Buffalo pops out 22-inch WUXGA LCD monitor
By Darren Murph 
posted September 10th 2008 6:05PM
posted September 10th 2008 6:05PM
[Via CrunchGear]
posted September 10th 2008 6:05PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
1st jackass :D
FIRST to say FIRST AND TO BE LOW RANKED! :-P
i say, the new low ranked system aint too bad, tho engadget should bring back lowest ranked, and like 90% translucency for that ranking
anyways back on topic, whats the big deal bout this screen?
Yeah, I was a big fan of lowest ranked. If they're afraid of hurting feelings then the spammers already win.
oh cool...they are finally shading the comments as per its rank.
can we lowest rank a comment and highest rank another so we can see the difference in contrast?
It's actually blinding. I would be nice keep regular comments normal, high ranked comments darker and low ranked comments really light, rather than normal light, low really light, and high normal.
Ugh it's unreadable, some of us are using TN panels you know...
I'm glad to see that they can make things unreadable with comment shading but-- we'll let me test this..
Yeah, no post edits.
Dude, if a comment is neutral, maybe people still want to be able to read it.
well the good thing is you can skip over to the useful comments easily....i guess they can tune the neutral ones to be a bit darker.
I say: highest, highly, and neutral fully black
light on low, and lowest are gone
ya... enough low ranks should make them disappear BUT they should all go 100% on roll over since often the idiocy is quite amusing :)
my $.02
neutral should be darker. this is annoying.
only penalize the "low ranked"
Corystal's idea is good. Hide low ranks and add a "show comment" link instead.
Corystal's idea is good. Hide low ranks and add a "show comment" link instead.
... fuck...
The difference between neutral and high rank seems rather subtle. At least in Firefox.
Why does it look like IBM designed it? It looks so 90's.
90's? What is the 90, and which of its possessions are you referring to?
I will not humor you.
a 22" with WUXGA resolution!?!?! i just creamed my pants
It looks rather ugly and cheap. I'd say even my work-provided Acer 1716 looks a bit better (and that one is the cheapest LCD money can buy). It doesn't look like it has any kind of ergonomic adjustments either. And at 170 viewing angle, it is quite possibly a TN, too. At that price, it's a fail unless you MUST get a 22" because of some space limitation. In which case it's better to go with Lenovo's 22" full HD since that one has a good panel, at least.
Way too small for the resolution, too low a contrast, bezel is ok.
Well, then my 17" WUXGA laptop would really hurt your eyes. They finally offer WUXGA on 15" Dell Studio laptops, so I'm going with that next time for the larger size. This monitor blows IMO (ugly), but I'm surprised that more manufacturers don't offer WUXGA below 24". Dell's middle-of-the-road 24-incher (S2409W) is $50 cheaper than this, and I think they still offer an E model that's even cheaper.
PROTIP: Dell's Outlet has the 27" UltraSharp monitors for $750 - the biggest WUXGA screen I know of...
Not at all. I think 1680x1050 is a little big for 22" monitors. And many 15.4" laptops can be found with 1680x1050, some even with 1920x1200. Pixel density is good for you.
Notebooks are limited in options and are viewed real close, a monitor is more distant and I'm simply right. deal with it best you can, vote me down for instance if that does it for you :)
Just teasing, you can vote me down for any reason you see fit
Yeah - i do everything on my 15.4 inch 1900 by 1200
its the only way stuff actually looks life like
yay for 147 ppi
Funny how my voted down comment about too low contrast is now super-low contrast, thanks to the new comment(-annoy) system.
It's pretty pricey for what it is... although it'll probably be around $280 since gadgets rarely are the same price in the US as it is in Europe.
The Lenovo L220x was announced almost exactly a year ago with virtually the same specs, including the 90's look--not that I care about that. If there were two choices that had the same specs, I'd get the old looking one, assuming the ONLY difference was aesthetics.
I want them to spend their R&D money on giving it better functionality vs. a pretty stand. Lenovo will continue to receive my recommendation (not that it's worth anything) as long as their products continue to improve and have the look that says 'we aren't screwing around with superficial crap like making it pretty'. Sorry, pet peeve.
Does anyone know if the buffalo here uses the same panel as the L220x?
For a second there, I read the headline as "Buffalo Poops out.."
I'm sorry. I'll shut up now...
I read your comment because I could.
...I do think they could have titled the article better...
How about: engadget poops out new comment system 'feature'
Oh god, why are you complaining about the size?
It's impossible to get something with the pixel density of a 17" WUXGA laptop screen in a desktop (sidenote: LCD manufacturers - I'll buy four. Make them already.)
This is better than 24" at 19x12, but not quite there yet.
Eversince i had a 15.4" laptop with 1920X1200 I've been on the lookout for monitors that would push these higher pixel densities. I hope more manufactures follow this line.
i know what you mean - give me wqxga in a 26 inch
wow his comment is opaque... new comment system feature?
does this mean they fixed the glitches too?!
wow his comment is opaque... new comment system feature?
does this mean they fixed the glitches too?!
"does this mean they fixed the glitches too?!"
"does this mean they fixed the glitches too?!"
:-)
I'm glad that more companies are making sub-24" WUXGA screens. At this point a 24" is still better simply due to how many models are available, but if someone offered a high-end 22" - PVA panel, 2 or more digital inputs (any combination of HDMI and DVI with HDCP), VGA, and Component - I'd definitely look long and hard at it in deciding if a 24" would be worth it.
Is it just me or is that thing IDENTICAL to the AOC 2216VW.
Im using the AOC right now and it is exactly the same but with a buffalo logo.
Oh and on further inspection, mine is 1680x1050 not 1920x1200
but the case looks the same...
This is cool. So, are 24" displays going the 2560x1600 next? Or the 27" displays even? That would be really nice. The big resolution without taking up that much desk real estate. The WXGA on this 22" display is good.
Once again, Engadget blindly copy-pastes a press release. Is it TN or PVA? What's the color gamut?
And so what if it's 1920x1200? Resolution isn't everything - colors and black levels are equally, if not more, important! A 720p Pioneer plasma television produces a superior picture than a 1080p Walmart LCD. A 6 megapixel digital SLR captures a superior picture than a 10 megapixel point-and-shoot.
It is for typical PC users. And most people are too dumb to tell the difference between a walmart 1080p and a pioneer 720p (although I agree).
Ive personally got my eyes set on 2x 24" at christmas. :)
Any information on the scaler? After owning a 245bw with a horrible scaler , my new interest in newer monitors is to find out exactly what their scaler does ,and how it looks. 1920 x 1200 in 22" should look pretty crisp.
So why the hell is the damn thing so pricey? My cheap HP monitor that came from my Best Buy bundle has all those specs and probably only cost $120. What's up with that? Mine even looks better.
How is 1920x1200 "run of the mill" for a 22". Its awesome although i'd still rather have a 24".