Why so few 1920x1200 displays?

[jimbob200521]

I keep looking around for a new display that runs 1900x1200 as my 23" HP (again, running 1920x1200) is aging but it seems that 99% of the displays I see go on sale are all 1920x1080. Hell, at this point I may just wait for a 4k monitor to go on sale and just go that route. Any thoughts guys or possible deals I may be missing? In the coming age of 4k monitors, why is 1920x1080 still so darn popular over 1920x1200? I would figure people would want all the resolution they could get there hands on.

Edit: And now that I think about it, most ultrawides I see are 2560 by, you guessed it, 1080! I know that extra 120 pixels of vertical screen isn't a huge deal but it just confuses me why most don't spring for it. And also, I see screen size keep going up; I see a lot of 27"+ desktop monitors still running plain ol' 1920x1080. Those pixels have to be huge!

 

[Spicedaddy]

Yeah, not much choice. I just ordered some HP E242 for a client, they're 1920x1200 IPS 24".

Even 2560x1440 monitors don't make much sense these days when you can get 4K for cheaper.

 

[brandonmatic]

I keep looking around for a new display that runs 1900x1200 as my 23" HP (again, running 1920x1200) is aging but it seems that 99% of the displays I see go on sale are all 1920x1080. Hell, at this point I may just wait for a 4k monitor to go on sale and just go that route. Any thoughts guys or possible deals I may be missing? In the coming age of 4k monitors, why is 1920x1080 still so darn popular over 1920x1200? I would figure people would want all the resolution they could get there hands on.

Edit: And now that I think about it, most ultrawides I see are 2560 by, you guessed it, 1080! I know that extra 120 pixels of vertical screen isn't a huge deal but it just confuses me why most don't spring for it. And also, I see screen size keep going up; I see a lot of 27"+ desktop monitors still running plain ol' 1920x1080. Those pixels have to be huge!

That's me! Used to have 27" 1920x1080 and now have 34" 2560x1080 Freesync display. Although I agree it's not great for text, it's pretty great for gaming - I really love the ultrawide format. Although 3440x1440 would be better, I don't have the GPU horsepower to run it. My eyesight is also mediocre, so it would be a matter of diminishing returns. Plus Windows 7 scales horribly to higher DPI screens.

 

[amenx]

Yeah, not much choice. I just ordered some HP E242 for a client, they're 1920x1200 IPS 24".

Even 2560x1440 monitors don't make much sense these days when you can get 4K for cheaper.

Oh please...

 

[Spicedaddy]

Oh please...

Please what? Besides gamers that want higher refresh rates, why would anybody get a 2560x1440 monitor when you can get an LG 27UD68 3840x2160 for under 500$.

27" 1440p should've dropped in price to slot in between 1080p and 4k.

 

[Layer8]

Please what? Besides gamers that want higher refresh rates, why would anybody get a 2560x1440 monitor when you can get an LG 27UD68 3840x2160 for under 500$.

27" 1440p should've dropped in price to slot in between 1080p and 4k.

I know, I just bought a LG 27UD68P-B and I am running it now @ 2560x1440. Even at that it is looking far better than my 1920x1200.
You will have to spend nearly the same amount for a WQHD with a similar IQ.

Disclaimer: Will switch to 4k when I get hold of an AIB RX 480.

 

[Sheep221]

I absolutely love 1920x1200(less frequently also called 1200P), I was little late to this bandwagon because I got screen with this res just a year ago(before I was rocking 1680x1050). I don't plan to move to 1440P or 4K anytime soon, I will even probably skip the entire 4K thing altogether.

 

[tynopik]

always wanted a 2560x1600 monitor

 

[ZGR]

It is too bad 16:10 isn't in high demand. I prefer it as a general aspect ratio for games, productivity, and web browsing. I'm someone who doesn't mind black bars when watching a movie or tv show that is in 16:9.

4k and 8k are great simply because of all the real estate on screen. It is a multitasker's dream. I would absolutely prefer a 3840x2400 display over 3840x2160 though.

IBM was quite ahead of its time with this beauty: https://www.amazon.com/IBM-T221-22-2-3840x2400-Monitor/dp/B00006HS5R

If 3840x2400 at 1:1 scale is too small, 1920x1200 in HiDPI mode will look fantastic.
5120x2880 is available now, and 5120x3200 will be in 2-4 years hopefully.

Why has nobody made a new 3840x2400 monitor yet? The last one produced was in 2005... D:

 

[postmortemIA]

Get 32" 1440p display. It has same pixel density as 24" 1200p and moar horizontal and vertical pixels... win-win... this is where 16:9 is tolerable

 

[jimbob200521]

All good comments here and I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling this frustration. I just want a newer 1920x1200 HP monitor from years and years ago. Failing that, I would love a reasonably priced higher res monitor. I just don't want to drop down to 1080p as I'd be losing screen real estate. It seems for those extra 120 pixels of vertical real estate you end up paying $50-$100 more. Bums me out.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I find resolutions have greatly stagnated, I would love to see upgrade paths too. Unlike TVs, when it comes to computer monitors the more pixels the better as it means more work area.

It seems we've been stuck at 1920x1080 for so long now. The higher ones like 4k are way too expensive to be considered standard. not sure why it has to be so expensive when even phones have higher resolutions now.

