Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 24, 2013, 12:41 PM   #1
swandrix
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200 (24")

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!
swandrix is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 12:43 PM   #2
JimT1701
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Massachusetts
I have 2 U2412Ms connected to my 2012 Mini I love them best monitors I have ever owned highly recommend.
__________________
Mac Pro 1,1 - 8GB - 5770HD - Samsung SSD - 2x Dell U2412M + 1x Dell 2007FP - 8TB Drobo S eSATA
JimT1701 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 12:51 PM   #3
Moonjumper
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Lincoln, UK
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.
Moonjumper is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 01:03 PM   #4
kohlson
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
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.
kohlson is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 01:12 PM   #5
92jlee
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cardiff, Wales, UK
Send a message via MSN to 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.
__________________
| Mac Pro 1,1 upgraded to X5355 | PowerBook G4 17 1.50Ghz | iMac G4 1.25Ghz |
92jlee is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 01:43 PM   #6
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
1600p>1440p>1200p>1080p

Get the 1920x1200 you won't regret it!
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 01:51 PM   #7
swandrix
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
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.
swandrix is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 03:38 PM   #8
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by swandrix View Post
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
GermanyChris is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 03:47 PM   #9
JimT1701
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Massachusetts
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.
__________________
Mac Pro 1,1 - 8GB - 5770HD - Samsung SSD - 2x Dell U2412M + 1x Dell 2007FP - 8TB Drobo S eSATA
JimT1701 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 04:38 PM   #10
BilbooToo
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Another vote for the U2412M, been using one for four months and it's a fantastic monitor.
BilbooToo is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 04:49 PM   #11
Giuly
macrumors 68040
 
Giuly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: That depends whether you ask for timezone, state of mind or GPS coordinates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonjumper View Post
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".
Giuly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 04:57 PM   #12
Stan Mikulenka
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary, Canada
Hi Chris,

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

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

1200>1080 (the same as above)
Stan Mikulenka is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 08:06 PM   #13
COrocket
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
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."
__________________
2012 Mac Mini - i7 Quad Core 2.3 GHz - 16GB RAM - 128 GB SSD
COrocket is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 09:14 AM   #14
Athelstan
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
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.
Athelstan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 01:13 AM   #15
palebluedot
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athelstan View Post
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.
palebluedot is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unable to use 1920x1080@2 on 27" iMac after 10.9.3? tredstone iMac 12 Jun 24, 2014 07:45 PM
To 13" rMBP owners: 1920x1200? CARABAO MacBook Pro 22 Mar 29, 2014 01:02 PM
27" iMac - gaming at 1920x1080 resolution karnashuk iMac 6 Jan 6, 2014 05:27 PM
1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200 (24") swandrix iMac 7 Jan 26, 2013 09:18 AM
What to expect going from 1920x1200 (17") to Retina Display (15")? hajime MacBook Pro 24 Sep 16, 2012 02:17 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:57 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC