Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Small, High-Resolution LCD Monitors?

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the making-the-best-use-of-space dept.

Graphics 370

An anonymous reader writes "I'm a veteran user of an old 17" Dell Trinitron CRT monitor. I run it at 1400x1050 with an 80Hz refresh rate — about as high as it goes before it'll go out of the monitor's scan range. More recently I've been looking to finally upgrade to an LCD monitor but found that, for the most part, every 17" monitor on the market runs natively at 1280x1024, as does every 19" monitor — I have to go for a 20" to go higher. Now yes, I know I'm complaining about just 120 pixels horizontal and 26 pixels vertical, but my laptop's 15" display runs natively at 1400x1050. Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Syncmaster (1, Informative)

samriel (1456543) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630221)

19" SyncMaster 943BWX is what I'm using right now at 1400 x 900. Not quite your bag on the vertical end of things, but the SyncMaster line is probably worth looking into.

Re:Syncmaster (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630285)

Just like every other 19" wide screen, from the sound of it though the OP wants a 19" 4:3 ratio screen.

Re:Syncmaster (-1, Offtopic)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630591)

May I suggest the SAMSUNG SYNCMASTER 743N. 17" 1280x1024 resolution.

And the refresh rate is usually not very interesting when it comes to LCD monitors. That's mostly a relic from the CRT era.

An alternative would be SAMSUNG SYNCMASTER 943N, which is 19", but has the same resolution.

Personally I have found that the Samsung monitors works fine. Not the cheapest, but not extremely expensive and rather reliable.

Re:Syncmaster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630901)

"May I suggest the SAMSUNG SYNCMASTER 743N. 17" 1280x1024 resolution."

May I suggest reading the fucking question prior to spout a stupid answer?

Re:Syncmaster (1)

Antidamage (1506489) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630953)

Well now nobody's going to help you shop.

Re:Syncmaster (5, Informative)

SignalFreq (580297) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630707)

ASUS VW192T+ 19", 1680 x 1050, $120 []

ViewSonic VX1940w 19", 1680 x 1050, $150 []

Or if you want really high resolution (and have too much money):
EIZO RadiForce GS310-CL Single Head 20.8", 2048 x 1536, $6k []

Re:Syncmaster (3, Informative)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630999)

That EIZO monitor doesn't do color. It's a grayscale monitor for looking at medical images like x-rays.

HD Capable (1)

knothead99 (33644) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630237)

While you're at it, has anyone seen an HD capable (or higher) monitor smaller than 23-24 inches? Editing HD video at 1680x1050 isn't fun but I don't really want bigger than a 21 inch monitor.

Re:HD Capable (3, Informative)

acid06 (917409) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630323)

Samsung T220M (or HD) should suit your needs.

Re:HD Capable (2, Informative)

knothead99 (33644) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630729)

From what I can tell online, that only runs at 1680x1050 even though they advertise "Full HD" support. They must be downscaling. [] Also, I couldn't seem to find an english language page for that product and a search on samsung's website for Canada and US turned up nothing.

Re:HD Capable (3, Interesting)

click2005 (921437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630363)

Why not get a TV? Tesco in the UK do 1920x1080 TVs around 20.1 inches.

Re:HD Capable (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630461)

There are loads of 22" LCDs with 1920x1080. How about this: Link [] .

Re:HD Capable (1)

knothead99 (33644) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630747)

Hey that's pretty good. Bonus points if you know of one that does 1920x1200.

Re:HD Capable (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630543)

This is where CRTs still win out. I used to have an old 17 in CRT that did up to 2560x1600, made it really painful to read stuff on websites that specify font size, even from up close. Anyone know why LCDs don't do that? Even my 26" here only goes up to 1080i, which is a heck of a lot smaller than that.

Come to think of it, I may have just answered my own question. Stupid low resolution HD junk.

Re:HD Capable (2, Informative)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630909)

I have a pair of Samsung 21.5" SyncMaster 2233SW monitors on my desk; their native resolution is 1920x1080. I know you said you don't really want bigger than 21", but 21.5" is close ;)

I got them for $180 after rebate on newegg [] , but no free shipping. Shop around, YMMV.

