Where are the high-res LCDs?

[javabear90]

I have been wondering for a long time why are the desktop screens so restricted in terms of thickness and resolution (edit: pixel density). How can a laptop screen be 15", 1920 x 1200, and 1/2 inch thick; when the desktop screens are 2" thick, and 1024 x 768. (To get as high resolution, you have to go up to a 23"). Also, in the 17" models it is the same story, you can get ultra high resolution, thin screens on a laptop, but thick(er) lower resolution on a desktop. I am not talking about overall resoultion, but the density of the pixels.
I would pay a lot of money for a desktop screen with that resolution in that small of a package and that thickness. We have the technology, just no one wants to implement it.
I am wondering if this is some sort of conspiracy between the manufactures of the LCD's.

-Ted

Edit: added a few phrases.

 

[wmmk]

it's called the 30 inch HD cinema display by apple

 

[PlaceofDis]

for what it's worth, the 20" display on apple's site starts out with 1680x1050, the 23" has 1920x1200... and the 30" is a monster with 2560x1600
are those not higher res than a laptop, sure bigger screen too.

 

[javabear90]

well... what I mean is the pixel density, not total resolution. How is it that a 15" display can have higher resolution than a 20"?
Think, take a 17" laptop screen at 1920 x 1200 and put it on a stand, ultra high resolution, portable, same detail as a 23" screen etc... Or you could also wall mount it. The only issue is that everything would appear to small, however for many applications this does not matter, you can scale everything, or you can live with it.
-Ted

 

[Phatpat]

I imagine it has something to do with cost of those high-res Powerbook LCDs vs demand for them in a solo config. A lot of old people complain about high resolutions in small displays as well.

 

[portent]

Why?


[Size=-9]Why would you want a display with laptop pixel density (and the requisite tiny text) if you're not constrained by a portable form factor?
[/SIZE]

Maybe it'll make sense once the resolution-independent UI becomes mature.

 

[ibilly]

why? detail>pixelation In photography, the greater resolution of the screen, the more image detail is displayed, so sharpness and the like are accurate and vivid, not a product of the artifacts produced by larger pixels. It's definately a good thing in amy applications.

 

[chris y.]

dont forget that they also expect your face to be a lot closer to a laptop display than a desktop display so they can use a higher resolution.

I generally agree that higher pixel density is better because everything looks so much more detailed but the biggest benefit is definitely multitasking. Until we have scaleable text supported in everything I dont think we'll see the 1920x1200 coming to a 17in desktop display anytime soon.

 

[javabear90]

Why?


[Size=-9]Why would you want a display with laptop pixel density (and the requisite tiny text) if you're not constrained by a portable form factor?
[/SIZE]

Maybe it'll make sense once the resolution-independent UI becomes mature.

Well... for one, I have good eyes. For a high end gaming system it would be good because you can everything at high resolution. Also I would love to see my photos at their full resolution or see an entire design layout at its full resolution. In addition, you could have a second lower resolution display for palettes, and other things that are better large and you could have your high resolution display showing photos, games, and text that can be enlarged.

Also, a large portion of the text that you see can be enlarged/zoomed: MS Office, mail, Safari (ish) and most other applications.

I guess I am just mad because the technology is there and I believe there is / would be a demand for high pixel density screens like in laptops. While they might not be suited for everyone, many "Power users" and professionals would love to have one.

About the resolution independent OS's, I think that the OS will follow the technology. In other words, the displays need to come out first, and then the OS will follow.
-Ted

 

[mkrishnan]

Honestly, I think you're spot on, and I would love to see this happen. But I don't think you'll see this until a major operating system has a resolution independent user interface.

That will allow manufacturers to accommodate both you and non-gamers who can use increased pixel density, but do not want their user interface elements to be tiny.

I have an Axim x51v with a ... what is it.. about 5" VGA display? The pixel density is insane. You can almost read a full 8.5 x 11 page in 10 point font onscreen. Which is amazing. But in order to get it to do that, you have to use a hack related to the way this device implements VGA. As a side-effect, all the user interface elements are 1/4 normal size, and very hard to select / manipulate. That's exactly the problem you want to avoid on the desktop -- you want the *data* to be very sharp and high pixel density. But you want the user interface to be reasonably sized.

Leopard is rumored to maybe, maybe have the res-indep UI. So Apple may be getting ready to go there. Although we're probably not going to see a lot of this until *Windows* offers the feature. Which...well...

I don't think the OS will follow the tech in this case -- there are lots of times that happens. Manufacturers make hard drives and OEMs find ways to use them. The problem here is that this display isn't very usable to most consumers without *major* OS changes. So I really don't think this will happen until someone commits to doing it at the OS level. Right now, there is no major OS that supports this or whose development team has gone on record to state that it will do so.

 

[javabear90]

Well... I guess also what I am trying to say is that with a 15" laptop screen you have 5 or so different choices of the resolution. You can go from 1024 x 768 all the way up to 1920 x 1200. Depending on the users needs and money you can get the screen that suits you.

However in the desktop realm, there is only ONE choice. Why can't I by a 1600 x 1200 19" lcd panel? It is a perfectly reasonable resolution for that size and would look great and I am sure would sell like hot cakes. Just last weekend I bought a 17" LCD for my PC. The reason why I did not go with 19 was there was no difference in resolution and I did not see the need for the extra price difference for no more pixels. I am sure many other people will agree with me.

It almost seems that there is one company making all the LCD's and regulating the technology and releasing the new technology over a long period of time to capitalize on the people that must have "the latest and greatest". It seems that laptop screens have been very thin for the past 15 years or so, but desktop screens have gotton progressivly thinner over the past 10 years. Why couldn't the companys just take those laptop screens and stick them on a stand with a powersuply? It might be too expensive, however I am sure many people would buy them because many people favor style over cost (i.e. many Mac users).

-Ted

 

[ManchesterTrix]

SGI had a 17" Widescreen Desktop LCD that had 1600x1024. I think it's been discontinued.

Princeton had an 18" Desktop LCD that was 1600x1200 which has also been discontinued.

 

[javabear90]

SGI had a 17" Widescreen Desktop LCD that had 1600x1024. I think it's been discontinued.

Princeton had an 18" Desktop LCD that was 1600x1200 which has also been discontinued.

Is there any idea why they are not sold any more? I would have defiantly bought that 18" if the price was reasonable.

 

[ManchesterTrix]

Is there any idea why they are not sold any more? I would have defiantly bought that 18" if the price was reasonable.

They're discontinued because they didn't sell very well

 

[mrichmon]

I would pay a lot of money for a desktop screen with that resolution in that small of a package and that thickness. We have the technology, just no one wants to implement it.
I am wondering if this is some sort of conspiracy between the manufactures of the LCD's.

The "thickness" of the screen isn't a factor. In general the front to back thickness of the LCD itself is fairly constant. The backlight thinkness potentially could vary a little but is not necessarily a significant factor.

When manufacturing LCD screens the important measure is the number of pixel errors in a given area. LCD manufacturing techniques have a fairly constant error rate (though the location of the errors is random). (To be strictly accurate, the error rate increases as a function of the density of the pixel field, but lets assume a constant error rate.)

A 20" screen with 1600x1024 resolution has 1638400 pixels. A 20" screen with 1024x768 resolution has 786432 pixels. That is, a 1600x1024 screen has more than twice the number of pixels than a 1024x768 screen. For a given fixed error rate producing a 1600x1024 screen will roughly halve the number of error free screens that you can produce. The cost of producing LCD panels that have errors needs to be added to the sales cost of the functioning LCD panels thereby driving the cost of the panels up at a non-linear rate.