Samsung sez: 24- is the new 22-inch LCD for Vista

Forget all that nonsense about 22-inch monitors being ideal for Vista. Samsung is now telling us that 24-inch panels are where it's at. That extra 2-inches makes room for a pair of A4 sheets side-by-side as well as the Vista right-side bar and margins. Shame those "industry experts" weren't more clear about this before Samsung managed to sell-out their stock of 22-inch panels, eh? Anyway, Sammy's new 1,920 x 1,200 LCD panel is LED-backlit and covers an industry-high 111% of the NTSC color gamut; an ideal resolution for watching HD flicks with the color saturation required to keep photogs and designers whistling while they work. Rounding out the specs are a 180-degree viewing angle, contrast ratio "greater than 1000:1," and 250cd/m2 brightness. Samsung is ramping up production in Q2 (i.e., now) so we should see the new panels sneaking out in monitors by the end of Q2 or early Q3.

[Via Photography Blog]

[Jonathan Keim @ Apr 11th 2007 9:49AM]

I definentely agree with that, I just wish I had a PCI-E slot so I could use a 24" at it's high resolution

[Jamie Marsden @ Apr 11th 2007 11:56AM]

Jonathan: it's perfectly possible to run a 1920x1080 on an AGP card - all DVI ports will do this. I was doing it myself until I upgraded a few weeks ago.
You may be being confused by the 30" displays which require a higher resolution than this, and so require a Dual Link DVI port. Most recent cards have these, and I believe that there are a few of the higher end AGP ones with the feature too.

[steve @ Apr 11th 2007 9:49AM]

so is samsung going to actually manufacturing these, or is it going to be handed off to some third party with sub-par quality control? Don't get me wrong, I really like samsung panels, just when they are the ones making them...

[Rick Lyon @ Apr 11th 2007 10:11AM]

Wow, widescreen fitting two sheets of paper at 1920x1200, so original Samsung! Only 4 years late to where Apple's already 'been'.

[Argot @ Apr 11th 2007 10:15AM]

If you can't see the difference between this and a crappy overpriced Apple screen then I really feel sorry for you.

[PDubNYC @ Apr 11th 2007 10:18AM]

It's people like you that make me embarrassed to be a fan of Apple products. Do us all a favor and keep your mouth shut, or at the very least don't say b.s. comments about how lame other products are compared to Apple products, epecially when no one is saying that this is an industry first, and Apple is often not the first to market with new ideas, despite their literature.

In other words, comment on the product at hand, and don't bring Apple into every f'n discussion. And that goes for Apple haters too. It is even more tiresome than the "I, for one, welcome BLAAAAH"

[Jaxim @ Apr 11th 2007 10:13AM]

wake me up when the monitor gets up to 50" WS and the contrast ratio gets up to around 10,000:1. I want to see black as pitch black.

[Rick Lyon @ Apr 11th 2007 10:31AM]

Yea, 'cause I commented on the screen specs and not the size? I feel sorry for your lack of reading comprehension.

[v_dogg @ Apr 11th 2007 6:09PM]

the apple screens are freakin amazing

[Rick Lyon @ Apr 11th 2007 10:31AM]

It's people like you that make me sick. You keep your mouth shut and move on down the page. How is it BS to comment that Samsung is seeing the light now, as if it's some big break through, when Apple has had widescreen monitors for years? They didn't say 'industry first' but the tone was 'hey, we think this is the future' and it's not.

I'll bring Apple into any and every conversation where I see it relevant. If you don't want to read it, rate it and move on with your life rather than wasting everyone's time bashing a comment you don't particularly like. You're more annoying than an Apple hater.

[Gil @ Apr 11th 2007 10:56AM]

Did you actually read the article or what the others said?


"It's people like you that make me sick. "
Funny you should say that

[Argot @ Apr 11th 2007 10:35AM]

Ah, so you were just acting like an ordinary narrow minded Apple-Taliban. You have my sympathy.

[kadajawi @ Apr 11th 2007 11:00AM]

The problem is: Samsung had widescreen for a while now. 24" (2002), 30", 32", 40", 46" (wheres your 46" Apple display?), in fact, Apple used or uses Samsung panels in some of their monitors. They just put it in a nice new casing, thats all. And when Apple came out with their 23" display, Samsung hat a 24" of the same resolution. A quick search gave my widescreen stuff by Samsung dating back to 1998 (ok, those were TVs). Hmm...

[Rick Lyon @ Apr 11th 2007 10:52AM]

And you like the M$ KGB sniffing out anything Apple related and attempting to suppress it. No sympathies needed more than for the instigator who calls others close minded.

