are comparing apples and oranges. Even at the highest supported resolution, a logical pixel would consist of several RGB triads on a CRT monitor. Hell, the vast majority of CRT monitors would use a shadow mask, having their dots arranged in a honeycomb pattern and thereby making it impossible to use one RGB triplet per logical pixel!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube

In contrast, on LCD monitors, every pixel is exactly one RGB triad. That's why you have to set your video card at the "native resolution" of your LCD screen (or suffer digital resampling artefacts), while on a CRT screen, you could choose whichever resolution you'd like best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_film_transistor_liquid_crystal_display

Re:HD Capable

[WuphonsReach]

Possibly LCD TVs, like the 40" 1920x1080 sized displays.

I've seen the same issue though. I have a 19" 1680x1050 display and a 22" 1680x1050 display. Same resolution, but the 19" was just a tiny bit too small for my taste. (We won't talk about the 15" 1680x1050 display built into my T61p... I set the DPI setting in Windows to 120 DPI and frequently have to zoom in on web pages.)

So in general, there are two pixel densities out there. One is down around 0.24-0.25mm, the other is up around 0.28-0.29mm. For older users, I strongly suggest seeking LCDs at the upper end of the scale.

For example, at 19" widescreen a 1440x900 display has a pixel size of around 0.295mm. The same resolution in a 17" display is a 0.255mm pixel size.

For the 1920x1200 resolution, there are 24" displays at 0.27mm or 25.5" displays at 0.287mm.

Re:HD Capable

[Sawbones]

Mostly because increasing DPI doesn't work universally. While there are only a few apps out there that don't respect DPI, even the majority of them that do don't really scale all that well. The font may increase but the corresponding chrome looks horrible, and I'd say there's about a 60% chance that any icons won't correspondingly scale. Don't get me started on web pages with fixed pixel height fonts rather than points or ems (FF's zoom functionality is getting better, but for a while was just as unreliable as DPI increase).

Re:HD Capable

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you easily do that on windows? I have had endless pain watching the screens of some older folks who intentionally set their resolution so that it does not match the native res of a LCD - the reason is always "otherwise it's too small". I never bothered to really look for it, but I could imagine that even if you have a setting somewhere you still get some programs behaving badly.
I assume the OS that I'm using works fine, although I didn't need the setting yet as I happen to be further away from retirement age and all associated complications.

Re:HD Capable

[Seq]

What platform is this? I've been using DPI adjustments on various laptops for a quite a while now to avoid squinting and eye strain.

Re:HD Capable

[OwnedByTwoCats]

I used to have an old 17 in CRT that did up to 2560x1600,

Almost certainly you did not. A 4:3 17" diagonal (ignoring the fact that that 17" is exaggerated) is 13.6 inches wide and 10.2 inches tall. Converting to metric, the display is 345.44 mm wide, and 259.08 mm tall. A good monitor had 0.22 mm dot pitch, so dividing by 0.22 yields 1570 x 1178 phosphor triads.

Re:HD Capable

[wbo]

It is actually quite easy to adjust the DPI setting in Windows at least on XP and newer (it may work on Windows 2000 as well, don't have a system to test with at the moment.)

In Vista the easiest way to do it is to right-click on an empty space on the desktop, select Personalize and then select Adjust font size (DPI) from the list of Tasks on the left size of the Personalize window.

On XP open the Display Properties dialog box either by right-clicking on an empty space on the desktop and selecting Properties or going to the Control Panel and selecting Display. On the Settings tab click the Advanced button and go to the General tab. The DPI settings should appear and allow you to change it to whatever you want.

Re:HD Capable

[damien_kane]

I know the Samsung T240M supports 1900x1200 for sure. But that's 24 inches.

Unfortunately that wouldn't work for him either. Full 1080p is 1920x1080

Re:HD Capable

[acid06]

Well, that was obviously a typo. It supports 1920x1200.

Re:HD Capable

[jhfry]

So what about the Dell Precision Laptop I had in 2002 with a 15" 1600x1200 display. Why can't I buy a panel like that in a desktop form factor.

Smaller, high resolution, displays are much better when your forced to sit close to your display. I also prefer a small display for working in low light situations, finally the high dot pitch can make renderings look amazing, even up close the individual pixels are nearly impossible to distinguish.

Re:HD Capable

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm replying on a ThinkPad W500 that has a 15.4" screen with 1900x1200 resolution.

Re:HD Capable

[petermgreen]

Indeed, still IMO it is dodgy to advertise "full hd" when you can only accept full hd resoloution by downscaling it.

Re:HD Capable

[petermgreen]

What really pisses me off is they clearly can and do make dense LCD panels since they put them in laptops but they won't sell them as seperate monitors.

Killing desk space?

[winterphoenix]

When I upgraded from my CRT to an LCD I gained tons of desk space. Just push your monitor back and take whatever stuff you would have had to the side of the monitor in front of it. In my opinion, desk real estate has more to deal with footprint area than length, but maybe I'm crazy. (Crazy like a fox)

Re:Killing desk space?

[caramelcarrot]

Yeah, just get a nice big widescreen LCD (like 24"+) and you'll wonder what you were worrying about.

Re:Killing desk space?

[bennomatic]

This. If you get a 17", you'll regret it. I squint at my little 20" and wonder, why oh why didn't I get a 24"?

Re:Killing desk space?

[fodi]

or glasses :)
Most people work 8 hours a day on monitors <20" ...(you insensitive clod)

Re:Killing desk space?

[walt-sjc]

I love my 30" screen - I have another 21" next to it for IM/email that is always up. Actually running on separate systems, but Synergy makes it feel like one. As a side note, even with a dual DVI high end graphics card or TWO high end graphics cards in the same system, I find that everything slows to a crawl with 2 displays (most obvious with 3D apps.) Running a separate machine solved that problem.

Re:Killing desk space?

[Pentium100]

It depends on the desk. I put my 21" CRT monitor in a corner, so it really takes not a lot of space on the desk. However, since the monitor is in the corner, there is not much space to the sides of it. Someone suggested to me that I buy two LCD monitors and put them on my desk - I could do that, but only one monitor behind the other.

In any case, I'm happy with my CRT monitor and won't change it (I'll but another CRT someday (yes, it will have to be a used one) just to have a second spare - I have one now, but it's only 17").

What I like about my monitor is that it can display 1920x1440@85Hz (for HD movies, though I can set it to 1920x1200 and adjust the height) and 1600x1200 (for usual stuff, since text at 1920x1440 is hard to read) without any problems or artifacts.

Re:Killing desk space?

[Shadow of Eternity]

And that's why 4:3 is still better than widescreen, and CRT is still better than LCD. I'm getting a 22" soon that can do 2000x1500 @85hz, if the text ever gets too small I'll just override font sizes.

Re:Killing desk space?

[vivian]

The other option of course is to get an LCD and a wall bracket or a desk bracket that allows you to have the monitor off the desk alltogether. You can also get brackets that allow two or three monitors to be mounted to it, but still have just the one upright pole that comes off your desk ( or bolts onto a wall.
http://www.megamounts.com.au/shop/lcd-desk-mounts.htm?gclid=COGlvZK5x5sCFcEtpAod-U9fLg

There are many many similar products out there - this is just the first I came across with a quick google search.

I used to think I needed nothing more than a 17" LCD, but after going to 2x24" monitors @1920x1280 theres no way im ever going back. Virtual desktop space is a lot more valuable to me than real desktop space. if I ever go to 3 monitors though, Im getting myself one of these brackets.

Re:Killing desk space?

[vivian]

I forgot to mention - if you use a desk bracket, and you really value your vertical resolution, you can also mount your monitors on it sideways, so you the monitor(s) are in portrait mode. most video cards support rotating your monitors, so this gives you an excellent way for looking at single page portrait documents, or more code than you should ever have in a single function all at once.

Re:Killing desk space?

[Pentium100]

That may be difficult.

My father bought a Fujitsu U810 laptop. It has a ~6inch screen and a resolution of 1024x600. It would be OK for me, but my dad is not nearsighted and cannot see such small letters, so I increased the DPI, increased font size everywhere I could, but it still left some parts where the text is of its original size (=barely readable).

Re:Killing desk space?

[zippthorne]

Maybe that's why they need glasses....

Re:Killing desk space?

[EvanED]

Actually running on separate systems, but Synergy makes it feel like one.

What I would love to see is a melding of Synergy and VNC so that you can drag windows from one computer to the other. That would be awesome.

Re:Killing desk space?

[dudpixel]

its a choice we have to make: 20" and suffer eye strain, or 30" and suffer neck pain.

There is a happy medium, but the OP specifically didn't want this.

Re:Killing desk space?

[bh_doc]

One thing I've noticed about some LCDs, at least all the ones I've seen, is that in landscape orientation they favour looking down at them slightly. The optimal viewing angle is not perpendicular to the screen. This sucks when you rotate the thing into portrait mode, because now the screen really does have a "best side".

Re:Killing desk space?

[tixxit]

No need for brackets either, there are lots of LCDs whose stands allow it to rotate to portrait.

Re:Killing desk space?

[geekboy642]

I can think of a whole laundry list of reasons why that's not possible, but...you're absolutely right. That would be so awesome you could bottle it and sell it to the guys that make those wolf t-shirts. Somebody please, please, make this dream become a reality.

Re:Killing desk space?

[StarHeart]

I have two setups like that.

  At home two 24" monitors on one computer, along with a second computer with a 20" monitor. They are connected with synergy and a ps/2 kvm. The kvm is good for when the main one is down. I can just hotkey over and use the second computer. I use it mainly for IM, but also sometimes for a second browser. Both computers are running Fedora I find having two computers comes in handy regularly. I also use the second computer as a iscsi server for the first. The first computer already has six drives in it. So the second computer allows me to expand to ten.

  The office setup is two 20" monitors on one computer, along with a second computer with a 20" monitor. They are connected with synergy. In this case I actually have two keyboards and nice. The main computer has no ps/2, and I have no usb kvms. I use a two port ps/2 kvm to share one keyboard between the second computer and a third computer. Then I toggle the monitor between dvi and vga. I do it this way since 99% of the time I don't need console access on the third computer. I access it via ssh for CUDA programs. The first computer runs Fedora, the second runs Vista, and the third runs Fedora. Vista is good in the office. It lets me do things like VMware Infrastructure client(currently Windows only), Internet Explorer(just today I was told to use IE on the HR site, since it works better), and other little things.

Re:Killing desk space?

[shirai]

This is a fantastic idea and having used monitors in portrait mode (vertically oriented) instead of landscape mode, I can never go back. Better yet, there are many monitors that have a built in pivot. You can fit twice as many lines of code and still take very little desk space.

This monitor is a good example.

http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=bsd&cs=cabsdt1&sku=320-6272

It is 24" but if you scroll down, you will see how it probably doesn't take any more room than a 17" in landscape mode.

Seriously, as a developer, designer, writer, etc. this is one of the best upgrades you can make.

Re:Killing desk space?

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice that 'vertical' view angles are often very bad on cheap (but good) lcds. When you tilt the lcd screen these view angles are suddenly horisontal and your eyes go screwy from the very different images they receive...

Re:Killing desk space?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I move the stuff left and right of the monitor in front of it I can no longer view the screen. Putting them behind the Monitor isn't an option. Some people have more on their desk than just papers, game maps or leftover pizza.

Re:Killing desk space?

[Anonymous Coward]

check out xdmx

Re:Killing desk space?

[Bert64]

Have a look at XdmX... It lets you run a big panoramic display spread over multiple X servers, and you can drag stuff across...
You could potentially combine it with a clustering setup like openmosix so that the actual running process moves as well as the window.

Re:Killing desk space?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tiresome anecdotes much?

Re:Killing desk space?

[MrZilla]

Most people work 8 hours a day on monitors <20" ...(you insensitive clod)

I feel sorry for you :(

*posted from dual 24" WS setup*

Re:Killing desk space?

[ImprovOmega]

Just an FYI - widescreens (16:9 ratio) are 11% smaller in surface area than the equivalent in diagonal inches standard ratio (4:3) screens. So, a 20" "squarish" monitor is about the equivalent of a 22" "widescreen" monitor in visible area. OTOH, a 17" widescreen monitor is right about a 15" standard monitor. So yes, if he gets a 17" widescreen it will be sucksville, and your 20" widescreen is around about an 18" from before.

Re:Killing desk space?

[EvanED]

Thanks for the suggestion... the reason I'm running multiple systems now though is because I want to be able to easily run a Windows box and a Linux one, so xdmx has limited utility in that environment unfortunately. (With Cygwin I suppose I could move Linux windows onto the Windows desktop, and maybe Cygwin X programs onto the Linux desktop, but I don't suppose I could move native Windows programs onto the Linux desktop, which is REALLY what I want to be able to do. (I have a Windows laptop with a 12" screen and a Linux desktop with two 19" screens.))

Re:Killing desk space?

[mi]

drag windows from one computer to the other. That would be awesome.

DragonFlyBSD are working towards migration of processes between different systems...

That's been one of their goals ever since splitting from FreeBSD years ago. Maybe, some day, they'll get there...

Re:Killing desk space?

[Bahumat]

I use the 22" version of those monitors, two of them, and depending on what I'm working on I use the built-in portrait swivel and switch to portrait mode at times. Particularly useful for working on projects that span four or five documents at a time.

Re:Killing desk space?

[imboboage0]

I did this with my samsung 20.1@1600x1200 (1200x1600 more accurately) near finals back in may. It helped a lot with studying out of ebooks and taking practice tests online. It makes gaming a little funky, but it's not hard to turn the monitor back for a frag session. Unfortunately I'm a fan of 4:3 monitors and it seems a 1600x1200 has become very expensive. :( Even the widescreens with a 1200 or greater vertical resolution are a tad pricey compared to the 1600x1200 price of a few years ago. What a shame...

Re:Killing desk space?

