Acer introduces 24-inch P244W 1080p LCD monitor

Acer's really, really proud of its P224W. So proud, in fact, that it's touting the unit as the "world's first 24-inch Full HD / 16:9 ratio LCD monitor." Never mind the fact that Gateway slung out a 24-incher with a 1,920 x 1,200 resolution way back in 2006 -- we'll let it think it's special for awhile, anyway. Onto more specs, you'll find a 20,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio, touch-sensitive on-screen display and a 2-millisecond gray-to-gray response time. Regrettably, the outfit didn't bother handing down a release date or price, but it's not like those tidbits are really critical in the grand scheme of things, right?

[Via Computer Monger]

[Lionheart @ Jun 9th 2008 10:53AM]

To be fair, seems to me like a 1,920 x 1,200 monitor doesn't exactly sound like it has a 16 : 9 ratio.

[Cornelius @ Jun 10th 2008 11:01AM]

Yup. 1920x1200 is a 16:10 resolution. Acer's P224W is a 1920x1080 (1080p) monitor.

Then again, I really don't see the point in bragging about being the world's first 24" 1080p screen. I don't really see a market for it when there are a multitude of 24" WUXGA monitors already available.

[JLTate @ Jun 9th 2008 11:32AM]

Well, I for one have never seen a monitor that doesn't have square pixels (aside from LCDs with a 4:3 aspect ratio with 1280x1024 as their native resolution, perhaps). TVs yes, but monitors never.

Anyway, 1920x1200 is 16:10 whereas 1920x1080 is 16:9. There's nothing wrong with Acer's statement. They did explicitly use the "16:9 ratio" qualifier.

[El Taco @ Jun 9th 2008 12:43PM]

ya, they shouldn't say 16:9,they should say widescreen,because it's actually 16:10 ratio, like most monitors are. 16:9 would be 1080x1920, but 16:10 is still considered widescreen.

[Lein @ Jun 9th 2008 10:53AM]

An interesting move, but not totally unexpected given their recent 16:9 notebook offerings. I'd probably jump for one if I didn't already have a comparable monitor.

[kyle brewer @ Jun 9th 2008 10:54AM]

Isn't 1920x1200 16:10? Wouldn't that make this different than the Gateway offering?

[Khattab @ Jun 9th 2008 10:57AM]

I guess they ment 1920x1080. That'll be a world premiere instead of the mentioned 1920x1200.

[Conor Maher @ Jun 9th 2008 1:08PM]

Yup, This is a 16:9 1920*1080 monitor....

I'm not sure why everyone else assumed it was a 1920*1200 panel.......

[rodd @ Jun 9th 2008 12:54PM]

you guys are fricken stupid.... this is why i hate technology cuz its ur life or it isnt... 19020 x 1200 is standard full def resolution.... do the math 1920 divided by 1200 = 1.6 16 divided by 9 = 1.78 sounds close to me. you guys are stupid as hizzzzzellll

[Backlin @ Jun 9th 2008 9:20PM]

Sounds convincing to me...

[xValentine @ Jun 9th 2008 11:58AM]

19020 x 1200 = Standard Definition.
-rodd

[renmimby @ Jun 9th 2008 2:14PM]

"you guys are fricken stupid..."
That's rich coming from someone who can't spell or use punctuation.

1920x1200 is native on 24" widescreen computer monitors, which traditionally have a 16:10 aspect. 1080p televisions have a resolution of 1920x1080, 16:9 aspect.
The point is that it's unusual to get a 16:9, 1920x1080, 24" computer monitor. Something like this would be useful for a bedroom, seeing as the smallest 1080p TV you can buy is 32". This 24" would take up much less room and could be used on a desk, hooked up to a PC and a games console.

[Kerryk @ Jun 9th 2008 11:01AM]

Want.

[Fraggle.Rock @ Jun 9th 2008 11:05AM]

Umm, my old skool Sony PremierPro 24" was 1920x1200 back in 2003... as for the 16:9 ratio issue echoed by others, I'm not sure that's correct.

