Does anyone other than Apple make 17" widescreen LCDs?

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by Nermal, Jan 13, 2005.

  1. Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Whakatane, New Zealand
    #1
    At first glance, the answer looks like a big Yes. But read on...

    There are several 'pseudo-widescreens' out there. Take Philips for example. They have several 17" 4:3 LCDs with 1280x1024 resolution. They also have a 'wide' model with 1280x768 resolution. This is exactly the same width as the 4:3 version! So rather than being a widescreen, it's more of a shortscreen, and you therefore get LESS space by buying one of these! :eek:

    Apple is the only company I can find who makes actual wide screens (1440x900). Unfortunately these are built into the iMac and PowerBook and aren't available separately. So, does anyone know of any other true widescreens?

    Thanks :)
     
  2. Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #2
    I was looking for exactly the same thing the other day. Samsung used to make one (172W iirc). The only ones I have been able to find have built in TV tuners which I don't want and drives the cost up by about £100.
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    ChrisBrightwell

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    #3
    FYI, the 15" Powerbook LCD is 1280x854. How is this any different than the LCD you're bitching about as being "short"?
     
  4. thread starter Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Whakatane, New Zealand
    #4
    It's 15", so it's only fair that it should have a lower resolution.
     
  5. macrumors 603

    jeremy.king

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Fuquay Varina, NC
    #5
  6. macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #6
    The 172w has the crappy 1280x768 res too..

    The LCD market doesn't make much sense. All 17" is 1280x1024, which is "high screen" because it's not 4:3. A 4:3 screen would give you 1280x960, 1280x1024 is actually 5:4...

    The 19" inch LCD also sports 1280x1024, which gives you a much lower dpi than 15"@1024x768 and 17"1280x1024.

    Also the a 17"@1280x1024 height is exactly = a 20"@1680x1050 = 27.3 cm high!!

    This boils down to:
    17" standard = 5:4, 17"w = 16:10
    19" = 5:4 low dpi
    20" = 4:3 (1600x1200), 20"w =16:10

    Why do we want 5:4 17 and 19 -inchers??
    "high" screens are good for text editing, but sucks for gaming and video?
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    chaos86

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #7
    apple doesn't make a 17" stand-alone display
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #8
    True, but they did make one a year(?) ago
     
  9. macrumors 604

    ravenvii

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Location:
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    #9
    Yeah, but it's not even widescreen. So it's a bit hard to compare. I think the best way to look at 17" widescreen LCDs is to look at a 15", get the max HEIGHT resolution, and then look for a 17" widescreen with that same resolution for the height. Because a 17" widescreen LCD is essentially a widened 15". A 20" widescreen is a widened 17", and so on. It's not a exact math mind you, but it's close enough to compare :)
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2003
    #10
    Very close, I have done that search. Samsung offers / offered a couple of praised models for a decent price in this category, I don't have them handy, but they were.

    Basically, as this poster said, a 17" widescreen is BASICALLY a 15" monitor stretched horizontally. The HEIGHT is almost identical.
     
  11. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #11
    Yeah, but the PB 17" offers 1440x900. Know that it is not much more, but enough that some keep bringing up when comparing the 15" verses the 17" PBs.
     
  12. macrumors 68020

    jayscheuerle

    #12
    1280 x 768 is HDTV resolution. That's probably why it was chosen. - j
     
  13. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    #13
    Samsung 172W

    I bought a Samsung Syncmaster 172W about a year ago. It's been sitting in my closet for 4 months now (I bought a Dell 26" LCD TV that does double duty). If anyone is interested I might be coerced into letting it go for a fair price.

    -N

    edit: nm, you guys are all in crazy countries, good luck.
     
  14. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    #14
    What country are you from. I'm looking for a LCD monitor to replace my 15". I'm in America.
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    rosalindavenue

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    #15
    The toshiba in my sig, which I bought in December 03, has a 1440x900 screen. I read somewhere that it is the same screen apple put in the 17" PB. Of course, the rest of the notebook weighs 10 pounds and it has 70 minutes of battery life max-- but it does have a great display. It cost 1800 bucks, at a time when the 15" PB I really wanted cost 2600, and everyone was screaming about the "white spots on screen" problem.

    Edit: whoops-- thread was talking desktop monitors-- sorry; I'm still stuck in the "year of the laptop"
     
  16. Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #16
    Sorry to dredge this thread back from the dead! I have given up on the hunt for non-Apple 17" screens and bought a Dell 2005FPW instead. 20.1", 1680x1050, 4 inputs, picture-in-picture, USB hub and VESA mountable. I'll let you know what it's like when I get it!
     
  17. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #17
    Sharp makes a 17 inch widescreen LCD but it has an analog connection. It's fairly inexpensive.
     
  18. macrumors 603

    Mechcozmo

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    #18
    I'm still stuck in the Year of the Macintosh. That was 1984 for all of you freaks out there who don't know when the Mac first came out.
     

Share This Page