[Rynth @ Apr 11th 2007 11:20AM]

I agree entirely with you - but that makes you the instagat...

Oh, nevermind.

Bloody Apple Fanboys - Do you really want to line Mr Jobs's' pocket with more cash?

No, no you don't.

[Rick Lyon @ Apr 11th 2007 11:11AM]

Because? 'Samsung is now telling us 24" is where it's at' and that their widescreen fits two sheets of paper. I am not commenting on the specs, color gamut, contrast ratio or price point. Just that Apple had the 'two sheets of paper' widescreen years ago.

I guess some people just don't like it when Apple is showcased for their achievements. Funny you feel the need to continue this tired debate if you are making yourself so sick?

[jc @ Apr 11th 2007 10:59AM]

I find it hilarious that most Apple fanboys don't even know that all Apple LCDs use either Samsung or LG-Phillips panels.

[Ignacio @ Apr 11th 2007 11:48AM]

"The problem is: Samsung had widescreen for a while now. 24" (2002), 30", 32", 40", 46" (wheres your 46" Apple display?)"

Samsung's 32, 40 and 46-inchers you mention were/are TVs ;-) (max resolution 1920x1080)

Aaaanyway, what's with all the Apple flamebaits lately (like the one you responded to)? I think it would be great if comments with the "Lowest rated" rating simply didn't show up or showed up collapsed, that way no one would feel the need to respond.

[Jamie Marsden @ Apr 11th 2007 11:30AM]

So, what you're basically saying Rick, is that Apple were there first, before all the others, with the cunning marketing idea of putting two pieces of paper next to each other. You are therefore upset that someone else has used a similar marketing method.

From the history provided to us by other informed users, we can see that Apple were at this time using a marketing trick to make it appear that they had a superior product to others on the market at the time.

I believe that this neatly sums up your frustrations, and just goes to show how daft you are...

[Thomas Chung @ Apr 11th 2007 11:19AM]

Apple is definitely one of the early adopter of the 24-inch scheme, but there were also Acer, Gateway and Dell which introduced their line of 22-inch+ LCD about 2 - 3 years ago (correct me if I am wrong), so while Apple may be one of the older kid on the block, it may not be the first kid. In fact, I am using my Dell 24 inch in addition to my MacBook Pro right now. From the review that I've read, people have also compared the Dell 24-inch and the Samsung 24-inch last year, so this idea isn't something new for Samsung as far as 24-inch is concerned. So quit bragging about Apple and move on.

[Rick Lyon @ Apr 11th 2007 11:57AM]

No, I'm not instigating anything. I just wanted to point out what Apple did years ago because the article worded or Samsung worded, that they kind of discovered the two sheet of paper widescreen idea. I disagreed.

I'm a fan, but I won't blindly buy an Apple product that I don't need. I simply won't buy any other non Apple product because i have faith in Apple products and I love their resale value and design factor. So I will ONLY give Steve my money when he's got a product I want.

[Rick Lyon @ Apr 11th 2007 12:06PM]

Daft? Because you cleverly believe you surmised my statement incorrectly you suddenly feel enlightened enough to spit on others? Daft does fit your ridiculous post quite well.

To clarify, since it seems to be missed after rebuttal to every single counter Apple bashing post, I am not talking about marketing ploys. Although Apple did you the two sheets of paper during their 'demonstration' years ago, I am more pointing out the exact nature of the aspect, that's it's widescreen. Apple may not have invented widescreen, but they were the first company to take it mainstream on the level they did while PC monitors were still 4:3 aspect. Yes, they did then proceed to show the benefits of widescreen, being the two page layout in Quark Express, but it was to showcase the widescreen.

Maybe you can apply your astuteness to reading posts and not gathering your own recklessly loose and invalid conclusion while missing the entire point simply because you can't. Wow, daft does fit you quite well I think.

[kadajawi @ Apr 11th 2007 12:24PM]

Yeah, but Samsung TVs usually have a pretty decent VGA or DVI input, so you can use them as monitors :D Having a 32" monitor, even though the resolution is only 1366x768, rocks. Not all the time, but for surfing, watching videos, gaming etc...

[Steve Moseley @ Apr 11th 2007 3:44PM]

Rick,

I believe if you read the Photography Blog article that is linked (as well as the above article) you will notice that the innovative part is the LED backlighting. Apple doesn't yet have LED backlighting for their LCD panels, and the only only reasonable panel is the NEC LCD2180WG-LED which is like $3800. Since Samsung provides panels for a bunch of other people, if they can make the LED technology at a lower cost, I'd say that is pretty innovative.

