"The dog from that film you saw" <alan.lovedogremovethis DeleteThis @btinternet.com>
wrote in message news:bsnmi8$egk22$1@ID-98824.news.uni-berlin.de...
> I'm looking to get a new pc - i currently have a laptop. i'm undecided
> whether to do that again or go for a regular pc.
> if i go the desktop route i want to go LCD - partially for space saving
but
> in the main as i like the lack of flicker.
>
> however.....
>
> why are the displays in the main so low res?
The answer to any such question with respect to a commercial product
is almost always "money." In general, the market has simply been
unwilling to spend the bucks required to make higher-resolution (but
"normal" size) monitors a profitable venture. There are some out there
(there are specialized products that go as high as 9 megapixels in a
desktop package), but they've only been successful in niche markets.
The notebook market, in which the "PC" costs more than its desktop
counterpart anyway, has always been willing to spend more on displays,
and that's still true. A 15" notebook panel, even in the XGA format, still
costs more than its desktop-oriented counterpart, and naturally the higher-
res panels are even more expensive.
> dell laptops can have lcd screens of 1920x1280, yet the larger desktop lcd
> displays seem to top out at 1280x1024 in the main unless you are willing
to
> spend big money.
Right. Actually, mainstream "desktop" products these days top out at
1600 x 1200, in the 20-21" size class.
>
> is there any reason why a desktop lcd should be so much more than a
laptops
> lcd?
They're not, at least not in terms of the basic panel price per square
or diagonal inch. Keep in mind that a desktop monitor also includes much
more in the way of "front end" electronics than the LCD in a notebook, which
connects directly to the graphics subsystem and is always being driven
in its native mode.
Bob M.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: high resolution lcd displays?