 

[Puffnstuff]

For over 5 years I ran a 27" dell 1920x1200 ultrasharp display up until January of this year when I replaced it with a HP Envy 34c 3440x1440 curved monitor and I don't regret it one bit. The 16:10 format was very good providing excellent vertical screen height but I've adjusted to this 21:9 just fine and love having 3 documents side by side now. This is especially useful when taking a test so I can have a textbook and notes paralleling it.

 

[Makaveli]

Please what? Besides gamers that want higher refresh rates, why would anybody get a 2560x1440 monitor when you can get an LG 27UD68 3840x2160 for under 500$.

27" 1440p should've dropped in price to slot in between 1080p and 4k.

I would take a 27 1440p over a 27 4k screen for one reason.

a 27' is too small for 4k.

The text is going to be tiny I hope you have the eye sight of a 16 year old.

 

[Sheep221]

I would take a 27 1440p over a 27 4k screen for one reason.

a 27' is too small for 4k.

The text is going to be tiny I hope you have the eye sight of a 16 year old.

I am 26 and my eyesight is much better than 10 years ago. If you do notice on yourself problems with eyesight, might be good to visit a doctor.

 

[harobikes333]

Sheep,
I'm going to have to disagree with you... typically people's vision does NOTE improve with time... it gets worse. Annual eye doctor visits are a must though IMO

 

[guachi]

1920x1200 is an awesome resolution (or 2560x1600). It doesn't seem like much, but 16:10 is much, much better than 16:9.

Though I think ultrawides are the way to go. 21:9 is great for gaming and great for productivity (IMO). Divide the screen in half vertically and you have 10.5:9. That's almost equal to 11x8.5 like a sheet of paper is.

If anyone actually wants a 1920x1200 monitor I have 3 quality HP ZR24Ws for sale for $150 each.

 

[alcoholbob]

Sheep,
I'm going to have to disagree with you... typically people's vision does NOTE improve with time... it gets worse. Annual eye doctor visits are a must though IMO

If you have astigmatism sometimes it changes and your vision improves because of it, but you still have terrible eyesight

 

[eddman]

Please what? Besides gamers that want higher refresh rates, why would anybody get a 2560x1440 monitor when you can get an LG 27UD68 3840x2160 for under 500$.

27" 1440p should've dropped in price to slot in between 1080p and 4k.

I don't know about non-gamers, but as someone who plays games, the higher you go with the resolution, the more powerful your graphics card needs to be to maintain a good framerate.

I'm not going to upgrade from 1920 x 1080 for a while because I cannot afford anything above 1060/480.

 

[Makaveli]

Sheep,
I'm going to have to disagree with you... typically people's vision does NOTE improve with time... it gets worse. Annual eye doctor visits are a must though IMO

^^Facts!

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

I'm running 3x HP ZR2440Ws at work, and a ton of Dell U2412Ms at home.
Great IPS panels and been very happy with them!

Work :

 

[Sheep221]

Sheep,
I'm going to have to disagree with you... typically people's vision does NOTE improve with time... it gets worse. Annual eye doctor visits are a must though IMO

I had eye surgery when I was 4, and had dioptric glasses since, funny thing is, my first glasses were -4 diopters, now I have -1.5.
I am aware that eyesight does worsen over a time, but it should NOT become apparent if you are 20-something.

 

[BogdanH]

I can read quite often that 1920x1080 monitors are preferred for watching HD (1080p) movies -so no black bars appear. But.. most movies are in wide format (say 2.35:1) and thus, black bars appear anyway. So I think, deciding for 16:9 monitor because of that, is kinda weak reason.
Not long ago I've bough 16:10 Dell U2415 (replacing Dell 2209WA -also 16:10) and I'm very happy with my decision.

 

[Zodiark1593]

If you have astigmatism sometimes it changes and your vision improves because of it, but you still have terrible eyesight

I have mild astigmatism myself, though my long range eyesight changes so little, I can squeeze half decades and longer out of my lenses with no problems. Close range (2-3 inches close) has changed notably, but as I rarely look at things so close, again no issue.

For monitors, I'd probably just bite the bullet and go 4K. Even though you'd inevitably have to run lower resolutions for gaming, you can minimize quality hit by using a lower resolution of the same aspect ratio, (and run native for older games) and you get far more real estate for your other tasks. As a final bonus, when you do upgrade your GPU, you've plenty of pixels for said GPU to stretch.

 

[Mike64]

I am aware that eyesight does worsen over a time, but it should NOT become apparent if you are 20-something.

I can't swear that this is statistical/medical fact (though I think it is), but certainly in in my experience (and that of family members, etc), if you need corrective lens to begin with, eyesight does actually change noticeably (for the worse) year to year until about one's early-mid 30s, when it more or less stabilizes, at least until presbyopia starts to set in in one's mid-late 40s at which point, if one is far-sighted, vision might actually improve slightly, and if near-sighted, it'll probably be time for bifocals...

But, while I used to get them out of habit, I'll disagree about annual exams being (medically) "important" unless one has a condition, or a family history of a condition, that really warrants close observation. Otherwise, one might as well just wait until the need for new glasses becomes apparent - and obviously it will. It's not like a weaker-than-necessary prescription is going to do any long-term/permanent damage to one's vision, after all...