Re:HD Capable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28631005)

My ThinkPad T61p has a 15.4" LCD that does 1920x1200 and I love it. My previous TP T60p was 15" 1600x1200 and this was a nice upgrade. A lot of 17" laptops can do 1920x1200 but I haven't seen desktop displays that are that high in resolution under 20". You'd think there might be something out there.

Killing desk space? (5, Insightful)

winterphoenix (1246434) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630247)

When I upgraded from my CRT to an LCD I gained tons of desk space. Just push your monitor back and take whatever stuff you would have had to the side of the monitor in front of it. In my opinion, desk real estate has more to deal with footprint area than length, but maybe I'm crazy. (Crazy like a fox)

Re:Killing desk space? (1)

caramelcarrot (778148) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630321)

Yeah, just get a nice big widescreen LCD (like 24"+) and you'll wonder what you were worrying about.

Re:Killing desk space? (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630389)

This. If you get a 17", you'll regret it. I squint at my little 20" and wonder, why oh why didn't I get a 24"?

Re:Killing desk space? (2, Insightful)

fodi (452415) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630579)

or glasses :)
Most people work 8 hours a day on monitors <20" ...(you insensitive clod)

Re:Killing desk space? (0)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630743)

I love my 30" screen - I have another 21" next to it for IM/email that is always up. Actually running on separate systems, but Synergy makes it feel like one. As a side note, even with a dual DVI high end graphics card or TWO high end graphics cards in the same system, I find that everything slows to a crawl with 2 displays (most obvious with 3D apps.) Running a separate machine solved that problem.

Re:Killing desk space? (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630811)

It depends on the desk. I put my 21" CRT monitor in a corner, so it really takes not a lot of space on the desk. However, since the monitor is in the corner, there is not much space to the sides of it. Someone suggested to me that I buy two LCD monitors and put them on my desk - I could do that, but only one monitor behind the other.

In any case, I'm happy with my CRT monitor and won't change it (I'll but another CRT someday (yes, it will have to be a used one) just to have a second spare - I have one now, but it's only 17").

What I like about my monitor is that it can display 1920x1440@85Hz (for HD movies, though I can set it to 1920x1200 and adjust the height) and 1600x1200 (for usual stuff, since text at 1920x1440 is hard to read) without any problems or artifacts.

Re:Killing desk space? (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630923)

And that's why 4:3 is still better than widescreen, and CRT is still better than LCD. I'm getting a 22" soon that can do 2000x1500 @85hz, if the text ever gets too small I'll just override font sizes.

Re:Killing desk space? (4, Interesting)

vivian (156520) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630967)

The other option of course is to get an LCD and a wall bracket or a desk bracket that allows you to have the monitor off the desk alltogether. You can also get brackets that allow two or three monitors to be mounted to it, but still have just the one upright pole that comes off your desk ( or bolts onto a wall. []

There are many many similar products out there - this is just the first I came across with a quick google search.

I used to think I needed nothing more than a 17" LCD, but after going to 2x24" monitors @1920x1280 theres no way im ever going back. Virtual desktop space is a lot more valuable to me than real desktop space. if I ever go to 3 monitors though, Im getting myself one of these brackets.

Re:Killing desk space? (4, Insightful)

vivian (156520) | more than 5 years ago | (#28631013)

I forgot to mention - if you use a desk bracket, and you really value your vertical resolution, you can also mount your monitors on it sideways, so you the monitor(s) are in portrait mode. most video cards support rotating your monitors, so this gives you an excellent way for looking at single page portrait documents, or more code than you should ever have in a single function all at once.

check newegg (4, Insightful)

steak (145650) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630249)

seriuosly. that power search link on the right hand side of their site isn't there for nothing.

Or maybe google? (3, Informative)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630281)

I hear Google is great for doing searches...

Re:check newegg (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630381)

But, the person wants a small, high-res LCD, correct?

Assuming 1400x1050 is the minimum the person wants, the smallest LCD newegg has available, if I am not mistaken, is 19" I believe.

Re:check newegg (1)

crimsonknave (1337923) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630399)

Wrong! Why guess when you can just look? The GP is totally correct. The newegg powersearch is amazing. It quite easily shows all monitors that are 17" and have the desired resolution.

Re:check newegg (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630833)

I misread the original post.
1280x1024 or higher, I think gives me the smallest LCD monitor at 17" on Correct me if I'm wrong please.

