|
|
|
|
|
|
by robotblake
5548 days ago
|
|
|
You're comparing two completely different technologies though, that'd be like me complaining about how we're "so not-winning" with the size and price of SSDs. Side Note: A 23" monitor purchase is not necessarily a "careless" one, for example the NEC model I use has one of the nicest feature sets for the price (fully adjustable base, IPS panel) but is only available in a 23.1" 1920x1080 version. |
|
|
That has to be one of the slowest changing metrics in modern computing.
What I meant by careless is that if you shop a typical desktop dcreen by price you will get 1920x1080 at 22/23/24 screens; you can buy 1900x1200 but you need to carefully find one because they are uncommon. Sure you can both 'care' and buy a screen like you have. But you can't not-care and have a chance at ending up with the higher resolution.
And you can get that res. for 24" £130, but a significant jump needs 27" or 30" screens - and 27" start with the same resolution! You need £730 for a 27" with higher resolution and £1200 for a 30". And that 6x multiplier gets you 1.5x more vertical pixels.
(How is that high-res small-pixel people 'winning'?)