Dell's 22-inch S2209W monitor to reach Full HD resolution?

22-inch monitors have generally been stuck at a 1,680 x 1,050 resolution for years with just a few notable exceptions. Now it looks like Dell is about to change that with the introduction of a newly designed, S2209W monitor with rumored 1,920 x 1,080 pixel resolution. The evidence stems from that prototype pictured above as well as drivers already available on Dell's support site. Still not sure how we feel about the piano-black, Samsung-esque design, though. One more snap after the break.

[Thanks, Alex P.]

Read -- Dell drivers
Read -- Prototype

[brandon @ Sep 24th 2008 4:08AM]

I'm not a fan of the round baseplate. I wish they'd stick with the V stand design, it seems more space efficient.

[avester @ Sep 24th 2008 4:08AM]

Having 2 extra inches at full-hd isn't a bad thing.

[Dan Z @ Sep 24th 2008 11:35AM]

That's what she said

[yyan @ Sep 24th 2008 4:08AM]

In for a comment before Phanbuoy, that blatant comment whore.
=(

[Reader @ Sep 24th 2008 4:13AM]

want

[Jeff McNabb @ Sep 24th 2008 4:28AM]

Is that a true 16:9 display? I didn't realize Dell made those. They are welcomed though. 16:10 isn't the answer to everything.

[loosely_coupled @ Sep 24th 2008 5:13AM]

NO! Why are they doing that??? Who cares that you can watch a widescreen movie without letterboxing on a 16:9 display -- 16:10 is perfect! 16:9 is too damn wide and short, especially for smaller laptops. If you do the math on a 11" or 12" (diagonal remember) 16:9 screen, you'll see that the display height becomes ridiculously short, so I'm definitely against them at least for that application, although I don't see any reason to have a large desktop screen in that ratio either...

[Tonicboy @ Sep 24th 2008 5:20AM]

@loosely_coupled

16:9 is too short on a 12" monitor you say? So i guess it's a good thing that this aspect ratio is for 22"+ monitors. 1080 > 1050.

[kev @ Sep 24th 2008 7:04AM]

loosely_coupled:

So you can put in an HD source via HDMI like a DVD recorder with digital tuners, plug in inputs through that, and you'd have a monitor that doubles as a TV for cheap, and it'd look damn good either close up or a little further away. If you make it 16:10, it's up to the monitor's modules to correctly resize it (which is what the Samsung T2x0HD series does).

Also, Samsung makes Dell's monitors anyway, so it's not like this is a bit of a stretch.

[tero @ Sep 24th 2008 4:34AM]

Lenovo has had a fullhd 22-incher on the market for quite some time, the L220x.

[PiperSon @ Sep 24th 2008 7:47AM]

Yep, I have one of those. It's awesome.

[Jace Hirschi @ Sep 24th 2008 4:44PM]

And I have 2. And yes, they are truly awesome. Sold my Apple 30" cinema display for $1200 dollars, picked up these 2 panels for $800. More pixels and $400 left over for a bunch of new RAM :)

[Lazarpandar @ Sep 24th 2008 4:37AM]

I had a laptop in 2004 that was 17in and 1920x1200

[Billy G @ Sep 24th 2008 5:58AM]

Yeah. I had my old Acer Ferrari's 15.4' screen replaced with a 1920x1200 unit ages ago too.

I have to admit that it was a bit too high-res for that small a screen...

Anyway, I'm glad these companies are finally getting the idea. Honestly I've been unable to buy myself a monitor because I don't want to abandon the 1920x1200 of my Dell laptop. I can't imagine why it's taken them so long to do this.

(the few exceptions notwithstanding, naturally)

[BlissX @ Sep 24th 2008 4:37AM]

Am I the only one who's afraid of the fact that every company seems to be switching over to 16:9 rather than retaining 16:10.
I guess I must be the only one who prefers it over "TrueHD".

[konshuss @ Sep 24th 2008 9:59AM]

it is kinda sad that computer monitor manufacturers are still starry-eyed over HDTV and 16:9 aspect ratios for movies. stop making my computer monitor optimized for movies, i use a COMPUTER on it!

[erhan @ Sep 24th 2008 4:38AM]

Non Glossy? i don't know if it is aesthetically pleasing. the design on the right is better. I do love the bigger resolution though.

[fh @ Sep 24th 2008 4:39AM]

TN or S-PVA?

[Evan @ Sep 24th 2008 8:47AM]

Once again, Engadget fails to deliver the specs that matter the most.

[Deeznuts420 @ Sep 24th 2008 8:51AM]

TNA

[Jash Sayani @ Sep 24th 2008 4:52AM]

Its better to use a Sony Bravia 26" TV as a monitor.