Sadly... (1)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630255)

There really is nothing in the 17-19â range that can project over 1280x1024. If you step it up to 20â though, they have monitors that go up to 1680x1050 which is quite a nice res.
Hereâ(TM)s a list of a what they have in stock on the egg. []

On a side note, I think a 17â with a decent resolution will surprise you more than you think. Youâ(TM)re upgrading from an old CRT to an LCD which is a big leap, try going to your local PC shop and have a look at their inventory to get an idea. Also, you won't hit HD until 22" with 1900x1080 res.

Re:Sadly... (4, Informative)

jo42 (227475) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630349)

Before buying any LCD, you need to read this first: Desperately Seeking Quality LCDs [] .

Re:Sadly... (3, Interesting)

JohnyDog (129809) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630993)

One of the problems with LCDs is that even if you find one that has truly good parameters and shines in reviews, you have no guarantee that the monitor you buy will perform at any similar level, due to manufacturers selling different revisions with different panels under the same name. Like the infamous Samsung 226BW [] .

One thing I hate (4, Insightful)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630299)

Is most all new Monitors are Widescreen, I hate that 16:9 aspect ratio.
My next new one will have to be normal width 4:3 aspect ratio.
Maybe I am old school, but it just looks right,
besides I like to have a good resolution on more then just horizontal axis

Re:One thing I hate (1)

acid06 (917409) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630367)

I feel your pain.

I actually value *vertical* resolution much more than horizontal revolution. Currently I use a 1280x1024 monitor and wanted to upgrade to something with more vertical pixels. Apparently, I need to get a 24" monitor to get 1900x1200, which is just huge.

I really wanted a monitor with a 1600x1200 resolution. Please let me know if you ever find one.

Re:One thing I hate (5, Insightful)

SirCowMan (1309199) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630411)

Turn a widescreen sideways, your drivers should support screen rotation :)

Re:One thing I hate (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630465)

Did that at my last job. Had dual 1280x1024 17"ers. Turned one of 'em portrait mode, and used it for writing docs and web browsing.


Re:One thing I hate (1)

jeaton (44965) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630523)

Here's a few. []

Yes, they are more significantly more expensive than 1920x1200 24" monitors. A 24" widescreen isn't that much bigger than a 20" 4x3 monitor, though. Same height, but about 4" wider, and if you really don't like having that much horizontal desktop, set your desktop to have black bars on the side.

Re:One thing I hate (1)

toddestan (632714) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630869)

They were down to about $300 or so for a TN-based 1600x1200 at 20" before all the cheap and high volume stuff all switched to short-height monitors. You may be able to find some new - a few places still seem to have the Samsung Syncmaster 204B in stock. It's funny though how 4:3 still seems to do okay at the high-end though.

Re:One thing I hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630935)

Yes, I agree with you: "shortscreen" sucks. Obviously they get better "yields" from them, but for a lot of work (like documents) they aren't optimal. I guess it really depends on usage. I know at work I have dual setup on my main machine - a 19" 1680x1050 shortscreen and a 17" 1280x1024 normal screen. The shortscreen is a bit better for coding in a GUI dev environment allowing you to view longer lines more easily. I guess they may be better for some spreadsheets too, but I am not a spreadsheet jockey - I mostly only have to use other people's spreadsheets to diagnose what they did wrong or to reproduce a bug I need to file. But for normal documents it seems the 4x3 is a lot better.

LCDs might waste less space around the screen (4, Informative)

Shag (3737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630309)

Your 17" CRT probably had a visible area of about 16" and a case of 18-19". A nice 20" widescreen 1680x1050 LCD really won't eat up all that much space on your desk. :)

Re:LCDs might waste less space around the screen (1)

mariushm (1022195) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630817)

That's true.. I'm looking right now at a 17" Dell monitor and it says Dimensions (HxWxD) 16.4" x 15.9" x 16.5"

You can get now a 19" Asus VW198T [] LCD running natively at 1680x1050 that has the dimensions Phys.Dimension(WxHxD): 444x368x210 which in inches means roughly 17.48" x 14.48" x 8.26". So, you get higher resolution, you don't damage your eyes so much, only for an extra inch in width, but I guarantee you when you see the space that was once lost because of the CRT's depth, you won't regret it.

