Small, High-Resolution LCD Monitors? 370
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?"
Killing desk space? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most people work 8 hours a day on monitors <20"
Re:Killing desk space? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe that's why they need glasses....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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, b
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [megamounts.com.au]
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [dell.com]
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.
Mod Parent Up! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
check newegg (Score:4, Insightful)
seriuosly. that power search link on the right hand side of their site isn't there for nothing.
Or maybe google? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
One thing I hate (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 applica
Re:One thing I hate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a few. [newegg.com]
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
LCDs might waste less space around the screen (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 [asus.com] 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 d
LCDs don't take that much desk space. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
20" 1600x1200 NEC S-IPS [amazon.com]
The smallest 1900x1200 LCD is a 22" Lenovo L220x [buy.com], AFAIK.
ViewSonic is Great for this. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The panels are in laptops, but not desktops. (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I have a Lenovo W500 with a 15.4" 1920x1200 so they are still in production.
Ever heard of Newegg? TigerDirect? Google? (Score:2)
I located three 17" widescreen monitors in a couple of clicks on Newegg.com.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see a single 17" that does better than 1280x1024. The 19" top out at 1280x1024 or the vertically similar 1680x1050.
LCDs don't use any desk space. (Score:2)
Less space in which dimension? (Score:2)
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.
Maybe a Projector? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Buy a replacement laptop screen and mod it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
moar forums (Score:2)
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.
Aim Big (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Pixel density. (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right. I should have clarified that I'm only talking about free-standing monitors.
You can get a decent 20" widescreen display. (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [veritasetvisus.com] 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 [wikipedia.org]
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.
ThinkPad X61T (and other fantastic ThinkPads) (Score:3, Interesting)
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 compu
Your whole argument is invalid (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I read the "answers", now I feel for you.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Samsung 2342BWX: LCD Monitor with 2048 x 1152 (Score:2)
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 [displayblog.com]
Drop down to 72Hz (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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 rep
Just get a larger monitor and push it far away (Score:2)
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 [apple.com] If you're at least 27 years old, it's really worth going to a larger monitor and pushing it as far away as p
Free Desk Space (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like every other 19" wide screen, from the sound of it though the OP wants a 19" 4:3 ratio screen.
Re:Syncmaster (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.superwarehouse.com/ASUS_VW192T+_19_Widescreen_LCD_Monitor/VW192T+/ps/1562122 [superwarehouse.com]
ViewSonic VX1940w 19", 1680 x 1050, $150
http://www.superwarehouse.com/ViewSonic_VX1940w_19_Widescreen_LCD_Monitor/VX1940W/ps/1504859 [superwarehouse.com]
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 [superwarehouse.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.superwarehouse.com/EIZO_RadiForce_R31-BK_20.1_Black_LCD_Monitor/R31-BK/p/1503373 [superwarehouse.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:Syncmaster (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 h
Re:Syncmaster (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
> 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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Syncmaster (Score:5, Insightful)
Very first link is a KDS K-726MWB 17 inch WIDE SCREEN LCD 1400 X 1050 0.291MM 500:1 8ms (Black) [eworldsale.com] 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: (Score:3, Informative)
... and that is 1280x800 display.
Hint: Widescreen 1400x1050 means non-square pixels
The description shows the physical resolution as Optimum Resolution.
FAIL.
Some idiot will mod this off-topic, but .... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:HD Capable (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not get a TV? Tesco in the UK do 1920x1080 TVs around 20.1 inches.
Re: (Score:2)
There are loads of 22" LCDs with 1920x1080. How about this: Link [benq.com].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
I have a Lenovo L220x, which is a 1920x1200 22" PVA. They seem to have discontinued it, though, unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 [newegg.com], but no free shipping. Shop around, YMMV.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
I have no affiliation with either company.
Re:HD Capable (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not increase your DPI, so you still have a sharp image with big letters?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sadly... (Score:5, Informative)
Before buying any LCD, you need to read this first: Desperately Seeking Quality LCDs [anandtech.com].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [behardware.com].
The goggle (Score:5, Funny)
It does nothing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
or to put it another way: just fucking google it [justfuckinggoogleit.com]! :)
(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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 [eworldsale.com]
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: (Score:2)
(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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can get 18.5" monitors that run at 1366x768, like the Acer X183H.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Windows Users (Score:3, Insightful)
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.