are 1920x1200 lcds dead? [Archive] - XtremeSystems Forums

zanzabar

10-12-2009, 04:21 PM

my crt is dieing so ive been looking for an lcd. affter a tour of local chains and small computer shops it seams that no1 is shipping 1920x1200 consumer grade monitors and the retail chains havnt carried them for months in the stores and the small stores said that they couldent get them anymore.

is there a new panel coming out so they stopped production or is the large monitor dead to be replaced by small tvs with 6bit color

YukonTrooper

10-12-2009, 04:31 PM

The industry shifted towards 1920X1080 because that's the standard for HD content. It's a shame, though, because the extra real estate on 1920X1200 is better for general PC use and gaming.

[XC] Synthetickiller

10-12-2009, 04:51 PM

Its sad. I have two 1920x1200 monitors. I guess we might be forced to go 30" soon? I won't really object if someone produces a better 30" that's not $3000.

tbone8ty

10-12-2009, 05:07 PM

theres 29 for sale at the egg

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010190020%201109909240&bop=And&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&ActiveSearchResult=True&Order=REVIEWS

zanzabar

10-12-2009, 05:30 PM

theres 29 for sale at the egg

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010190020%201109909240&bop=And&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&ActiveSearchResult=True&Order=REVIEWS

newegg is not somewhere that would be immediately effected, they deal directly with the OEMs so if there was going to be no more of them or a slow down in production newegg would have ordered a bunch of them

i really wanted to see a 1920x1200 TN in person i would be ok with an s-ips (especialy a 120hrz s-ips like the 32"+ tvs have but with 1920x1200) but i dont know about a TN. and i had wanted to hold out until 120hrz was out in a good size and resolution but if its dead then i think that i should buy now so im not stuck with a gimped vertical. and i dont see why 1080 would be better for a monitor desktop use would be better and it maps 1:1 with 1080p

dan7777

10-12-2009, 05:39 PM

i think 1920x1200 will still be around for a while to come yet.

[XC] gomeler

10-12-2009, 05:45 PM

1920x1200 isn't going anywhere guys.. I second the notion that we need new 30" panels though. I really want a 30" but the only option is still too expensive. Cheaper to buy two 1920x1200 screens right now :(

Da_maniaC

10-12-2009, 05:47 PM

i think 1920x1200 will still be around for a while to come yet.

I think so too.
If you look at the gaming market for example... a lot of users own a 24 inch monitor that supports 1920x1200. (Not every model does a nice presentation of 1920x1080).
And therefore you will often see developers allowing the option for the rendering of 1920x1200 to keep this segment of the market satisfied.

zalbard

10-13-2009, 03:16 AM

Nah, not really.
Cheap panels are being made for 1080, while more expensive MVA and IPS ones still use 1200.
Makes sense, if you think about their possible applications.

AndrewZorn

10-13-2009, 04:17 AM

everything needs to be less resolution dependent anyway
games should work on 4000x800 just as well as they do on 800x800, the onscreen icons just gravitate to the "corners" or the "middle" etc
its not that hard

i like 16:9 because of movies, black bars on lcd just look bad
but soon i will be getting a dedicated tv
so back to desiring 16:10

Computurd

10-13-2009, 01:29 PM

Alot fo the migration to the new size is because when they make LCD it is much like cpu's and wafers, they cut a big sheet of lcd into smaller ones. The new aspect ratio that they are using allows them to get one extra screen per sheet, thus lowering production costs, yada yada yada.
16:10 is thus officially dead. This time next year they will all be gone. several manufacturers have already signaled this. No to mention the move to the HD format anyways, that just makes the deal even sweeter for manufactureers, kills two birds with one stone.
16:9 is the future!

Machinus

10-13-2009, 11:54 PM

my planar 2611w is awesome, I'd be surprised if you couldn't find those these days.

punkrockpolak

10-18-2009, 06:23 PM

That's too bad that they're doing away with 1920x1200. I used a 1080 monitor and it just seemed akward.

slim142

10-18-2009, 08:47 PM

Im using a 2243SWX 21.5 inches with 1920x1080. I never tried a 1920x1200 but I came from a 19" 1280x1024 so the change for me was really good.