[Mattsson]

I have one of my three bracket-mounted LCD-monitors in portrait mode and there are two problems that I experience with this which, in my opinion, makes it unsuitable for working with text over prolonged periods.
1. If I use sub-pixel anti-aliasing, like cleartype, text get a bit fuzzy on the portrait monitor since the sub-pixels are oriented the wrong way.
2. On most LCD's, especially older ones, the picture changes more per viewing-angle difference in vertical than in horizontal direction. On my portrait screen, which is the oldest of my three, the different angels between my eyes at the distance I'm at are enough that the picture looks a bit different for each eye, which is a bit straining in the long run.

Re:Killing desk space?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get one of those power/watt meters.
Plug your monitor in it for an hour. Do the math on how much it costs to run 8 hours a day.
That 20" lcd will pay for itself in a year. But go with a 22" And .... do the 15^2 vs 21*19 viewable area. ( its 70% more surface area )

Re:Killing desk space?

[otuz]

What you describe is a feature of TN monitors. Switching to PVA fixes the viewing angle issue, improves color and most other aspects too. A good monitor costs a little bit more, but has more value too.

In my primary setup, I'm using two 24" PVA monitors, a Samsung 245T and a DELL 2405FPW, both in portrait mode.

check newegg

[steak]

seriuosly. that power search link on the right hand side of their site isn't there for nothing.

Re:check newegg

[Antony-Kyre]

But, the person wants a small, high-res LCD, correct?

Assuming 1400x1050 is the minimum the person wants, the smallest LCD newegg has available, if I am not mistaken, is 19" I believe.

Re:check newegg

[crimsonknave]

Wrong! Why guess when you can just look? The GP is totally correct. The newegg powersearch is amazing. It quite easily shows all monitors that are 17" and have the desired resolution.

Re:check newegg

[Antony-Kyre]

I misread the original post.
1280x1024 or higher, I think gives me the smallest LCD monitor at 17" on newegg.com. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

Re:check newegg

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the same problem as the submitter. I'm using a laptop with a built in 15.4" widescreen LCD... would like something slightly larger (from the distance I sit, it's most comfortable and fills enough of my vision that I don't feel strained) without sacrificing my resolution. Can I get a 1680x1050 (the resolution of my 15.4" LCD) at 17 or even 19"? Nope.

Searching Google doesn't result in anything.

Re:check newegg

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be right, but he "1280x1024 or higher" *includes* 1280x1024, which he doesn't want.

Re:check newegg

[gadabyte]

could you at least read the TITLE of the post you're replying to?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=Property&Subcategory=20&Description=&Type=&N=2000190020+1309821317+1301919996&srchInDesc=&MinPrice=&MaxPrice=&PropertyCodeValue=3098%3A21311&PropertyCodeValue=3098%3A21317&PropertyCodeValue=1099%3A17865

Re:check newegg

[johannesg]

Check out here as well...

Who am I kidding. The article was posted hours ago while I slept, no one will ever read this now...

Re:check newegg

[Antony-Kyre]

19" seems a bit large, doesn't it? That is the smallest available.

Re:check newegg

[toddestan]

Which would be exactly zero? There are no 1400x1050 17" LCDs that I'm aware of.

Though the Newegg power search is useful because you can search by pixel pitch, which shows that 1680x1050 @ 19" is probably the closest to what he wants (at 0.243mm).

Sadly...

[XPeter]

There really is nothing in the 17-19â range that can project over 1280x1024. If you step it up to 20â though, they have monitors that go up to 1680x1050 which is quite a nice res.
Hereâ(TM)s a list of a what they have in stock on the egg. http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=1106218475&Description=20%22%20monitor&name=1680%20x%201050

On a side note, I think a 17â with a decent resolution will surprise you more than you think. Youâ(TM)re upgrading from an old CRT to an LCD which is a big leap, try going to your local PC shop and have a look at their inventory to get an idea. Also, you won't hit HD until 22" with 1900x1080 res.

Re:Sadly...

[jo42]

Before buying any LCD, you need to read this first: Desperately Seeking Quality LCDs.

Re:Sadly...

[JohnyDog]

One of the problems with LCDs is that even if you find one that has truly good parameters and shines in reviews, you have no guarantee that the monitor you buy will perform at any similar level, due to manufacturers selling different revisions with different panels under the same name. Like the infamous Samsung 226BW.

Re:Sadly...

[HeronBlademaster]

Also, you won't hit HD until 22" with 1900x1080 res.

Samsung has a 21.5" LCD at 1920x1080. $180 after rebate at newegg. A pair of these decorates my desk.

Other than that, though, I think you're right; they just don't make HD-resolution standalone monitors any smaller.

Or maybe google?

[Liquidrage]

I hear Google is great for doing searches...

Re:Or maybe google?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I heard Bing is great for making decisions.

One thing I hate

[Icegryphon]

Is most all new Monitors are Widescreen, I hate that 16:9 aspect ratio.
My next new one will have to be normal width 4:3 aspect ratio.
Maybe I am old school, but it just looks right,
besides I like to have a good resolution on more then just horizontal axis

Re:One thing I hate

[acid06]

I feel your pain.

I actually value *vertical* resolution much more than horizontal revolution. Currently I use a 1280x1024 monitor and wanted to upgrade to something with more vertical pixels. Apparently, I need to get a 24" monitor to get 1900x1200, which is just huge.

I really wanted a monitor with a 1600x1200 resolution. Please let me know if you ever find one.

Re:One thing I hate

[SirCowMan]

Turn a widescreen sideways, your drivers should support screen rotation :)

Re:One thing I hate

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Did that at my last job. Had dual 1280x1024 17"ers. Turned one of 'em portrait mode, and used it for writing docs and web browsing.

Unbelievable.

Re:One thing I hate

[jeaton]

Here's a few.

Yes, they are more significantly more expensive than 1920x1200 24" monitors. A 24" widescreen isn't that much bigger than a 20" 4x3 monitor, though. Same height, but about 4" wider, and if you really don't like having that much horizontal desktop, set your desktop to have black bars on the side.

Re:One thing I hate

[toddestan]

They were down to about $300 or so for a TN-based 1600x1200 at 20" before all the cheap and high volume stuff all switched to short-height monitors. You may be able to find some new - a few places still seem to have the Samsung Syncmaster 204B in stock. It's funny though how 4:3 still seems to do okay at the high-end though.

Re:One thing I hate

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I agree with you: "shortscreen" sucks. Obviously they get better "yields" from them, but for a lot of work (like documents) they aren't optimal. I guess it really depends on usage. I know at work I have dual setup on my main machine - a 19" 1680x1050 shortscreen and a 17" 1280x1024 normal screen. The shortscreen is a bit better for coding in a GUI dev environment allowing you to view longer lines more easily. I guess they may be better for some spreadsheets too, but I am not a spreadsheet jockey - I mostly only have to use other people's spreadsheets to diagnose what they did wrong or to reproduce a bug I need to file. But for normal documents it seems the 4x3 is a lot better.

Re:One thing I hate

[Mad Merlin]

Yeah, shortscreen monitors are junk, it doesn't help that they all use TN panels too, for that extra horrible colour reproduction and viewing angle. Unfortunately, you can't really buy useful monitors anymore. I have 2 IBM L201p 20.1" LCDs, but they're discontinued now. I just searched Newegg for monitors with 1600x1200 resolution and got 0 results... depressing.

Re:One thing I hate

[tim_mathews]

The Dell 2007FP is a 20" 4:3 1600x1200 monitor. This is pretty much the only monitor we buy at work.

Re:One thing I hate

[Al Dimond]

Need a widescreen to view long lines of code? I have a better solution. Buy a gun, shoot the fucker that wrote them, then break them up into a more readable style. Then you can get a normal 4:3 or 5:4 (1280x1024) monitor and have two files open side-by-side across the screen.

Re:One thing I hate

[zerocool^]

For me, it's not the widescreen part of it that I hate. It's the 16x9 part.

I want a 1920x1200 monitor. I've been in the market for one for 4 years, and they've been $600 for four years, with no or minimal drops in price.

If you want a 1920x1080 monitor, those are way cheap! But if you want those extra 120 vertical pixels? Sorry, screw you, pay TWICE AS MUCH!!!!LOL.

I don't get it. I really don't. I want the widescreen aspect ratio (16x10, thankyouverymuch). But I want to be able to use windowed applications that are taller than 1024 pixels. I currently have a 1600x1200 monitor, and if I wanted to dual monitor, the vertical heighs won't match up. Plus, I play a game in a windowed 1280x1024 setting (cause I have multiple windows open). If I only have 1080 vertical pixels, I'll lose about 50-60 between the title bar and the taskbar, meaning I won't be able to see the whole window, or I'll have to slide the title bar off the top of the screen.

I know these sound like minor gripes, but I'm very particular. And I can't believe that there haven't been any price drops in 16x10 monitors in so long, when 4:3 and 16:9 LCDs have dropped through the floor.

~X

Re:One thing I hate

[zerocool^]

(replying to my own post)

CASE IN POINT:
Dell S2409W Full HD Monitor
Experience stunning detail and clarity with full High-Definition resolution. Ideal for multimedia entertainment, gaming and productivity.
        * Full HD 1920 x 1080 resolution
        * 16:9 dynamic aspect ratio
        * HDMI high quality digital connection
Starting Price $279
Instant Savings $80
Subtotal $199
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&sku=320-7345

Versus:

Dell
UltraSharp 2408WFP 24-inch Widescreen Flat Panel LCD Monitor with Height Adjustable Stand
Starting Price $549.00
Instant Savings $100.00
Subtotal $449.00

I mean, seriously, WTF.

Re:One thing I hate

[Fallen Kell]

Too bad almost all computer monitors use the 16:10 aspect ratio (or 8:5)... Do the math 1920/1200 = 16/10....

Re:One thing I hate

[xystren]

I actually value *vertical* resolution much more than horizontal revolution. Currently I use a 1280x1024 monitor and wanted to upgrade to something with more vertical pixels. Apparently, I need to get a 24" monitor to get 1900x1200, which is just huge.

And I was thinking that I was the only one that had that opinion. Vertical resolution is far more important to me also. I get so disappointed when looking for laptops with all these low vertical resolutions 16:9 screens. When you come from running 1600x1200 CRT, and compromise and come down to 1280x1024; this is difficult... And to drop down to 900px for the standard laptop? That is absolute horrible.

I can understand that 16:9 resolutions are great for watching DVDs, but come on, I didn't buy a screen/laptop with the intent to watch DVDs, I bought it to do work on. It seems like screens like this have become the exception rather than the rule. It's sad when your forced into a screen dimension that does work well for your desired application.. Yeah, yeah, I know if I want to pay ungodly amount of $$$ you can find it. Is it that unreasonable to ask for a resolution that is not just a glorified DVD player.

Cheers,
Xyst

Re:One thing I hate

[acid06]

I would even be willing to pay the premium for them.

Unfortunately, I'm in Brazil and I've never been able to find one of these NEC monitors for sale around here (and importing is not an option as import taxes would make its price double).

But thanks for taking your time to reply, anyway.

Re:One thing I hate

[acid06]

Thanks, this was a great suggestion. It has a decent price and it seemed to be exactly what I was looking for.

However, I looked at the specs and it has a 16ms response time and that worries me as I also use this same computer for gaming. Any chance you actually played any fast-paced game using this monitor? If so, was the response time an issue?

Re:One thing I hate

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, normal aspect ratio is so much nicer mathematically: 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, but 16^2 + 9^2 = not even rational^2

Re:One thing I hate

[bertoelcon]

Its because you can make a monitor for computer use and use the same lcd panels in a tv.

Re:One thing I hate

[dimension6]

Just make sure the vertical viewing angle is good on the display, as TN panels are designed to be looked at in a certain orientation. Putting an IPS display upright would certainly be no problem, though.

Re:One thing I hate

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to think the same way, but I took the plunge to widescreen both for my desktop and laptop a while ago. Now I wonder what I was worrying about. So it is all in the mind.

If this can be of any help: a 24" widescreen just invites putting two applications next to each other, keeping a nice vertical resolution. Little chance of achieving that on a 19" 4:3.

Re:One thing I hate

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? 1920x1200 monitors have been in the $300-400 range for at least a year if not two, and you can get one for under $300 on sale these days. Of course it's different if you're not happy with a TN panel, but you certainly didn't mention it.

Re:One thing I hate

[MoonBuggy]

I have a 2007WFP (the widescreen variant of the same monitor) which I use for graphics work - I'm assuming it's the same S-IPS panel tech in there. The colour reproduction is extremely good compared to the TN panels you see more often, but the response is slow enough to give noticeable 'smearing' in motion graphics, especially at sharply defined high-contrast edges. That said, I have noticed no input lag (which is a sometimes problem with PVA panels) and the fact that most games use relatively small colour and contrast ranges means that the actual visible impact of the response time is probably going to be reduced for your uses.

Re:One thing I hate

[nojayuk]

The 2408WFP Dell display is fitted with a S-IPS high-gamut panel capable of displaying a lot more colours than the cheaper 2408/2409W screens that use lower-cost DSTN technology panels. Serious graphics users want the extra colour quality of S-IPS or PVA panels and are willing to pay for it, the cheap 6-bit multiplexed DSTN screens are fine for working with spreadsheets and word processing in an office environment. You pays your money and makes your choice.

Re:One thing I hate

[cnettel]

If I remember correctly, the S2409W is a TN panel. The 2408WFP is a beauty in comparison. You pay for far more things than just the "computery" aspect ratio.

Re:One thing I hate

[PainKilleR-CE]

I usually just open documents (and code) side-by-side on my widescreen. It's especially useful when I have to track data across pages. The ancient 4x3 low-res LCD on my desk is primarily used for email and IM, though I occasionally drag a document over to it when I'm having trouble with my eyes (though the screen gives me a headache anyway).

I don't really work with anyone that would write something that didn't fit well on a printed page, so it doesn't make sense to keep a document open full-screen.

