Have 4:3 LCD monitors stalled at 19" ???

  • Thread starter Thread starter PC Guy
  • Start date Start date
P

PC Guy

Two years ago, 19" monitors (4:3 aspect ratio) were becoming common,
and 21" monitors were the cutting edge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but today 19" monitors don't seem to have
given way to 21" monitors, and 21" monitors seem less common. Instead
we are seeing more bullshit wide-screen monitors but over-all screen
area has stalled for the past year or two.

If you want to run a dual-monitor setup, a pair of wide-screen
monitors is less desirable vs a pair of 4:3 monitors.

And we still have a gap between where large LCD computer monitors stop
and small LCD TV's begin - why is that?

Where is my combination 25" 4:3 LCD monitor / TV?

Two years ago I bought a 1600 x 1200, 21" LCD monitor. Today, where
is my 24", 2500 x 1900 (4:3) LCD Monitor?

Why has the evolution of the computer LCD monitor stalled?
 
PC said:
Two years ago, 19" monitors (4:3 aspect ratio) were becoming common,
and 21" monitors were the cutting edge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but today 19" monitors don't seem to have
given way to 21" monitors, and 21" monitors seem less common. Instead
we are seeing more bullshit wide-screen monitors but over-all screen
area has stalled for the past year or two.

If you want to run a dual-monitor setup, a pair of wide-screen
monitors is less desirable vs a pair of 4:3 monitors.

And we still have a gap between where large LCD computer monitors stop
and small LCD TV's begin - why is that?

Where is my combination 25" 4:3 LCD monitor / TV?

Two years ago I bought a 1600 x 1200, 21" LCD monitor. Today, where
is my 24", 2500 x 1900 (4:3) LCD Monitor?

Why has the evolution of the computer LCD monitor stalled?
Click to expand...

It looks like Samsung has a capability, but maybe the perceived market
damand for an expensive product just isn't there.

http://www.samsung.com/Products/TFTLCD/common/product_list.aspx?family_cd=LCD07

This is NEC's raw panel page. Maybe Samsung's plant can make bigger sheets
of glass, making it possible to lay up economic combinations of panels from
a sheet of glass.

http://www.nec-lcd.com/en/products/monitor.html

Like ICs, when you want "defect free" and you want
large numbers of elements, there are limits.

As for resolution limits, a convenient limit is that imposed
by a dual link DVI at 165MHz clock. For example, in the table
here, they do WQXGA (2560 * 1600) by running the dual DVI link
at 174MHz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvi

The actual data rate on the cable is 10 times the above mentioned
clock rate, so 1740Mbit/sec. Each "clock" signal carries 8 data
bits plus two bits for encoding scheme used. Just in case 174MHz
seemed wimpy, it is actually 1740Mbit/sec.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/11/29/the_tft_connection/page4.html

Paul
 
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt PC Guy said:
Two years ago, 19" monitors (4:3 aspect ratio) were becoming common,
and 21" monitors were the cutting edge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but today 19" monitors don't seem to have
given way to 21" monitors, and 21" monitors seem less common. Instead
we are seeing more bullshit wide-screen monitors but over-all screen
area has stalled for the past year or two.

If you want to run a dual-monitor setup, a pair of wide-screen
monitors is less desirable vs a pair of 4:3 monitors.

And we still have a gap between where large LCD computer monitors stop
and small LCD TV's begin - why is that?

Where is my combination 25" 4:3 LCD monitor / TV?

Two years ago I bought a 1600 x 1200, 21" LCD monitor. Today, where
is my 24", 2500 x 1900 (4:3) LCD Monitor?

Why has the evolution of the computer LCD monitor stalled?
Click to expand...

I dunno ... Most of the LCD monitors I see these days are in the 20" to
21" range, with 1680x1050 resolution ... Just about right for 1080p
television. They even come with connectors for HDTV tuners. At least
mine did.

It's getting harder instead of easier to find 4:3 monitors.
Everybody is going wide-screen.

I think the TV business going digital is what's driving the monitor
market right now, not computers.
 
PC Guy said:
Why has the evolution of the computer LCD monitor stalled?
Click to expand...

The widescreen LCD is a great evolution process in the history of LCD
monitors. After using my 23" Sony WS LCD, I don't see how I can go back to
the 4:3 aspect ratio. If you must have the 4:3 ratio, you can buy a
widescreen LCD and center the image at 4:3.
 
