I always thought 22" lcd monitors would have a higher resolution than 20", but they're the same, what gives? Manufactures want to force us to buy a 24" monitor for a anything in a higher resolution than a 20"?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why do 22" lcd monitors have the same res. as 20"
- Thread starter mac000
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In principle there is no direct relation between size and pixels. I have a 12" Powerbook G4 and a 15" Acer laptop that have exactly the same number of pixels.
In the future expect to see more pixels per inch on a screen which is exactly why Apple is making OS X resolution independent.
In the future expect to see more pixels per inch on a screen which is exactly why Apple is making OS X resolution independent.
while they should increase the number of pixels they don't. And you can get some high resolution monitors. I can get a 15" panel that has as many pixels as my 23" Apple LCD.
"In the future expect to see more pixels per inch on a screen which is exactly why Apple is making OS X resolution independent."
Oh, good. That is a problem. I just got a 22" samsung (very nice) but at the recommended resolution (1680 X 1050) things get a might small. If I go to less resolution, image quality goes down. So will going resolution independent make it so you can increase the size of certain items (Like icons, tool bars and menus), kind of like you can do with Windows in some of the appearance setting?
Oh, good. That is a problem. I just got a 22" samsung (very nice) but at the recommended resolution (1680 X 1050) things get a might small. If I go to less resolution, image quality goes down. So will going resolution independent make it so you can increase the size of certain items (Like icons, tool bars and menus), kind of like you can do with Windows in some of the appearance setting?
TheSpaz
macrumors 604
Actually... 1680 x 1050 is a pretty low resolution for a 22" LCD. I have a 20" Apple Cinema that has 1680 x 1050 and that seems like a perfect pixel size to me. I think they're the same size pixels as my 12" PowerBook screen and I've always liked that size.
And yes, when you're resolution independent, you can change the size of the UI graphics on the screen without changing the screen resolution thus getting sharp graphics at any size rather than letting the LCD monitor try to render the new (non-native) resolution.
If you wanna see some tiny tiny pixels, just look at the 17" MacBook Pro.... that has the same number of pixels as the 20" Apple Cinema Display. Then again, you sit closer to the MacBook Pro, so it seems about the same in the long run.
1680x1050 on a 22 incher is weird because of the big pixels!
the 20" ACD and Dell 20" both do 1680, and those are perfect sizes.
The pixel size is almost the same as my 15" MBP, so it matches well when moving stuff between screens.
On the other hand, I picked up a 19" Samsung widescreen during black friday, it does 1440x900, which my MBP does at 15". Giant pixels 🙁
the 20" ACD and Dell 20" both do 1680, and those are perfect sizes.
The pixel size is almost the same as my 15" MBP, so it matches well when moving stuff between screens.
On the other hand, I picked up a 19" Samsung widescreen during black friday, it does 1440x900, which my MBP does at 15". Giant pixels 🙁