[treetrunk @ Apr 11th 2007 12:32PM]

@Rick:

Though their marketing may frequently lead you to believe otherwise, Apple is rarely the first to do anything. They're usually pretty late to the party, and then dress up whatever fancy new idea they've suddenly decided to embrace in shinier plastic than everyone else and claim to have "revolutionised" and/or "reinvented" everything.

Essentially what you're saying in the above post is that Apple, despite not being the first or only ones to do it, have more of a claim to "owning" widescreen because they were the first to "take it mainstream". The problem with this argument is that their "taking it mainstream" is a function of how successful they have been with it, which one can only view with hindsight. The same argument applies to the iPod. That Apple with their heavy marketing may have been more successful than others in these areas does not make the idea any more theirs.

For want of comparison consider Microsoft's domination of the OS market. Billions of people are familiar with Windows, but that doesn't give Microsoft the right to claim they did it first. Apple on the other hand frequently do exactly this- such as the "spotlight" feature in OSX which appeared with much fanfare, coincidently after Microsoft demonstrated a similar feature in early Vista (then Longhorn) builds. Granted, it sometimes goes the other way too, and no-one can deny Vista looks a lot more like OS X than it does XP - but the difference is that Microsoft /doesn't claim/ it to be "revolutionary" in the way Apple does.

[The Big Fudge @ Apr 11th 2007 12:20PM]

Wow, Rick Lyon, you are a douche.

[Rick Lyon @ Apr 11th 2007 12:46PM]

treetrunk- I'm essentially saying that Samsung 'can't own to it'. I simply used Apple as the evidence that Samsung isn't the first to offer widescreen and market them with two sheets of paper as if they were the first to do this mainstream. So, it's not so much about Apple as is it about Samsung not being first as the article relatively implies.

Apple wasn't the first MP3 player, but their product was unique and it's plug and play sync with iTunes simplicity was a first of it's kind. Apple is rarely first with any product, but they are often first making a product better. (oh great, here come the replies from Apple bashers now...)

[js @ Apr 11th 2007 12:35PM]

Please don't feed the (Apple) trolls.

[whatchamacallit.ss @ Apr 11th 2007 12:45PM]

Holy crap Rick. STFU! No one cares about Apple, at least not in this thread. Lets just stick to Samsung!!
Btw, any news about the price of the 24" ?

[treetrunk @ Apr 11th 2007 2:22PM]

@Rick:

I don't think it implies that at all- the linked article doesn't even contain the word "widescreen"! Furthermore, I don't think they're trying to portray the 2-sheets of paper idea as their own- the article actually GOES AGAINST this idea, saying that a 22" screen the size of 2 sheets of paper isn't big enough!

The point of the article is that despite PRE-EXISTING beliefs (attributed to "conventional belief", they make no claim it to be their own) that a "size of 2 sheets of paper" 22" screen is best for Vista, Samsung think actually you need 24", to allow for full HD and to fit the Vista sidebar.

[paloooz @ Apr 11th 2007 1:08PM]

You guys are out of control, lol.

[zeezz @ Apr 11th 2007 1:14PM]

hi guys, i registered just to say this Rick Lyon guy has the most apple-centric tunnel vision i've ever seen.

[Thomas Chung @ Apr 11th 2007 1:37PM]

Rick, I think you are not getting the point here. For Apple buyers, especially cinema display buyers, they are often professionals where they know the difference between 16:9 and 4:3 and the advantage in working in 16:9, there is also the other group where they bought it because Apple CD's look and quality. But what about the average joe, the joe that works in the office that knows jack about computer screens and how the 16:9 geometry can benefit their work? By making such comparison, Samsung helps push this idea to the general public. Yea, different companies and retailers have always touted the advantage of 16:9, but with very little success. Because geometrically, 16:9 does look visually smaller; however, they don't realize that they are being deceived visually, and that 16:9 actually offer larger viewing area than a comparably sized LCD. So by doing the 2 A4 paper claim, they help people understand the advantage of 16:9. But they are sure not saying that they own this whole thing.

[Rick Lyon @ Apr 11th 2007 2:36PM]

I read it differently I suppose because that's how I interpreted it. Though I may have based my assumption on the essence of the article without attempting to read between the lines. I never said the article did say 'widescreen'. That was only a point I made because you can't fit two pieces of paper side by side on anything BUT a widescreen. I'll admit, I may have jumped too quickly :)

[bl0nde @ Apr 11th 2007 2:34PM]

@ Rick Lyon: Having read all of your increasingly incomprehensible posts, it seems your only 'issue' is that the article is somehow portraying Samsung as having the world's first 24" widescreen LCDs, and they should have credited Apple for being the 'first' to bring this aspect/size to the mainstream.

a) RTFA. Who said (or even implied?!) anything about this being the world's first 24" widescreen.
b) The screens in Apple monitors are not made by Apple. They just make the shiny case.
c) RTFA.
d) Why on earth are you (and indeed all of us, me included) getting so worked up about this?
e) RTFA.