The only downside I see is you get about one less inch in height. If this bothers you, you can opt for benq E2200HDA [] which has the following dimensions: 20.5" x 16.05" x 7.35" but packs a resolution of 1920x1080 inside those 22 inches.

I don't endorse any of the LCD displays above, I just browsed my local IT store's site right now and picked these as having cheap price and high res / diagonal inches

there are some you get can get (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630331)

It is rare, I can tell you many explainations for it but I don't know the exact reason myself, thus don't want to give you wrong information.

Anyway, there are LCD panels that do have higher resolution. Asus VW198S supports 1680x1050 natively. Good luck.

Yes, a 20" LCD monitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630333)

I'm a veteran user of an old 17" Dell Trinitron CRT monitor.... Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?"

Yes, buy a 20" LCD monitor with a 1400x1050 resolution. They come on stands. The stands have smaller footprints than your 17" CRT monitor. The stands have smaller footprints than your 15" laptop. Your question makes virtually no sense, unless you measure your desk space in a vertical plane and you insist on having the monitor at the same horizontal distance from your eyes as the laptop. Sheesh.

Umm is this for real? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630335)

Umm is this for real?

Well, if is:
1) How the heck can you run a 17" CRT monitor at 1400x1050?
2) Buy a 20" or bigger LCD, cheap, small in size

Looking at 2 22" CRT monitors in front of me - old school baby!

Re:Umm is this for real? (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630567)

1) How the heck can you run a 17" CRT monitor at 1400x1050? []

The K-726mwb 17 â LCD display is capable of 1400 x 1050 resolution. The unit is capable receiving content from your PC via a VGA connection. The K-726mwb is housed in a stylish black case with integrated speakers and internal power supply. Key features include 500:1 contrast ratio, 8ms response time (4ms grey to grey), 250 cd/m brightness, PC and MAC compatible, and is wall mountable.

Re:Umm is this for real? (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630607)

(I know that's an LCD, but was trying for 2 birds 1 post)

If you just meant like "how do your eyes handle it", some people's eye can just handle it. I'd run my 17" CRT at 1600x1200, if it didn't force me to drop the refresh rate to 60Hz, I wouldn't go any higher than that though, also depends on your monitor dot-pitch, etc.

LCDs don't take that much desk space. (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630351)

Being thin, LCD's don't take much desk space. Go for a 20". My Dell 2007WFP has a native resolution of 1680x1050, for example. and uses a little more than 24 sq. inch of desk space. That's less desk space than the 17" Dell Trinitron it replaced. :)

I'm in a similar quandry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630375)

Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?"

I'm looking for some factual data that is likely to appear somewhere on the Internet. I don't want to make others do the work for me, so I'm looking for some kind of "engine" that might help me search various online resources simultaneously. Is there any means by which one could do such research, and if so, where might I find it?

If possible, I'd like to do this without killing my desk space.

Rare but you can get your hands on one (1)

jumbocards (1053370) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630379)

It is rare but there are 19inch monitors that can do 1680 x 1050. check asus VW198S. Good luck

ViewSonic is Great for this. (2, Informative)

Akir (878284) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630393)

my VS11979 is 19" and has a native resolution of 1680*1050, which exceeds your needs. It also has a very high response rate and insanely high contrast ratio. The colors are simply fantastic; I almost fainted when I first watched Big Buck Bunny on it. I also got it dirt cheep at Fry's. And everyone knows ViewSonic displays are the best. Just ignore the fact that it has built-in speakers - they're predictably terrible.

Re:ViewSonic is Great for this. (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630435)

It has been a LONG time since Viewsonic displays were the best. Back in the days of CRT tubes when they were one of the few vendors using Trinitron tubes, they were among the best. They make average LCD screens. I'm using two of their VP2030b displays right now. They aren't anything special.

Re:ViewSonic is Great for this. (1)

toddestan (632714) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630619)

Besides the Viewsonic, there is also an Acer and and Asus 19" monitor at 1680x1050 resolution. I'm not sure, but I think they all use the same panel, which sadly is a TN panel (though fairly decent as TN's go). This is about the best you can get in terms of DPI in the desktop LCD world right now.

