Why no LCDs under 24" with WUXGA (19x12)

[wraythosu]

Can someone "in the know" help me understand this.
I have a 4 year old laptop that has a 15.4" widescreen LCD that runs a 1920x1200 resolution.
So why is it that now, 4 years later, I still can't get a desktop LCD that runs at that resolution on any screen under 24".

It just doesn't make sense to me. If they can run that resolution in a 15.4" laptop LCD, why aren't they making a 17",19", 20", or 22" that will run at that resolution.

Can anyone enlighten me?

Thanks,
Wrayth Osu

p.s. tried searching forums first and couldn't find anything.

 

[jaguarskx]

There is the Lenovo ThinkVision L220x which is the only 22" with 1920 x 1200 resolution for $450. As an added bonus it is also one of the extremely rare 22" LCD monitor that does not uses the cheaper and more inferior TN panel tech. This monitor uses a S-PVA panel created by Samsung.

The reason why there is only one is probably because many people would consider it to be more difficult to read text on a smaller screen. Also, a 22" LCD with 1920 x 1200 like the Lenovo strattles the 22"/24" fence.

The Lenovo ThinkVision L220x is:

1. More expensive than most of the 22" LCD; partially due to the better panel tech.
2. It is more expensive than some of the entry level 24" monitors that uses TN panel tech.
3. Text would probably be too small for most people's taste (as mentioned above).
4. People are generally looking for fast response times, off the top of my head, I think the Lenovo L220x is rated at 6ms. That's considered "slow" by many gamers.

Another reason why there is only one 22" LCD panel with 1920 x 1200 resolution is cost. The denser the pixel counter per square inch, the more it costs to manufacture. The higher the number of pixels in an LCD panel the higher the chances of defective panels, thus the price is higher.

 

[wraythosu]

Hmm, didn't realize they were making anything other than just laptops.

I understand all your points, but none of them really address why this resolution would be common place in such a small size in the laptop screen @ 15.4" and yet not exist at all in a desktop screen.

If you think the text would be small in a 20"-22" panel, you should see it on my 15.4" screen. I get tons of people asking me how I can even read it so I can understand that point to a degree.

As for price, that's never been an issue for people who want the best stuff. I could understand if there was 1 or 2 options out there at a premium price, but other than the Lenovo you mentioned, there are no options at all.

The most compelling argument you make is the response time issue. Gamers are the biggest spender on the high end stuff, so I can see that argument. Maybe that is the main thing.

Shrug, was hoping someone out here would know of a definitive reason for this discrepancy.

Thank you for replying

 

[jaguarskx]

The most compelling argument you make is the response time issue. Gamers are the biggest spender on the high end stuff, so I can see that argument. Maybe that is the main thing.

Actually, nearly ever monitor that is 22" or less is made with the less expensive TN LCD panel technology.

Gamers like 'em because they generally have lower response times than more expensive LCD panel techs; lower prices helps too. But when it comes to everything else like black levels, color accuracy, backlight bleeding issues, viewing angles, and other things TN panels are beaten by the more expensive LCD panel techs.

 

[helios2052]

I bought an Hp laptop a few years ago with the same 1920x1200 on a 15.4" screen. It was very hard to read and although games would look great on it, most laptops do not have the graphics horsepower to run that resolution.

Overall, I think LCD makers decided it was not practical to make a 1920x1200 screen on anything less than a 22"-24".

 

[cowasaki]

The Apple Macbook pro 17" has a 1920x1200 resolution screen option and it is a fine fine screen !

 

[forum111]

I know this thread is ancient, but given that 24" 4K UHD (3840 x 2160) monitors with a ~0.14 mm dot pitch are now offered by multiple vendors, it bears pointing out that a lot of people prefer a tighter dot pitch on the desktop and are now able to get well beyond what some folks in this thread were suggesting was too difficult for users to see. Certainly text scaling comes into play based on an individual’s eyesight and preference, but the actual dot pitch has a great effect on how crisp any rendering can be. Of course the viewing distance greatly affects how grainy a given dot pitch appears. We’ve had phones with extremely tight dot pitches at 0.06 and even tighter for quite some time now.

Going back to the antiquated WUXGA, I am accustom to the 0.17 mm dot pitch of a 15.4" WUXGA laptop display and find the 0.27 mm dot pitch of a 24" WUXGA desktop display to be quite grainy and even a bit harsh on my eyes. I too wish there were desktop offerings for 17”, 19”, and 21” WUGXA displays, because I have a number of single-link DVI sources that of course max out at WUXGA. It stinks that the industry provided something compelling for my needs in the mobile space and then dropped the ball on the desktop side. At least I know once I start replacing some of my antiqued systems with DisplayPort 1.2 (HBR2) and better sources I will have a good selection of 24” 4K UHD desktop monitors to choose from. WUXGA is just not good enough on a 24” desktop display.