Super High resolution monitor

[bcn17]

I guess 2048x1152 isn't much bigger than 1920x1200.

genius> 1920*1080
= 2073600
genius> 1920*1200
= 2304000
genius> 2048*1152
= 2359296

So a bigger screen is probably worth the 2.5% amount of space lost. Although, there is a decent difference when comparing to 1920x1080.

Seems like I'm probably going to be stuck with a TN panel if I want this resolution though. Although I have had a 19" princeton VL19 (a TN panel) for about 5-6 years now and have actually been very happy with it. So I probably don't have a critical enough eye to notice the difference!

[Skripka]

I guess 2048x1152 isn't much bigger than 1920x1200.

genius> 1920*1080
= 2073600
genius> 1920*1200
= 2304000
genius> 2048*1152
= 2359296

So a bigger screen is probably worth the 2.5% amount of space lost. Although, there is a decent difference when comparing to 1920x1080.

Seems like I'm probably going to be stuck with a TN panel if I want this resolution though. Although I have had a 19" princeton VL19 (a TN panel) for about 5-6 years now and have actually been very happy with it. So I probably don't have a critical enough eye to notice the difference!

I'd take the 2048*1152.

My box (see sig) is driving a 22" monitor @ 1680*1050. I'd take a few inch smaller monitor and higher pixel/inch count, rather than bigger monitor with lower pixel/inch count. Remember-a 23" LCD panel is STILL a big monitor. Widescreens are nice but their biggest failing is their lack of vertical space-which necessitates more scrolling.

Font/object sizes you can tweak. Pixel density can only be changed by buying a new LCD panel.

Also be wary and check monitor reviews. Cheap LCD panels tend to render colors poorly. My ASUS LCD panel sucks at rendering reds. Samsungs tend to be better.

[BrokenKingpin]

I have a 24" Dell monitor running at 1920x1200 and I have no issues with it.

[sloggerkhan]

Big factor in the screen size/dot pitch debate is how far away the screen is. Also, keep in mind that hdtvs are basically 1920x1080, only with screens that tend to be 32"+. Personal opinion is that 1920-class resolution is probably fine through 30" or 32" as a display, particularly if you are planning to watch a lot of movies on your PC, or don't mind sitting a little bit further back if it bothers.

Likewise, all those who say widescreen doesn't have the vertical space, you can always mount the thing vertically and see a whole page at once.

I can't really speak too much to the cpva panel thing as far as movies and screen movement goes. I don't know that I've personally used one, though I can speak to encountering LOADS of tn panels with terrible color banding and poor black levels (which can really ruin a movie if it's got a lot of dark scenes).

[Skripka]

Likewise, all those who say widescreen doesn't have the vertical space, you can always mount the thing vertically and see a whole page at once.

Many if not most low-end LCD panels do not have the base hardware to rotate vertically.

[sloggerkhan]

Many if not most low-end LCD panels do not have the base hardware to rotate vertically.

Nearly all of them have vesa compliant brackets, though, so it's kinda moot.

[hessiess]

In my opinion anything with a pixel pitch smaller than 0.27mm (e.g. 1920x1200 resolution on 24 inch monitor) is difficult to use on a daily basis because text is so small. Eventually interfaces will be resolution independent and we can all have higher resolution monitors without tiny text but until then I'm going to stick to that metric. Cheers!

GTK is fairly res independent, you can change the font size in the theame options. Win forms and most SDL based applications are verry resolution dependent.

Wide screen monitors are fine, they just prove that movern applications waste far to much screen space.