Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1600x1200 17" LCD. Why not?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2005 4:09:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

My wish for a long while has been to get a 17"-19" LCD that has a
native resolution of 1600x1200, and I keep wondering why no
manufacturer address this market of high res screens and force us to go
to 20" + screens.
Dell for exemple sells a (wide) 1920*1200 17" LCD screen built into its
high end laptop (Inspiron 9300). Why can't their manufacturer put that
same LCD into a separate monitor ?

More about : 1600x1200 lcd

Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2005 11:17:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On 10 Mar 2005 01:09:55 -0800, zeneos@gmail.com wrote:

>My wish for a long while has been to get a 17"-19" LCD that has a
>native resolution of 1600x1200,

You got bionic eyes or what?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2005 12:56:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

zeneos@gmail.com wrote:

>My wish for a long while has been to get a 17"-19" LCD that has a
>native resolution of 1600x1200, and I keep wondering why no
>manufacturer address this market of high res screens and force us to go
>to 20" + screens.
>Dell for exemple sells a (wide) 1920*1200 17" LCD screen built into its
>high end laptop (Inspiron 9300). Why can't their manufacturer put that
>same LCD into a separate monitor ?

Because only a few nutcase geeks really want a 1600x1200 monitor
that's so small. Bigger is better, unless it's a laptop, where you
must make it small.

To have the same, comfortable pixel-density of 1024x768, 15" monitor,
a 1600x1200 monitor needs a diagonal of 23.4". Personally, I don't
understand the desire to "upgrade" to a larger screen, if it means
that everything displayed is smaller and harder to see - that's a
downgrade, to me.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2005 6:56:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On 10 Mar 2005 01:09:55 -0800, zeneos@gmail.com wrote:

> My wish for a long while has been to get a 17"-19" LCD that has a
> native resolution of 1600x1200, and I keep wondering why no
> manufacturer address this market of high res screens and force us to go
> to 20" + screens.

Glad to know I am not alone. However, I believe we are in the minority.

At work I have a laptop with a 15" screen at 1600x1200 native resolution.
With my face 2 feet away I can see everything very clearly and I love all
the screen real-estate. I wear glasses (no "bionic vision" here). Sometimes
I wear contacts and then I cannot see as clearly, but I think that is
because the contacts do not completely correct for my astigmatism.

All of my colleagues complain when I try to show them something on my
screen. Their comments range from "That's really small text" to "How do you
f***ing expect me to read that?!". But if they sit a little closer instead
of standing behind me, most of them manage OK.

> Dell for exemple sells a (wide) 1920*1200 17" LCD screen built into its
> high end laptop (Inspiron 9300). Why can't their manufacturer put that
> same LCD into a separate monitor ?

I have a Dell 2001FP at home -- it's a 20" LCD at 1600x1200 native pixels. I
have to sit quite far away from it to minimize the "screen door" effect.
This is what you get when you can see the black gaps between the pixels.
Apparently, instead of making the pixels bigger to fill up the space on the
screen, they just space them further apart.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2005 7:16:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

The method of manufacturing used by ALL companies to produce LCD computer
monitors prevents 17" and 19" LCD monitors from being anything other than
1280 x 1024. This is mostly for a reason of economics, and consumer demand.

--
DaveW



<zeneos@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110445795.196217.50460@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> My wish for a long while has been to get a 17"-19" LCD that has a
> native resolution of 1600x1200, and I keep wondering why no
> manufacturer address this market of high res screens and force us to go
> to 20" + screens.
> Dell for exemple sells a (wide) 1920*1200 17" LCD screen built into its
> high end laptop (Inspiron 9300). Why can't their manufacturer put that
> same LCD into a separate monitor ?
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 10, 2005 10:38:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

DaveW wrote:

> The method of manufacturing used by ALL companies to produce LCD computer
> monitors prevents 17" and 19" LCD monitors from being anything other than
> 1280 x 1024. This is mostly for a reason of economics, and consumer
> demand.

Yeah, right and the Radeon 9500 doesn't support DirectX 9 either. Don't you
ever get tired of being wrong?

It has nothing to do with "the method of manufacturing"--17" 1600x1200
panels are readily available. It's just that nobody is putting them in a
frame with a stand and a VGA or DVI input, instead they're putting them all
in laptops.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
March 11, 2005 12:59:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

zeneos@gmail.com wrote:
> Dell for exemple sells a (wide) 1920*1200 17" LCD screen built into its
> high end laptop (Inspiron 9300). Why can't their manufacturer put that
> same LCD into a separate monitor ?

There were a few 1600x1200 19" LCDs, but they were not popular in this part of
the world. The problem is that, given the same resolution, it is generally
cheaper to make a bigger panel due to the lower density of the transistors.