Re:One thing I hate

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's 50% more expensive than the 1600x1050 Ultrasharp 2009W, which you can rotate into portrait mode. We actually buy those at work, we usually buy two for everyone who's using a desktop.

Re:One thing I hate

[skeeto]

My monitor at work sits like this 100% of the time. I love it. I can make much better use of the screen.

Re:One thing I hate

[Mal-2]

I have tried screen rotation, and at least on the Samsung monitors I have had (which are/were TN) it makes the tearing effect of screen refreshes VERY noticeable. In portrait mode it is not noticeable at all. This was true of the 20" 4:3 (1600x1200) and is true of the 23" 16:9 (2048x1152). The thing is, with the 23" I no longer NEED two monitors. I still have two of them but they are in different rooms running a cloned display, along with duplicate mice and keyboards. I can float between the rooms at will and never have to worry about switching computers.

At work I have two 17" Sony panels rotated. Fortunately the bases have a VESA-standard mount, and all it took to rotate them was to remove four screws, re-orient the base, and put the four screws back in. I do not notice any tearing effects, but I do have to sacrifice ClearType. Unfortunately, Office 2007 likes to override my ClearType preferences and I had to do the registry hack to get around that. Needless to say, ClearType looks AWFUL on a rotated monitor.

I used to have an asymmetric setup, with a rotated 17" and the 20" Samsung not rotated. Unfortunately I broke the 20" -- but fortunately found the 23" when searching for a replacement. BOTH 23" monitors together cost me only about $80 more than a single 20" 4:3 monitor would have. Also, the 23" monitors have relatively small bases compared to the display size, so I can use a good deal of the space underneath them for other things such as my amplifiers (again one per room, one audiophile quality and one somewhat less), and I use the space on the base for my USB hubs.

Mal-2

LCDs might waste less space around the screen

[Shag]

Your 17" CRT probably had a visible area of about 16" and a case of 18-19". A nice 20" widescreen 1680x1050 LCD really won't eat up all that much space on your desk. :)

Re:LCDs might waste less space around the screen

[mariushm]

That's true.. I'm looking right now at a 17" Dell monitor and it says Dimensions (HxWxD) 16.4" x 15.9" x 16.5"

You can get now a 19" Asus VW198T LCD running natively at 1680x1050 that has the dimensions Phys.Dimension(WxHxD): 444x368x210 which in inches means roughly 17.48" x 14.48" x 8.26". So, you get higher resolution, you don't damage your eyes so much, only for an extra inch in width, but I guarantee you when you see the space that was once lost because of the CRT's depth, you won't regret it.

The only downside I see is you get about one less inch in height. If this bothers you, you can opt for benq E2200HDA which has the following dimensions: 20.5" x 16.05" x 7.35" but packs a resolution of 1920x1080 inside those 22 inches.

I don't endorse any of the LCD displays above, I just browsed my local IT store's site right now and picked these as having cheap price and high res / diagonal inches

Re:LCDs might waste less space around the screen

[CopaceticOpus]

If someone is trying to save 3 inches on the size of a monitor so that it will fit on a desk, the solution is clear: Buy a new desk!

Re:LCDs might waste less space around the screen

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. The original poster should get out a tape measure and measure the thing. Then go to a store with a tape measure in hand and see what he is getting...

there are some you get can get

[Anonymous Coward]

It is rare, I can tell you many explainations for it but I don't know the exact reason myself, thus don't want to give you wrong information.

Anyway, there are LCD panels that do have higher resolution. Asus VW198S supports 1680x1050 natively. Good luck.

Yes, a 20" LCD monitor

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a veteran user of an old 17" Dell Trinitron CRT monitor.... Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?"

Yes, buy a 20" LCD monitor with a 1400x1050 resolution. They come on stands. The stands have smaller footprints than your 17" CRT monitor. The stands have smaller footprints than your 15" laptop. Your question makes virtually no sense, unless you measure your desk space in a vertical plane and you insist on having the monitor at the same horizontal distance from your eyes as the laptop. Sheesh.

Umm is this for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm is this for real?

Well, if is:
1) How the heck can you run a 17" CRT monitor at 1400x1050?
2) Buy a 20" or bigger LCD, cheap, small in size

Looking at 2 22" CRT monitors in front of me - old school baby!

Re:Umm is this for real?

[Vectronic]

1) How the heck can you run a 17" CRT monitor at 1400x1050?

http://www.eworldsale.com/kds-k-726mwb-17-inch-wide-screen-lcd-1400-x-1050-0291mm-500_5708_17748.html

KDS K-726MWB 17" WIDE SCREEN LCD
The K-726mwb 17 â LCD display is capable of 1400 x 1050 resolution. The unit is capable receiving content from your PC via a VGA connection. The K-726mwb is housed in a stylish black case with integrated speakers and internal power supply. Key features include 500:1 contrast ratio, 8ms response time (4ms grey to grey), 250 cd/m brightness, PC and MAC compatible, and is wall mountable.

Re:Umm is this for real?

[Vectronic]

(I know that's an LCD, but was trying for 2 birds 1 post)

If you just meant like "how do your eyes handle it", some people's eye can just handle it. I'd run my 17" CRT at 1600x1200, if it didn't force me to drop the refresh rate to 60Hz, I wouldn't go any higher than that though, also depends on your monitor dot-pitch, etc.

LCDs don't take that much desk space.

[morgan_greywolf]

Being thin, LCD's don't take much desk space. Go for a 20". My Dell 2007WFP has a native resolution of 1680x1050, for example. and uses a little more than 24 sq. inch of desk space. That's less desk space than the 17" Dell Trinitron it replaced. :)

Re:LCDs don't take that much desk space.

[denttford]

Or,

20" 1600x1200 NEC S-IPS

The smallest 1900x1200 LCD is a 22" Lenovo L220x, AFAIK.

Re:LCDs don't take that much desk space.

[houghi]

I went for 24" 1920x1200. I have two of them next to each other and thinking of either buying one more or two. That is for my home.

In the last 10 years each place I worked I had at least two screens and that is for standard desk work.

Re:LCDs don't take that much desk space.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want 1600x1024 in a 17" LCD, there's probably only the old SGI 1600SW. While they sell for US$ 30 at times, they predate the DVI standard, have only an openLDI interface and you'll need an expensive and rare adapter to connect it to a 'normal' PC.
The other high resolution display would be a IBM T221, which is 22" with 3840x2400.

I'm in a similar quandry.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?"

I'm looking for some factual data that is likely to appear somewhere on the Internet. I don't want to make others do the work for me, so I'm looking for some kind of "engine" that might help me search various online resources simultaneously. Is there any means by which one could do such research, and if so, where might I find it?

If possible, I'd like to do this without killing my desk space.

Rare but you can get your hands on one

[jumbocards]

It is rare but there are 19inch monitors that can do 1680 x 1050. check asus VW198S. Good luck

ViewSonic is Great for this.

[Akir]

my VS11979 is 19" and has a native resolution of 1680*1050, which exceeds your needs. It also has a very high response rate and insanely high contrast ratio. The colors are simply fantastic; I almost fainted when I first watched Big Buck Bunny on it. I also got it dirt cheep at Fry's. And everyone knows ViewSonic displays are the best. Just ignore the fact that it has built-in speakers - they're predictably terrible.

Re:ViewSonic is Great for this.

[dave562]

It has been a LONG time since Viewsonic displays were the best. Back in the days of CRT tubes when they were one of the few vendors using Trinitron tubes, they were among the best. They make average LCD screens. I'm using two of their VP2030b displays right now. They aren't anything special.

Re:ViewSonic is Great for this.

[toddestan]

Besides the Viewsonic, there is also an Acer and and Asus 19" monitor at 1680x1050 resolution. I'm not sure, but I think they all use the same panel, which sadly is a TN panel (though fairly decent as TN's go). This is about the best you can get in terms of DPI in the desktop LCD world right now.

Re:ViewSonic is Great for this.

[linzeal]

Viewsonic are a crap shoot though, 2 of the past 3 LCD I have had have had cap failures, ballast overheating and uneven lighting. The other one I have hacked into a 22" art frame and it has been running 24/7 without fail for over a year. I did add active air cooling on it though.

My main setup uses 3 of these and I have yet to find a better bang for the buck without sacrificing picture quality or refresh rate.

Re:ViewSonic is Great for this.

[dangitman]

Oh, let me guess, it's a crappy TN panel, right? If you want a decent screen you want an S-IPS or H-IPS. "Everyone knows Viewsonic displays are the best"? WTF?

Get a large LCD now. You won't regret.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that LCD's are much less deep than CRT's so that they can be wall mounted eating zero space on the desk. Being farther from the eyes also means they need a bigger surface, so get a 22" or larger flat panel and you'll be happy. I also owned a really good 17" CRT years ago, but it was nearly impossible to place in a comfortable way for being so deep. LCD's saved my eyes and a lot of space.

Re:Get a large LCD now. You won't regret.

[Pentium100]

The fact that LCDs are less deep than CRTs means only that you can put more than one monitor (one behind the other) in a place that was occupied by a CRT monitor. It does not mean that you can put more than one monitor side by side, since they are about the same width.

couple of things...

[Anonymous Coward]

get a Vesa wall mount. That will free up your desk real estate.

the dell 2409w is nice and cheap. Its picture is better than the 2001fp I bought for too much money back too long ago.

True 1080p HDMI if you ever want to go that route.

No USB plugs or sound, but your glass did not have those either.

Wall mount it...?

[SteelRealm]

If you're considered about space... put it on the wall. You'll save desk space and I'm sure there is nothing really important you wanna look at behind your CTR.

Yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?"

It's called every LCD monitor larger than 17" ever made. Seriously, get of the "desk space" argument. You're talking about going from a 17" CRT to an LCD screen. You could go to a 22" or 23" LCD and still have more free desk space than you did with your 17" tube. And more to the point, you can do it for less than $200 if you shop around or wait for a sale.

Serious, what the fuck is the criteria for getting an "Ask Slashdot" question posted?

Dell has a sort by feature

[Anonymous Coward]

dell:
1600x1200
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/category.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&category_id=4009&~ck=anav&nf=4723~0~266593&navla=4723~0~266593

1900x1200
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/category.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&category_id=4009&~ck=anav&nf=4723~0~266594&navla=4723~0~266594

The dude abides to save your desk space.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like, get a desk-mounted monitor arm like this one, man.

Use the Google

[JoeBuck]

Go to goggle.com. It will give you a little box. In that box, type

small high resolution lcd monitor

You will immediately find a number of monitors that match your requirements.

Re:Use the Google

[Xtifr]

or to put it another way: just fucking google it! :)

(Actually, if I were to pick nits, I would point out that going to "goggle.com" may not be quite as productive--in fact, after a quick skim of that site, I might advise carefully avoiding it if you're running windows.)

Re:Use the Google

[toddestan]

I think what he's looking more for is 'high dpi lcd monitor'. If you type that into Google you'll end up with a bunch of pages where everyone is wondering the pretty much the same thing.

Re:Use the Google

[Mojo01010011]

I heard Bing gets better results ...

The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.

[Above]

Apple's 17" MacBook Pro can be had with a 1920x1200 17" LED backlit panel, so clearly the technology is out there, and being mass produced.

Still, no one has a desktop display of the same specs, at least that I can find. I suspect a large part of the reason is you're generally expected to be sitting further from the display at your desktop, and the further you are from the display likely the larger the pixels you want.

I wold like higher DPI displays in all resolutions though. IBM used to make 200DPI displays, but I think they stopped.

Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.

[Anonymous Coward]

My three year old HP nw8440 laptop has a 15.4" 1920x1200 panel, so they've definitely been around for a while.
I've been desperately searching for a desktop LCD with the same resolution and DPI, and have so far come up empty, which keeps me using my laptop.

Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.

[spoop]

There are also 15.4" panels that are 1920x1200, Lenovo (at least used to) offer them on T61p's.

Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.

[the eric conspiracy]

I have a Lenovo W500 with a 15.4" 1920x1200 so they are still in production.

Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.

[tepples]

the further you are from the display likely the larger the pixels you want.

That's true for television, where the input is assumed to be a photographic image no bigger than 1920x1080 pixels. But for text on a PC, you want a higher DPI screen, and then you can use the operating system's DPI setting to put more pixels in each point. The text doesn't get smaller; it just gets sharper, much like the text on a device with an electronic paper display.

Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're looking for an IBM T221 or a Viewsonic VP2290b, the screens kick ass but used go for $1000 and up. They haven't been made for 5+ years, so a NOS one is around $3000+, but the monitors are well worth the money. I'm using one right now, the only hard part is you have to have a high DPI mouse and it's small enough to get lost on the screen.

Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually have a laptop that does 1920 x 1200 on a 15" display. (Dell Latitude D830) I also would like to have that same sort of DPI on a desktop monitor, but as the original poster mentioned no one seems to make such a display for a desktop.

Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.

[asc99c]

My cheapish Dell laptop had an option for the same screen - I think it's great.

I've also got the Sony Vaio P for on-call support work. That has an 8" 1600x768 screen (stuff I support was often designed for minimum 1024x768 resolution) - it's great but if I was using it for more than 10 minutes at a time, I'd need to increase the text size to avoid hurting my eyes.

Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's 17" MacBook Pro can be had with a 1920x1200 17" LED backlit panel, so clearly the technology is out there, and being mass produced.

This is what I use and for me it's a complete replacement for my old set up. Where my desks used to be cramped with a 14" (@1024x768) laptop connected to a 22" (@1680x1050) display with attached keyboard, mouse, webcam, speakers, etc. Now stands one piece of hardware with one cable. Ok, sometimes I plug in headphones. But the point is: There is no need for an external screen and one of my two desks now serve as a meeting table :-)
What I'm trying to say is if you are short on deskspace perhaps you should just get a slightly larger laptop instead of some other display.

Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it is! I've recently purchased 15" & 17" notebooks with 1680x1050 LCDs. The 17" model also comes with a higher priced model sporting 1920x1200.

