NEC keeps standard-aspect ratio LCDs alive with MultiSync EA190M
By Darren Murph 
posted September 2nd 2009 6:08AM
posted September 2nd 2009 6:08AM
[Via HotHardware]
posted September 2nd 2009 6:08AM
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.
900:1 contrast ratio, I am no expert so correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't that "suck".
It does indeed suck, but it made for the business/educational environment and that's pretty much all they need.
Speaking of sucking... NEC is still around???
No, that's pretty standard. 1000:1 is about as good as it gets with true contrast ratios. The hugely inflated numbers you see advertised are just marketing gimmicks, they turn the backlight brightness up and down depending on what's on the screen but in reality it just looks crap.
Not a good price at all when you can get 22" for the same price and less nowadays.
It won't be as good as this though. From looking at the specs, it may have a *va or IPS panel.
If this is indeed an IFS panel then the price is great. for what seems to be a well rounded monitor.
"alas"? That means unfortunately, right? So... I guess you do not like NEC. Is the company so bad, or was it just a typo?
Ok, I see the typo was fixed. Cool.
Overpriced...
They all laughed when I started my frog modelling agency...
We also laughed when you won the internets, good sir.
I did not expect to laugh this much this morning.
Thank you
I can't be the only person who hates widescreen monitors. They're great for watching movies and playing games, but that's what my widescreen TV is for.
Almost everything I use my computer for is oriented vertically (web pages, documents, programming IDEs) and it just seems like such a waste for all my available pixels to be clustered on either side of what I'm looking at instead of being on the top and bottom where they might be able to display something important.
With a 16:10 monitor you can see 2 full documents/web pages in a side by side orientation.
2 documents side by side isn't really much of an option until you're at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600... 1680x1050 isn't quite enough, IMO.
I respectfully disagree; my 22" widescreen lets me put up to three documents on screen at once. Perfect for those late-night college lab assignments.
4:3 Monitors also fit better in cramped conditions.
I like widescreen monitors, but I also don't us MS Office, so I don't lose all my precious vertical space to that damn ribbon.
It's a marketing gimmick. You can manufacture a 16:9 LCD for much cheaper than a 4:3 while keeping the diagonal length the same. I.e. since 4:3 is closer to a square, there's more actual screen area and thus is more costly to manufacture.
For the unbeliever, a 19-inch 5:4 monitor is 1280x1024. That's 1,310,720 pixels. A 19-inch 16:10 monitor is 1440 x 900. That's 1,296,000 pixels. Or, look at the standard 21-inch 4:3 vs. 22-inch 16:10 monitors. 1600x1200 is 1,920,000 pixels. 1680x1050 is only 1,764,000 pixels.
But the average consumer is going to look at a 19-inch 4:3 LCD and compare it to a 19-inch 16:10 LCD, and see that the price of the widescreen is much less. It's a shitty way to do business, but that's how it is.
Manufacturers love this "widescreen" buzz because they can make a 21" or 24" widescreen with less glass compared to a 4/3 monitor. I wonder how long it will be before we see "super wide screen" 21 inch LCDs that are about 21" wide and 4" high.
I'm in with the "16x9 is for TV and I have a TV for that" crowd. 4x3 is better for the web as virtually all the webs I design are 800/600. You can't read a widescreen webpage, you'll get whiplash. 1600 pixels Vertical, that would be cool.... SOmetimes I just miss CRT's...
1280x1024 isn't "standard aspect ratio": it's 5:4, not 4:3.
Isn't MultiSync a misnomer, considering the original meaning of the product name?
4:3 aspect ratio? Maybe next they can release a 13" CRT that can only support EGA graphics and connects with an RF cable.
For a monitor with 176 degrees viewing angle and Height/Swivel adjustment, it's not expensive at all. And true 900:1 contrast ratio is quite good for LCD. Most LCD monitors manage half of that, no matter what the manufacturers claim.
I hate the continuing death of standard aspect ratio LCDs. Most old games (and far too many recent ones) don't support widescreen ratios, so you're left with awful looking stretched out images. Unless modern monitors put blocks on the sides when they get a signal outside of their native ratio--I admit, I haven't kept up with LCD monitor features since I bought my last monitor a few years back.
Every widescreen monitor I've seen (both 16:10 and 16:9) has an option in the menu to switch the aspect ratio.
If you like "standard" aspect ratio screens, check out the HP LP1965. Best 19" monitor around for the price. I'm currently running two of them on Ergotron arms. Best setup I've ever had.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176072
Please, bring us 24-27 inch REAL 4:3 LCD screens with H-IPS technology, 1600x1200 or 2048x1536 resolutions and low input lag. Have to feed that arcade machines with something decent.