Will definitely look for a screen with at least 1920x1080 once I upgrade to something like a 24" with 120hz.

Den Leiw

10-20-2009, 02:36 AM

I plan to buy a 1920x1200 screen in 2-3 years but I'm not sure if they'll still be around by then :(

R31Nismoid

10-20-2009, 11:34 AM

Ye im glad i nabbed me 1920x1200 when i did, cant get any around easily these days.

Rattle

10-20-2009, 11:44 AM

1920x1200 FTW

Neuromancer

10-20-2009, 11:47 AM

2650x1600 FTW. Wish LCDs could do that for $400 :(

lutjens

10-21-2009, 01:42 AM

2650x1600 FTW. Wish LCDs could do that for $400 :(

+1...after using 2560x1600, using 1920x1200 feels like looking through a peephole...:D

SteveLord

10-31-2009, 10:09 PM

I'm still a 1680x1050 guy. Through 3 monitors.

Computurd

11-01-2009, 08:48 PM

yea i do 1920X1200x3(screens)

kamieldehond

11-02-2009, 02:21 PM

1920X1200 with 1:1 pixel mapping is the best. good for old games and new movies. to bad all manufacturers are shifting to hd

Kurz

02-23-2010, 08:06 PM

1920X1200 with 1:1 pixel mapping is the best. good for old games and new movies. to bad all manufacturers are shifting to hd

Funny thing 16:10 is better HD! :rofl:

BrokenWall

02-24-2010, 02:38 PM

The problem is that the market is driven by un-educated consumers. People see the monitor with 1080P logo in Best Buy, Microcenter, and Frys and they want it because its something they noticed. So since normal 1080P monitors are selling more and more they are being produced more because thats where the money is. I don't like the fact my nice ASUS laptop is stuck with a 1366x768 screen or the Dell 24" I got was 1080P but I couldn't pass up the laptop for $800 that had a C2D and 9800m GS as well as a demo Dell for $110.

If I could afford it I would of bought a nice IPS, but I still have my old VP2030b from Viewsonic when I need older resolutions or true colors.

Frag Maniac

02-24-2010, 03:59 PM

It's a shame, though, because the extra real estate on 1920X1200 is better for general PC use and gaming.Better for gaming, how so?

The way I see it on an LCD display you're typically stuck with native res or one res below that which it scales well to. Both 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 are equal at that. I also don't buy the argument some make that there are more 16:10 res options in games than 16:9.

If anything since all these console ports and GfWLIVE titles had prevailed, there are plenty of 16:9 res options since that's the aspect ratio many of these games are originally built for anymore.

So what you have left is the actual size of the display, where 16:9 wins in offering slightly more peripheral view. The desktop real estate is a lot better argument than gaming, since a 1920x1200 display will show two side by side 8.5"x11" documents perfectly, one of the reasons they originally chose that AR for monitors.

I consider the desktop argument to be a wash however when you consider that 1920x1080 fits movies better, with much smaller or zero blacks bars top and bottom and more peripheral when viewed full screen. This of course is only a factor if you use your display for multi use, but many now do.

I don't mind seeing 1920x1080 monitors being made, I just wish lousy 6 bit TNs weren't the only panel type they came in. There was talk of an Apple and/or LG 23" e-IPS display that would be 1920x1080, but AFAIK such a thing has yet to hit the market.

There's only a few 1920x1080 non TN I know. One is NEC's EA231WMI 23" e-IPS, but it has 14ms response and NECs are not know for low input lag. The others by Samsung and Viewsonic have similar problems.

Biker

02-24-2010, 04:04 PM

I wish the fallout from all that "FULL HD" marketing bs would stop affecting us.