As to the aspect ratio, you sort of get used to it eventually, although it DOES tend to make you move your head when reading text that spills across the entire width of the screen, but then again so would a LARGE 4:3 aspect ratio monitor.

The most amusing this that I find about LCDs are the 14-15" notebook models that only come with 1400x900 or 1280x800 or 1376x768(or whatever that res is) resolution panels... blah! (The panels appear too large to me for such low resolution in 16:9 or 16:10, but would be OK likely for 10-13" models as they'd be slightly higher res than the old 1024x768 4:3 "standard" in that range.)

Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.

[Mattsson]

Nice to see that Apple finally has started letting the customer choose different panel-options for their laptops. Hopefully, they'll start offering glossy/non-glossy as an option too.
High resolution laptop-panels are nothing new, though. I had a 1600x1200 15.6" laptop back somewhere around 2000 - 2001, a 1400x1050 14.7" before that. Right now I'm writing on a six year old 1400x1050 15" laptop.

The main reason why high-density high-resolution panels always have been limited mostly to laptops is probably cost, not availability of the technology itself.
Even while mass produced, high-density panels require more expensive production machines and have smaller fault tolerances than standard-density panels, which means worse yields and higher cost.
There probably isn't enough market for high-density desktop displays if they cost as much as a bigger, higher quality display with lower pixel-density.
In a laptop, you don't want the screen to be too large, since it will make the laptop huge, so you have no option but to go high-density if you want a usable resolution.

Ever heard of Newegg? TigerDirect? Google?

[kindbud]

I located three 17" widescreen monitors in a couple of clicks on Newegg.com.

The goggle

[Anonymous Coward]

It does nothing.

Re:The goggle

[alexandreracine]

That's because your Internet got di

Re:The goggle

[Anonymous Coward]

BING! ..oh sorry bout that ...just my watch going off....

Use a Monitor Arm

[Optera]

Buy a large LCD monitor and use a good monitor arm with an 18 inch+ reach. You'll get a big display that takes up practically no desktop space. At work I use a Humanscale monitor arm which is very nice (but so expensive I would probably never buy one for home use).

LCDs don't use any desk space.

[flyingfsck]

This guy is using a CRT and he is concerned about desk space??? A 26 inch LCD will use less desk space than his present screen.

Me too - res independence!

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. What makes fonts more readable is higher DPI: A 10 point font should be the same height on a 1600x1200 19" display and a 1024x768 19" display, just clearer on the 1600x1200, because there are more pixels making up each letter. What I really want is a display at about 300DPI, because that'll at least begin to approach print clarity (good laser printer is 1200DPI), at least with subpixel rendering.

Re:Me too - res independence!

[Ritchie70]

That's great.

Tell Microsoft and the creators of most of the web sites out there.

Up the font and the layout goes to hell in my experience. What am I doing wrong?

17" 1440x900?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are quite a few 17" monitors that run at 1440x900.

Maybe a Projector?

[Excaliburszone]

You can forgo the monitor and set up a projector instead. Just use your wall as the monitor and mount the projector to your ceiling. Then you should be able to have all your desk space and a ginormous screen that can double as a movie projector as well.

Re:Maybe a Projector?

[evanbd]

That works great... up until you look at the cost of projector bulbs. They cost as much as new LCD display.

Re:Maybe a Projector?

[Excaliburszone]

Unless you look at the new pocket projectors which may or may not suit your needs. Much less expensive and I believe a 90" screen from them...

Re:Maybe a Projector?

[dangitman]

Yes, that's an eminently practical and ergonomic solution in so many ways.

Re:Maybe a Projector?

[evanbd]

Most of those that I've seen (though I haven't looked recently) have been disappointingly low res -- fine for non-HD movies or presentations, not so good for desktop usage. I've heard reports that they can be overly dim, too, but that's something I'd be happy to test for myself in my environment.

newegg...

[spoop]

Asus 16:10 19", 1680x1050 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236056 Samsung 16:9 23", 2048x1152 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001317 Additionally, there are many 16:9 21.5" monitors that are 1920x1080, and Lenovo makes a nice 16:10 22" that's 1920x1200

Re:Ever heard of Newegg? TigerDirect? Google?

[zerocommazero]

Aww c'mon. you're no fun, Mr. Antisocial.

Laptop LCD screen?

[ikono]

What I want to know is why there is such a dearth of 20 1080p monitors when there are 17 inch laptops with that resolution? Are those laptops misrepresenting the resolution or something? Hell, 16 inch 1080p displays exist.

Buy a replacement laptop screen and mod it.

[pwnies]

The answer is no if you're looking for stock monitors with those resolutions. I've looked long and far but to no avail. However, what I was able to do was buy replacement laptop screens with those resolutions. You have to get an adapter kit as well, but it's well worth it if you're looking for density.

Re:Buy a replacement laptop screen and mod it.

[swb]

That sounds cool. How did you get the adapter kit to make it into a desktop display?

I've always thought it would be useful if laptops had a sort of "reverse" mode for their VGA interfaces that would allow you to use the laptop screen as a display for another device.

It would certainly keep the price of otherwise unusable P3 laptops up as they could continue life as LCD displays.

Re:Buy a replacement laptop screen and mod it.

[chroma]

Here's a couple I found:
http://www.digitalview.com/controllers/comparison.php

Re:Buy a replacement laptop screen and mod it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Adapter kit? Do tell!

Re:Buy a replacement laptop screen and mod it.

[Mattsson]

The worst offenders in that area are Imacs...
When the built-in computer dies or gets to old, you can't continue using it as a screen. Of to the scrap-heap with the perfectly good 20" 1680x1050 display... =P

HannsG 281D (aka HG281DBP)

[BertieBaggio]

(In keeping with the time-honoured Slashdot tradition, I'm going to tell you what I think you should know, regardless of what it was you asked for*)

I quite agree with other posters that you should move to a bigger (> 20") LCD. I recently bought a HannsG 281D 28 inch monitor, which (volume wise) takes up about the same space as a 17-19 inch CRT. It is wider by a long shot, which may present a problem. On the other hand, it does 1920x200 and is about the biggest you can get for under GBP 1000 (and $1000 I'm guessing**).

In short it's a good monitor: bright, decent colours, and no ghosting. In my opinion, it is cheap for what you get. It's a TN panel, so dont do anything colour critical, but in all honesty you likely won't notice the difference in 95-99% of cases. I code, play games and watch both hi and low def movies on the monitor, and for all it's much better than using a 19", let alone a 17". Oh, and it has HDMI and VGA inputs. No DVI, but it comes with an HDMI->DVI cable.

* Even if the OP doesn't find this useful I'm sure other /.-ers will, as there are few decent reviews of the HannsG. Yes, this isn't a review, but knowing that someone is using it without problems is useful. As with all decent /. discussions, many will benefit.

** Yeah, gadget / electronic good price in USD = price in GBP. In this case the HannsG seems to be $350 on Amazon (I got mine from Amazon.co.uk, for what it's worth), so it's not quite the monumental shafting we normally get this side of the pond...

Re:HannsG 281D (aka HG281DBP)

[raynet]

It is wider by a long shot, which may present a problem. On the other hand, it does 1920x200 and is about the biggest you can get for under GBP 1000 (and $1000 I'm guessing**).

Dang, that is what I would call a wide monitor, 19:2 aspect ratio quite extreme :)

Syncmaster 204bw

[w8lvn]

I have two SyncMaster 204BW that give me 1680x1050 50hz. Good price as well.

Re:Ever heard of Newegg? TigerDirect? Google?

[maxume]

I don't see a single 17" that does better than 1280x1024. The 19" top out at 1280x1024 or the vertically similar 1680x1050.

The site you are after

[Sycraft-fu]

Is "Let me Google it for you." I use it from time to time with people who refuse to look up their own problems. Tends to get the message across nicely, and in a way that probably won't get you fired :D.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=small+high+resolution+lcd+monitor

Looking for the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

I am looking for the exact opposite: a large-ish, low resolution LCD monitor. Why, you ask? There are people out there with bad vision, and if they want to be able to access web pages that some genius designed for a fixed resolution of, say, 1024x768 (preferably in Flash so you can't just increase the font size in the browser), it needs to be displayed on a 20+ inch screen so the text is legible.

Right now I have my parents set up with a 19" CRT running at 800x600, but there are more and more web pages and programs that require 1024x768.

Of course one could scale 1024x768 up for a higher-res LCD, but this looks just terrible unless the scale factor is integer.

Any ideas?

Re:Looking for the opposite

[Craig Davison]

You can get 18.5" monitors that run at 1366x768, like the Acer X183H.

Re:Looking for the opposite

[raygundan]

This is widely available, and known as a "television" or "hdtv". The trick is making sure you find one that has a 1:1 display mode so that there is no scaling of the input signal. You should be able to find a 720p (likely 1366x768 or similar actual resolution) in 32" sizes relatively easily, with HDMI and VGA inputs.

Because you want to display 1024x768 rather than 1366x768, you'll have black bars on the sides-- but you should be able to find something large enough to accomodate you in the TV aisle at Costco or wherever.

yes

[KatTran]

You are already killing your desk space now with a 17" CRT. Any flat panel you get will give you so much more space than the CRT.

You have learned the dirty little secret of flat panel monitors; 19" monitors are the same as 17" monitors, but with bigger pixels. It is sad that this extends into the wide screen monitors as well, because a 19" wide is only 1440 x 900.

So, buy a 20" wide monitor. The Dell one does 1680 x 1050. I know it will take way less depth than the CRT, and I'm guessing that it will actually be smaller in all dimensions than the current monitor you have.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=biz&cs=555&sku=320-6523

moar forums

[xSauronx]

some of you guys need to find a tech forum to call home. to me, these kinds of questions always seem out of place on the front page here. places like arstechnica or anandtech have good forums with tech users and sub forums for information on various technology, hardware, peripherals, networking and general OS help.

Re:moar forums

[jfholcomb]

Bad Geek! To your room with you without a byte of food nor a bit of water!

Aim Big

[spqr0a1]

I have two 2048x1536 20 inch CRTs on my desk right now. You can get them dirt cheap ($100) if you look around. Even with their age, size, and proximity to each other the only real problem I've had is a bit of a convergence issue; usually nothing you can't fix with in a weekend with a little tinkering. For quality a good CRT is still the way to go, at least until SED and FED displays hit the market.

Re:Aim Big

[Anonymous Coward]

SEDs are only one year away. from 2003...

wergle?

[Sarreq Teryx]

my brother has a 16" viewsonic at 1600x1050 (yes, odd res), and my 10" netbook runs at 1366x768, so I'm not quite sure why you can't seem to find a higher res middle-sized screen. should be dead easy.

Pixel density.

[Craig Davison]

Sounds like you want a monitor with a high PPI (pixels per inch).
Your original monitor was 17" 4:3 (16" viewable), which at 1440x1050 is 109 ppi. You won't get that in an LCD monitor even if you get something large.

Here are some common LCD monitor sizes (>= 17") that have >= 95 PPI:
17" (5:4) 1280x1024 - 96 ppi
17" widescreen (16:10) 1440x900 - 100 ppi
20" (4:3) 1600x1200 - 100 ppi
21.5" widescreen (16:9) 1920x1080 - 102 ppi
30" widescreen (16:10) 2560x1600 - 101 ppi

So if you want something close in size to your existing monitor, get a 17" widescreen at 1440x900 (e.g. Dell E178WFP).
If you want something with a comparable PPI, and equivalent resolution, get a 21.5" widescreen at 1920x1080 (e.g. Dell S2209W)
If you want something with the same aspect ratio, and a higher resolution, get a 20" at 1600x1200 (e.g. Dell 2007FP).

I would pick the 20". As others have said, you can move it further away from your eyes than a CRT if size is an issue.

Re:Pixel density.

[Anonymous Coward]

15.4" @ 1680x1050 is ~~ 128ppi.

Something around 110 to 115 ppi would be nice, but they seem to only exist in laptops. Would be nice to have what's available as laptop ppi's and resolution in freestanding desktop monitor formats.

Re:Pixel density.

[Craig Davison]

You're absolutely right. I should have clarified that I'm only talking about free-standing monitors.

Re:Pixel density.

[Craig Davison]

Some others:
19" widescreen (16:10) 1680x1050 - 104 ppi
23" widescreen (16:9) 2048x1152 - 102 ppi

You can get a decent 20" widescreen display.

[MtViewGuy]

I just recently got myself a LG W2053TQ-PF monitor with 1600x900 resolution. The colors are pretty bright, and the sharpenss is quite good too. I got it for US$149 at Fry's Electronics.

It should be noted the W2053TQ-PF has both 15-pin VGA and DVI-D inputs, and does support HDCP so you can use it with a computer that can play back [i]Blu-ray[/i] movies.

Pixel density is the key factor

[itomato]

I have been on this search for three or four years, and all I can come up with is that there's a conspiracy in effect, in order to promote this 'HD' thing the commoners are obsessed with lately.

I'm posting this from a four year old Thinkpad T43, with 15" display, at 1400x1050. As long as I've had it, I've been searching for a complimentary display for my desk. Nothing comes close. I don't want a 19", 24", or 30" monitor to get this pixel count, and I sure don't want to dodge the reflections on one of those glossy, color pop displays. If I have to move my head, there's a serious ergonomics problem.

I have been doing some research, and I can't find anything satisfactory. Samsung doesn't make a panel capable of what I want, nevermind a finished display.. I thought surely IBM would provide an engineering-quality display @ > 116 PPI, but if they do, I can't find it.

What I may do, and some others may explore as well, is to follow in the tracks of the homebrew projection TV people, and rig up an old laptop display with a converter and new backlight.

Some light reading on the subject:

An interesting paper on high pixel density LCD panels from 2005; why there likely are none, and why there likely won't be any.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density

Manufacturers, listen up; For every one of those business class notebooks you've been selling for 5 years, you have changed the work habits of at least one person. Sell them a capable desktop display for a third to half the cost of the notebook, and garner a tidy profit. Just don't put one of those stinking shine panels on the front. Stick it in the box with some double-sided tape, if the focus group says you have to.

