Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Does anyone other than Apple make 17" widescreen LCDs?

Nermal

Nermal

Moderator
Original poster
Staff member
Dec 7, 2002
21,514
5,411
New Zealand
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 :)
 
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.
 
robbieduncan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
cluthz said:
True, but they did make one a year(?) ago
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
Raven VII said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
BillHarrison said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
NatronB said:
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.
Click to expand...

What country are you from. I'm looking for a LCD monitor to replace my 15". I'm in America.
 
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"
 
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!
 
Sharp makes a 17 inch widescreen LCD but it has an analog connection. It's fairly inexpensive.
 
rosalindavenue said:
Edit: whoops-- thread was talking desktop monitors-- sorry; I'm still stuck in the "year of the laptop"
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back