GIVE US BACK OUR EXTRA 120 PIXELS YOU :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:S! *shakes fist*

:D

ps. there are still are a few decent ones around but the drive to sell something worse (cheaper) combined with the marketing opportunity to make it sound like it is better has proved irresistable... :rolleyes:

Better for computer use?

Well, for a start whenever I scroll in a browser right now I get severe corruption on the screen (thanks ATI powerplay) so extra screen height = less scrolling....

Then, for gaming, you have extra pixels on the screen which = more eye candy / better views / tactical advantage over 1080P users....

I could go on....

The_Beast

02-24-2010, 04:26 PM

gomeler;4060908']1920x1200 isn't going anywhere guys.. I second the notion that we need new 30" panels though. I really want a 30" but the only option is still too expensive. Cheaper to buy two 1920x1200 screens right now :(

You're right about that

U2711 is around $1000 or you could buy two U2410 for around the same price

1 27" panel or 2 24" panels, I'm picking the 2 24"

AndrewZorn

02-24-2010, 06:51 PM

and having a big break in the middle of your screen, at best (as in, assuming the game perfectly supports multimonitor)?

i just ordered a U2711, if you are looking for one, they go on ebay for under 900 (mine was $825... before i upgraded to 5yr warranty) after bing cashback (and i can pm you a really cheap seller if you want)... the one i got is coming directly from dell, and that means it is still backed up 2wks though unfortunately

im very excited, top quality panel, and the insano res...

zanzabar

02-24-2010, 09:01 PM

Frag Maniac

02-24-2010, 09:54 PM

Well, for a start whenever I scroll in a browser right now I get severe corruption on the screen (thanks ATI powerplay) so extra screen height = less scrolling....Seems you're unfairly blaming the 16:9 aspect ratio for ATI's crap support.
Then, for gaming, you have extra pixels on the screen which = more eye candy / better views / tactical advantage over 1080P users....Really only slightly more looking up, but it's better to have it where you need it, in peripheral view. That's where the tactical advantage is. Better eye candy, not really. Better views, ever hear of panoramic landscape photos? The 16:9 aspect ratio may not be full panoramic sweeping view, but it's certainly closer to it than 16:10 is.

It's odd and ironic how when widescreen first came out people couldn't get enough of it and many wanted even wider views via TH2G. Now there's all these complaints about wanting WS displays taller vs wider than the latest trend, go figure.:rolleyes:
I could go on....Still waiting to hear any valid arguments on 16:10 being better than 16:9 for gaming. While I'm waiting though, I'll give one more negative. More pixels (approx 11.1% more) take more GPU power to drive. The fact is the 16:10 AR wasn't initially chosen for monitors for gaming purposes, it was for office use. Since there were already lots of panel manufacturers making 16:9 panels for TVs, they should have just made 16:9 the standard in the first place.

AndrewZorn

02-25-2010, 08:06 AM

RoadconeTuning

02-25-2010, 09:56 AM

im running two 1280x1024 monitors turned on their sides at work... its like a bootleg 24" monitor and at home i run a 1680x1050 20.1" BenQ monitor from like 4 years ago... 16:10 is a much prefered resolution to me for most things... i wouldnt mind 16:9 while playing iRacing but for everything else 16:10 is better to me.

AndrewZorn

02-25-2010, 09:59 AM

Say what you like, just keep in mind that VGA is still very much with us so I wouldn't assume that DVI is going to disappear any time soon.

But yes, that was my point, we're approaching/hitting the limits of dual-link DVI right now so unless something changes immediately, I think we'll be stuck looking at multi-monitor solutions for a little while anyway.

