Small, hi-res LCD?

[ET]

I run my 19" CRT at 1600x1200. I love high resolutions. At some point, I'd have to switch to LCD (it's hard to find new CRTs), but unfortunately they tend to be lower resolution. Except for laptop ones, that is. I have at work a Dell Inspiron 9400 with a 17" 1920x1200 screen, which is really nice. An Inspiron E1705 with such a screen currently sells for $958 on Dell's site. That's a full (though low spec) laptop, so I'd guess that just a screen could cost sub-$600. But I can't find any. I'd love to see someone sell a 19" 1920x1200, though even Dell's 17" would be attractive.

 

[George Powell]

It is certainly something that many people would appreciate. 1280x1024 on a 19 is just a bit too low for many of us. However if you game then having a large screen with a slightly lower resolution does help a bit in so much as you don't have to spend quite so much on graphics hardware.

 

[akshayt]

Why don't you make do with a 17" 1280*1024 monitor, although it would certainly be nice to see affordable 17" 1600*1200 TFTs, but I don't think it will be easy to find one.

 

[ET]

akshayt, would you make do with a Radeon X300? Why should I go down in quality? The more desktop space the better for me. I just don't want to have to go to 23" and up for that. Especially when it's technically possible in much smaller screens, as the Dell shows.

George, I think that mid-range graphics card should be able to handle the resolution, if you don't use advanced features. I game mostly at 1600x1200 with my Radeon 9800 Pro, though sometimes I have to reduce the quality (and I don't use AA). It would also be possible to play at half resolution - 960x600, which I think would be an okay compromise if the game is really graphically demanding.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: ET
akshayt, would you make do with a Radeon X300? Why should I go down in quality? The more desktop space the better for me. I just don't want to have to go to 23" and up for that. Especially when it's technically possible in much smaller screens, as the Dell shows.

George, I think that mid-range graphics card should be able to handle the resolution, if you don't use advanced features. I game mostly at 1600x1200 with my Radeon 9800 Pro, though sometimes I have to reduce the quality (and I don't use AA). It would also be possible to play at half resolution - 960x600, which I think would be an okay compromise if the game is really graphically demanding.

higher res smaller screens also reuce the need for AA. but honestly i have never seen a 19" screen with 1920x1080 res.
ps a small screen won't give you the adnvatage of desktop space cuz everything will be smaller.

 

[ET]

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
ps a small screen won't give you the adnvatage of desktop space cuz everything will be smaller.

Huh?

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: ET

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
ps a small screen won't give you the adnvatage of desktop space cuz everything will be smaller.

Huh?

screen/gui "desktop space" vs tabletop "desktop space"

 

[ET]

Originally posted by: betasub

Originally posted by: ET

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
ps a small screen won't give you the adnvatage of desktop space cuz everything will be smaller.

Huh?

screen/gui "desktop space" vs tabletop "desktop space"

Yeah, that I got. I just didn't get what tanis meant to say by that. After all, what I want, and described here, is something that takes little "real world" desktop space, yet provides a lot of screen space.

 

[us3rnotfound]

Why can't manufacturers start coming up with 15" 1600x1200 LCDs? That would be just perfect IMHO since I'm getting used to my IBM's flexview screen. There's a LOT of screen real estate.

 

[Vallybally]

I'm hoping for a 12" 1900x1200 Ultimate Super XGA laptop so I can really give my eyes a workout!

 

[xtknight]

The capability is there, but the demand is not. The smallest dot-pitch for regular consumer LCDs is present in 20.1" and 23" widescreens with 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 resolutions. I don't believe there is anything smaller with those kind of resolutions.

 

[ET]

The question is, is the demand really not there, or is it just not recognised? True, high resolution CRTs were a niche market, and LCDs will likely be the same, but there was enough of a market. It's true that LCDs make large screens practical in a way that was less practical with CRTs, but considering the high resolution screens in some laptops, people must be interested in these kinds of resolutions in a relatively small space. I don't want my home computer to be limited to laptop standards and ergonomics, but I do want to my screen to be high resolution and not physically large. I imagine I'm not the only one.

 

[Vinnybcfc]

Try a 20" normal or wide screen as they are larger and have better pixel pitch than a 19"

 

[ET]

That's true today, but unfortunate. That's what I'm complaining about. But yes, that's likely the way I'd have to go. I hope that my CRT lasts for a long time to come (though it does occasionally show some signs of aging).