Is 1920x1200 really dead?

[Chaoticlusts]

Hey all

I currently own 2 monitors and am considering a 3rd at some point in the next year for eyefinity....problem being the two I own are 1920x1200 cause when I first bought a 24" monitor that was the standard (2006 I believe)...It seems noone is really bothering to make these anymore, I mean there's a couple around but the vast majority are 1920x1080 which makes sense since that's standard HD but it's incredibly annoying that they made 16x10 standard then went to 16x9

So my question is how screwed am I in terms of picking up a somewhat decent 24" 1920x1200 at say 1st quarter 2012?

I do realise I can technically buy a 1920x1080 one and when running eyefinity just run all 3 at that resolution (assuming my cheap secondary monitor can handle 1:1 mapping haven't actually checked..wasn't a priority when I bought it) but I'd really prefer not too if avoidable >_<

Also if anyone knows a reason behind why all this happened I am extremely curious...I found it (back when widescreen became standard) odd that monitors were 16x10 while tv's were 16x9....

*edit* just found a topic on this in the offtopic section so I apologise for making a redundant thread only checked this part of the forum for recent posts regarding this >_<

 

[Throckmorton]

Asus just released an MVA 24" 1920x1200. Better buy it while you still have the chance.

 

[Chaotic42]

Dell's U2410 is still 1920x1200. 16:9 sucks.

 

[Chaoticlusts]

Dell's U2410 is still 1920x1200. 16:9 sucks.

Why do you think 16:9 sucks out of curiosity? My problem with it is they changed standards but is there another reason you don't like it?

*edit* thanx for the product links btw though I can't buy soon just don't have the cash to justify it (moved house recently and planning a full upgrade for my system so short on cash) hense the 1st quarter 2012 sorta estimate

Oh one of the main reasons for me asking if it was dead which I forgot to put in there...is down the track I would <3 to get a 3d (and possible OLED depending on when the tech becomes mainstream) monitor....but I don't know if they'll ever be made in 16:10 (that and it's really hard to replace my main monitor....it's still worth over a grand...so I'd need to spend a lot to replace it as the primary)

 

[taltamir]

Why do you think 16:9 sucks out of curiosity? My problem with it is they changed standards but is there another reason you don't like it?

Too short, too wide.

and possible OLED depending on when the tech becomes mainstream) monitor

sony has had an 11" OLED for 3000$ for 2 years now... on april 2011 they will release 17" and 25" OLED... the 25" costs 30,000$. This is not a typo, 4 zeroes.
The 17" I forgot but it was between 15, and 20k... don't bother waiting on it

 

[Chaoticlusts]

Too short, too wide.



sony has had an 11" OLED for 3000$ for 2 years now... on april 2011 they will release 17" and 25" OLED... the 25" costs 30,000$. This is not a typo, 4 zeroes.
The 17" I forgot but it was between 15, and 20k... don't bother waiting on it

Ahh fair enough, yeah can certainly agree with that arguement...for movies obviously it doesn't matter and for games (well at least FPS's) a lot of people prefer wider for viewing angles...but I really spend the majority of my time web browsing or playing non-fps games on my main screen so the extra height is nice

as for OLED's I'm aware of the price I've been following the tech quite closely ...there will be a massive drop at some point since that's just the way tech works it happened with LCD too way back...but yeah I don't honestly see it being anything remotely affordable till at the very least 2013 (I can live in hope though ) they basically need a tech breakthrough with the blue OLEDs before we'll ever see the real tech mainstream (by real I mean not the stuff we're already seeing in mobile phones/cameras/tablets), but hey you never know....though the tragic events in Japan may have set things back a bit since some major manufacturers have had some big damage at their facilities...so depending on who (haven't looked into it that closely) may slow down progress a little while, while repairs are happening (not that that's a very important issue in comparison to the humanitarian crisis over there >_<)

*edit* btw love your fileserver I'm currently rebuilding my FreeNAS one to put in 4 extra HD's will bring it too 10.5TB if I go ZFS Raid-Z 9TB if Z2...still haven't figured out if I want double parity or not >_<

 

[rockyjohn]

The standards evolved because technology and customer usage and wants changed. The custoer drove the change.

The 16:10 standard was based more on working with desktop applications in the office - basically working with the printed word. The 16:9 standard is driven by the demand for wider vieiwing field for video. In addition, as screens get larger with higher resolution, extra width now makes it feasible to have two documents side by side - with no demeand for extra blank space at the top and bottome of documents.

Technology is just adapting to the demands of the marketplace.

Have you considered getting a 1920x1080 screen for the middle and put your two older screens on the wings?

 

[taltamir]

The standards evolved because technology and customer usage and wants changed. The custoer drove the change.