Oh wait, who cares? :-)

[AlanStrangis @ Jun 9th 2008 11:34AM]

1920x1200 IS 16:10.

And I can see why people would care about the slightly lower res, but a True HD resolution and aspect ratio, if the monitor is going to double as a TV in a dorm, bedroom kitchen or what not.

[CosterMonger @ Jun 9th 2008 11:07AM]

fact remains that the whole 1080p thing is just marketing, since a lot of my wide screen movies are in 1.85:1, so you get black bars {top and bottom) regardless of 16:9 or 16:10, I'd prefer the 16:10 for a computer monitor, and it display with 4:3 video better anyways.

what ACER did is essentially make something that didn't need to be made, since you already have 16:9 TVs that can be used as computer monitors.

[rcappo @ Jun 9th 2008 12:16PM]

I've been using my 37" 1080p LCD TV as a monitor for 2.5 years now. It is the best way to use your computer.

[Elevator @ Jun 10th 2008 4:41AM]

CosterMonger said:
"since a lot of my wide screen movies are in 1.85:1, so you get black bars {top and bottom) regardless of 16:9 or 16:10, I'd prefer the 16:10 for a computer monitor, and it display with 4:3 video better anyways."


Reply:
You need to stop talking. You are completely misinformed. If you have a widescreen monitor 16:9 or 16:10 then....

1.85:1 movies COMPLETELY fill a 16:9 monitor, and leave a sliver of black on 16:10.

2.35:1 movies will be letterboxed, but on a widescreen monitor it won't be too bad.

1.33:1 movies will be windowboxed with large black bars on the sides, or you can stretch it. eww.

Now that you are informed you can continue to make dumb posts.

[renmimby @ Jun 10th 2008 3:17PM]

@Elevator: Actually, 1.78:1 aspect movies fill a 16:9 screen completely. 1.85:1 movies will have thin black borders.
"Misinformed", indeed...

[Husar @ Jun 9th 2008 11:07AM]

Wish this was an oled panel, then id definitely buy this screen.

[Cory @ Jun 9th 2008 11:08AM]

Seems awfully suspicious that this'd come out right before WWDC...

[Big Rhonda @ Jun 9th 2008 12:10PM]

Acer announced this monitor last week during Computex. It was on the Chinese Engadget site. Engadget is just now getting to reporting it.

[Si @ Jun 9th 2008 11:19AM]

Is this another slip up from engadget? Bad couple of days I'm thinking...first of all that terrible accusation about the reflection of the apple logo on the iPhone spy shots and now this? Methinks engadget need to start reading through things and checking them before publishing.

Maybe they don't have an edit button either?

[Todd @ Jun 9th 2008 11:22AM]

Will totally buy one if its reasonably priced ( less than $400??? ). Acer folks who read Engadget, hurry up!

[retro77 @ Jun 9th 2008 11:23AM]

Do not buy Acer monitors. I ahve had to send back about 20 here at work. The boards go out on them and you get a green light thats its on but no signal to the screen.

Do not buy Acer monitors!

[4honor @ Jun 9th 2008 11:37AM]

You just had a bad batch. I have two Acer LCD at home, works perfect.

Another thing, who cares about if Gateway came out some something before, to me, it's the price. Acer usually sell good things cheaper, therefore superior in my book.

[retro77 @ Jun 9th 2008 11:40AM]

Thats a long bad batch....

[Funke, Tobias Dr. @ Jun 9th 2008 11:53AM]

I got a 19" Acer from Best Buy for around $110 a couple of weeks ago. I checked the reviews on Newegg first, and they were about as good as any. I haven't had any problems myself, and I have yet to see a better deal on a monitor.

[horizontaleight @ Jun 9th 2008 11:26AM]

I'm fairly certain my Sceptre 24" 1920x1200 has also been around for more than a year now.