Re:ViewSonic is Great for this. (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630915)

Viewsonic are a crap shoot though, 2 of the past 3 LCD I have had have had cap failures, ballast overheating and uneven lighting. The other one I have hacked into a 22" art frame and it has been running 24/7 without fail for over a year. I did add active air cooling on it though.

My main setup uses 3 of these [] and I have yet to find a better bang for the buck without sacrificing picture quality or refresh rate.

Get a large LCD now. You won't regret. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630427)

Don't forget that LCD's are much less deep than CRT's so that they can be wall mounted eating zero space on the desk. Being farther from the eyes also means they need a bigger surface, so get a 22" or larger flat panel and you'll be happy. I also owned a really good 17" CRT years ago, but it was nearly impossible to place in a comfortable way for being so deep. LCD's saved my eyes and a lot of space.

Re:Get a large LCD now. You won't regret. (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630891)

The fact that LCDs are less deep than CRTs means only that you can put more than one monitor (one behind the other) in a place that was occupied by a CRT monitor. It does not mean that you can put more than one monitor side by side, since they are about the same width.

couple of things... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630429)

get a Vesa wall mount. That will free up your desk real estate.

the dell 2409w is nice and cheap. Its picture is better than the 2001fp I bought for too much money back too long ago.

True 1080p HDMI if you ever want to go that route.

No USB plugs or sound, but your glass did not have those either.

Wall mount it...? (1)

SteelRealm (1363385) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630433)

If you're considered about space... put it on the wall. You'll save desk space and I'm sure there is nothing really important you wanna look at behind your CTR.

Yes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630439)

Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?"

It's called every LCD monitor larger than 17" ever made. Seriously, get of the "desk space" argument. You're talking about going from a 17" CRT to an LCD screen. You could go to a 22" or 23" LCD and still have more free desk space than you did with your 17" tube. And more to the point, you can do it for less than $200 if you shop around or wait for a sale.

Serious, what the fuck is the criteria for getting an "Ask Slashdot" question posted?

Dell has a sort by feature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630445)



The dude abides to save your desk space. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630453)

Like, get a desk-mounted monitor arm like this one [] , man.

Use the Google (1, Informative)

JoeBuck (7947) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630455)

Go to It will give you a little box. In that box, type

small high resolution lcd monitor

You will immediately find a number of monitors that match your requirements.

The goggle (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630541)

It does nothing.

Re:The goggle (0, Offtopic)

alexandreracine (859693) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630877)

That's because your Internet got di

Re:Use the Google (1, Insightful)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630593)

or to put it another way: just fucking google it [] ! :)

(Actually, if I were to pick nits, I would point out that going to "" may not be quite as productive--in fact, after a quick skim of that site, I might advise carefully avoiding it if you're running windows.)

The site you are after (0)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630763)

Is "Let me Google it for you." I use it from time to time with people who refuse to look up their own problems. Tends to get the message across nicely, and in a way that probably won't get you fired :D. []

Re:Use the Google (1)

toddestan (632714) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630683)

I think what he's looking more for is 'high dpi lcd monitor'. If you type that into Google you'll end up with a bunch of pages where everyone is wondering the pretty much the same thing.

The panels are in laptops, but not desktops. (3, Interesting)

Above (100351) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630501)

Apple's 17" MacBook Pro can be had with a 1920x1200 17" LED backlit panel, so clearly the technology is out there, and being mass produced.

Still, no one has a desktop display of the same specs, at least that I can find. I suspect a large part of the reason is you're generally expected to be sitting further from the display at your desktop, and the further you are from the display likely the larger the pixels you want.

I wold like higher DPI displays in all resolutions though. IBM used to make 200DPI displays, but I think they stopped.

Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630603)

My three year old HP nw8440 laptop has a 15.4" 1920x1200 panel, so they've definitely been around for a while.
I've been desperately searching for a desktop LCD with the same resolution and DPI, and have so far come up empty, which keeps me using my laptop.

Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops. (1)

spoop (952477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630677)

There are also 15.4" panels that are 1920x1200, Lenovo (at least used to) offer them on T61p's.

Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops. (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28631001)

I have a Lenovo W500 with a 15.4" 1920x1200 so they are still in production.

Ever heard of Newegg? TigerDirect? Google? (1)

kindbud (90044) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630527)

I located three 17" widescreen monitors in a couple of clicks on

Re:Ever heard of Newegg? TigerDirect? Google? (1)

zerocommazero (837043) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630673)

Aww c'mon. you're no fun, Mr. Antisocial.

