Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Sun 4th Sep 2011 12:39 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces "Okay, it's been about one week and there are not much answers anymore, so it's time to thank everyone who participated, close this survey, and publish the results, along with some interpretation." Everything is released under Creative Commons CC0 license, so anyone interested, please help yourself.
Thread beginning with comment 488452
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Luminair
by OSbunny on Sun 4th Sep 2011 19:37 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
Member since:

I am so tired of reading this same complaint over and over again on the web. In just about every article on LCD monitors you see this same complaint repeated. It's almost as bad as that "but can it play crysis?" meme.

My take on this is that people need to stop repeating this over and over again. 16:9 is the new norm and that's that. Manufacturers are not going to change things just because a few people don't like it. Hell even software is now adapting to the widescreen format. Look at the dolphin file manager in KDE, Firefox killing the status bar, unity desktop in Ubuntu or Microsoft's work on Windows explorer in the upcoming Windows 8. All these changes are designed to make better use of more horizontal screen space while conserving vertical screen space.

Edited 2011-09-04 19:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by manjabes on Mon 5th Sep 2011 16:45 in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
manjabes Member since:

My problem with 16:9 displays is that it seems that every display manufacturer thinks something along the lines of "1920x1080 should be enough for everybody". There are still some 1920x1200 and even 2560x1600 displays lying around as remnants from the pre-Full-HD era, but every HD screen I've seen sold here in the desolate wastelands I live in has a resolution of 1920x1080 MAX. Nothing more. "Vertical space is for pussies! No matter if your screen diagonal is 22" or 42", 1080 vertical pixels is all you're gonna get, live with it!"

Edited 2011-09-05 16:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by zlynx on Tue 6th Sep 2011 19:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
zlynx Member since:

$100 to $400 screens are all going to be 1920x1080. They are cheap because they are common.

If you spend $1200 you can get very good 30" screens with 2560x1600. I like HP's. The Apple Cinema Display is also very nice.

Reply Parent Score: 2

transputer_guy Member since:

I would never live with 1080 height, that's for consumer wussies, real engineers will demand more height esp when in pairs.

You can still get 24" 1920x1200 panels from Lenova at about $260 and up, HP for $300 and up. DELL, NEC and some of the boutique Mac companies also go for $500-$1000 or so for IPS versions. IBM even has a medical monster at 1920x2 by 1200x2 in a 24" format obviously you can't see the pixels, its used for Xrays.

But there is pretty well nothing on the store shelf anymore but 1080 or less, cheap and cheerful.

I bought my Lenova 24" from Walmart website and have been very happy with it, power consumption is 35W and uses a more advanced tube while most of the 23-25" LEDs also use about 35W or so. The stand is also full spec, 4 degrees of freedom rather than the usual bend over.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by KClowers on Wed 7th Sep 2011 00:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
KClowers Member since:

1920x1200 is the minimum resolution that is really acceptable

Reply Parent Score: 1