FKS said:
The widescreen LCD is a great evolution process in the history
of LCD monitors.
Click to expand...

Wide-screen monitors suck when it comes to setting up a dual-display
system.

Way back, when movies first started, they were 4:3 format, right up
until the early 1950's.

Then the movie industry got paranoid about television, and came up
with the wide-screen format as a gimick to give people a reason NOT to
stay home and watch TV. We've been stuck with it ever since.

It's creeping more and more into the computer world because the media
companies want us to become used to widescreen so that we'll be more
accepting and better consumers of movies that are only shot in
widescreen, and for the emerging blue ray and htdv formats.

They also want to accelerate the depreciation of conventional 4:3
television so that we won't complain as much when the FCC pulls the
plug on terrestrial analog television transmission in a couple of
years.

Media companies want to control their content as never before, and
want us to pay for every second of content that they put in front of
our eyes.

Hardware companies want us to buy whole new multi-media gear.

The disappearance of the 4:3 picture format is a consequence of the
above.
 
PC said:
Wide-screen monitors suck when it comes to setting up a dual-display
system.

Way back, when movies first started, they were 4:3 format, right up
until the early 1950's.

Then the movie industry got paranoid about television, and came up
with the wide-screen format as a gimick to give people a reason NOT to
stay home and watch TV. We've been stuck with it ever since.

It's creeping more and more into the computer world because the media
companies want us to become used to widescreen so that we'll be more
accepting and better consumers of movies that are only shot in
widescreen, and for the emerging blue ray and htdv formats.

They also want to accelerate the depreciation of conventional 4:3
television so that we won't complain as much when the FCC pulls the
plug on terrestrial analog television transmission in a couple of
years.

Media companies want to control their content as never before, and
want us to pay for every second of content that they put in front of
our eyes.

Hardware companies want us to buy whole new multi-media gear.

The disappearance of the 4:3 picture format is a consequence of the
above.
Click to expand...

Personally, I read from top to bottom. So I have less need for wider; I
have more need for taller. I've been shopping for monitors, and I've
settled on something that will do 1600x1200. I'm doing 1400x1050 now,
and I have no reason to move laterally to something that offers me no
increase of vertical space for reading a web page or an email or a
Usenet article and only gives me width. I'm not even looking at wide
screens. I'm waiting for a good sale on a Samsung 204B.

For the record, I never full-screen anything; my usual setup for my
Online desktop (I use eight different desktops; my window manager allows
more) has email (kmail) on the left half of the screen and my news
client (slrn) on the right half. When I respond to an article here, the
edit window (vim) pops up over my email client until I send it; when I follow
a link, my browser (Firefox) pops up over my news client.
 
Two years ago, 19" monitors (4:3 aspect ratio) were becoming common,
and 21" monitors were the cutting edge.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, all 19" LCD monitors are 1280 x 1024, which is 5:4, not 4:3.

- Franc Zabkar
 
Franc said:
AFAIK, all 19" LCD monitors are 1280 x 1024, which is 5:4,
not 4:3.
Click to expand...

Yes, a 19" LCD monitor I have measures 14.875" x 11.875", which is a
ratio of 5:4, which matches the 1280:1024 pixel ratio. I think it's
actually a pretty good ratio.

But I can see how many people think that 4:3 is too square if they
think that your typical 19" monitor is 4:3 (which now we know it
isin't).

Looking at my 21" SyncMaster, which is 4:3 (physically, as well as
pixels - 1600 x 1200), I think it looks a little like a wide-screen.

If LCD screens for TV viewing are on the order of 40" in size and have
been available for years, then why have computer monitors stalled in
the 19" to 21" range?
 
PC said:
Yes, a 19" LCD monitor I have measures 14.875" x 11.875", which is a
ratio of 5:4, which matches the 1280:1024 pixel ratio. I think it's
actually a pretty good ratio.

But I can see how many people think that 4:3 is too square if they
think that your typical 19" monitor is 4:3 (which now we know it
isin't).

Looking at my 21" SyncMaster, which is 4:3 (physically, as well as
pixels - 1600 x 1200), I think it looks a little like a wide-screen.

If LCD screens for TV viewing are on the order of 40" in size and have
been available for years, then why have computer monitors stalled in
the 19" to 21" range?
Click to expand...

Isn't there some rule that says, if a display device is this wide,
you have to sit this far back from it ? At 40", you'd be
pretty far from your desk :-)

Paul
 
Back
Top