Re:Pixel density is the key factor

[linuxtuba]

I thought surely IBM would provide an engineering-quality display @ > 116 PPI, but if they do, I can't find it

The IBM T221 would work. T221

Re:Pixel density is the key factor

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM hasn't made Thinkpads or monitors for quite a while

Re:Pixel density is the key factor

[Anonymous Coward]

There's eleventy billion monitors on the market that do 1680x1050. You've been looking for 3-4 years for a 1400x1050.

Really, how much of a difference is there?

This is something that should have taken 3-4 seconds to get done. Instead, you decided to be an uptight ass.

Re:Pixel density is the key factor

[Anonymous Coward]

I am so agreeing !

And now in the laptop space, you mostly find glossy widescreen. Worst, they're dumping 15"4 for 15"6.
WTF as if it wasn't wide enough ! And they do it not only for consumer laptop but for professional line up.

21th century, is the consumer still the king ? I'd say no as one can only by what is offered ...
Everyone want a super short ultra wide screen ? I don't think so.

Let's not even talk about pixel density ... :-(

Re:Pixel density is the key factor

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Dell Inspiron 17" machine, with a 1920x1200 pixel screen. I searched high and low for an equivalent size LCD monitor. Having happily used a number of their CRT products, eventually, I complained to Iiyama, that their equivalent pixel-sized LCD monitors started at 24", and this is the reply I received.

Dear Sir,

'ALL' display manufacturers are governed by the production ability of the glass producers in LCD and the cost effectiveness of display production. High resolution, small format LCDs are firstly not that easily to produce at the correct price point 'and' when they produced for Laptop displays break a number of Health and Safety rules against 'Size of Text'.

Laptop / Notebooks should only be used for short periods of time, 1-2 hours or 'occasional' use and hence can have higher than average resolutions; although we know today that most people are glued to them for a full day!

Desktop LCD's are designed aesthically to meet the Health and Safety requirement on screen tilt, average height, height adjustability and 'text size' for the average 8 hour working days. Basically, to prevent any eye strain viewing small text or small detail for any length of time.

'However' we do have a new product planned in to next 3 months which will see higher resolutions (1920 x 1080) on mid-size screens 22"/23". Exact details and pricing are not available yet, but this is on our company roadmap.

Hope this explains why this is not possible or more importantly adviseable.

Re:Pixel density is the key factor

[Yvanhoe]

That's because you will need to change from the 4:3 ratio you are used to, but I can find things like that :
http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktop-monitors/lcd/value-series/va1716w.htm

17", 1440x900. Bear in mind that a desktop is screen is usually used at a further distance than a laptop screen. It makes sense to have less pixels per centimeters for them.

Re:Pixel density is the key factor

[jamiethehutt]

I'm posting this from a four year old Thinkpad T43, with 15" display, at 1400x1050.

I'm also posting for a T43 and the common models of our laptop had a 14.1" screen, which is even higher DPI (and what your probably running). I always thought that higher DPI was better for screens and this laptop has proven it for me, with sharper smother edges on fronts you read faster and more easily. When viewing images the extra sharpness is incredible compared to normal screens. I do all my browsing, writing and coding on this just because of the DPI.

Finding a new screen for myself is now quite a problem. Everything looks CRAP.

My desktop has a 20" Sun CRT that runs at 1600x1200 (Sony Trinitron tube) and it's colour is fantastic, it's really really good for gaming with. A 24" TFT is bigger but try running Baldurs Gate, which runs at 600x400, the rescaling artefacts would be terrible. Even my spare screen is a 19" 1600x1200 CRT, another Trinitron - it looks great but the extra inch is good when gaming, still I'd probably use this for the DPI if I did anything else on my desktop.

So when it comes to getting new screens I really don't know what I'm going to do. All desktop TFTs look crap. Compared to BOTH of my CRTs they are going to have crap DPI and rubbish colour, and artefacts when resizing resolution. And all for a little extra desk space, my desk is a 12 foot by 4 foot dining table so that's not something I'm exactly short of...

Your whole argument is invalid

[Shadow of Eternity]

Do you keep your LCD further away from you than you would a crt? Do you put things behind your LCD? If the answer to those is "no" then you could use a 100lb trinitron and you wouldn't be "killing any space" more than you would with a 5lb LCD.

If you want a decent resolution you're not really going to find it without getting a CRT or a VERY expensive LCD. The widescreen virus has infected everyone and shutdown their brains and now people think that they're better off with lower resolutions that old giant CRTs had in 1998.

Re:Your whole argument is invalid

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell yeah. Bought a Sony FW-900, and i'm never going back. 140Hz at 1440x900...sweet.
Only problem is that i need a secondary monitor for LAN parties, since, as you said, it's 50kg (48 actually). I have yet to find a flatscreen with the same performance and response as this monitor.

Re:Your whole argument is invalid

[Shadow of Eternity]

If you can stand something a little smaller and almost half the weight the 22" *trons are only 60lbs and still beat just about everything else in refresh rates and response times.

Other than that there's just playing the Panel Lotto and hoping you get an MVA or IPS family flatpanel.

Re:Your whole argument is invalid

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, i should. I've seen them go for 50-100USD used, and i'm using two CRT monitors in my home setup already, so it's just a matter of swapping out the 19" secondary.

Re:Your whole argument is invalid

[Mal-2]

I do not presume to speak for parent poster, only for myself.

> Do you keep your LCD further away from you than you would a crt?

Yes. The screen surface is about 7 inches further from my face than it was when I had CRTs. Because the pixel density is slightly lower and the pixels themselves are much better defined, it does not cause a problem at all.

> Do you put things behind your LCD?

No, they're pushed back to the wall or (in the living room) perched precariously on the edge of the table. There is no space behind them to be reclaimed. I have gained the seven inches they've been pushed back, and there is no bulky case sticking out over the edge of the table to get bumped when walking by.

> If the answer to those is "no" then you could use a 100lb trinitron and you wouldn't be "killing any space" more than you would with a 5lb LCD.

Yes, I would. I am able to perch the LCDs in such a manner that the space under them that is not consumed by the base is usable for other things. I stick speakers to the bases of my work monitors, and I let my monitors at home "hover" over my amplifiers while using the base space for USB hubs. Granted, I was able to stick a USB hub to the top of a CRT as well, but then I had to stand up to plug or unplug anything.

Mal-2

Re:Your whole argument is invalid

[Shadow of Eternity]

Sounds like your real problem is you're using a bookshelf instead of a desk. You may as well blame your keyboard for wrist problems caused by sitting on a banana crate instead of a chair.

Re:Your whole argument is invalid

[Mal-2]

One of the two setups is a real office desk, and the other (which I am using now) is a coffee table that is much lower but equally as deep.

I have a picture of the desk setup posted. It has changed slightly (the large speakers have been swapped for smaller ones, the computer speakers are gone, and a USB hub has been added) but the basic setup remains as shown. The monitor sits as far back as possible without pulling the desk away from the wall (more than the inch necessary for cable clearance). In what manner would you consider this setup inadequate?

The living room setup on the coffee table has an identical monitor except for the lack of a spring-loaded base. This also hovers above its associated amplifier. This is less than ideal ergonomically because the table is so low, but it's a coffee table, not a work desk.

Mal-2

Re:Your whole argument is invalid

[Shadow of Eternity]

the office computer has been around barely more than 20 years, desks have been designed for a lot longer than that around traditional "office desk" values. I'm sure it'd make an excellent paperwork shuffling and writing desk but that doesn't make it a good COMPUTER desk any more than the previously mentioned banana crate makes a good computer desk using chair, although it makes a fine and very stable step stool type platform.

I have a picture of My Desk too. It doesn't take an absurd amount of space and can easily accomodate a third CRT. You can't see it but all my network's crap is just behind the primary monitor where I can see it by leaning to the left a little and can pull it right out to the front of the desk. The other side's mostly empty space I haven't used, and underneath are a midtower and a fulltower with more room for filing cabinets on the right side.

My bedroom though has a similar setup to yours. That is, one with a good desk but not a good COMPUTER desk.

Re:Your whole argument is invalid

[Mal-2]

My point was that my desk was inadequate as a computer desk when I had CRTs -- I had to make a shelf extending from the front to hold the mouse and keyboard. With one or two LCDs, the desk is suddenly adequate as is. This is a substantial change, and proves that it is entirely possible to reclaim desk space by switching from a CRT to an LCD (or better yet, two CRTs to two LCDs as was originally the case).

My last CRT was very nice too, it was a 17" KDS X-Flat. The display quality was superior to all but the high-end LCDs of the day and it cost me $125 new. It was a no-brainer at the time. This is why it is still in service on my mother's computer, as she has a desk that IS designed for computer use. (It used to be mine also.) I offered her my 17" Dell LCD, but the KDS X-Flat is superior in every way except bulk, weight, and energy efficiency. Since she never moves the gear, only the energy efficiency means anything at all. For the amount of use it gets, this is not a terribly significant issue.

If I had to go back to CRTs for any reason, I would only accept displays of that quality -- hopefully larger, but I would pick flat, bright, and sharp over sheer size.

Mal-2

Re:Your whole argument is invalid

[Shadow of Eternity]

I get that, but I still think it's misleading to present this as a problem of the monitor's when the real issue is that so many desks are inadequate.

I read the "answers", now I feel for you..

[Seth Kriticos]

Did not consider this question before, but you really made a point: nobody gave a satisfiable answer to 'I look for a 17" LCD with resolution beyond 1280x1024, and hopefully 4:3".

The technology is definitely out there, my handhald with 9" has 800x480 which could be easily scaled up to 1400 + in your desired form factor (4:3).

There were even monitors with this kind of attributes a few years back. About 4 years ago I bought my which has the minimal DPI resolution you mentioned. I'm a bit astonished that time stood still in this sector for this amount of time. Not "Moor-ish" at all.

Guess the answer is, that mainstream did not want it, and niche markets are not asked any-more. Also there is a specific OS that can't handle scaling of wigdets very well, that mostly catalysed this non-development.

Your answer is: no, there is probably no such thing you are looking for.. Sadly.

Re:I read the "answers", now I feel for you..

[Anonymous Coward]

"nobody gave a satisfiable answer to 'I look for a 17" LCD with resolution beyond 1280x1024, and hopefully 4:3"

But as for me, the fact that the guy is also concerned about desk space tells me he has no clue how much smaller LCD monitors are compared to their predecessors, and that's why he's keeping his search confined to last century's parameters.

You aren't going to find something meeting those exact specs without going on ebay and buying an extremely old used LCD (I have two that fit the description, and they're both 8 years old) or paying upwards of $800 for something like that on Newegg. Like it or not, 16:9 and 16:10 are all the rage right now and "satisfiable answers" for people who want 4:3 are growing as slim as they have for people who still want their televisions built into a heavy-ass wooden cabinet.

Re:I read the "answers", now I feel for you..

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that a quick Google search of [17" lcd 1400x1050] reveals:

http://www.eworldsale.com/kds-k-726mwb-17-inch-wide-screen-lcd-1400-x-1050-0291mm-500_5708_17748.html

So yes, there is a 17" LCD that runs at 1400x1050. There may even be other brands and models available, but I stopped after I found what I was looking for. Which was the first link returned.

Re:I read the "answers", now I feel for you..

[Anonymous Coward]

There were even monitors with this kind of attributes a few years back. About 4 years ago I bought my which has the minimal DPI resolution you mentioned. I'm a bit astonished that time stood still in this sector for this amount of time. Not "Moor-ish" at all.

While we're at it, it's even hard to find CRTs like this.

I retired an old CRT that did 1600x1200x72Hz on analog VGA. Finally died with a bit of smoke. I got a great replacement that does 1600x1200x85Hz, and that handles 1920x1440x72Hz, but its analog VGA cable is built into the monitor, and cannot be (easily) replaced. The cable is noticeably thinner and more flexible than the 10-year-old "good" VGA cable I was using on the old monitor. Every vertical line has a minor analog ringing/echoing/ghosting artifact beside it.

One of these weekends, I'm going to attack it with a soldering iron so I can once again use a properly shielded cable. There's nothing wrong with the monitor. I looked it up - it was a high-end monitor in its day a few years ago - yet they still chose to "save" $1.00 by using a cheap cable integral to the monitor. I hate to go all tinfoil here, but you'd almost think they were trying to force everyone to flat panels.

(I don't have anything against flat panels either, but it drives me nuts that I can't get 100+ pixels per inch in flat panel form, when my eyes, on a suitably-calibrated CRT with a suitably-narrow dot pitch, can make use of 110-120ish. I paid $0.00 for this CRT, someone who ran it at 1280x1024 and who didn't know how to adjust its convergence was throwing it out!)

Re:I read the "answers", now I feel for you..

[denobug]

I think what most people trying to convey is: there is a better questions to be asked, or there is a much better alternative than the conditions you presented. Others have presented you with their Google search results.

By the way I can still order standard 4:3 LCD Monitors. You might have to get it through the business line product from HP or Dell, but they are better quality product, in my opinion. And yes, they do offer higher resolutions than the average Joe's LCD Monitor bought from Office Depot. I did not check the resolutions since usually a 20" can do a lot higher resolution than I can read while squinting my eyes and glasses on.

I also find out that my eyes gets a lot less tired over the long period of time starring at the LCD monitor than the old CRT tube. I had the prevlidge of sitting in front of a few 21" giant and the only comments afterwards are to arrange for their replacement ASAP.

Re:I read the "answers", now I feel for you..

[Anonymous Coward]

1280x1024 is not 4x3...

Re:I read the "answers", now I feel for you..

[Burpmaster]

The technology is definitely out there, my handhald with 9" has 800x480

That's nothing, check out the Pandora: 800x480 on a 4.3" screen

Re:I read the "answers", now I feel for you..

[ArcadiaAlex]

I agree most do not seem to grasp the nature of the question.