If the sheer volume of VGA-equipped monitors and projectors still out in the corporate sector is any indicator of how things look on the consumer end of the spectrum for the average user, it'll still be a while before we've completely rid ourselves of VGA in favor of DVI, let alone anything else like DisplayPort.
while all that is true, i was suggesting that anyone who needs over 2560x1600 will likely not mind going for displayport as well. all the new cards have it, my new u2711 has it, the dvi limit is a moot point. vga still existing doesnt really hold anyone with dvi back.

if you want to notice the price/resolution of a multi-monitor setup, then okay... as that is pretty much the biggest thing holding it up. id love a 32" 4000x2000 monitor or something with the technology to handle it, but i wouldnt want to pay for it.

onex

02-27-2010, 02:55 PM

I think people don't realize that multi-monitor gaming will eventually have to be the future (or at least for a little while anyway) because DVI tops out at 2560x1600 (if you want to keep acceptable refresh rates) due to bandwidth limitations. If you want higher resolution than that, you MUST resort to multiple screens, there's no other (reasonable) way around that limitation right now in the consumer space.
do you happen to know so many people using more than 2560x1600 res. monitors?
not sure even how many use GC's capable of delivering decent frame rates at such res.
there's a youtube video showing someone play crysis with 2*HD5970 with all setting High, delivering ~75FPS.
it just seems as an exaggeration, when and if 2560x1600 would hit the main markets, there would probably be some higher resolution display offers with lower pricing,
stronger GC's and faster links.

huh,
^^andrew has specified the display port ;)..

Cheap panels are being made for 1080, while more expensive MVA and IPS ones still use 1200.
Makes sense, if you think about their possible applications.
that sounds reasonable,
companies deliver 1920x1080 to the mainstream, other users would pay premium for the additional manufacturing costs, better panels, wider color gamut,
without any problem,

there seem to be many discontinued 19x12 screens (http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/s-ips-lcd-list.php),
yet at the same time, it doesn't stop,
HP is just releasing a new IPS one ZR24w (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/19.htm#hp_zr24w) and for 289$ starting :).

AndrewZorn

02-28-2010, 05:41 AM

dell u2711 is ips and 16:9
they are moving to 16:9 whether or not you want it
its like how people clutched on to 5:4 for the longest time

onex

02-28-2010, 08:04 AM

they are moving to 16:9 whether or not you want it
you don't have to be so aggressive regarding such a relatively meaningless thing,
i don't really mind, yet it seems more related to marketing then to quality.
it could be wrong, yet that how it at least seems.

anyhow,
just watched some eyefinity clips on youtube, and it seems that that could be the way things would be,
it just seems so, indeed.

it just doesn't seem likely for DVI or any other link to be a limiting factor which is holding down technology,
it seems every obstacle ever been has been passed by researchers and has been eliminated.
multiple screen just seem more reasonable, not a result coming out of any limitation,
maybe like said 1920/1080 seems more reasonable to the people in control of the market.
hopefully, it isn't a decision coming linearly from market response and financial concerns.

i just think it's vertically too small, but not playing games with the computer, so can't say anything precisely,
and could be wrong. :cool:

zanzabar

02-28-2010, 03:11 PM

dell u2711 is ips and 16:9
they are moving to 16:9 whether or not you want it
its like how people clutched on to 5:4 for the longest time

True. Moving away from 1280x1024 was pretty painful and drawn out.
I agree that it's simpler to only have one aspect ratio out there.

the change for lcds to go widescreen (16:10) improved usability and productivity 16:9 dose nothing for that it just makes it so there are no bars for movies except movies are in cinematic widescreen so there are bars anyways. those 1 extra pannel for evey1 21 or 22 dosnt seam worth it and i dont see why 16:10 panels are so much more than 1080p they should be like 5% but instead they are 20-25% more

onex

02-28-2010, 07:29 PM

those 1 extra pannel for evey1 21 or 22 dosnt seam worth
can u elaborate ? :confused:
u'r very hard to understand..

onex

02-28-2010, 10:40 PM

too much for your ego?

the hell with this xs bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:.

zanzabar

02-28-2010, 10:51 PM

can u elaborate ? :confused:
u'r very hard to understand..

they can make 1 extra panel per glass sheet by switching to 16:9 from 16:10

onex

02-28-2010, 11:58 PM

thank u,
sorry for being thorny http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/images/icons/icon11.gif,
it seems a bit that "pushing" people a little bit here is something that sometimes could be necessary..http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/images/icons/icon11.gif

just trying to get to the bottom of it,

and i dont see why 16:10 panels are so much more than 1080p they should be like 5% but instead they are 20-25% more

u mean more pieces are sold?

