Monitor Question - I dont understand

[bigbeef2604]

24" seems to be the smallest Desktop monitor that you can get 1920 x 1200 resolution.. However, I've recently seen laptop computers with 17" monitors with 1920 x 1200 resolution. What gives?
Also, this is no new thing apparently. A friend has a 3 yr old computer with 1920 x 1200 resolution. Is there any way to get a smaller than 24" monitor for cheap with 1920 x 1200 resolution?

 

[spaztic7]

why go smaller?

 

[bigbeef2604]

I might want smaller, but really that's not the issue. I just want to know Why these arent offered in 22" size or even 19" for desktops if they are for laptops..? I'm always up for higher resolution on smaller monitors. Many people (although I disagree mostly) say 24" is too large to see for FPS games.

 

[elpresidente2075]

Is there any way to get a smaller than 24" monitor for cheap with 1920 x 1200 resolution?

Nope. You could rip one out of a laptop, but i dunno how well that'd work. If you want that res, just get the larger monitor, it'll be easier on your eyes.

 

[Andrius]

The 1920x1200 on a 17" laptop screen are a pain!
For office work the letters are way to tiny. It's hard to read in daylight
(in a dark environment it's easier but still a strain on the eyes).
If you work with graphics it's a dream as you get excellent DPI (desktop publising or printable graphics preview).

The main reason why they are not offered is market demmand (I've read an article some time ago, where the author states that market demand for high resolution 19" panels was very low).
Most panels are still sold in the 19" 1280x1024 segment and the point there is low price.

As for ripping one out of a laptop, that's a bad idea as they use a different connection (LVDS instead of DVI)
to transfer the data.

I own two 24" Samsung screens (244T and 245B) and they are perfect for programming and movies in HD (I don't play frame rate intensive (FPS) games so I can't comment on ghosting, but for HD movies the motion is smooth as silk).

 

[nachowarrior]

in my personal opinion, unless you really have some high end hardware. i'd just go with the highest res 22 inch... the 24 inch screens are around double the price for 2 more measeley inches w hich they usually take half inch or more away with the plastic casing around the screen. i it makes you feel any better i've got an 8 foot dpl projector screen that runs up to 1024x768 native.... it's awesome for movies and games... i mean, i really don't notice the super high resolutions when i'm playing anyway... specially fast games... maybe something like myst that's slow and requries me to think... but then i'd be destracted by the hotness of it anyway.... so i think you should just get a 22 inch and donate like 10 bucks to me (rather than throwing 200 bucks down on a monitor size that you can buy for 200 bucks with that res in a year anyway) and i'll put it toward my 22 inch acer

 

[Andrius]

From my personal experience the 200 EUR for the "2 extra inches" are well worth it
(the 1650x1050 vs 1920x1200 resolution increase alone).
Side by side 100% two A4 pages in acrobat and office, visual studio code editor and high definition movies at native resolution.

... i'd just go with the highest res 22 inch... the 24 inch screens are around double the price for 2 more measeley inches w hich they usually take half inch or more away with the plastic casing around the screen...

The same half inch would be missing from a 22" screen as well (if they were CRTs).
But with LCD panels the size in inches means actual size of the display area (corner to corner).

Buying a new screen every year is a waste of money (unless it has defects).
A good screen lasts say 3-5 years.
But in the end, they are your eyes and you have to take care of them yourself.

 

[stromm]

Man, some people just don't know what they're talking about.

I've had a 24" Dell LCD for two years. I play lots of games. 24" is great for games. Especially if you have enough GPU power to run at 1920x1200 and the game supports it.

Even if you don't have that much power, running at 1280x720 looks great on these panels.

1920x1200 on a 17" screen sucks. I'd even say it would on a 19". The main reason you don't see small 1920s is manufacturing cost. It's that simple.

To make a 1920x1200x19" panel would mean smaller pixel sizes which means higher production costs. If you notice, smaller monitors have less pixels because the pixels are the same size, therefore less fit in the smaller screen area.

BTW: You can get 24" 1920 screens for about $500 if you look around on the net. Brand new too, not refurbs or used.

 

[bigbeef2604]

stromm, I see what you're saying but that doesn't explain why laptops have the 17" 1920 x 1200 displays. Why do they splurge on manufacturing costs on laptops and not desktop displays?
Also, all pixels are not the same size - unlike what you stated above.

I'm just wondering why (even for a higher price) 22" monitors aren't offered at 1920 x 1200 resolutions.. or 19" even.

 

[Andrius]

Pixel pitch is not the main reason. But it would be a good one none the less.
As I said above the 17" 1920x1200 is pain for office work. CAD, graphics, publishing are better uses for it, but I wouldn't sell my desktop 24" screen for that either.

A 17" or 19" desktop 1920x1200 screen would not be cheaper to make than a 24". A 17" notebook panel with 1650x1050 is about $100 cheaper (HP) than a 1920x1200. The smaller yields of large panels is why they are more expensive.

The main reason why there were no smaller 1920x1200 screens in the past was a lack of wide market interest.
This may soon change.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/09/18/lenovo_hits_the_spot_with_22_wuxga_display/1


There are professional high priced LCDs with larger resolutions available, but they are not suited for gaming.