Why can manufacturers make high resolution LCD screens for laptops but do not use these screens to produce similar desktop LCD screens?

Maybe it is to artificialy boost the laptop market?

The smallest pixel size I have seen if from the libretto U100 screen, 7.1 inches and 1280 x 768, so why can't I have a 15 inch LCD screen at the same pixel size? ie 2540 x 1536

Re:I read the "answers", now I feel for you..

[toddestan]

That's a 1280x720 resolution LCD that can accept a 1400x1050 signal and scale it down. Not the same thing at all.

Just bite the bullet and buy an LCD.

[Banichi]

Any desk real estate you lose due to width will be more than made up for in depth.

I bought a Hanns.G HG216D (22" LCD monitor) from TigerDirect last year for about $150, upgrading from a 17" CRT. Best computer related investment I've ever made. Only one weird pixel, it only shows up as solid red when the area farther down the screen directly under it is white.

ThinkPad X61T (and other fantastic ThinkPads)

[paulproteus]

ThinkPads have great pixel density. I upgraded from a 14" 1400x1050 screen (ThinkPad T43) to... ...a 12" 1400x1050 screen! The X61 Tablet is a fantastic little computer; I can't recommend it highly enough. When I bought mine (about nine months ago), those things could be purchased for about $1050.

IBM/Lenovo stopped making screens that high-resolution, but I bought mine used on eBay with nearly the full three years of warranty.

IBM/Lenovo calls this SXGA+, and you can find ThinkPad T40, T41, T42, or T43 computers on your local Craigslist. http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/sss?query=t43+sxga shows you a few for a few hundred dollars in the San Francisco Bay area.

(Also, for what it's worth, the OpenMoko FreeRunner and GTA01 both had 2.8" screens at 640x480. Mega drool factor.)

Re:ThinkPad X61T (and other fantastic ThinkPads)

[Anonymous Coward]

My X200 is 1280x800 on a 12.1" wide screen. You can get 1440x900 if you want to pay for the X200s.

The T500 does WSXGA+ (1680x1050) and if you really want a tight pixel count you can get the W500 with a 1920x1200 resolution (15.4")

CRT space to LCD space migration

[thatkid_2002]

I have just done a 17" CRT to 20" LCD migration this week. Even though the display size is bigger, it takes much less desktop space.

Compare the following:
######
######
######
4 * 8 = 32 (CRT)

________
########
12 * 2 = 24 (LCD)

The other advantage of an LCD space wise is that it is easier to put things in and around the base unlike a CRT.

Half of the reason I switched to LCD was because of health reasons which are:

• 1024x768 and 17" CRT glare not good for my eyes
• CRTs sit on the table and are hard to elevate properly, and look weird once you do.

The colour and sharpness from an LCD is better too and for $100 AUD it was too good to refuse. :)

Re:CRT space to LCD space migration

[Mishotaki]

The colour and sharpness from an LCD is better too and for $100 AUD it was too good to refuse. :)

you, sir, must be color blind...

Re:CRT space to LCD space migration

[thatkid_2002]

you, sir, must be color blind...

Are you sure?
In any case I had a crap CRT - so maybe I am easily flattered.

SGI 1600sw

[Anonymous Coward]

SGI 1600sw. It's ancient, cost $5000 when new and had a proprietary connector. But you got 1600x1024 in a 17" monitor. And it was from a company that makes supercomputers.

Re:SGI 1600sw

[zjbs14]

I'm working on one right now. It's a great display, real 24-bit color, great dot pitch (110 DPI), and decent pixel response for a monitor as old as it is. They were selling for big bucks on eBay a few years ago (along with the multilink that connected them to DVI). It looks like they've dropped off though, but there are some there for around $300 including the DVI adapter. I've got one with the old SGI cube logo. It's a cool reminder of the heyday of specialized graphics boxes.

Re:SGI 1600SW

[FunkyELF]

The new macbook pro 17" does 1920x1200 on the same size screen so it must be possible to make a standalone monitor at that res/size

Macs have always been behind Dells. I have had a 15.4" 1920x1200 for over a year.

UXGA, WUXGA and WQXGA

[Anonymous Coward]

You can buy laptops with UXGA and WUXGA resolutions (15", 1600x1200 for UXGA, 1920x1200 for WUXGA).
You can also buy regular LCD's with these resolutions (probably 19" and up) ... they cost more

If desk space isn't an issue, go all out, get a 30" WQXGA at 2560x1600!

Re:UXGA, WUXGA and WQXGA

[TheCow]

I also was noticing this for the last several years since LCDs have started taking over. I had a Dell C820 (I think) 5 years ago with a 15" 1600x1200 display and loved it. The number of applications, or telnet windows I could have open at the same time was outstanding. However to get anywhere close to that resolution with an external display required an additional 6" (21" total) to the screen size and cost as much as the laptop did...

Why can't I get something that has that small of a dot pitch (ppi) in an external display?!?

I don't need a 22" widescreen display, a 17" is just fine, but to be able to get very much vertical space a 22" HD monitor is required...

On the plus side, my 17" Sony trinitron that I bought when going to college was $600, my 22" Dell HD LCD was $150 shipped a few months ago.... That is a nice price drop.

A few other options are to go dual screen and stack them on top of each other with a support arm (you might pay as much for the arm as the monitor though) since just about all recent video cards are dual headed. Two stacked 22" HD displays could be nice...

I feel your pain, and if you find something, make sure you spread the word. Give me a 17" UXGA display and I would be very happy.

Acer X193W+BD

[rahuja]

Been using since January ... simply awesome with my MacBook. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009127

Samsung 2342BWX: LCD Monitor with 2048 x 1152

[Ixitar]

I have this monitor at work and at home. It has excellent color and is comfortable on the eyes.

Samsung 2342BWX: 23" LCD Monitor with 2048 x 1152

Re:Samsung 2342BWX: LCD Monitor with 2048 x 1152

[modicr]

BTW, here is a Dell SP2309W with the same resolution:

http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=ca&l=en&cs=cadhs1&sku=320-7641

Try back at Dell

[Baboshka]

Have you looked at Dell (disclamer, I work for Dell) for a replacement for the Dell monitor? I found 2 for less than $200 each that probably come close enough:

    Dell
    S1709W 17" HD Widescreen Monitor
    Usually Ships 1-2 Days
    Manufacturer Part# K419D
    Dell Part# 320-6965
    Max Resolution: 1440 x 900
    Image Contrast Ratio: 600:1
    Response Time: 8 ms
and
    Dell
    E2009WFP 20 inch Wide Flat Panel Monitor
    Usually Ships Within 24 Hours
    Manufacturer Part# D115J
    Dell Part# 320-7085
    Max Resolution: 1680 x 1050
    Image Contrast Ratio: 1000:1
    Response Time: 5 ms

Drop down to 72Hz

[wiredlogic]

It's silly to run at 80Hz. You will get more video bandwidth by running at 72Hz. This could be enough to improve the performance of an aged CRT. You may also be able to do 1600 x 1200 although that gets a little blurry on 17". This is why I stick with a 21"CRT for my primary display since I can get the flexibility of a wide range of resolutions and the high resolutions are better than what you can get in an affordable LCD.

What Are You Trying To Achieve By Small?

[nick_davison]

Your old CRT was a 17 inch. Understandable... 17s/19s were affordable, 21s and larger got expensive.

If your issue's price - volumes of sale mean you'll likely get a 20ish widescreen that they sell huge numbers of for the same price or less than a quirkly 17 inch with high res that's only for very, very niche user groups.

If your issue's desktop width - A 20ish inch LCD with a thin bezel is likely to be smaller than a the 17 inch CRT you're replacing.

If your issue's desktop depth - That 17 inch CRT you're replacing probably needed a good 18 inches of space between its screen and the wall for the tube. An LCD needs all of about 2 inches. If you're convinced you can't go larger than 17 because you're in a broom closet and sit crazily close, the LCD will move back further and you can have a bigger screen for the same angle of view.

There may be other reasons you specifically want to stay small. If you let us know what they are, we can suggest possible solutions that would work for you, thinking outside the box. It would be a shame for you to miss out on a far higher quality, much cheaper, better option simply because you're running with an assumption that maybe held true with CRTs but is no longer the case for LCDs.

Less space in which dimension?

[tepples]

This guy is using a CRT and he is concerned about desk space??? A 26 inch LCD will use less desk space than his present screen.

I gather that he's concerned about sideways desk space, not front-to-back desk space. A high-DPI CRT takes less sideways desk space than a low-DPI desktop LCD of the same pixel count.

Re:Less space in which dimension?

[convolvatron]

get an arm. lcdarms.com makes some nice ones out of anodized machined aluminum. the space
underneath is completely usable, and you can easily push the monitor off into the corner if you're
reading or working with pen and paper.

Just get a larger monitor and push it far away

[GWBasic]

Get a larger monitor and push it further back on your desk. It's better for your eyes, because they work harder when focusing on objects that are closer. I run my 24" Apple monitor at a high resolution, (higher then 1680x1050,) and keep it at least four feet from my eyes.

The current Apple 24" monitor can do 1920x1200: http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB382LL/A?fnode=MTY1NDA5OQ&mco=NDE4NDE5Nw If you're at least 27 years old, it's really worth going to a larger monitor and pushing it as far away as possible. 27 is the age that eyestrain starts the monitor is inches away from your face.

Free Desk Space

[karlandtanya]

Stick the desk in a corner, diagonally.
Put an old stool in the corner behind it. Adjust height A/R with a saw, a 2x4, & some nails.
Put tube monitor on the stool.
Free desk space.

Look, if you're jonesin' for a shiny new monitor, just buy the damned thing and enjoy it.

I LOVE DICKS

[Anonymous Coward]

secret phallus, bitches

Aspect Ratio and Size

[gte275e]

According to DisplayWars.com, a 19" 16:10 monitor is just a hair shorter than a 17" 4:3 monitor. To the OP, if you are looking at a new LCD monitor, get a 19-20" widescreen one. The vertical height will be nearly the same and you'll have about 2.5" more in width. This shouldn't be too much of a burden on your desk space. Hell, it'll actually clear a lot of it up. If you haven't noticed, these new fangled LCD monitors are actually a lot thinner than those CRT monitors.

Re:Aspect Ratio and Size

[BlakJak-ZL1VMF]

What he said. I've been looking to enter the LCD market for the first time (minus laptops) and am leaning toward a 20" Widescreen formfactor. Unfortunately the most economical ones in the local market seem to have native resolution of 1366x768 - insufficient!!

Much like the OP i'd like a decent resolution without spending megabucks, thus far I'm only looking but hope to make a D by mid-august (when i'll have a better idea of my budget).

So this thread has been most interesting. Thanks guys.

PS: The Dell 4:3 res monitor suggestion earlier wasn't a bad one. We use them at my office as well and they're excellent.
I actually find myself tempted to get a pair and shell out on a dual-head video card...

You're looking at the wrong soloution.

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Replace the desk.
2) Get a 4ft square Table
3) Get a 32 inch TV capable of 1920X1080 and place it at the opposite end of the table. The added distance moving from a desk to a table compensates for the size.

I LOVE my LG 32CL40

P.S. This solution is guaranteed to cure that 4:3 fetish.
I had a similar concern when moving up from a used Viewsonic EF70 @ 1280X1024.

I have the opposite problem

[grapeape]

My clients are increasingly irritated by the high resolutions of newer monitors. I'd be happy if I could still buy new 1024x768 lcd's unfortunately at least near me there are none to be found. As a result most of my clients have "fuzzy" screens and trying to explain to them why is a futile effort.

Re:I have the opposite problem

[Skapare]

Get a 2560x1600 and run the video at 1280x800.

17 inch

[Skapare]

KDS K-726MWB 17 inch WIDE SCREEN LCD 1400 X 1050 0.291MM 500:1 8ms (Black)

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure am glad I bought my 1920x1200 Acer monitor before the trend toward "movie-watching screens" took over. Now you only get the lame 1920x1050 monitors which are less expensive but decidely not as good for computer usage as the ones with more vertical pixels. Chalk up yet another stupid idea by manufacturers.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Skapare]

I never heard of 1920x1050. Did you mean 1920x1080? At least with true 16:9 monitors, video aspect ratio for widescreen TV is correct at fullscreen. With a 16:10 display, it might be stretched vertically. Of course, you get a shorter screen this way. It would be nice if the movie players would just letterbox 1920x1080 movies on a 1920x1200 screen.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[BluenoseJake]

I do get letterboxing, in both Windows Media player, and in mplayer or xine on debian. Not sure why you don't

Mod Parent Up!

[W. Justice Black]

Aah, if I only had mod points.

I set up some labs with bench space a while back and used exclusively 19" monitors with VESA arms. The space under the monitor becomes usable (since there's no stand in the way) and the adjustability (and ability to just shove the monitor to the side when not in use) is invaluable. This gets even better with 2x stands.

Oh, and with many brackets, you can mount them from above instead of below, too.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[dintech]

I work on a trade floor and some of the guys here have 8 monitors connected to two PCs (KVMd) making up a kind of mad video wall. All on VESA mountings so you can move them around to suit. I only have 3 screens as I'm just a developer on mounts but it's great to be able to position and adjust that much workspace.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[dintech]

I'm just a developer on mounts

Sorry banking isn't quite that tough. It's the monitors on mounts, not me....

Look harder

[jamesh]

The cheap laptop that i'm using right now has a 15" screen with 1680x1050 resolution. To the left of it is a 19" screen with the same resolution. If all you can find is 1280x1024 screens then you can't be looking very hard at all.

(1680x1050 is a fscking stupid resolution to put on a 15" screen, but that's another story altogether :)

Re:Look harder

[amorsen]

(1680x1050 is a fscking stupid resolution to put on a 15" screen, but that's another story altogether :)

I wouldn't call it fucking stupid, the alternative is full HD, and that is still quite expensive.

Unless you mean that you'd prefer a lower resolution, but why would anyone like jagged edges?

