I too would like a better explanation on the issue of pixel density. In 2002 you could order a laptop from dell with a 15" UXGA screen with 1600x1200 resolution. It was a gorgeous screen then, and doesn't look bad now. Standalone desktop monitors, however, with that resolution start at 20" minimum. You can get 1920x1080 at screen sizes starting around 21.5" and ranging to 27" that I've seen in stores. Are there benefits to packing the same resolution into the smaller package, such as smaller pixels leading to crisper image? Is there a "sweet spot" to this resolution that balances pixel size and density vs overall space?
It seems that 1920x1080 is the new norm, which is annoying because I don't see why I should have to give up vertical resolution just to fit the standard of the current high definition videos. 16x9 vs. 16x10 is a debate right now for me. I would rather have 16x10 because more screen real estate is better, but it seems that the 16x10 front has stagnated. All the new goodies are going into 16x9, with the exception of the 30" 2560x1600 models.