Since most customer would not pay more for a 17" 1600x1200 LCD than a 21"
1600x1200 LCD, there is little demand for them. Only in the case for notebook,
where the size of the machine increase with the size of the LCD, then customers
are willing to pay more for a small but high resolution screen.

STC.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 11, 2005 4:15:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

I think this is probably the best reason, if indeed it's more expensive
to manufacture a 17" 1600x1200 than a 20" 1600x1200 then there is only
a niche market for it.
If however these was sufficient demand & volume then they could
probably bring those mftg costs down I guess. I agree that the mass
market will not want such 'dense' screens but even if it was 20% of the
17" LCD market that would already be huge, and I'm sure a manufacturer
would be able to get return on their investments. Especially
considering that the screens already exist. Dell's 9300 brand new
laptop for example has a 17" 1920*1200 screen for a total laptop price
of under $1300, what fraction of that is represented by the screen? It
has to be just a few hundred grand, not much more...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 11, 2005 11:03:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Eldorage wrote:

>On 10 Mar 2005 01:09:55 -0800, zeneos@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> My wish for a long while has been to get a 17"-19" LCD that has a
>> native resolution of 1600x1200, and I keep wondering why no
>> manufacturer address this market of high res screens and force us to go
>> to 20" + screens.
>
>Glad to know I am not alone. However, I believe we are in the minority.
>
>At work I have a laptop with a 15" screen at 1600x1200 native resolution.
>With my face 2 feet away I can see everything very clearly and I love all
>the screen real-estate. I wear glasses (no "bionic vision" here).

People with glasses usually see better than people without glasses.
Think about it.

>I have a Dell 2001FP at home -- it's a 20" LCD at 1600x1200 native pixels. I
>have to sit quite far away from it to minimize the "screen door" effect.

Yeah, sure you do.

>This is what you get when you can see the black gaps between the pixels.
>Apparently, instead of making the pixels bigger to fill up the space on the
>screen, they just space them further apart.

Wrong, obviously. "Space them further apart" compared to what?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 11, 2005 11:07:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

zeneos@gmail.com wrote:

>I think this is probably the best reason, if indeed it's more expensive
>to manufacture a 17" 1600x1200 than a 20" 1600x1200 then there is only
>a niche market for it.

I highly doubt that's the case. It's certainly cheaper and easier to
make small panels than it is to make large panels. This would offset
the alleged cost increase, if any, due to increased pixel density.
These are still large structures, from a semiconductor-processing
point of view.
March 13, 2005 9:52:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:56:42 -0600, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>zeneos@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>My wish for a long while has been to get a 17"-19" LCD that has a
>>native resolution of 1600x1200, and I keep wondering why no
>>manufacturer address this market of high res screens and force us to go
>>to 20" + screens.
>>Dell for exemple sells a (wide) 1920*1200 17" LCD screen built into its
>>high end laptop (Inspiron 9300). Why can't their manufacturer put that
>>same LCD into a separate monitor ?
>
>Because only a few nutcase geeks really want a 1600x1200 monitor
>that's so small. Bigger is better, unless it's a laptop, where you
>must make it small.
>
>To have the same, comfortable pixel-density of 1024x768, 15" monitor,
>a 1600x1200 monitor needs a diagonal of 23.4". Personally, I don't
>understand the desire to "upgrade" to a larger screen, if it means
>that everything displayed is smaller and harder to see - that's a
>downgrade, to me.

Amen !! I use a 19" Samsung CRT as my primary monitor - 1280 * 960.
Just bought a 19 " Samsung LCD - 915N. At 1280 * 1024 (they suggest),
the fonts / pixels are small enough.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2005 6:34:08 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> :
>zeneos@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>My wish for a long while has been to get a 17"-19" LCD that has a
>>native resolution of 1600x1200, and I keep wondering why no
>>manufacturer address this market of high res screens and force us to go
>>to 20" + screens.
>>Dell for exemple sells a (wide) 1920*1200 17" LCD screen built into its
>>high end laptop (Inspiron 9300). Why can't their manufacturer put that
>>same LCD into a separate monitor ?
>
>Because only a few nutcase geeks really want a 1600x1200 monitor
>that's so small. Bigger is better, unless it's a laptop, where you
>must make it small.
>
Guess I'm a nutcase geek too.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 28, 2005 9:06:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> Anonymouswrote:
My wish for a long while has been to get a 17"-19" LCD that has a
> native resolution of 1600x1200, and I keep wondering why no
> manufacturer address this market of high res screens and force us to
go
> to 20" + screens.
> Dell for exemple sells a (wide) 1920*1200 17" LCD screen built into
its
> high end laptop (Inspiron 9300). Why can't their manufacturer put
that
> same LCD into a separate monitor ?

