why are 1600x1200 20" LCDs so expensive?

[artoodeeto]

just wonderin' why the older square-type 1600x1200 20" LCDs are ridiculously pricey compared to higher resolution widescreen monitors...I'm looking to replace my two 20" samsung 204b's (@ 1600x1200), and I figured that the same aspect ration screen would be cheaper....but no. on newegg for some reason the average price is around $800, which is insane considering you can get a 1920x1080 for about $140. anyone who can shed some light on this and satisfy my curiousity, I'd appreciate it.
Also if anyone knows of any decent deals - I want the same or better resolution. The 1080 vertical res feels short to me because I'm so used to 1200, but I think I can put up with it (the 1920x1200 screens are double the cost of the 1080's).
I love my samsungs, the only reason for replacement is they were part of a bad batch of sceens that tend to repeatedly blink on and off at 1600x1200, rendering it nearly useless. I used to use powerstrip to stabilize the signal going into the screen (they've done this on 3 different video cards and 3 different OS's, so the issue is the screens not the computer), powerstrip worked in XP and Vista, but bluescreens in win7. oh well.

[OvRiDe]

I would imagine it has to do with production numbers. I am not even sure they are producing 4:3 monitors anymore. If they are, they are probably just for specific uses. So its the whole law of supply and demand. If the supply is low, it is automatically high demand so the price is reflected.

[Airbozo]

I remember researching this several years back for one of my customers. It had to do with the process of making a 1600x1200 panel. If I remember right most of the 20"ers that support 1600x1200 have a tighter pixel density. This drives the cost up.

Overide also hit something with the supply/demand aspect. As the industry moves to the wide screen format, fewer companies are making any 4:3 monitors. Our same customer still needs those monitors and anything they spec out for new systems HAS to support 4:3 format without stretching the image... Dell still sells a few 4:3 models.

[artoodeeto]

yea, that all makes sense. I figured it was something like that - much of the type of work I do is more vertical in orientation than horizontal, so to me widescreens feel too short. I also don't ever watch movies on the computer, so I'm probably one of a tiny minority that prefers 4:3 screens. However...just downloaded the latest nvidia driver, and now powerstrip seems to be working without bluescreening (fingers crossed)...which would forestall the need for new screens hopefully at least til the next hardware upgrade...or until I can actually afford the 1920x1200 screens that I'd want...

[Luke122]

yea, that all makes sense. I figured it was something like that - much of the type of work I do is more vertical in orientation than horizontal, so to me widescreens feel too short.

Why not get an LCD that can rotate 90', and just use it as a 9:16 monitor?

[artoodeeto]

That thought's crossed my mind, but they tend to be pricier (at least they were the last time I looked), so it's one of those things where I may eventually, if I have the money. for the moment, it looks like the new nvidia driver and powerstrip are cooperating, and I really do like the screens I have. in all honesty, my first choice will be to wait until (or if) organic LED screens become a reality. Or whatever the next thing after LCD is.

[x88x]

That thought's crossed my mind, but they tend to be pricier
Doesn't have to be; make your own mounts or buy 'custom' mounts, and it doesn't matter if the stand the monitor shipped with rotates or not.
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=109&cp_id=10828 (scroll down to near the bottom for the monitor mounts)


in all honesty, my first choice will be to wait until (or if) organic LED screens become a reality. Or whatever the next thing after LCD is.
That's gonna be a while. IMO, AMOLED is gonna be the next 'big thing'; viewing ranges as good or better than IPS LCDs, brightness and contrast as good or better than LED backlit LCD (iirc) , no backlight required, cheap to manufacture (once the equipment is built), possible to fab flexible panels...oh, and did I mention dirt cheap to manufacture? Unfortunately, the tech just isn't quite there for big screens yet. I think Samsung or LG or someone demoed a 40-something inch AMOLD TV at the last CES, but it's probably not gonna go mainstream for at least another 5 years.

[arnoldarever]

All the technology and unique features provided by the product make it expensive.Some of them are as follows like LCD display / TFT active matrix, 20 in - Widescreen, 1600 x 900 / 60 Hz, 0.2768 mm, 5 ms.

[dr.walrus]

Why not get an LCD that can rotate 90', and just use it as a 9:16 monitor?

This.

http://www.samsung.com/au/consumer/pc-peripherals/monitor/lcd-monitor/LS22MYKEBQ/XSA/index.idx?pagetype=prd_detail&tab=spec&fullspec=F

[Luke122]

Doesn't have to be; make your own mounts or buy 'custom' mounts, and it doesn't matter if the stand the monitor shipped with rotates or not.
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=109&cp_id=10828 (scroll down to near the bottom for the monitor mounts)


This. :D

[artoodeeto]

luckily powerstrip, windows 7, and the newest nvidia drivers all finally decided to play nice, so my blinky issue is once again a thing of the past...until I change something else. hopefully, the next thing that I change will be the screens, but it gives me time until I can actually afford new ones...