Re:Ever heard of Newegg? TigerDirect? Google? (2)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630757)

I don't see a single 17" that does better than 1280x1024. The 19" top out at 1280x1024 or the vertically similar 1680x1050.

Use a Monitor Arm (1)

Optera (814716) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630595)

Buy a large LCD monitor and use a good monitor arm with an 18 inch+ reach. You'll get a big display that takes up practically no desktop space. At work I use a Humanscale monitor arm which is very nice (but so expensive I would probably never buy one for home use).

LCDs don't use any desk space. (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630601)

This guy is using a CRT and he is concerned about desk space??? A 26 inch LCD will use less desk space than his present screen.

Me too - res independence! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630627)

Indeed. What makes fonts more readable is higher DPI: A 10 point font should be the same height on a 1600x1200 19" display and a 1024x768 19" display, just clearer on the 1600x1200, because there are more pixels making up each letter. What I really want is a display at about 300DPI, because that'll at least begin to approach print clarity (good laser printer is 1200DPI), at least with subpixel rendering.

17" 1440x900? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630645)

There are quite a few 17" monitors that run at 1440x900.

Maybe a Projector? (2, Interesting)

Excaliburszone (70838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630661)

You can forgo the monitor and set up a projector instead. Just use your wall as the monitor and mount the projector to your ceiling. Then you should be able to have all your desk space and a ginormous screen that can double as a movie projector as well.

newegg... (1)

spoop (952477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630665)

Asus 16:10 19", 1680x1050 [] Samsung 16:9 23", 2048x1152 [] Additionally, there are many 16:9 21.5" monitors that are 1920x1080, and Lenovo makes a nice 16:10 22" that's 1920x1200

Laptop LCD screen? (1)

ikono (1180291) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630675)

What I want to know is why there is such a dearth of 20 1080p monitors when there are 17 inch laptops with that resolution? Are those laptops misrepresenting the resolution or something? Hell, 16 inch 1080p displays exist.

Buy a replacement laptop screen and mod it. (2, Interesting)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630689)

The answer is no if you're looking for stock monitors with those resolutions. I've looked long and far but to no avail. However, what I was able to do was buy replacement laptop screens with those resolutions. You have to get an adapter kit as well, but it's well worth it if you're looking for density.

HannsG 281D (aka HG281DBP) (1)

BertieBaggio (944287) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630703)

(In keeping with the time-honoured Slashdot tradition, I'm going to tell you what I think you should know, regardless of what it was you asked for*)

I quite agree with other posters that you should move to a bigger (> 20") LCD. I recently bought a HannsG 281D 28 inch monitor, which (volume wise) takes up about the same space as a 17-19 inch CRT. It is wider by a long shot, which may present a problem. On the other hand, it does 1920x200 and is about the biggest you can get for under GBP 1000 (and $1000 I'm guessing**).

In short it's a good monitor: bright, decent colours, and no ghosting. In my opinion, it is cheap for what you get. It's a TN panel, so dont do anything colour critical, but in all honesty you likely won't notice the difference in 95-99% of cases. I code, play games and watch both hi and low def movies on the monitor, and for all it's much better than using a 19", let alone a 17". Oh, and it has HDMI and VGA inputs. No DVI, but it comes with an HDMI->DVI cable.

* Even if the OP doesn't find this useful I'm sure other /.-ers will, as there are few decent reviews of the HannsG. Yes, this isn't a review, but knowing that someone is using it without problems is useful. As with all decent /. discussions, many will benefit.

** Yeah, gadget / electronic good price in USD = price in GBP. In this case the HannsG seems to be $350 on Amazon (I got mine from, for what it's worth), so it's not quite the monumental shafting we normally get this side of the pond...

Syncmaster 204bw (1)

w8lvn (563215) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630719)

I have two SyncMaster 204BW that give me 1680x1050 50hz. Good price as well.

Ban faggots in the USA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630753)

Faggots eat the shit from other faggots asses. Do you want that in your community?

Write to President Obama and your senators and representatives and ask them to ban faggots in the United States.