[kal326 @ Jun 9th 2008 11:27AM]

Wouldn't a touch sensitive osd add a bit of unneeded expense? Is it really that hard to use buttons that they would need to make the whole screen or a portion of the screen touch sensitive? Personally I wouldn't want a bunch of finger prints on my screen just because I needed to adjust the brightness. Other then that seems like a decent screen. I'm sure its gonna be quite a bit more then other 24" screens on the market for probably a negligible resolution bump.

[ChillyCat @ Jun 9th 2008 11:33AM]

yeah, and to be touchscreen it'll [probably] have to have that glass surface = bad reflection of light behind you ??

If it comes with matte surface + touchscreen = scratches

[Kevin @ Jun 9th 2008 11:35AM]

I agree about the finger prints. My nephew recently came over and kept pointing out that he wanted to watch "Thomas" on youtube. I keep thinking I've cleaned them all off, but then notice another smudge in a dark scene. Finger prints are evil!

Oh, and yeah, I think it was silly to compare it to a 1920x1200. The whole point is that it is HDTV resolution, so for use in a media center, there usually won't be black bars. There are plenty of HDTVs to use for this purpose, but most TVs this small are 720p.

[substance90 @ Jun 9th 2008 11:37AM]

Probably a crappy TN matrix with these response times... Stay away from TN, terrible colors!

[James @ Jun 9th 2008 11:44AM]

I'm really surprised nobody has commented on the 20,000 dynamic contrast.. forget the 1920x1200 vs. 1080p and suck down the 20k contrast; that certainly perks my ears up. I remember when I my current 4 LCD setup, they touted 1,000 contrast (17" displays), and only a few months after I got them, they remodeled them to be 500 contrast. I'd love to see more high contrast monitors. Good work Acer!

*nudges other monitor manufacturers*

[fish @ Jun 9th 2008 11:48AM]

...because it's just dynamic.

[James @ Jun 9th 2008 11:51AM]

I guess they could've mentioned the static contrast.. I would just see a 20k dynamic around 2k-5k static, does that sound right? That's still better than traditional 500 that I've been seeing >.

[FrankTheCrank @ Jun 9th 2008 11:53AM]

Yeah, word of caution....it's DYNAMIC range they state.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/02/14/whats-dynamic-contrast-anyways/

[fish @ Jun 9th 2008 11:47AM]

Acer build shoddy screens, and this looks just like another cheap TN. No thanks. I can also forsee some games supporting 1920*1200 but not 1920*1080 since it's not widely used on PC. The only advantage of 16:9 is to remove the tiny borders when watching movies, but at the expense of less height when browsing the web.

[Jon @ Jun 9th 2008 3:32PM]

Given the number of movies that are wider than 16:9, I'd like a 16:8 TV. Exact resolution and square/non square pixels doesn't matter - it gets resized.

[sua @ Jun 9th 2008 12:32PM]

It also solves some problems when you're using PS3 HD input.

[Alex @ Jun 9th 2008 12:38PM]

i agree with the 16:9 comment, this very well could be the first 16:9 monitor, because the rest of the industry is making 16:10

[Robert @ Jul 13th 2008 2:07PM]

This monitor could be better. The resolution is not standard. For some reason I don't trust the Acer brand either. Every time that I have worked on something called "Acer" I have found it to be cheap and shoddy.

Robert
http://www.thebestdwidefense.com

[umdterps7 @ Jul 21st 2008 1:35PM]

This would go perfectly with my xbox 360. I really hope it comes out in the next year and is priced at less than $350. Then i would buy.

Why is everyone so harsh on Acer? I've owned one of their laptops and currently have one of their x193w monitors. They are really good quality. Definitely the best value out there. Just look at the reviews on newegg.com:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010190020%2050001146&bop=And&Order=RATING

[hugoliva @ Jun 9th 2008 6:51PM]

BURNED!!!!!

[Christopher @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:23AM]

At 16:9 this panel would be perfect for hooking up to an Xbox 360 (or PS3 if you must :P) I've been wanting to get a larger, 16:9 panel to replace the 19" 16:10 panel I've been playing Xbox 360 games on so this would be perfect.