i'm relatively new to these things, yet, it seems that 16:10 was earlier to the 16:9, and companies are moving to make the 16:9 more standardized,
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/archive/index.php/t-2282771.html
and that is a shame.

benq movement to the 16:9, from sep. 2008:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/monitors/news/2008/09/12/BenQ-Expands-16-9-LCD-Line-Up/p1
the screen itself is from june 08:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/monitors/news/2008/06/20/BenQ-Unveils-First-22in-16-9-1080P-Monitor/p1.

samsung:

Samsung believes that by 2012, 67-percent of the LCD monitor market will be feature 16:9 aspect ratios. If future operating systems are also able to improve high DPI compatibilities, monitors such as these two new 23-inch monitors could be a glimpse of the future.

toms sep. 2008
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/23-inch-QWXGA-LCD-Monitors,news-29618.html.

at least they won't disappear, rather dedicated for they're purpose use :)...

AndrewZorn

03-01-2010, 05:04 PM

the black bar 16:9 thing is a bit of an understatement. there is a reason movies are 16:9, or flatter... it is agreed to be a more artistic size. just because excel works better in a ratio like 5:4 does not mean that games and even pictures (if they caught up with the times by moving away from 4:3) cannot look better on a 16:9. a lot of people also like the side-by-side multitasking on a 16:9.

but neither is a huge difference. 16:10 has no more pixels than a 16:9 display... but a 16:10 display OF THE SAME WIDTH has 11% more pixels. then again, a 16:9 display of the same HEIGHT of a 16:10 display would have more pixels, if it existed...
they are just different ratios, peoples lack of care for resolution in favor of stupid stuff like dynamic contrast is the thing to blame for 1080 vs 1200 pixels and whatnot.

since most games... even older ones... are playable in widescreen, my opinion lies in my decision: high res 16:9. realizes that 16:9 is a pretty good balance between "12:9" (4:3), 16:9 (hdtv, many movies, games) and "21.5:9" (wide angle movies)

onex

03-01-2010, 07:01 PM

the black bar 16:9 thing is a bit of an understatement. there is a reason movies are 16:9, or flatter... it is agreed to be a more artistic size.
actually it is arguable, some claim 16:10 is more natural for the human perception, others claim 16:9 is, 16:9 gives it more "artistic" feel, yet at the same time it looks choppy..
hopefully, it is just a passing era of insanity.

on a brief look, it seems like a trend or marketing gimmick like brighter screens and million to one contrast thing,
yet it is still soon to tell where this all viewing experience would eventually lead...

Frag Maniac

03-02-2010, 05:04 PM

...some claim 16:10 is more natural for the human perception...Originally I heard 16:10 was chosen for monitors due to two standard size documents fitting perfectly side by side on screen. I have also recently heard some claim there was testing done on this so called more natural eye ratio thing. As I see it, if they did in fact do such testing they certainly didn't account for a few things.

For one, not everyone has the same peripheral view capability. Two, in action based content, far more activity appears at ground level than high, and certainly more so than low. Three, the added content the 16:9 FOV offers to the side of the screen is more revealing to peripheral activity than the narrower 16:10 FOV.

When you take into account the above, it's easy to see if they did do such testing, they were only concerned about how far up and down and side to side the average person can see while looking straight ahead, and that's not nearly enough data to base such a decision on.

It's also easy to see gaming was not high on the list of their priorities. If anything, gamers have wanted to go wider, not taller, with TH2G and such. As well, new high end DLP monitors touted as the ultimate gaming displays are now made with 2880x900 res and seamless curved screen.