Looking for the opposite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28630781)

I am looking for the exact opposite: a large-ish, low resolution LCD monitor. Why, you ask? There are people out there with bad vision, and if they want to be able to access web pages that some genius designed for a fixed resolution of, say, 1024x768 (preferably in Flash so you can't just increase the font size in the browser), it needs to be displayed on a 20+ inch screen so the text is legible.

Right now I have my parents set up with a 19" CRT running at 800x600, but there are more and more web pages and programs that require 1024x768.

Of course one could scale 1024x768 up for a higher-res LCD, but this looks just terrible unless the scale factor is integer.

Any ideas?

Re:Looking for the opposite (2, Informative)

Craig Davison (37723) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630895)

You can get 18.5" monitors that run at 1366x768, like the Acer X183H.

yes (1)

KatTran (122906) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630791)

You are already killing your desk space now with a 17" CRT. Any flat panel you get will give you so much more space than the CRT.

You have learned the dirty little secret of flat panel monitors; 19" monitors are the same as 17" monitors, but with bigger pixels. It is sad that this extends into the wide screen monitors as well, because a 19" wide is only 1440 x 900.

So, buy a 20" wide monitor. The Dell one does 1680 x 1050. I know it will take way less depth than the CRT, and I'm guessing that it will actually be smaller in all dimensions than the current monitor you have. []

moar forums (1)

xSauronx (608805) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630795)

some of you guys need to find a tech forum to call home. to me, these kinds of questions always seem out of place on the front page here. places like arstechnica or anandtech have good forums with tech users and sub forums for information on various technology, hardware, peripherals, networking and general OS help.

Aim Big (2, Insightful)

spqr0a1 (1504087) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630819)

I have two 2048x1536 20 inch CRTs on my desk right now. You can get them dirt cheap ($100) if you look around. Even with their age, size, and proximity to each other the only real problem I've had is a bit of a convergence issue; usually nothing you can't fix with in a weekend with a little tinkering. For quality a good CRT is still the way to go, at least until SED and FED displays hit the market.

wergle? (1)

Sarreq Teryx (165185) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630827)

my brother has a 16" viewsonic at 1600x1050 (yes, odd res), and my 10" netbook runs at 1366x768, so I'm not quite sure why you can't seem to find a higher res middle-sized screen. should be dead easy.

Pixel density. (1)

Craig Davison (37723) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630829)

Sounds like you want a monitor with a high PPI (pixels per inch).
Your original monitor was 17" 4:3 (16" viewable), which at 1440x1050 is 109 ppi. You won't get that in an LCD monitor even if you get something large.

Here are some common LCD monitor sizes (>= 17") that have >= 95 PPI:
17" (5:4) 1280x1024 - 96 ppi
17" widescreen (16:10) 1440x900 - 100 ppi
20" (4:3) 1600x1200 - 100 ppi
21.5" widescreen (16:9) 1920x1080 - 102 ppi
30" widescreen (16:10) 2560x1600 - 101 ppi

So if you want something close in size to your existing monitor, get a 17" widescreen at 1440x900 (e.g. Dell E178WFP).
If you want something with a comparable PPI, and equivalent resolution, get a 21.5" widescreen at 1920x1080 (e.g. Dell S2209W)
If you want something with the same aspect ratio, and a higher resolution, get a 20" at 1600x1200 (e.g. Dell 2007FP).

I would pick the 20". As others have said, you can move it further away from your eyes than a CRT if size is an issue.

You can get a decent 20" widescreen display. (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630841)

I just recently got myself a LG W2053TQ-PF monitor with 1600x900 resolution. The colors are pretty bright, and the sharpenss is quite good too. I got it for US$149 at Fry's Electronics.

It should be noted the W2053TQ-PF has both 15-pin VGA and DVI-D inputs, and does support HDCP so you can use it with a computer that can play back [i]Blu-ray[/i] movies.

Pixel density is the key factor (4, Insightful)

itomato (91092) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630849)

I have been on this search for three or four years, and all I can come up with is that there's a conspiracy in effect, in order to promote this 'HD' thing the commoners are obsessed with lately.

I'm posting this from a four year old Thinkpad T43, with 15" display, at 1400x1050. As long as I've had it, I've been searching for a complimentary display for my desk. Nothing comes close. I don't want a 19", 24", or 30" monitor to get this pixel count, and I sure don't want to dodge the reflections on one of those glossy, color pop displays. If I have to move my head, there's a serious ergonomics problem.

