ASUS joins the 22-inch madness with the MW221U

If you haven't noticed by now, there's an intense 22-inch meme circulating, and it looks like ASUS has now caught the Vista-ready fever. Their new MW221U display has already been floating around a few online stores, but now it looks like it's getting official, along with a whole new lineup of displays. The MW221U does the 16:10 widescreen thing, with a 1680 x 1050 resolution, and the rest of its specs aren't too bad neither, like a 2ms response time, HDCP-compatible DVI port, 700:1 contrast ratio and 300 nits of brightness. There's also a 20-inch version, the MW201U, which sports identical specs. As for the rest, the VW191 and VW192 are bot 16:10 19-inchers, with 1440 x 900 resolutions and 5ms response times, while the MB19 and MB17SE go for a standard aspect ratio, manage 1280 x 1024 SXGA action, and boast of 2ms and 5ms response times respectively. Not too shabby of the lineup, and the HDCP in the widescreens is quite welcome, we just wish we knew what was so magical about 22 freakin' inches.

[Via Akihabara]

[L. M. Lloyd @ Oct 5th 2006 10:34AM]

Are we going to start calling 4:3 monitors 16:12 soon too? It is an 8:5 aspect ratio monitor! There is no such thing as a 16:10 aspect ratio. It is a marketing number to make something that is not 16:9 sound more like it is 16:9.

[telepheedian @ Oct 5th 2006 10:43AM]

That monitor is so heart touching, I think I'm gonna cry. It came all the way from China just to touch my heart with its rock solid panel. (sobs)

[disciple83 @ Oct 5th 2006 10:53AM]

OK, I am rocking the Asus mobo and video card. I was considering the Vento case, but its just too big. Is the monitor worth it all? And what about the Asus price scheme? Is it gonna match, or be reasonable?

[TWilly @ Oct 5th 2006 10:58AM]

I think what's so magical about 22" is that the vertical portion is approximately the same as a 19" 4:3 monitor

[Ed @ Oct 5th 2006 11:23AM]

While I admit that a 22 inch monitor is sweet, the 1680 x 1050 native resolution makes me cringe~
I don't know about you, but having to wear magnifying specs to read the print on a computer monitor is stupid!

[Tonicboy @ Oct 5th 2006 11:27AM]

22" is a perfect size, because:

1) 24" monitors are too expensive
2) 24" monitors are usually 1920x1200 resolution, which is too many pixels to push for gaming to keep those framerates up
3) 24" monitors usually achieve their size and resolution by sacrificing response time (e.g. the popular Dell 2405FPW boasts 12ms response)

So now you kknow, stop asking why 22" is so magical.

[JiltedCitizen @ Oct 5th 2006 12:05PM]

At work I had a Dell 810, what was that a 15 in screen 17 in? It had a resolution of 1920x1200, why can't I get a desktop version of that. Why do I need to go to a 24" lcd? I like the blinding resolution.

[David @ Oct 5th 2006 12:12PM]

"While I admit that a 22 inch monitor is sweet, the 1680 x 1050 native resolution makes me cringe~
I don't know about you, but having to wear magnifying specs to read the print on a computer monitor is stupid!"

Higher resolution at the same number of pixels per character equals smaller type. However, higher resolution at the same size type means more pixels per character, or better-defined, sharper characters. The proper way to adjust your Windows desktop is to first use the advanced display settings to set your DPI correctly (so that an inch on the virtual ruler in the dialog box actually equals an inch) and then switch to large or extra large fonts as required to obtain the text size you wish. You can then fine-tune this with the advanced Appearance settings (which let you adjust the point size for a variety of different types of text, whether icon, menu or window title text).

[EdZ @ Oct 5th 2006 12:15PM]

I still don't get why people complain about resolutions being too HIGH. If the resolution is low, everything is blocky and pixellated. If it's too high (and your eyesight is such that you can't read text) then simply increase the text size. You can do this with windows, on OSX, and (I assume, I'd be mightily surprised if you couldn't) on Linux.
It's a pity that LCDs with resolutions comparable to CRTs are so expensive. a 1920x1200 LCD runs about �550 at the very least, usually around �700. A CRT with a resolution of 1920x1200 (usually 1920x1440 with 4:3 aspect screens) will run about �60-100.