[DoomGaZer @ Sep 24th 2008 10:35AM]

Yeah, but I can't find a 1080P capable Bravia at that size..........though the other specs are very nice. Anybody know of a TV manufacturer that can get 1080P in a sub-30" TV?

[Ian @ Sep 24th 2008 4:58AM]

@BlissX: No, I prefer 16:10 as well. This isn't a television, where the best screen ratio is one that fits the movie perfect. If this is for computing, where vertical pixels wouldn't hurt, then it's probably not as useful as a 22" 1920x1200 LCD.

They're just doing it to save costs on manufacturing. Now they don't need to develop 16:10 and 16:9 LCDs for TVs and computer displays. Makes sense for them, but not for us.

Notice that netbook screens don't have either proportion. They're like 16 : 9.5 or something because they don't want to reduce the vertical pixels, but if they're going to be able to make a 9" screen with a large enough keyboard, they need to make the screen more like a 16:9. They went half-way.

PS: I'm a nerd.

[Hotrod @ Sep 24th 2008 5:20AM]

Nothing wrong with being knowledgeable-oops... I mean a nerd.

[JP @ Sep 24th 2008 5:04AM]

Are Windows 7 and/or Snow Leopard going to have resolution independence? Cause some of these monitors strain my eyes with their tiny writing as it is, let alone with HD crammed into 22" - I hope the new OSs make it easy to resize everything.

[KarlW @ Sep 24th 2008 7:13AM]

Vista had DPI scaling (which works quite well, especially for WPF vector apps). OSX has had resolution independence since Tiger (but it has been disabled. You can activate it with a hack). OSX also has full-screen zooming.

So yes, Windows 7 will have resolution independence for WPF applications, and Snow Leopard could have resolution independence enabled.

[ecobore @ Sep 24th 2008 5:23AM]

Well my Mac monitors are at 1900x1200 - they may be 23" though - not sure!

[Sin @ Sep 24th 2008 5:52AM]

I think 16:10 is better than 16:9 for desktops, gaming and surfing.. 16:9 is primarly movies is it not?
Anyways, when is 22 inch enough for movies? In a car! Lets give this one to West Coast Customs =]


This 22-inch (linked to in the article) is not as notable like you say it is, is it?
quote: "First up is the 22-inch w2207h (pictured above), which rocks a 1,680 x 1,050 resolution"
source: http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/03/hp-reveals-22-inch-w2207h-24-inch-w2408h-lcd-monitors/

[Erwos @ Sep 24th 2008 6:08AM]

When did Engadget become Sony marketing shills? "Full HD" is just made up BS to sell more 1080p TVs.

[mattclarkie @ Sep 24th 2008 6:13AM]

Somebody has also photo-shopped a Sony menu onto the Dell screen.

[nikalopolis @ Sep 24th 2008 6:45AM]

lenovo l220x - 22" WUXGA 1920x1200 - have had one for about 6 months now and really pleased with it, it needs to be 22" to have any chance of fitting another monitor on the desk along side it.
saving up to buy a second one to replace the SXGA that is currently the second monitor.

manufacturers - listen to users!! they do not want 16:9 on a laptop display - this is a really worrying trend. seriously hope that 16:10 still persists

16:9 - 16:10 - FIGHT!!

[slowcar @ Sep 24th 2008 7:10AM]

just buy a 24" full hd screen :)

[gad get @ Sep 24th 2008 7:11AM]

Are you serious?

[gad get @ Sep 24th 2008 7:10AM]

I don't really care so much about the aspect ratio, as long as I can view 1080p content on the screen.

[cesium @ Sep 24th 2008 8:34AM]

Finally more high-res 22" lcds. If this is 1080p, I'm getting either this or the benq E2200HD when its released

[teetdogs @ Sep 24th 2008 8:38AM]

This is the same model of Monitor that I already have except mine is 24 inch and already does 1920x1080 not sure where the news in this is.

[teetdogs @ Sep 24th 2008 8:42AM]

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-7345

That is the link for the 24 incher that has been on sale for quite some time now.

[cesium @ Sep 24th 2008 9:21AM]

The news is that it is in a 22" package. 24" 1920x1080/1200 monitors have been around for ages. 22" monitors at those resolutions have not.

[WhackJob @ Sep 24th 2008 10:04AM]

I am waiting for the day that Monitor's and TV's will be equal in every way.