I have been doing some research, and I can't find anything satisfactory. Samsung doesn't make a panel capable of what I want, nevermind a finished display.. I thought surely IBM would provide an engineering-quality display @ > 116 PPI, but if they do, I can't find it.

What I may do, and some others may explore as well, is to follow in the tracks of the homebrew projection TV people, and rig up an old laptop display with a converter and new backlight.

Some light reading on the subject:

An interesting paper [] on high pixel density LCD panels from 2005; why there likely are none, and why there likely won't be any. []

Manufacturers, listen up; For every one of those business class notebooks you've been selling for 5 years, you have changed the work habits of at least one person. Sell them a capable desktop display for a third to half the cost of the notebook, and garner a tidy profit. Just don't put one of those stinking shine panels on the front. Stick it in the box with some double-sided tape, if the focus group says you have to.

ThinkPad X61T (and other fantastic ThinkPads) (2, Interesting)

paulproteus (112149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630981)

ThinkPads have great pixel density. I upgraded from a 14" 1400x1050 screen (ThinkPad T43) to... ...a 12" 1400x1050 screen! The X61 Tablet is a fantastic little computer; I can't recommend it highly enough. When I bought mine (about nine months ago), those things could be purchased for about $1050.

IBM/Lenovo stopped making screens that high-resolution, but I bought mine used on eBay with nearly the full three years of warranty.

IBM/Lenovo calls this SXGA+, and you can find ThinkPad T40, T41, T42, or T43 computers on your local Craigslist. [] shows you a few for a few hundred dollars in the San Francisco Bay area.

(Also, for what it's worth, the OpenMoko FreeRunner and GTA01 both had 2.8" screens at 640x480. Mega drool factor.)

Your whole argument is invalid (2, Insightful)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630905)

Do you keep your LCD further away from you than you would a crt? Do you put things behind your LCD? If the answer to those is "no" then you could use a 100lb trinitron and you wouldn't be "killing any space" more than you would with a 5lb LCD.

If you want a decent resolution you're not really going to find it without getting a CRT or a VERY expensive LCD. The widescreen virus has infected everyone and shutdown their brains and now people think that they're better off with lower resolutions that old giant CRTs had in 1998.

I read the "answers", now I feel for you.. (3, Interesting)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630939)

Did not consider this question before, but you really made a point: nobody gave a satisfiable answer to 'I look for a 17" LCD with resolution beyond 1280x1024, and hopefully 4:3".

The technology is definitely out there, my handhald with 9" has 800x480 which could be easily scaled up to 1400 + in your desired form factor (4:3).

There were even monitors with this kind of attributes a few years back. About 4 years ago I bought my which has the minimal DPI resolution you mentioned. I'm a bit astonished that time stood still in this sector for this amount of time. Not "Moor-ish" at all.

Guess the answer is, that mainstream did not want it, and niche markets are not asked any-more. Also there is a specific OS that can't handle scaling of wigdets very well, that mostly catalysed this non-development.

Your answer is: no, there is probably no such thing you are looking for.. Sadly.

Just bite the bullet and buy an LCD. (1)

Banichi (1255242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28630973)

Any desk real estate you lose due to width will be more than made up for in depth.

I bought a Hanns.G HG216D (22" LCD monitor) from TigerDirect last year for about $150, upgrading from a 17" CRT. Best computer related investment I've ever made. Only one weird pixel, it only shows up as solid red when the area farther down the screen directly under it is white.

CRT space to LCD space migration (1)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | more than 5 years ago | (#28631031)

I have just done a 17" CRT to 20" LCD migration this week. Even though the display size is bigger, it takes much less desktop space.

Compare the following:
4 * 8 = 32 (CRT)

12 * 2 = 24 (LCD)

The other advantage of an LCD space wise is that it is easier to put things in and around the base unlike a CRT.

Half of the reason I switched to LCD was because of health reasons which are:

  • 1024x768 and 17" CRT glare not good for my eyes
  • CRTs sit on the table and are hard to elevate properly, and look weird once you do.

The colour and sharpness from an LCD is better too and for $100 AUD it was too good to refuse. :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?