Comments on: Did We Lose Resolution With LCD Monitors?

By: ChanTran

ChanTran — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:15:58 +0000

The problem isn’t so much on resolution but because when they make the LCD screen they also go for wider aspect ratio. Instead of regular 4:3 they go for 16:9 or 16:10. These monitors are great for movies but not for anything else. If I can have it my way I would want a monitor with a 1:1 aspect ratio. Yes a square monitor. We often work on documents that have a 5:4 ratio in landscape and 4:5 in portrait mode. A square monitor will treat both equally and the extra space can be used for tool bars. If you work on a portrait document you would put the toolbas on the sides. If you work on a landscape document you would put them on top or under your document. A square monitor also has the largest area for a given diagonal size.

By: Firing on 10

Firing on 10 — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:35:22 +0000

The debate is missing some reality. No you did not lose resolution. An LCD as a digital device has hard, real pixels. The crt’s with scanning electron beam was essentially analogue and capable of appearing to support resolutions that were not reflective of real pixels. Hence the soft blurry pictures at high resolution.

By: Synapse Syndrome

Synapse Syndrome — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 03:38:08 +0000

That’s a pretty roundabout way to say that you do not agree with the fashion for widescreen aspect ratios.

I don’t know many programmers that would say that having high resolutions is that important to them, while they are pretty much essential in CAD, 3D and graphic design.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:57:51 +0000

I slightly Disagree. 23 Inch LCDs cary a resolution of 1920 x 1080 wich I think is great. Cnet just did this comparison on them.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-3174_7-6662003.html?tag=mncol;txt

Some are cheap also.

By: David K.

David K. — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:56:17 +0000

I am a programmer, and I TOTALLY agree.

At the office, I insisted on 4:3 monitors. About a year ago, I bought 2 @ 19″ LCDs and use them in dual mode. Much rather have that than any wide monitor combination.

This widescreen stuff is great for TV/movies. I never understood why that had to apply to monitors as well…

By: Phil M

Phil M — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:36:27 +0000

The OP seems to be confusing “supported resolution” and **actual vertical pixels**

There is a world of difference.

One just makes everything smaller on the same luminescent screen – the other is a physical increase in the number of points of light making up the image.

One is tragically bad for your eyes over extended periods of time .. the other is not.

If you want awesome vertical resolution, get two budget wide-screen monitors and place them side by side, in portrait alignment. Configure the adapter accordingly. This will give you anywhere upto 1920 or so high, for a few hundred dollars.

Please, go back to a CRT after years of LCD and you’ll freak out at the apparent softness, and godawful flicker at that res.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:07:31 +0000

I like big monitors–unless you use a tiny, tiny desk, even a 32″ monitor will fit. To get a comfortable 1.3 to 1.6 to 1 viewing ratio, a 24″ monitor at the back of a 32″ desk is no problem, maybe even a 26″ or 32″ for a bigger desk or if you sit up straight.

I never understood why people would worry about an LCD monitor taking up real estate on a desk–holding up the LCD monitor, mouse, and keyboard is the primary function of a modern desk. It is like people who don’t park their car in the garage–what is in your garage that is more important and valuable than the $30,000 car in your driveway. Same thing with a monitor on a desk–what is more important on your desk than you monitor?

By: bkilinski

bkilinski — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:30:48 +0000

Reasonable price is relative. I got a 24″ Sceptre 1920×1200 monitor for $210 (2008 Black Friday deal). Scour the hot deal sites and I am sure one will pop up somewhere. If you are looking to buy locally, best wishes – unless you have a TigerDirect, Fry’s, or other local PC warehouse around.

By: Ryan P.

Ryan P. — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:30:24 +0000

As my monitors have grown, I’ve gone from 1440×900 (is that what it was? It’s been awhile) to 1680×1050 and now 1920×1080, I haven’t minded the widening. I don’t think I’ve ever sat there and said “wow, I wish this monitor was taller”. Sure, some day I’d like to get a 1920×1200, but I don’t think so much about the height, just the total area.

By: Simon Crabb

Simon Crabb — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:37:15 +0000

It’s totally true, everything, even laptops, have become challenged vertically. To get enough screen estate I’ve ended up with three monitors, so it’s all side by side, but I’ve adjusted well enough.

It’s a very good point though, we want height! We don’t want to just watch widescreen DVDs on them!