[Gumpo @ Sep 24th 2008 11:04AM]

I don't get what all the excitement is about. There have been "True HD" PC monitors since before they even coined the term and started promoting 720p plasmas and lcds to consumers for television use. Seriously, all my PC monitors i bought in the last 15 years are capable of doing greater than 1080p resolution, going all the way back to some old CRTs i have, and including every LCD i own.

And when i was shopping for my new 26'', 1920x1200 screen, there were plenty of 22-28'' LCDs out there with 1920x1200 as the native res, which is as everyone should know, higher than True HD 1080p. Why does any company think computer users WANT 16:9? I mean, im a gamer and i love widescreen gaming, but i have plenty of old games that just wont support a widescreen format, keeping the aspect ratio to 16:10 makes a lot more sense so those games wont get confused, not to mention simple computing benefits from the extra height of the display when surfing and such.

Thomas Ricker fails for falling for marketing hype. I expect better of Engadget!

[collegekid13 @ Sep 24th 2008 11:16AM]

my hp 2207h goes 1080p with my ps3

[ssam @ Sep 24th 2008 12:02PM]

I want more pixels, but i only have a small desk. currently i have a 17inch 1280x1024, which is about 96dpi. i can't find a monitor with any more pixels until i get to 20inch.

My N800 has over 200dpi and looks great.

[Jon Graft @ Sep 24th 2008 12:44PM]

Question...I have a MacBook Pro 15" running 1,440 x 900. If I bought this monitor, can I make it so it displays in 1,920 x 1,080? Thanks!
I have this on instant email, so please don't reply to this if you aren't answering my question. Just trying to save the hassle of logging in and out of Gmail every 5 seconds! :-)

[zephead @ Sep 24th 2008 1:39PM]

No, your pixels are physical objects in the screen and can't be increased unless you get a screen with more pixels.

[Draaaainage! @ Sep 24th 2008 2:34PM]

Yes, you can output to this monitor at 1080p with your MBP, assuming that you have all the cables and such to connect to it. The only limitation of that setup is whether or not the graphics card in your MBP is powerful enough to make 1080p useful for anything that isn't web surfing. If it's a newer MBP you should be gold.

Also, zephead, RTF comment. He asked if he can use a second monitor with his MBP at that monitor's resolution, not if he could increase the pixel count on his MBP's panel.

[Rick @ Sep 24th 2008 4:03PM]

Dell is on the ball and so is Engaget. Thankfully, my 22" then 23" HD Apple monitor at 1920x1200 has been out for almost 4 years now.

[Jayson @ Sep 24th 2008 4:53PM]

Yes this is true, we shall be seeing also 19" 22" 24" full hd screens soon... atleast i know acer are launching them.

[palito @ Sep 24th 2008 10:18PM]

Actually, it makes economic sense and therefore of great benifit to us - the customer - to markey 16:9 displays. Companies only have to manufacture a few panels for the size, that may be used in both TV's and Monitors, reducing low volume output lowers manufacturing costs, which is passed onto the consumer where there is sufficient competition.

That is to say, should we take a number of companies which market 3 model series in the 22" size being:

1. Gamers / low cost = TN
2. Mid-rage quality = PVA
3. High Quality = IPS

If Samsung, Dell, Acer, HP, Viewsonic and various others only have to purchase within these 3 spec ranges for the 22" size and 1920*1080 resolution for both TV's and Computer Monitors, then they (the manufactures) are able to purchase in higher volumes with greater volume discounts.

The panel manufactures are also capable of producing higher volumes of panels with fewer differentiators (1920*1200 vs 1920*1080 that is), so instead of having to make 6 different 22" high res displays, they only need to make 3, at higher volumes, due to standardization of resolution for both TVs and Monitors.

The benifit to us is the greater competition, creating lower costs for basicly the same panels inside different cases, so long as they do standardize.

The math:

(For Monitors) Samsung 22" 1920x1200 PVA panel @ 3000 units = us$150.00
(For TV's) Samsung 22" 1920x1080 PVA panel @ 4000 units = us$130.00
or
(For both uses) Samsung 22" 1920x1080 PVA panel @ 7000 units = us$110.00
NB: this costs are plucked ut of my arse so don't read into it, but thats the theory.

And considering competition, that means cheaper Monitors and TV's for all, YAY!

palito.

[The Shizz @ Sep 25th 2008 4:26PM]

Has NOBODY seen the Samsung T260HD? It is a 26" 16:10 1920x1200, with a digital tuner, all priced at an amazing $600!!!

[Ed @ Sep 26th 2008 12:40AM]

There is no point! Even 4K resolution at 19" Monitor, as long as it is a TN it is still an &^% monitor.

It is about time OLED take over, MVA or IPS. When will the world learn TN is simply bad?