Re:Look harder

[jamesh]

I wouldn't call it fucking stupid, the alternative is full HD, and that is still quite expensive.

Unless you mean that you'd prefer a lower resolution, but why would anyone like jagged edges?

Yes you're right it's not that the resolution itself is so stupid, it's just that Windows (which I use on the laptop) doesn't quite understand that a higher resolution in the same amount of space gives tiny tiny dots and, so I end up with text I can't read.

CRT Rookie-ism.

[EmperorLinuz]

Nice you were a veteran of a crt cause I am now again a rookie of two crts and a color video monitor. Had 2 digital lcds that I lost to the family. One because of gaming , the other to the lady of the house running ME on a P3. Me I have a Xeon dual core * 2 with a NVidia dual digital hooked to a NEC AccuSync125F Crt monster that holds candles on top, and the other is a Sony Multiscan CPDE200. My Sony Vaio PCG-GRX700 laptop's LCD blewout so now I have it hook up to a Panasonic monitor that the kids found in the trash. Normally neither of the LCD's are running digitally. Can I get my monitors back? What do u think? This economy has too turn around so I can get a couple of new monitors since it is probably the only way I will get my other LCD's back. Forgot to mention the Sony and Color monitors do have an advanced feature - they both have modern style glare screens to protect my eyes. One more nice feature of the color monitor, the hook is a super S-Video hook up!

No more..

[itomato]

He's out of his namesake!

Monitor makers don't want people like you and me

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Dell laptop from 2005 with a 17" 1920x1200 screen.

Nobody makes a standalone monitor with a resolution of 1920x1200 smaller than 22". I want a 17" 1920x1200 LCD monitor, but no manufacturer will bother to make one. My eyesight is good enough, and my viewing distance short enough, that I can distinguish those pixels. I want them in a small area. I don't want big dots.

I assume they don't want to make such an expensive item, with a potentially high failure rate, for a very small market segment. Most people think a bigger screen is better. There are scant few of us who want tiny pixels more than we want big screens.

SGI 1600SW

[BlacKat]

Sure, it may be a decade old but mine is still going strong and has 110dpi, 17.3" widescreen, 1600x1024 native resolution.

Only downsides are that it not supported by anyone, so eBay is the only real place to find them, and you need an adapter to convert the LVDI to DVI, though many of the ones I have seen on eBay come with the adapter built in.

However, if you want a high-quality screen that is still comparable to monitors made today, I would suggest looking at them.

I have grown to like widescreen

[Sycraft-fu]

Main reason is my field of vision is wider than it is high. Now I will qualify this in saying you need a good resolution screen for this to work. Nothing less than 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 is really what you should shoot for. However the good news is 1920x1200 monitors are plentiful these days. They can be had cheaply if TN panels are fine, and there are nice high quality pro ones if you desire good colour.

I think it looks great, and you aren't giving up any vertical rez compares to almost any 4:3 screen. The 4:3 equivalent is 1600x1200, which was where nearly all the 4:3 LCDs I knew of capped out.

More processes to kill :(

[nikanth]

killall firefox
killall npviewer.bin

Windows is to blame

[Chep]

[citreq]
Most people can't read the default fonts ("damn too small") when the DPI increases, and most Win32 applications fail to scale properly. Plus, most people don't know how to enlarge the font sizes to enjoy better drawn text at sizes their eyes can read.
[/citreq]

Blame Steve/Bill on this one, but manufacturers probably don't want to bother with higher return rates, higher defect rates, when the dominant OS will not let their product shine.

Watch Apple for a way out. OSX can (and does) scale very well with the resolution (so can X&FreeType -- eclipse on a 9" netbook? Bring it on)

Re:Windows is to blame

[BluenoseJake]

You're blaming MS for 3rd parties not being able to write apps that can scale properly? MS does not write "most win32 apps" ISVs do. But go ahead, blame MS, sometimes it even is their fault, but this time, it's not.

Samsung SyncMaster 2033SW (1600 x 900, 20 inches)

[modicr]

Hello!

Samsung SyncMaster 2033SW looks ok:
http://www.contrapositivediary.com/?p=565

And here is a new model F2080 based on a-si TFT/cPVA:
http://monitor.samsung.de/produkte/detail2_specs.aspx?guid=dc219be6-a00c-4678-87c2-fd7296e227fd

BTW, pixel size is just 0.277 mm

Regards, Roman

dude, its 2009

[Anonymous Coward]

and youre gae for not getting an LCD

IBM T221 == 3840 x 2400

[adisakp]

If you want really tiny pixels... get a lightly used IBM T221. It's 22" but it has very very high DPI and a resolution of 3840 x 2400.

ghm

[Anonymous Coward]

as i have plans to buy some LCD monitors in near future. i started collecting data from local resellers. as it shows http://markit.at.lt/?id=dot you could just wait. Pixel pitch going smaller. that's makes higer resolutions in smaller screen sizes... but sadly average screen size growing even faster. also resolution is growing as the screen size.. so it seems that 17" monitors will extinct. as data had been collected just for half a month it doesn't gives a clear view. in other hand.. direction is obvious.

Well suck...

[raehl]

I'd noticed I seem to not be nearly as good at Call of Duty recently, but just assumed I'd had one too many beers. Didn't realize my 10-50ms processing lag Dell 3008WFP was the cause of my suckiness. That would have been handy info before buying that monstrosity!

(Yes, in retrospect, I started sucking when I got the new monitor and started playing Call of Duty 5 at the same time - just chalked it up to not doing as well with the new game.)

huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy is right. What's the point in having a 19'' LCD monitor at 1280x1024 when you have the same resolution at 17'' LCD monitor ? Actually i'd go for the 17'' as I've already done. Why ? Imagine a 200'' monitor at 1280x1024 resolution and a pixel size equal to the size of my head. It's not about monitor size, it's mainly about resolution ( talking about gaming here ). Actually i do think that efforts must be put in having a smaller dot pitch rather than having bigger monitors. Higher screen resolution would automatically eliminate the antialiasing problem ( imagine a 0,1 or 0,05 mm dot pitch size - in contrast to 0,25 which is now).

You're kidding yourself!

[rts008]

Hah! /. geeks have no life, but lots of time!

Who am I kidding. The article was posted hours ago while I slept, no one will ever read this now...

You're right. I stopped reading after that sentence. :-)

BTW, I just got home from work a little while ago(0215 hrs in Oklahoma) and was just catching up with the /. day I missed earlier.

Re:You're kidding yourself!

[johannesg]

Well, at least you saw a pretty decent list of monitors that are smaller than 19", with a resolution above 1280x1024, then ;-)

Hope it will do you some good!

SGI 1600SW

[Bert64]

I have an old SGI 1600SW 17" monitor, which does 1600x1024 natively (widescreen) which is very similar in size and res to the older 17" macbook pro (1680x1050)... The new macbook pro 17" does 1920x1200 on the same size screen so it must be possible to make a standalone monitor at that res/size...

One of the biggest things holding back resolutions tho, is as always, windows... windows doesn't detect the monitor dpi properly, so a larger screen at the same resolution will result in everything getting bigger, while a higher resolution just results in everything getting smaller (and often unreadable) rather than simply becoming more detailed.

Useful Tool

[Flossymike]

I've found the following web site useful when deciding on monitor specs:

http://www.tvcalculator.com/

96PPI standard

[Atario]

Pretty much everyone has used a standard of 96 pixels per inch for screen displays since Windows chose it as an assumption many years ago. Your setup sounds like it's probably around 110PPI -- around 15% too high.

Trust me, it's far easier not to fight on this one.

Re:Ever heard of Newegg? TigerDirect? Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nice for you. Do you want a prize?

More to the point, you'll notice the *two* requirements specified, the other of which is *resolution*.

Windows Users

[Ant P.]

You can't make smaller, higher resolution screens for the desktop, because the average Windows user will start complaining that their screen space is being "stolen" or something equally idiotic. Similarly the laptop LCDs have to be tiny 160dpi postage stamps, because that's what they've been trained to think is correct.

Some idiot will mod this off-topic, but ....

[Zero__Kelvin]

Why is this marked troll?

I'm going to answer you because I think this is important to understand, and I can take the karma hit if I happen to incur any.

The submitter specifically requested resolution greater than 1280 x 1024, but the person didn't pay attention and recommended the very type of LCD he is explicitly stating he does not want. You combine that with the fact that many people will willingly mod, but have no idea how to, and you get things that should be modded "Overrated" being classified as "Troll", "Flamebait", or "Offtopic".

For those who don't get why the post in question is not a Troll, Flamebait, or Offtopic: The guy wasn't trying to stir up trouble, and he stayed on topic. His advice just sucked because he didn't pay attention to the question before offering up an answer.

Now:

Q: Why shouldn't this post be modded down, even though it is technically off-topic?

A: The mod system is designed to improve the Slashdot experience by fighting abuse and promoting behavior that makes the Slashdot experience better. One should first classify the post in those terms, and only then pick an option from the set of categories that observe proper polarity.

Re:Some idiot will mod this off-topic, but ....

[Anonymous Coward]

dang, can i filter slasdot thru you?

nobody mentioned how much it weighs.

i've an old 21" crt, Hitachi. it weighs 150 pounds.

Re:Some idiot will mod this off-topic, but ....

[Chris Burke]

A: The mod system is designed to improve the Slashdot experience by fighting abuse and promoting behavior that makes the Slashdot experience better.

Which is why, long ago, when Taco insisted that a particular off-topic post deserved to be moderated as such despite being the most informative and interesting post in the thread (though decidedly off-topic), I suggested that if he felt that way he should add a (+1, Off-Topic) mod.

Of course that's not really necessary if you view the moderation system as you do.

Re:Some idiot will mod this off-topic, but ....

[BoomerSooner]

So go to reddit, you can reply more than 1-2x per hour there.

What's the dot pitch of the CRT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because I would be VERY surprised to find it's much less than 0.26mm. That's the pitch between the colour phosphors.

1400 is finer than the mesh.

So get a bigger monitor :D...

[mario_grgic]

Is that such a bad thing? If you are looking for a laptop, the Apple macbooks have relatively high resolution screens for the sizes. Their 17'' screen is 1920x1200.

Just get a 24 inch monitor.

[pyster]

I used 20 to 22 inch monitors at the highest resolutions my cards would support. 1600x1200, and then later 2000x1500. I was convinced that LCD monitors were junk because they just could do the resolutions I worked and played in. I was afraid a game I play, subspace, would be unplayable on them, that It would interfere with my OCD multitasking.

I was wrong. 1900x1200 is a fine resolution to work in. Subspace plays fine. Plenty of room for OCD multitasking clutter. And man... my monitors used to be 40-60 pounds. I always thought the picture was great, and then I picked up an LCD and was blown away. Get an LCD and an arm and you will be very happy.

One of the best places to research computer hardware is New Egg. User reviews (mostly helpful), best return policy, specs, advanced search options.

Re:Syncmaster LOW RESOLUTION

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm.. no. That's a 1280x720 - aka lower grade HDTV - monitor. It's capable of accepting a 1400x1050 signal, which will look like crap, it is not a high resolution monitor. 1400x1050 is a 4:3 resolution, by the way, and you linked to a 16:9 monitor.

In general the answer is no

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been looking for monitors like this for several years. I used to run 1600x1200 on a 17 inch CRT. When I upgraded to LCDs, I wasn't able to find LCDs with that kind of resolution, even when looking at the high-res medical monitors . Those are you best bet, but you will pay thorught the nose for them.

I wish someone monitor company would take those high-res laptop screens and turn them into monitors. It irritates me to no end that you can buy a laptop with a 17 inch screen that does 1920x1200, but you can't buy a 17 inch desktop LCD with that same resolution.

Without killing your desk space???

[Andy Dodd]

You're using a 17" Trinitron!

Compared to that behemoth, even a 22" widescreen LCD will be saving you desk space. Take it from someone who is using a 24" widescreen Gateway on the same desk he used to use a 17" Trinitron on - I have far more desk space than I used to.

Also, Dell's site currently lists 13 monitors in the 17-19" range that do 1440x900.

What about big, LOW resolution LCD monitors?

[yyr]

What I'd really like to see is the complete opposite.

I work in IT and also have private clients. Whether it's at work or at home, whenever I deploy an LCD monitor (and set it to the resolution it was designed for) the first request I get is to "make it bigger so I can read it." I try to explain that this will make things very blurry, but 90% of the time, they don't care. If it's a widescreen monitor and their requested resolution is 4:3, and the result is stretched, they still don't care. It's not just old people, it's middle-aged people too (very few young people work here).

All I ever see now are really high resolutions. Why aren't there any new 800x600 or 1024x768 17" or 19" LCD monitors?

I went through a similar transition last winter.

[gun26]

I was using a Dell P1130 CRT from January 2004, when I bought it used, until last January when I finally made the move to an LCD, a Samsung 2443BW. The Dell is still going strong, although not used often nowadays as it's attached to my spare desktop. I ran the Dell at 1600x1200 resolution and I was loath to give up screen real estate, especially precious vertical resolution. As I found out, almost all monitors today are widescreen to better fit today's movie and HD TV content, even though the resulting sacrifice in vertical resolution is a step backward for most uses of a computer, IMHO. A year or two ago, most 24" widescreen LCDs did 1900x1200 resolution, but starting late last year many manufacturers substituted cheaper models that do 1900x1080, matching HD TV resolution without any letterboxing. I shopped around until I found a deal on this Samsung which does do the 1900x1200 I was looking for. And it also has vertical height adjustment, something that's very important in LCD monitors with limited viewing angles and which is getting as hard to find as 1200 vertical resolution. Caveat emptor on the Samsung, btw: they sell monitors with and without height adjustment under the same model numbers. I'm relatively satisfied with my choice some 7 months later. My Dell CRT was a nominal 21" and its actual diagonal picture size was about 18-1/2". The Samsung is a nominal 24" and I measure its picture at 23-3/4" or so - widescreen, of course. Not only are things on screen much sharper as expected with an LCD, but they're a tad bigger as well. Colours on my LCD aren't bad but cheap TN technology LCDs don't render colours very subtly so a graphic artist or photographer would probably spring for a monitor using IPS or VA technology costing several times as much. Bottom line: don't be afraid of the move to LCD. You'll burn a lot less electricity than a CRT and the LCD will be much less bulky on your desktop despite being a widescreen. In my own case the biggest losers were my cats who loved to lie on the hot top of the Dell CRT and have no corresponding perch on top of my thin LCD, which runs a lot cooler anyway.