Yeah, beats me. Dell is the only brand that supports people with 20/20
vision (they offer 15.4" displays with 1920x1200 on some laptops), the
rest seem to cater to the visually impaired.

The most laughable of the lot is Apple. Their 17" powerbook only has
1440x900!! What a senseless waste of screen real estate... :shock:
Maybe they're afraid of upsetting their almighty leader Steve Jobs,
he wears glasses, so...

Anything below 1600 horizontal goes straight in the garbage bin in my
book. I've used 1600x1200 ever since mainstream PCs were able to
handle it (i.e. circa 1995), usually on 19" CRT screens that weren't
afflicted by the native resolution curse of LCD. Now I have a desktop
with 3200x1200 (2x20", alas, would've preferred 2x19") and a 15.4"
laptop with 1680x1050. I'm getting a 15.4" with 1920x1200 as soon as
I can afford retiring my current one. Does it strain my eyes? No, I
can work 14 hour days in front of such a screen without problems.
Does it give me a headache? No, never.

So WHY THE HELL ISN'T IT A STANDARD? Because visual impairment is the
norm. Only 33% have 20/20 vision. Ergo, screens have to be
accomodated for the disabled 66% of the population. For a minute
there I thought they wore corrective glasses that restored their
vision to normal... but I guess not. Maybe they're just like old
geezers who refuse to wear their hearing aid out of pure spite.

Why do I want the highest resolution possible? Because I want to focus
on getting things done, not on scrolling, resizing and learning
umpteen key commands to toggle tool panels on and off. If I can't
have all the required tools available on screen simultaneously,
there's something seriously wrong with my work setup. Why would I
have my clients pay me for 30% more work hours because I choose to do
the work through some crippling 1024x768 or 1280x1024 peephole? Would
you hire a car mechanic who insists on working with tweezers instead
of proper tools?

17" displays should have been 1600x1200 all along. That way people
with poor vision could run them at 800x600 without aliasing. But
explain that to the semi-blind people who make monitors for their
semi-blind peers... Manufacturing of 1024x768 displays should be
punishable by death (unless we're talking PocketPC displays of
course).
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 28, 2005 9:06:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> chrisvwrote:
zeneos@gmail.com wrote:
> Because only a few nutcase geeks really want a 1600x1200 monitor
> that's so small. Bigger is better, unless it's a laptop, where you
> must make it small.
>

Right... so having 20/20 vision officially makes you a "nutcase geek"
now?

The problem with a 20" screen is that it's BIG. When something is BIG
it's hard to use it at extreme close range. This is why people
usually don't sit 3 feet away from a 32" TV. This is why people don't
want first row tickets at the cinema. They have to rotate their heads
to take everything in, like a darn tennis game audience.

I need 3200x1200 and for this I had to get two 20" monitors. The whole
setup is so damn large I can't take it all in from a single position,
I have to look around. If it were any bigger I'd have to get in a car
and drive to the right edge of the screen to see what's going on over
there.

Of course I could place the screens on a table six feet away from my
workdesk - not a problem since I can see every frickin' pixel just
fine from about 20 feet away - but logistically it's a bit
ridiculous. If these were 17" screens I would get a better overview
without losing visibility.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 28, 2005 1:03:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

pixelpolice wrote:

>> chrisvwrote:
>zeneos@gmail.com wrote:
>> Because only a few nutcase geeks really want a 1600x1200 monitor
>> that's so small. Bigger is better, unless it's a laptop, where you
>> must make it small.
>>
>
>Right... so having 20/20 vision officially makes you a "nutcase geek"
>now?

No, wanting to compute with your nose 6" from the screen makes you a
nutcase geek.

>The problem with a 20" screen is that it's BIG. When something is BIG
>it's hard to use it at extreme close range.

Get your nose off the screen. You'll have fewer problems with
nose-oil on the screen.

>This is why people
>usually don't sit 3 feet away from a 32" TV.

TV's typically have much lower resolution than computer monitors do,
and are typically much larger as well.

BTW, sitting 3 feet away from a 32" HDTV running 1920x1080i would be
quite comfortable, for most.

>This is why people don't
>want first row tickets at the cinema. They have to rotate their heads
>to take everything in, like a darn tennis game audience.

Another bad analogy.

>I need 3200x1200 and for this I had to get two 20" monitors. The whole
>setup is so damn large I can't take it all in from a single position,
>I have to look around. If it were any bigger I'd have to get in a car
>and drive to the right edge of the screen to see what's going on over
>there.
>
>Of course I could place the screens on a table six feet away from my
>workdesk - not a problem since I can see every frickin' pixel just
>fine from about 20 feet away

No, you can't.

>- but logistically it's a bit
>ridiculous. If these were 17" screens I would get a better overview
>without losing visibility.

Thank you for presenting the nutcase geek perspective.
!