Why flat panel monitors at so low resolution?

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 4:45 pm

Hey,

The "too small" problem can be easily compensated by font size adjustments, etc. Lowering the resolution is not the only way to make things look "bigger" on the screen. A higher resolution with larger font size will make everything sharper.

I've got a Dell. Here's the screen specs:

http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/learnmore ... _inspn.htm

How does this compare to regular "stand mount" screens?

Phade.

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:08 pm

Yes you can up the font dpi but you can up the dpi of Granpa Johnsons porn or Grandma Johnsons scrabble game she plays on yahoo.

Fonts = vector based, not everything is vector based :p Right now resolution is mainly used to gain more space with larger monitors.

The DELL 15" UltraSharp monitor, I guess uses it to look better. It looks to be a high quality display. It does run @ 1600x1200 and it has a response time of 25ms which is alot better then alot of the desktop LCDs out there(40ms is pretty usual on a value LCD).

I just don't think there is as great a demand for these things out there.

~klinky

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:10 pm

err ...can't up the grandpa johnson's porn

CaTaClYsM · Post by **CaTaClYsM** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:12 pm

This is the first thread I have seen where <s>fade</s> [edited by] Phade [

] ever asked a question. I think I need to mark this on my calender.

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:19 pm

Hey Klinky,

Demand is one thing, but why does NOBODY make a 15" stand-alone LCD monitor? The one listed above still has a natural resolution of 1024x768. I mean, they make them. They just need to stick a little stand and a power plug and they're done.

Phade.

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:29 pm

Because they know YOU want one.

Ask DELL, who knows maybe one of those interns can go russle one up in the back for you and earn that promotion he so obviously needs. From tech monkey to bathroom cleaner... Big time

~klinky

Org Profile · Post by **Vlad G Pohnert** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 10:09 pm

One other thing is that you are stuck with a laptop's screen basically as the primary video interface. But on a desktop, you have the choice of going to a bigger size at the start or at any time after. I think the 15" flat screens are desgined as mentioned to handle resoltions typical to thier size. If a larger resolution is required, most people will go out and buy a bigger sized monitor. I personally would find that reolution way too small for me, but if I had a laptop and my setup was based on that, I would have to settle for the 15" display size since I'm not going to lug around a karger screen.... That's my take on it...

Vlad

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 10:29 pm

I bet the janitors at Dell get paid pretty well. Unless they get paid in WebPCs. God, those things sucked.

Maybe they even make more than some of the tech monkies. Everyone has an MSCE or A+ certification, but how many can wield a mop effectively?

Anyhow, maybe the reason that you can get 1600x1200 on a laptop LCD is due to the fact that you can customize the display controller and video chipset more? Basically, optimize the video display and adapter to work together really well. The downside is compatibility with other brands of hardware, but in a laptop, this is typically seen as an ok thing. After all, who needs or want to put an LCD from a Toshiba machine onto a Dell laptop?

I also think it has something to do with analog to digital conversion or vice versa. Maybe I'm blowing smoke out my tookus.

NicholasDWolfwood · Post by **NicholasDWolfwood** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 10:30 pm

I work solely on a 17".

I would have to sit in the middle of my hutch to see both monitors, and I need either two video cards (AGP and some shitty PCI) or a dual-monitor capable video card to use two monitors. Plus, another 17" is $200 (USD) and I don't have enough room on my desktop, unless I got rid of this thing and just got a foldout picnic table or something.

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:58 pm

Hey,

I was thinking and I think I figured it out why they don't make 1600x1200 regular 15" flatpanel monitors even though they make them for laptops.

1) The monitors would be about the same price to produce as the current lower resolution ones. But, if they made them, they would have to lower the cost of the lower resolution monitors to make the 1600x1200 ones have a competetive price. This would lower their profit margins because Joe Consumer really doesn't see the real value of very high resolutions and would just get the lower resolution one instead since low resolution is what they are used to anyways on their current crappy monitors.

2) Higher resolution means more pixels. More pixels means more chance for dead pixels. The more chance of dead pixels means the more chance for returns. The more returns they get, the less profit they get.

The combination of these two reasons is why they don't want to offer 1600x1200 flatpanel monitors even though they really could at a reasonable price (and do on laptops).

Make sense? Dang it...

Phade.