Finally, let me congratulate you on achieving the longest string of Low Ranked posts in a single thread by a single poster that I can remember.

[syadasti @ Apr 11th 2007 2:38PM]

LOL

Apple innovate, thats a laugh! They profit by sitting back and letting other companies lay the ground work and later come out with a well polished version of their own and market it at a premium to the mindless masses.

Here is one of the first high quality widescreen LCD panels, better than than the first Cinema despite being older.

Cnet.com 1998
>>>>>>>
SGI revs flat-panel technology
Silicon Graphics' flat panel features an all-digital interface. Many existing flat panels must convert signals from analog to digital.
By Stephanie Miles
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: September 28, 1998, 6:30 PM PDT

Silicon Graphics today introduced a 17-inch digital display that may push futuristic flat-panel technology into the mainstream.

The Silicon Graphics 1600SW flat panels feature an all-digital interface, which ensures high-quality resolution. Many existing flat-panel displays must convert signals from analog to digital, a process which can impair picture quality.

"It's difficult to convey the quality of the image," of the 1600SW, said Martin Reynolds, a Dataquest analyst. "Every pixel is perfect."

An alternative to traditional Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) monitors, flat-panel displays have been lauded for their sleek looks, low emissions, and crystal-clear images. However, the same technology that results in high picture quality is also more expensive to manufacture. This kept flat-panel displays out of most commercial and home environments until very recently, when component prices dropped. Compaq and IBM both have introduced 14.5-inch flat-panel displays for under $1,000 this year.

"The market is starting to take off now," Reynolds said. "Hundreds of thousands of units will be shipped next year, and it's a premium market from a price standpoint. It's still a lucrative market," for vendors, he said.

SGI's 1600SW will ship with some Silicon Graphics O2 Workstations, and will also work with mainstream PCs; it is compatible with Microsoft Windows 95, 98, and NT operating systems. Support for Apple's Macintosh platform is planned for early 1999.

"SGI is beginning to offer value to the mainstream business user," Reynolds said. "The high-resolution display brings more value to workstations," where high-end design and engineering applications demand large-screen high-quality displays.

The 1600SW is wide enough to enable simultaneous viewing of side-by-side documents, a feature which may be popular with users of financial applications and spreadsheets.

Manufactured by Mitsubishi, the new digital display will retail for $2,595. SGI is bundling it with a 32MB graphics card from Number Nine for $2,795, a price point that may be outside the budget of most corporate purchasers.

Still, a comparable 21-inch CRT monitor costs around $1,300, not including a video graphics chipset to boost image quality, according to Reynolds, who predicted that the display introduced today by SGI may soon be under $2,000.

"Flat panels have a much longer life than CRT monitors," Reynolds said. "They may be twice as expensive (as CRTs) right now, but they will last twice as long."

[Rick Lyon @ Apr 11th 2007 3:57PM]

Steve,
I never meant my comment to insinuate any attack on Samsung's specs, especially the LED backlight. I was merely pointing out the two sheets of paper and widescreen marketing which I may have jumped on prematurely. I never was bashing the Samsung monitor, just the presented marketing and implied claims.

THe monitor itself with LED sure does seem to be a nice tech, depending on price.

[SOSdan @ Apr 11th 2007 4:06PM]

I think the most important words "some people" may have missed in this "debate" was "for Vista." (Too many quotes? Sue me.)
Samsung is just stating their opinion on the most optimal screen size to use Vista more efficiently. All this debate on who invented or revolutionized the wide screen display could have been avoided if people read the entire headline and/or post.

Just my thoughts.


.

[Muhammad Siddiq Chughtai @ Apr 11th 2007 5:42PM]

Freaks...right after I bought 2 22" Samsung 226BW's....should I return mine and wait then? Freaks...

[Dusty @ Apr 11th 2007 7:59PM]

Don't argue with an idiot ... they just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience ... ;)

[pe @ Apr 12th 2007 2:04AM]

LED背光螢幕滿街跑...
想想還真是恐怖的畫面啊~~

[Steve @ Apr 12th 2007 3:16AM]

I've been using a Samsung 24" 1920 x 1200 resolution for a year now. I love it. The size is class. I also have a sony laptop with a 17" 1920 x 1200, but I have to say 24" is about perfect. I'd still be interested though in a higher resolution 24", but sure, 1920 x 1200 is good enough at the moment.

[FXi @ Apr 12th 2007 5:27AM]

That is a crummy brightness...