1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200 (24")

[swandrix]

I'm sorry if this post if a somewhat repeat of earlier discussions, but I could use some help. I bought a new mac mini i7 and want to upgrade my old 4:3monitor. The 23 or 24 inch screens seem to be what I'm after based on available desk size (and poor eyesight). Wanting to spend no more than $300 (no gaming, just casual use and photos) it seems like the Dell U2412M is a popular recommendation.

Where I'm stuck is on the whole 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200 thing. Could someone please provide some pro's and con's of the 1920x1200 resolution for a 24" monitor? Seems to offer more "real estate" but some people seem to mention magnifying effects and/or old technology cons. Any and all input is welcome and appreciated!

Thanks!

[JimT1701]

I have 2 U2412Ms connected to my 2012 Mini I love them best monitors I have ever owned highly recommend.

[Moonjumper]

The 1200 pixel height makes the screen seem much larger. It is by far the better option unless most of your time is spent watching video.

It is especially useful with the ridiculous trend for loads of white space and oversize text on websites. I'm now doing a lot of vertical scrolling with 1200, it is much worse with 1080. Many web designers must have enormous screens and have forgotten to design for anything reasonable.

[kohlson]

I've used both, and if you can swing it and it works for your usage, the 1920x1280 is much nicer. On paper it doesn't seem like much, but most apps suffer from menu-bar-real-state bloat. Perhaps the worst offender is MS Office, but browsers suffer, too. (Yes, they can be configured to minimize this.) So your actual workspace suffers because of this.

[92jlee]

I have a Hanns G monitor 1920 x 1200 and I love the extra space, it may not sound like much but I would pick one over a 1080 any day.

[GermanyChris]

1600p>1440p>1200p>1080p

Get the 1920x1200 you won't regret it!

[swandrix]

Thanks a lot for the replies. This is the way I was leaning, but I got concerned after reading some reviews stating that 1200 is old and being phased out and that there can be some stretching. Sounds like the U2412M is in my future....unless there's a way more affordable option that anyone would recommend.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by swandrix

Thanks a lot for the replies. This is the way I was leaning, but I got concerned after reading some reviews stating that 1200 is old and being phased out and that there can be some stretching. Sounds like the U2412M is in my future....unless there's a way more affordable option that anyone would recommend.

16:10 is better for everything

[JimT1701]

It is cheaper to cut a 1080 panel and they can cut more out of a single sheet which is why the 1200s are being "phased" out. Mainly it is the manufacturers trying to make more money so they make you think 1080 is better. The way I see it 16:10 for computers and 16:9 for TVs done deal.

[BilbooToo]

Another vote for the U2412M, been using one for four months and it's a fantastic monitor.

[Giuly]

Originally Posted by Moonjumper

The 1200 pixel height makes the screen seem much larger. It is by far the better option unless most of your time is spent watching video.

24" screens are the the same width as 23", with 120px added at the bottom. (at least this holds true for 27" 16:9 and 30" 16:10) - which means 16:9 video is displayed at the same size, but with 60 black pixels at the top and bottom on the 24".

[Stan Mikulenka]

Hi Chris,

"1600p>1440p>1200p>1080p"

should be: 1600>1440 (16:10>16:9 ratio)

1200>1080 (the same as above)

[COrocket]

Kind of funny, Macworld just put out what i would describe as a beginners guide to new monitors http://www.macworld.com/article/2025...-displays.html

And they mentioned this specific predicament:

"The aspect ratio is the ratio between the display's width and height. Most monitors these days have either a 16:9 or a 16:10 widescreen aspect ratio.

A typical 24-inch, 16:9 display has a resolution of 1920 by 1080 pixels, while a 16:10 display of the same diagonal screen size has a 1920-by-1200-pixel resolution. The 16:9 displays are well suited to playing widescreen, high-definition content, and in this case the 1080 vertical resolution of the display matches the resolution and dimensions of 1080p HD content. The 16:10 displays have more vertical pixels, so while HD content fits just fine, you will see black letterboxing bars on the top and bottom. Those extra 120 pixels of vertical space can allow you to view a few extra rows on a large spreadsheet, however."

[Athelstan]

More pixels is always better. The thing is that a good 23" 1920x1080 monitor is cheaper than a 1920x1200 monitor. So it all comes down to money. Some times the price to get the 1920x1200 doesn't make sense. List price on a Dell U2412M is $369. A U2312HM is $249 and a U2212HM is $219. $120 for that strip of 180 pixels is painfully expensive. Personally I'll take two 22" 1920x1080 monitors over a single 24" 1920x1200 monitor.

[palebluedot]

Originally Posted by Athelstan

More pixels is always better. The thing is that a good 23" 1920x1080 monitor is cheaper than a 1920x1200 monitor. So it all comes down to money. Some times the price to get the 1920x1200 doesn't make sense. List price on a Dell U2412M is $369. A U2312HM is $249 and a U2212HM is $219. $120 for that strip of 180 pixels is painfully expensive. Personally I'll take two 22" 1920x1080 monitors over a single 24" 1920x1200 monitor.

Nobody pays list on a Dell U2412M. There are sales for it like every 3 weeks. I think the last one I bought was like 260, max. Slickdeals.com, sir.

Also, I don't think you can put a dollar value on those 200 extra pixels. I get the monetary argument, but with the Dell you are getting an LED backlit E-IPS 6bit panel with somewhat aggressive AG coating on a VESA mount capable base that can go into vertical mode.