Why no hi-res 17" panels?

[GlenT]

I've been using a Dell Inspiron 8000 with a SXGA+ display (1400 x 1050) as my primary computer. It is now 3 years old. I've been very happy with it's internal display, and don't use an external monitor.

I find myself wishing for a bit more resolution, wider H and V viewing angles, and a better contrast ratio. One option, is to replace the Dell with a new 8600 that has a WSXGA+ display. However, I'm happy with my current machine, so have been considering an external monitor.

Now, here is something that puzzles me: All the 17" and 19" flat panel monitors I've seen are 1280 x 1024 resolution. My little 15" Dell is better than this! You have to go to a 20" flat panel to get 1600 x 1200. Why?

First, I don't want to spend that kind of money. Second, I don't want or need a huge panel. Third, a 17" panel at 1600 x 1200 would do me just fine -- so why can't I find one like this?

I can't even find 15" panels with the same specs as what they are using in laptops -- they are all 1024 x 768. Why? How come they don't stick the panels that they produce for laptops, into a monitor housing?

LCD panels are ideal for putting a lot of data into a small area. Why isn't anyone exploiting this in the monitor market? Why would anyone spend $1000 bucks on a 19 inch flat panel display, just to look at the same number of larger pixels?

 

[GlenT]

Huh. Not even some speculation on this?

I confess that I'm probably 'resolution obsessed' when it comes to computer screens. I want my text to be sharp and I want to see the most desktop real estate I can without straining my eyes.

A guy I work with got one of those Dell FP2000 displays. While it is nice (and it does display 1600 x 1200) it is awfully big, and you have to really get back from it in order to use it. It fills your field of vision -- and then some. And it cost about what I'd pay for a whole laptop computer.

If anyone out there knows of 17" panel that has a higher native resolution than 1280 x 1024, please let me know...

 

[Guy]

It is not practicle for desktop lcds to have such a high resolution. People dont have good enough hardware to play games in such a high native resolution and nobody likes interpolation on todays lcds. Laptops have higher native resolutions because they are used more for business applications and things like autocad where an the user will want a high native res. If some one needs such a high res desktop for a business app then they will fork out the extra for a 20 incher. Keep in mind the laptop lcds lose performance when having a high resolution.

 

[Guy]

Oh and running 1600x1200 on a 17 inch display makes icons retardedly small.

 

[GlenT]

Well, gamers do have different priorities than business folk. I do some CAD and a lot of web development.

*****
Oh and running 1600x1200 on a 17 inch display makes icons retardedly small.
*****

Maybe on a CRT monitor. I'm comfortable working on a 15.1" LCD screen at 1400 x 1050 -- I don't even turn on large fonts.

The same guy I know that has the 20" 1600 x 1200 LCD display runs it with a Dell laptop that does 1600 x 1200 on its 15.1" display. He uses it this way on when he is on the road.

Different priorities.

I gave up and bought a NEC MultiSync 97F 19" CRT yesterday for C $299. Does a reasonable job at 1600 x 1200 - although I won't use it that way all the time. No way I can afford a couple or three grand for a 20" LCD. Maybe in a couple of years.