[Ignacio @ Oct 5th 2006 12:41PM]

"...while the MB19 and MB17SE go for a standard aspect ratio, manage 1280 x 1024 SXGA action..."

Actually, standard aspect ration would be 4:3 or, in this case 1280 x 960.

1280x1024 is "squarer", with a 5:4 ratio.

[patsy @ Oct 5th 2006 1:25PM]

I don't get this obsession with widescreen computer screens. For anything but movies cutting vertical resolution is a BAD thing (think less lines of code/text/etc.) Consider the good old 1600x1200: if you want to give me a "better" or "fancier" display by making it widescreen, add 533 horizontal pixels to make it 2133x1200 for a 16:9 ratio (or 320 for 1920x1200 at 16:10 if you must), but for everything that's good and holy don't take away 150 sweet, precious vertical pixels.

[cuby @ Oct 5th 2006 2:22PM]

with a widescreen monitor, i can place two pages of a Word document side by side, so i don't miss the vertical space.

for things like vertically-panned pornography, you can always just rotate the monitor and not have to choose between the top part and bottom part.

[Matt @ Oct 5th 2006 1:30PM]

i swear ive seen buttons just like that on my moto razr

[Gabe @ Oct 5th 2006 2:55PM]

If its priced at under 350, i might buy it. It looks like a great monitor.

[Vale @ Oct 5th 2006 3:38PM]

If my 17" laptop monitor is 1920x1200, why is it that all of these monitors that are much larger always have much lower resolutions? I would think that at that size and resolution images would start to look a little pixelated. I'm trying to find something decent to use as a second display, but everything has specs similar to this one.

[steve @ Oct 5th 2006 3:48PM]

yet another display that cant do 1900x1080 (1080p)


and lots of sad folks will buy these things for hd content,,,

well hate to break the news.. but 720p will be significantly extrapolated, and 1080p will be interpolated,,,

fun, stuff.

[Jose Blackshear @ Oct 5th 2006 4:44PM]

This looks pretty cool, im a big gamer, and use a media PC would love to see how this would look.. 22" awesome

[Yem @ Oct 5th 2006 6:09PM]

Am I the only one who wants a monitor that has the equivalent resolution of two 4:3 monitors? It's the only practical way to have two browsers or a browser and editor side by side with decent width.

We use a pair of 4:3 monitors (19" CRTs are present - switching to 19" LCDs very soon) at work. Show me an affordable, available LCD less than 30" with a h.res of at least 2000px.

[soap @ Oct 5th 2006 8:18PM]

My 20.1" 1680x1050 LCD is almost exactly the size of two 8.5"x11" pages. Thus its attraction.

[Balzac2m @ Oct 6th 2006 12:57PM]

So i have to ask this question because I can't find an answer anywhere on the 'net.
WHY THE *@!# does (next to) noone manufacture Displays with a smaller Dotpitch.
I am aware of notebook-panels with WUXGA at 15" (but they don't count because I'm talking of Dekstopdisplays) , Eizo's Radiforce Displays an IBM's T221.
But it seems to me that that's it.
I know, many people use sucky Operating Systems which aren't really usable at small dotpitches (under 0.20mm, better under 0.15mm), but it's certainly possible to tweak Linux and perhaps even Mac OS so it usable.
I want at least 2048*1536 for 20".
Am I the only one?

[Stoop @ Oct 7th 2006 12:23PM]

Why not just up the resolution that little bit more, and give us 1080p, why some obtuse resolution.

[ozi @ Oct 9th 2006 1:19AM]

looks nice, but have they cured dead pixel problems in lcds yet?

[Jeff C. @ Nov 21st 2006 12:24PM]

I don't know if you all are aware that almost all of the manufacturers to not produce their own panels. It is difficult to find out who the panel manufacturer is but it is probably by Chi-Mei Optoelectronics.

http://www.cmo.com.tw/cmo/english/product/showproductd.jsp?size=22

There are others that people have heard of like Samsung as well. What really sucks is that these monitors throw out refresh rates like they actually mean something like 5ms response time. Well the industry has no standard in this area, so it is all just BS. The only thing it can help suggest is what type of panel it is. This woulds most likely be a TN panel. That means twisted nematic. A good primer on the subject can be found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD

THis will show why that 24" 12ms response time Dell monitor costs more than a 5 or 2ms panel. I believe the Dell is a S-PVA but may be an IPS. Different panels for different applications.