When are we ever going to see some decently priced high ppi desktop monitors?

[Fourl29]

For reading, writing, coding, for everything to do with text. Seems like it's taking the lcd industry forever to get to what the ibm T221 had 15 years ago. And boy the few monitors that are out are pricey. Or you need to buy a super expensive notebook like the chromebook pixel or the retina macbook pro to have a high ppi monitor, because tablets don't cut it due to size.

That's really one technological advance I can't wait for to arrive. That and liquavista, if it's viable that is and doesn't go the way of mirasol.

[elcreative]

Simple physics and chemistry - the larger the panel with higher ppi then the greater the difficulty to get viable yield rates in production... hence the higher the relative pricing... so inexpensive, large screens with high ppi will probably take a while longer...

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Fourl29

For reading, writing, coding, for everything to do with text. Seems like it's taking the lcd industry forever to get to what the ibm T221 had 15 years ago. And boy the few monitors that are out are pricey. Or you need to buy a super expensive notebook like the chromebook pixel or the retina macbook pro to have a high ppi monitor, because tablets don't cut it due to size.

That's really one technological advance I can't wait for to arrive. That and liquavista, if it's viable that is and doesn't go the way of mirasol.

You should have bought one of the first gen multi-sync EGA monitors

I paid less (prices not adjusted for inflation) for my 2@ 21" widescreens than that single monitor.

Low cost is relative

[pagansoul]

Prices on monitors are dropping fast. I remember my first flat screen monitor was $500 for only 15". I'm sure you can get a very nice LCD for under $200 in a good desktop size. But if you want high PPI, yes, they tend to come with phones, notebooks and tablets and not monitors unless you want to pay the price.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing...sktop-displays

Aside from manufacturing considerations, there are also software related issues. More PPI mean that much of the stuff that you see on the screen will get smaller. Software developers have been addressing that issue through resolution independence, but resolution independence isn't universal because of the data involved. (One such example are rasterized images, such as photographs.)

Another hitch is a performance hit. More pixels mean that computers have to deal with much more data. Going from 100 PPI to 300 PPI involves 9 times as much data being pushed around. In many cases you also have to deal with rendering as well, though I don't know if that goes up with the square of PPI.

I do agree, higher PPI monitors would make life much nicer. That's particularly true if it brought about the end of anti-aliasing where contrast is important (e.g. text and line art). Yet I would caution anyone against thinking that the solution is simple and inexpensive. Monitors like the IBM T220 were very expensive and intended for high end workstations, workstations that ran specialized software that spent more time doing actual work than the whiz-bang stuff we expect on personal computers.

[Fourl29]

excellent post Bw, and great posting all around.

[teh603]

A bad implementation of high-DPI monitors can also result in a bad squint factor from trying to read excessively small text. I was happy at 72 DPI on the classic Macs, and the new 96 DPI "standard" is the maximum smallness factor I want. I've tried using a 120-DPI monitor, and it just doesn't work for me. The text is too small and I have to squint too hard to read things.

[grumbles]

There is also the problem with hardware to drive these monitors. Most video cards will simply not handle displays that are greater than 1920 x 1080. The few that do are significantly more expensive. Without the video hardware the monitors are useless and vice versa. I did see an announcement for an 84" Sony TV. 3840 x 2160 resolution. I didn't ask, I can't afford it. I would love to find a 15" 1080 monitor though.

[Abtacha]

Originally Posted by grumbles

Most video cards will simply not handle displays that are greater than 1920 x 1080.

Even the built in graphics solutions of current Intel CPUs will handle more (from 1920x1200 up to 2560x1600 depending on the specific CPU and Mainboard), same for AMD.
Dedicated graphic cards will go higher.

[Ankh]

1080P is the sweet spot for video support at this time. Streaming even higher resolutions is not practical, the bandwidth increase is prohibitive. The another issue is that extra "real estate" is easily achieved with multiple monitor configurations.

I personally don't feel the need for higher resolution desktop monitors.

[Ekaros]

I'm very happy with my 22" 1920x1200.

But I only wish that the 27" and 30" 2560x1440/1600 would drop in price. The larger real estate would be very nice thing to have. Not personaly one for more stuff. My 13.3" laptop has 1080p display and it's bit too small...

[grumbles]

Originally Posted by Abtacha

Even the built in graphics solutions of current Intel CPUs will handle more (from 1920x1200 up to 2560x1600 depending on the specific CPU and Mainboard), same for AMD.
Dedicated graphic cards will go higher.

Yes but unless you are using display port or analog output you are still restricted to 1920 x 1080. I was looking at some boards with onboard video (Intel as it happens) and HDMI and dvi will limit you to 1080. If you want better you will have to go to either DisplayPort or ThunderBolt and these proprietary interconnect are going to cost. Again it's a chicken & egg. I dearly would like better but if I can't afford it, it might as well not exist. None of these interconnects (or cables) will be cheap (or inexpensive.)

[Ekaros]

Originally Posted by grumbles

Yes but unless you are using display port or analog output you are still restricted to 1920 x 1080. I was looking at some boards with onboard video (Intel as it happens) and HDMI and dvi will limit you to 1080. If you want better you will have to go to either DisplayPort or ThunderBolt and these proprietary interconnect are going to cost. Again it's a chicken & egg. I dearly would like better but if I can't afford it, it might as well not exist. None of these interconnects (or cables) will be cheap (or inexpensive.)

Dual-link DVI will support higher resolution, although cables aren't common. Most modern video cards should have port.

[John F]

Originally Posted by grumbles

Yes but unless you are using display port or analog output you are still restricted to 1920 x 1080. I was looking at some boards with onboard video (Intel as it happens) and HDMI and dvi will limit you to 1080. If you want better you will have to go to either DisplayPort or ThunderBolt and these proprietary interconnect are going to cost. Again it's a chicken & egg. I dearly would like better but if I can't afford it, it might as well not exist. None of these interconnects (or cables) will be cheap (or inexpensive.)

I'm using hdmi/dvi and my monitor is 1920x1200.

[David Munch]

Does people really sit that close to their big screens? I can understand it with laptops, since you often keep them in the lap, but for my 27" iMac at 2560x1440 (109ppi), I have it about a meter away from my face. I can't make out single pixels at that distance...