On 30/05/2013 1:33 PM, mjones11 wrote: > 27" Dell Ultra Sharp ultra U2713H - 2560x1440 - $799 > 27" X-Star DP2710 (Samsung panel) - 2560x1440 - $295
You cannot go by pixels alone, there have always been cheap monitors and expensive monitors in all sizes and you really do get what you pay for on the whole. Dell has 27" screens for example that are much cheaper, but they aren't Ulra Sharp quality or the higher resolution, they also have more expensive option(s) -- at least one. Here is the simple maths reason why we have so many cheap 1366x768 monitors instead of 1920x1080 or better -- it's all about pixel count; the more pixels, the higher the manufacture cost. $ echo $((1366*768)) 1049088 $ echo $((1920*1080)) 2073600 $ echo $((1920*1200)) 2304000 $ echo $((1024*768)) 786432 $ echo $((1280*1024)) 1310720 Arguably, 1280x1024 is much better than 1366x768, but the component cost in parts count in manufacture is 30% higher (roughly). So, they make plenty of 1366x768 screens to save money and the average Joe doesn't seem to care about the lack of resolution. I am disregarding the quantity benefits of manufacture to a point when counting parts; but if the standard was 1920x1080 or a better standard, then cost of manufacturer would drop due to volume -- right now, the volume "sweet spot" for MANUFACTURERS is 1366x768, hence why we see so many sub-standard screens! Cheers A. _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