The 16:10 standard was based more on working with desktop applications in the office - basically working with the printed word. The 16:9 standard is driven by the demand for wider vieiwing field for video. In addition, as screens get larger with higher resolution, extra width now makes it feasible to have two documents side by side - with no demeand for extra blank space at the top and bottome of documents.

1920x1200 came about for all PC uses.
1920x1080 for widescreen TVs.

It is cheaper to make one LCD panel design for both then one for each. This cheapness is passed on to the consumer in the form of more competative prices. Which one do you choose? TV because:
1. It has absolutely no flexibility to tolerate different resolutions while PCs do.
2. Market for 1080p (TVs + 1080p PC Monitors) is bigger than 1920x1200 monitors.

So I wouldn't say that "technology changed to fit changing needs". The needs of PC users still mostly prioritize 1920x1200 as they did a few years ago. And its not a technology change, its an abandonment of a unique set of production lines for cost cutting in highly competitive markets. Some companies still make 1920x1200 monitors though.

 

[nitromullet]

assuming my cheap secondary monitor can handle 1:1 mapping haven't actually checked..wasn't a priority when I bought it)

Sadly, most 1920x1200 screens don't. I ran into this when I bought my last 24" screen two years ago. I owned a Dell 2407WFP at the time and it wouldn't do 1:1 which I needed to run my Xbox 360 through the dipsplay, so I went on a search for screens that did. The 2408WFP does, and so did the Eizo I ended up with, but none of the so called "Greater than full HD" LCDs at Frys and BB would display 1080p content correctly. My guess is that this is part of the reason that 1920x1080 displays have pretty much replaced 1920x1200 screens - they don't need scalers to display 1080p content.

as a side note, all the effort was for naught... The Xbox 360 has a 1680x1050 (16:10) setting that letterboxes the output to 16:9, and it looks exactly the same on an LCD as the 1920x1080 output because none of the games run at 1080p anyway.

Dell's U2410 is still 1920x1200. 16:9 sucks.

16:9 only sucks at 1920x1080. I upgraded from 24" @ 1920x1200 to 27" @ 2560x1440, and I'm actually very happy with the aspect ratio. At that resolution you get a nice wide aspect ratio for games, but you still have plenty of vertical space for productivity.

 

[Chaoticlusts]

It is cheaper to make one LCD panel design for both then one for each. This cheapness is passed on to the consumer in the form of more competative prices. Which one do you choose?

yeah that makes a lot of sense...especially given how LCD panels are manufactured..you'd get much higher yields from having a single aspect ratio as standard...just sad they started one way and changed to another

Have you considered getting a 1920x1080 screen for the middle and put your two older screens on the wings?

Yeah I've considered it...I'm just loathe to replace my primary monitor cause it's so nice but if I have the funds to afford a higher quality monitor at some point that may have to be the way to go...I'd really prefer to stay with 16x10 simply for screen real estate and productivity bonuses though (plus a little OCD in the monitors being a uniform size )

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

All 60hz monitors are dead. 120hz is the future.

 

[Chaoticlusts]

All 60hz monitors are dead. 120hz is the future.

very true but will there be *any* 16:10 120hz monitors

 

[aka1nas]

very true but will there be *any* 16:10 120hz monitors

So far no, and it's incredibly unlikely as they probably require new production lines, etc. Those companies still producing 1920x1200 panels aren't building brand spanking new factories/production lines to do so.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Probably not... but Dell might make 'em.

I have no problem playing hi-def content on my Dell 2407WFP, I just have the excessive letterboxing. That's more than made up for by the quality of the display. Give me 19x12 for any productive work any day of the week.

However, I've kinda had to make the adjustment to 1080p monitors at work - the TN panels flooded the market and you know companies always want to save a buck. I always demand to have two panels because it makes a big difference for my workflow, and of course when they cost $150 usually even the cheapest companies can't say no. I even have a 1080p on my new build.

The nice thing is, inexpensive IPS and PVA/MVA panels with better viewing angles and better color gamuts are coming out at the same price points as crap TN panels. You can get my Samsung for $150, and I have to say it takes away a lot of the arguments for buying a 19x12 given the cost differential.

I don't think 19x12 panels are dead, but they have been harder to find for awhile now. Dell is really good about supporting that form factor, for a price. Fortunately their quality is excellent for the price. Looks like prices are dropping even from them too. They're worth the premium in my experience.

 

[Morg.]

1920x1200 should've been dead a long while ago
The standardization with the TV's was inevitable but it sucks big time.
Why ?
Well .. when people had crappy TV's that would do 640*480, we had screens with 2k*1.6k.
When people got crappy TV's with 720p, we had screens with even better resolutions
And now that people have crappy TV's with 1080p, we're stuck with most monitors at a fixed resolution for years, because crappy optical media won't ever keep up, etc.

So I hate this, and the only next logical step for a PC screen would be 2160p, which would still suck but hey .. a bit less.

God bless Japan - too (they actually don't plan on stopping at 1080p for ages).