If anything, 16:10 is looking more and more to be outdated and perhaps even a foolish venture in the first place, except maybe for net and office use.

onex

03-02-2010, 08:22 PM

It's also easy to see gaming was not high on the list of their priorities.
different period, different requirements.
going 16:10 wasn't necessarily foolish..
it could be that the financial wheel for this technology was naturally based more upon graphic design and office use.
price were higher for LCD's 3:4 and probably even much higher for 16:10, 16:9 AR's.
in order for this technology to gain market share and sustain itself, it was first necessarily aimed at the market that most probably would gain the most of it and will use it,
as wide FOV gaming and HDTV enter mainstream, 16:10 begins to seem unnecessary from that current perspective, even more apparent,
from the HDTV POV.

that could be the agenda behind all of this,
it is quite briefly put yet generally it sounds like quite a reasonable explanation for it..

khamsin

03-12-2010, 02:11 AM

I use a 24" Dell@ 1920x1200 and 16:10 is the widest I'd want to go for work, gaming and movies. For only work/school, 5:4 anyday; typing reports on a 16:10 (13" 1280x800 laptop) is no fun at all.

I don't buy the argument about the peripheral vision advantage on a 16:9. If the horizontal resolution is the same (eg. 1900px), then there is no advantage to a 16:9 despite the relatively 'wider' physical size of the display. I'd rather have more vertical pixels any day. 120 pixels is a lot in my book and I am quite attached to my pixels.:D

And not all movies are perfect 16:9 anyway, so if you're going to live with black bars on that AR, might as well do the same for 16:10 if that means keeping the extra pixels.

If there is any danger that 16:10 is going to end up in the dustbin of history, then I am definitely going to stockpile a couple of 24" 16:10 Eizos or NECs for the future.

zanzabar

03-12-2010, 03:17 AM

they are already dead for standard displays, u should stock pile now if u want one as i dont see them moving to 120hz or e-IPS

[XC] Oj101

03-12-2010, 04:08 AM

True. Moving away from 1280x1024 was pretty painful and drawn out.
I agree that it's simpler to only have one aspect ratio out there.

I still stick to 'square' resolutions as anything other than watching movies is painful. Your average book isn't landscape, but rather portrait. With a narrower column of text your eyes have to do a lot less work as you can focus more towards the middle of each row and 'scan' your way down. With widescreen, or a book in landscape, you would have to move your eyes from one side to the other constantly as you read. I find that wide aspect ratios make my eyes ache.

AndrewZorn

03-12-2010, 06:34 AM

rotate?

[XC] Oj101

03-12-2010, 09:23 AM

Oooooor... Use a 4:3/5:4 aspect ratio :p:

AndrewZorn

03-12-2010, 06:16 PM

still wider than tall, fails book test

[XC] Oj101

03-12-2010, 09:54 PM

Not with a menu bar on the side :rofl:

Soulburner

03-15-2010, 09:48 AM

16:9 sucks for 99% of the internet and most documents, but is great for movies.

That said, I don't watch movies at my computer. That is what my PS3, surround sound and 65" Mitsu Diamond DLP are for.

The move to 16:9 on all displays is purely a financial one.

[XC] Oj101

03-15-2010, 10:02 AM

There we go :D I watch maybe one movie per month, that just doesn't justify the rest of the time with discomfort.

ReverendMaynard

03-15-2010, 12:09 PM

sick deal? For the us site just use ncixus.com

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=39129&vpn=VW266H&manufacture=ASUS

AndrewZorn

03-15-2010, 01:12 PM

Soulburner

03-15-2010, 04:10 PM

yeah, must be
They can stamp out more displays for less money if they are all the same or similar dimensions ;)

16:9 also uses less materials.

zanzabar

03-15-2010, 04:25 PM

AndrewZorn

03-15-2010, 04:56 PM

They can stamp out more displays for less money if they are all the same or similar dimensions ;)

16:9 also uses less materials.

it uses less since its smaller, if people cared about screen aria and not diagonal size there would be an uproar
right, and that cost savingness (if you can even call it that, it is more like a marketing thing, making panels smaller doesnt save any money, they just call it the same size when it is actually smaller) is the ONLY reason people are selling and buying 16:9. come on.