4 ms·

> Desktop displays stopped moving forward in capability in 2001 Are you kidding? In 2001, it was pricy to get a 15" 1280x1024 LCD monitor. Are we in the same s

by pyre 13y ago

> Desktop displays stopped moving forward in capability in 2001 Are you kidding? In 2001, it was pricy to get a 15" 1280x1024 LCD monitor. Are we in the same state of affairs today? Would you be willing to wager that the quality, viewing angle, etc of that LCD monitor compares favourably to today's models?

zobzu 13y ago
it seems that in 2001 everyone has 4K prototypes at work. Well, according to HN at least. Personally I had to pay $500 for a 19 inches that would do 1280x1024, CRT. the screen isn't even flat. flat screen crts were out of my price league. Yesterday I bought a 27" of much higher resolution, for $300. So yeah, right.
- yardie 13y ago
  The price has moved down, the tech hasn't moved up, at least not a whole lot. I bought a Sony 20" flat trinitron in 2002 from a dotbomb property sale. It was capable of 1600x1200 and up to 120Hz. Traditionally, the high end displays come down in price and the volume sales pays for R&D for the next high end displays. Today this is not the case, look at the displays going into 300$ tablets compared to desktop displays. tablet resolutions are rocketing while laptops are static at 768, 900, or 1440 (if you pay for it). The GPUs are more than capable of 4K now yet how many 4K displays are available?
  - pyre 13y ago
    Tablet resolutions are rocketing because it's easier to create high-density small displays than to create a 16:9 30" display at the same density.
bhauer 13y ago
I am speaking of the state-of-the-art of 2001 versus today. IBM's 2001-era T220 was pushing 3,840 horizontal pixels for something around $7,000. A massive investment to be sure. But had computer monitor R&D continued unhindered by the taint of "HD", T220-class monitors would have eventually became mainstream and the state-of-the-art would have marched forward still. I would have bought a "T220" in say 2002 or 2003 at $2,000. But the advance of technology seemed to halt and that never became an option for me. Yes, prices have (mostly) come down. Yes, we have IPS versus TN. Thank goodness. But in terms of the top-tier specification of displays—resolution—we've stagnated and regressed. As others in this thread have pointed out, laptop resolutions in 2001 were higher than they were in ~2011. I don't own Apple products, but I give them credit for ending the tyranny of HD. Thank you, Apple! Also, prices are not uniformly better, or at least they were not until very recently when some Korean manufacturers decided to shake up the monitor cartel. The consumer high-end in particular had been stuck with 2560x1600 30" monitors at ~$1,100 for about seven years. Related rant: http://tiamat.tsotech.com/hd-sucks http://tiamat.tsotech.com/hd-sucks

by pyre 13y ago

zobzu 13y ago

it seems that in 2001 everyone has 4K prototypes at work. Well, according to HN at least. Personally I had to pay $500 for a 19 inches that would do 1280x1024, CRT. the screen isn't even flat. flat screen crts were out of my price league. Yesterday I bought a 27" of much higher resolution, for $300. So yeah, right.

yardie 13y ago
The price has moved down, the tech hasn't moved up, at least not a whole lot. I bought a Sony 20" flat trinitron in 2002 from a dotbomb property sale. It was capable of 1600x1200 and up to 120Hz. Traditionally, the high end displays come down in price and the volume sales pays for R&D for the next high end displays. Today this is not the case, look at the displays going into 300$ tablets compared to desktop displays. tablet resolutions are rocketing while laptops are static at 768, 900, or 1440 (if you pay for it). The GPUs are more than capable of 4K now yet how many 4K displays are available?
- pyre 13y ago
  Tablet resolutions are rocketing because it's easier to create high-density small displays than to create a 16:9 30" display at the same density.

bhauer 13y ago

I am speaking of the state-of-the-art of 2001 versus today. IBM's 2001-era T220 was pushing 3,840 horizontal pixels for something around $7,000. A massive investment to be sure. But had computer monitor R&D continued unhindered by the taint of "HD", T220-class monitors would have eventually became mainstream and the state-of-the-art would have marched forward still. I would have bought a "T220" in say 2002 or 2003 at $2,000. But the advance of technology seemed to halt and that never became an option for me. Yes, prices have (mostly) come down. Yes, we have IPS versus TN. Thank goodness. But in terms of the top-tier specification of displays—resolution—we've stagnated and regressed. As others in this thread have pointed out, laptop resolutions in 2001 were higher than they were in ~2011. I don't own Apple products, but I give them credit for ending the tyranny of HD. Thank you, Apple! Also, prices are not uniformly better, or at least they were not until very recently when some Korean manufacturers decided to shake up the monitor cartel. The consumer high-end in particular had been stuck with 2560x1600 30" monitors at ~$1,100 for about seven years. Related rant: http://tiamat.tsotech.com/hd-sucks http://tiamat.tsotech.com/hd-sucks