 

[james1701]

All 60hz monitors are dead. 120hz is the future.

2560x1600 FTW!

 

[five_seven]

Interesting thread. I'm in this same boat because I want to buy my first widescreen monitor, but once I stumbled across WSGF I found that a numer of the games I play, even games within the last two years, have different results between 16:9 and 16:10 such as the viewable characteristics, HUD stretching, in-game movies, etc.

My primary focus is gaming without visual anomalies, so I would think a 1920x1200 that also supports 1:1 mapping is a better route to go for supporting titles that were made for one aspect ratio or the other and not both.

Thanks for the links in the earlier posts. I'll check those out.

 

[vshin]

The standards evolved because technology and customer usage and wants changed. The custoer drove the change.

This is actually incorrect. The change from 16:10 to 16:9 is one example of a change driven by manufacturers. They didn't want to produce panels for two different aspect ratios so they flooded the PC market with inexpensive HDTV panels, which comprise the bulk of their production. Most customers were ambivalent about the issue so they simply chose the less expensive model. Both sides benefitted because it cut production costs for manufacturers while customers benefitted from lower prices. The only people that didn't benefit were PC users who preferred the taller aspect ratio.

From a purely aesthetic standpoint, the 16:10 ratio is considered more "pleasing" because it is closest to the proportions of the "golden rectangle." Artists and architects have used this proportion in their work since the Renaissance. From a contemporary standpoint, the 16:10 ratio also allows users to place two standard documents side-by-side in a clean fashion. Most people don't really notice the difference at first but some will sense a subtle difference after time. Perhaps the most common way to notice this difference is when people get a multi-monitor setup and realize that they look better with 16:10 panels compared to 16:9 or 4:3 panels.

In contrast, the 16:9 ratio was a compromise between various widescreen ratios in cinema so that a standard panel could be produced for high definition television. It still doesn't perfectly display movies today as you will notice that the letterboxing continues to vary in width from movie to movie. The main benefit with 16:9 is that it will have slightly thinner letterboxing than 16:10. But at 1920x1200 resolution, the 16:10 monitor will still display every pixel in a standard 1080p HD movie.

 

[five_seven]

I'm having some problems trying to find that ASUS MVA 24" 1920x1200 Throckmorton was talking about. The models I've checked so far (not all) at ASUS are all 1080 res. Anyone have a link?

 

[Concillian]

16:9 only sucks at 1920x1080. I upgraded from 24" @ 1920x1200 to 27" @ 2560x1440, and I'm actually very happy with the aspect ratio. At that resolution you get a nice wide aspect ratio for games, but you still have plenty of vertical space for productivity.

I'm pretty convinced my next monitor will be 2560x1440. $900ish is a tough pill to swallow, maybe they'll soon come out with some PVA or e-IPS 2560x1440 panels. Either that or it'll be a while to save up enough for a U2711.

Every time I see an announcement for a new 25-28" LCD I get a little excited, then see it's 1920x1080... then I ask WHY? Who wants pixels the size of Texas? I'm older and have coke bottle glasses, I can't see for crap and still love my work laptop's 15" 1920x1200 display. Yes, 15" 1920x1200. Pixels are nice and small. Gimme tiny pixels damn it.

I hate people! They drive the market to stupid directions because they buy into hype. For cameras they buy into the "moar pixels is bettar!" garbage, then on monitors they buy into pixels don't matter, just buy HUGE. People are so dumb. They complain they can't see fonts right with small pixel pitch... uhh... use higher dpi fonts and they loot WAY better. But they're clueless, so the market continues to move in a direction that doesn't make sense.

 

[amenx]

I'm in the same quandry. I have a 19x12 monitor and am despondent at my choices if and when I need to replace it. I guess 2560x1440 will have to be my next choice as well. Cant ever see going to 1080 which is too close to the 1050 I used to have a few years ago.

 

[bryanW1995]

you forgot the /rant part.

I'm curious about 2560x1440, but tiny pixel sizes bug me when doing productivity work. I'm at 1920x1080 with a 21.6" asus on my office computer, and I end up either getting eyestrain or increasing res by ~ 25&#37; or so in office/internet/etc.

 

[senseamp]

1920x1200 is perfect display resolution, IMO.
I have it on my 24 inch monitor and on my 15 inch laptop, it's awesome for both.
1080p is OK for television, I guess.

 

[wanderer27]

I'm having some problems trying to find that ASUS MVA 24" 1920x1200 Throckmorton was talking about. The models I've checked so far (not all) at ASUS are all 1080 res. Anyone have a link?

Here's a list of some readily available 1920 x 1200 Monitors:

http://computers.pricegrabber.com/f...s/p/37/st=sort/popup40[]=10:301/sortby=priceA


.

 

[five_seven]

Stupid Websense (I'm at work)! I'll check that when I get home, thanks!