[eyerony]

A thousand rows wasn't impressive in 2000. I think people've forgotten (or weren't around for, so don't realize) how big a step back we took on picture quality and pixel density for monitors, for many years, with the switch to LCD.

[chrisseaton]

Right - I swear I remember running CRTs at 2000+ rows in the early 2000s. Now people seem impressed with 1000, even on fairly expensive full-sized laptops?

[zozbot234]

You weren't running those CRT's on laptops though. The laptops of the time had low res displays with very narrow viewing angles.

[chrisseaton]

When I look on Amazon for desktop monitors, I also see products proudly boasting that they're 'Full HD'. And what's more we seem to have stopped at Full HD - weren't most LCD monitors Full HD like ten years ago? What's going on?

[freehunter]

If you're not seeing 4k and 5k monitors, you're not looking hard enough. They're plentiful and pretty cheap these days.

[chrisseaton]

> If you're not seeing 4k and 5k monitors, you're not looking hard enough.

I didn't say I wasn't seeing them, though did I?

I'm saying I still see monitors with this ancient low FHD resolution. When you search for hard drives you don't see 2005-era capacities as your first result. Why do we still see 2005-era resolutions as our first result for LCDs? And some of them cost hundreds of dollars - the same price as in 2005.