Panel Selector SIte

[Liquidretro]

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/ Great site and they even tell you if the panels are TN or not.

DIY Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to http://www.agilentpixel.com/ and pick up an LP171WU5 ($250) and a controller card ($74), for a 17" monitor that runs at 1920x1200. It is a nice setup. They sell enclosures to make it a standalone monitor.

Careful when choosing a 16x9 replacement for 4x3

[Anonymous Coward]

As we all know, all screens are measured diagonally. So if you are replacing a 17" CRT 4x3 monitor with a 16x9 LCD monitor, regardless of the resolution, make sure you measure the hight of your current screen and buy a 16x9 format that is close to that height.

I had a 20" CRT and was given a 20" LCD 16x9 and promptly gave it back as it was smaller in height and the native font was smaller than I was used to even set to the same vertical resolution.

When I bought a 37" LCD screen I watched a program in 4x3 mode did the diagonal measurement and saw that it was around 34". At that point I decided that .91 was a good number to convert 4x3 CRT to 16x9 LCD.

So my new 22" LCD is about the same height as a 20" CRT screen.

So using 17 and dividing by .91 you need at least an 18" LCD panel to get the same vertical space your 17" model has.

DISCLAIMER: Your results may vary.

Laptops have them..

[Anonymous Coward]

.. Why not desktops?

I have an older laptop (Dell, Pentium M 1.4ghz) with a 15" widesreen display that sports a 1920x1200 resolution I know they still make similar panels in laptops today. (Yes those are mind-bogglingly small pixels and yes I can count every one of them from 3 ft away) I still use this machine because with the right wm you're able to cram a wonderful amount of useful things on to the screen at the same time.

Why can't I find something similar for a desktop? I'd LOVE a small display with a super high res and I know a lot of other people would too.

The only non-widescreen panel you'll find for a reasonable price /will/ be a 14", 15" or 19" panel at 1280x1024. Anything else is pretty much specialty, and you'll pay out the ass for it. For other size/res I suggest getting used to 16:9 or 16:10 because that's all you are going to find.

Rewarding laziness

[Krakadoom]

Yeah, I shouldn't .. but seeing as I'm in a good mood, I'll inform the fatally lazy OP.

ViewSonic VX1962wm
Philips Brilliance 190BW9
ASUS VW192T+

All 19"ers that run at 1680x1050

2005 Dell Inspiron 6000, 1900 X 1200

[veeren76]

My 2005 Dell Inspirion 6000, has 15.4" lcd display with highest resolution of 1900 X 1200 (Yes more than full HD 1080p).
The display is just awesome, the laptop is still going strong....:), just changed hard disk once, and the OEM hard-disk i have put in a 3.5" external hard-disk encolsure and is working fine.

It's valid for a huge number of situations!

[Chris Burke]

Do you keep your LCD further away from you than you would a crt?

I've never had a CRT and a desk to put it on where the distance from me to the screen wasn't defined by how deep the CRT was, rather than optimal viewing distance. So yes I put my LCD further away from me than I would a ctr, because I can.

Do you put things behind your LCD?

No, I put things under and in front of my LCD in the space that would otherwise be occupied by a CRT's massive bulk. For example in my cube right now, I've got two 20" LCD monitors at a comfortable view distance with ample room in front and under for my keyboard and post its and reference books and my mp3 player and so on when a single equivalent CRT would leave room for nothing but the keyboard, much less a second monitor. In my study at home a CRT would reduce my usable desk space by 50% and push the screen much closer to my face than is comfortable. And I know this because in both cases that used to be the situation. Buying LCDs was a breath of fresh air!

If the answer to those is "no" then you could use a 100lb trinitron and you wouldn't be "killing any space" more than you would with a 5lb LCD.

I'm trying to imagine situations where the answer would be "no", since it has never been for me or anyone around me, and all I can come up with is either a big desk in the middle of your big office so the CRT's ass can hang off the end, or a desk so big that giving up the footprint for a big ass CRT is inconsequential. Bully for you if that's the case, but it isn't for most of us, either at home or at work.

The very fact that they were at all concerned with desk space enough to even bring it up means the answers aren't "no". If desk space is a concern worth even mentioning, then the bulk of a CRT is a big downside. That is a very valid argument.

If you want a decent resolution you're not really going to find it without getting a CRT or a VERY expensive LCD. The widescreen virus has infected everyone and shutdown their brains and now people think that they're better off with lower resolutions that old giant CRTs had in 1998.

I think 1600x1200 is decent, and those LCDs are quite affordable. Widescreen LCDs with commensurate resolution aren't really that expensive. CRTs do still have technological advantages, but many people are better off with an LCD because you can get something whose CRT equivalent would be ludicrously large.

Re:It's valid for a huge number of situations!

[Shadow of Eternity]

I have yet to see anyone using an LCD that didn't keep it the same distance from their face as a CRT and just have a whole lot of wasted space behind it. And how the hell does the crt's "bulk" take up FIFTY PERCENT of your usable desk space? Are you on a bookshelf or a desk? I can't think of anything smaller than my KEYBOARD ALONE that would be as cramped as you describe with a CRT but somehow magically fine with an LCD that has the same vertical and horizontal footprint.

Re:It's valid for a huge number of situations!

[Chris Burke]

I have yet to see anyone using an LCD that didn't keep it the same distance from their face as a CRT and just have a whole lot of wasted space behind it.

Meaning everyone you know either puts their monitor way too close to their face, uses tiny CRTs, or has a desk more than 4 feet deep. It would be physically impossible to place a 21" CRT so that its screen is more than a foot away from the edge of the desk in most office or home environments I've worked/lived in. Physically. Impossible. If that's cool with you and you wouldn't like to move the screen back, that's great for you. Enjoy your strained vision.

Since I don't know anyone who hasn't recovered a ton of desk space by switching to LCDs -- it is in fact one of the most often praised features -- I can't believe you can't even conceive of how its possible. I've personally experienced it, I know its true that you can, your lack of this experience is simply that. That the submitter was so concerned with conserving desk space from being used to CRTs just shows that their experience is more like mine than yours.

And how the hell does the crt's "bulk" take up FIFTY PERCENT of your usable desk space?

You're putting "bulk" in quotes? You're kidding me.

For a home office, a desk that is 4' wide by 2' deep is fairly typical. A 21" CRT, equal in viewing area to a 20" LCD, is roughly 20x20x20", and none of the space it occupies is usable desk space. Okay 400 in^2 is less than half of 1152 in^2, but it's close and a ton of desk space to give up. Replace it with a 20x20x3" LCD, and you've regained 340 square inches. If you have an LCD with a decent stand, then the space under it is still usable and you're really only losing maybe 4x2" of desk space. It's no comparison! I've had smaller work desks, and even now I have a much bigger desk, but not any deeper and it's against a wall, so, yeah, CRTs would be really really cramped. I used to have them! I know!

I can't think of anything smaller than my KEYBOARD ALONE that would be as cramped as you describe with a CRT but somehow magically fine with an LCD that has the same vertical and horizontal footprint.

Gee I think I see the problem -- you only notice two dimensions when monitors are 3D objects! If it isn't obvious how your desk could be less cramped with a device 3" deep vs one that is 20" deep then there's really no way I can help you, Mr. Flatlander. But if you can't get your mind around this magical 3rd dimension, you could just take my word for it that when I replaced my work CRT with LCDs I gained a ton of space and comfort.

Seriously, I'm glad you are happy with CRTs and don't find any personal benefit to the reduced size of LCDs. I think you're a crack baby, but hey live and let live I say. In the meantime, I and the rest of the market are going to be buying LCDs exactly because their smaller dimensions are very, very appealing.

Re:It's valid for a huge number of situations!

[Shadow of Eternity]

Seriously, I'm glad you are happy with CRTs and don't find any personal benefit to the reduced size of LCDs. I think you're a crack baby, but hey live and let live I say. In the meantime, I and the rest of the market are going to be buying LCDs exactly because their smaller dimensions are very, very appealing.

Like I told someone else: Your problem isn't your monitor, it's your desk. You may as well be blaming your keyboard when your arms start hurting from reaching up to type on it while sitting on a banana crate. Sure a change of keyboard to some random and wholly inferior technology might make a difference, especially if you're also convinced at the same time that said inferior technology is worth paying more for a lower quality device, but your technological stockholm syndrome and buyers rationalizations still don't change the facts that you had a problem because you were using a bad desk and blamed it on your monitor.

Medical LCD's

[Anonymous Coward]

I know there are much higher than normal native resolution medical displays which are LCD's.

the one and only non-sucky solution to LCD problem

[Anonymous Coward]

dont buy one. LCDs plainly suck, esp LCD compy monitors, and esp budget LCD compy monitors.

buy a cheap, used plasma and mount it on your wall. put a desk in front of it.

or, keep it on its stand and put it on a desk.

now, its no crt, but at least its not a lcd.

42" 1920x1080 plasmas can be had for $700 with some searching.

now, $700 is a lot from some $200 lcd, but youre not paying for nothing. veteran CRT users will see the money well spent.

pros: huge high res screen which reveals amazing detail within textures, black level performance, primary color accuracy, many inputs, closest replacement for a CRT

cons: big, heavy, costly (even sounds like a CRT)....umm not too portable.

buying a good plasma should see you through many years like a good CRT.

Fix your font

[duanes1967]

At that size and rez - standard fonts would be miniscule! A standard LCD with standard fonts will give similar screen real estate. Most LCD's have a VERY sharp picture at their native resolution where as a tube is not as sharp. I ran 1280x1024 on a 17 for years and had to enlarge the font a bit from standard to read everything. You should try one out at a local computer store, or Best Buy.

I couldn't give half a shit

[itomato]

about aspect ratio.

I want the 300mm area in front of my eyes to be as sharp on a $300 LCS as what I can see on an obsolete laptop.

I'm grouchy and disappointed that it's taken this long to get "high resolution" 17" wide aspect desktop displays, which can't quite compare with my secondary market IBM.

eleventy billion? care to share one under 19"? Preferably closer to 14"?

LCDs better with convergence, DVI, etc. Used deals

[bored]

First let me say, I've been stuck at sub 2kx1.5k since the early 90's when the first 21" 1900x1280 monitors became affordable. I write/test a lot of code and vertical real estate has a significant affect on my productivity. Now, I use three Samsung 204T's (PVA, 1600x1200, 20"). Two are rotated 90 degrees. My laptop is a lenovo T61p with IPS 1900x1200 15.4" monitor. The lenovo display is fantastic even if it is wide screen. What I wouldn't give to have that kind of PPI in a 24" 4:3..

How do rotated 20" LCDs compare with two large CRT's? I wouldn't go back. Its primarily two things. First, at those resolutions I would converge my monitors daily. I've never seen a monitor that could run at those resolutions that would stay converged for any length of time. Plus, depending on luck/quality a lot of larger (>19") monitors couldn't keep the edges converged when the center was. My last CRT's had controls which allowed me to converge different parts of the screen, even then, there were areas with issues. The LCD simply doesn't have that problem.

The second area is DVI, while DVI has its own issues, I've never seen it smear. This is especially important because when I rotate the monitors I really notice video card DAC, or cabling issues. I think its because I've been trained to ignore a certain amount of horizontal bleed, when it shows up vertically the picture looks terrible.

Finally, there a number of other pluses, for example, I'm sure I have less eye strain now, more desk space, etc.

In the end, I believe the current crop of LCD monitors are mass produced trash. As others have stated you can get a 24" and rotate it 90. The problem is that I haven't seen a non TN 24" panel, assuming you can even find a 24" with a rotating base, the monitors look terrible when you rotate them. I picked up another 204T a few months ago, via an authorized samsung refurbishing company, for a "used" monitor it was a ripoff, compared with a new non TN one, a fairly decent deal.

A bit bigger, but exactly what is asked about

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.barco.com/corporate/en/products/product_specs.asp?element=4682&lid=EN

Medical Reference Display, 4:3 aspect ratio, 20.1" LCD, 1600x1200 native resolution.

But don't ask how much it costs.

High Resolution Monitor

[fussyoldfart]

http://www.ecost.com/Detail/Monitors/Samsung/2343BWX/44831341.aspx?navid=155439091
Here's high resolution + portrait mode and it doesn't even cost much.

Pixel density: LCD CRT Print

[LoudMusic]

I have griped about LCD PPI density for a very long time. Dell used to ship a 15" laptop, the 8000 series, that ran 1600 x 1200 resolution.

Yes. Your mind is blown.

Why can I not get that kind of resolution on a stand alone display? Why can I not get that kind of density on a 24" wide screen display? Not only is it not available at "consumer" levels, I haven't been able to find one for medical or other insanely over priced markets.

Once upon a time I posted a slew of stats that included that display along with others and their pixels per inch breakdowns. I don't feel like finding it again. But it was a great post ;D

Look for a professional grade monitor

[freak132]

I would suggest that the poster look into professional monitors. I've noticed that consumer laptops also have low resolution displays do not compare to my old thinkpad which happens to be corporate grade. Back when I was looking for a high resolution CRT I went with a professional 19" that hit 2048x1536. In summary: look for a distributor for professional monitors instead of in the consumer stores. Professional monitors have higher resolutions in my experience, at a premium of course.

HDTV?

[muzicman]

Buy a Full 37" or larger HDTV get a graphics card with a HDMI output. Voila! Instant 1920×1080

re:

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that you want is stupid, and you're stupid for wanting it. Just buy a real monitor.