<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Engadget - Comments for BenQ's FP72V 17-inch monitor</title>
<link>http://www.engadget.com/2005/05/06/benqs-fp72v-17-inch-monitor/</link>
<description>Engadget Comments for BenQ's FP72V 17-inch monitor</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on BenQ's FP72V 17-inch monitor]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2005/05/06/benqs-fp72v-17-inch-monitor/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2005/05/06/benqs-fp72v-17-inch-monitor/</guid><description><![CDATA[Everything but the kitchen sink eh? I'll buy one when it can do my laundry as well. =D]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[v10n]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on BenQ's FP72V 17-inch monitor]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2005/05/06/benqs-fp72v-17-inch-monitor/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2005/05/06/benqs-fp72v-17-inch-monitor/</guid><description><![CDATA["We might like if they’d take it upon themselves to break out a 17-inch screen that’s not merely SXGA (1280 x 1024)"<br><br>High density LCD screens do not generally exist in the consumer marketplace.  If you do the math, you'll realize that the density of all consumer LCD screens is about the same - in the range of around 95-115dpi, regardless of size or pixel resolution.  (The exception is LCD's made specifically for medical or other professional uses, although these can run into the many thousands of dollars.)  There's obviously a cost vs. benefit reason for this.  If you suddenly jump from a 100dpi density to a 150dpi density, the costs scale up with the number of transistors involved and the tolerances with which you've got to manufacture them, while the yields scale down... meaning much higher prices for all of us.<br><br>There's a high end and a low end to the density range, but 17" screen densities are not at the low end... 19" screens take that honor.  The 19" LCD is the bastard child, sort of a tweener with no real benefit over a 17" model except for watching video or gaming (or for those with vision problems).  15, 17, and 20/21 inch models, though, all give you resolutions that scale up logically at around the same density.<br><br>btw, depending on your point of view, 17" models have something of an advantage over 15" and 21" models in that they're 5:4 displays vs. 4:3 displays.  So they are actually slightly larger than you would otherwise expect a 17" display to be.  (Don't ask me why this is the case - I don't know who decided the 5:4 1280x1024 was the next step up from the 4:3 1024x768, with a return to 4:3 in 1600x1200 after that... but there it is.  1280x1024 LCD's do still have square pixels, so they are true 5:4 displays.)<br>]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeff]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on BenQ's FP72V 17-inch monitor]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2005/05/06/benqs-fp72v-17-inch-monitor/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2005/05/06/benqs-fp72v-17-inch-monitor/</guid><description><![CDATA[You seem to forget notebook lcds, which are, unfortunately, quite common to be found in obscenely high pixel counts for the size of the screen.  For example, my screen is a 15.4 inch with a crazy 1680 x 1050 pixels (the same as most of those 20 inch widescreen monitors that are out there)  And wuxga was available at purchase as well for another $100.  I really don't think hardly anyone would want a uxga 17" screen.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joey Geraci]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Dec 19th 2005 12:53AM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
