I’m considering buying another monitor, and in my casual searches, I’m noticing that most of the monitors in the size range I’m looking at (23-24" or so) are rated at 1920x1080, rather than 1920x1200.
Last time I bought a monitor was years ago, and it’s a 24", 1920x1200.
I figure there’s some reasoning for the switch, but I’m not finding it. Anyone?
Quick guess - 1080 is the same line height as current HD standard, so the monitor could double as an HD TV monitor.
Widescreen, 16:9.
Looks like 1920x 1080 is the Hi Def TV resolution.
Or, what BwanaBob said.
Should this be perceived as a step backwards in terms of computer monitor capability, or am I missing something?
WAG. By using the same resolution as in HD tvs the manufacturers can source the LCD/LED screens from the same plants and lines that are producing TV screens. Leading to lower per unit costs.
Yes, it’s a step backwards, unless all you use your computer for is watching movies. Years ago you got more vertical resolution, which is important for reading.
Absolutely. You can buy anything from 19 to 24", and all you get are differently sized pixels, not more of them. HDTV was the worst thing to happen to computer monitors. 
Yup. I have a 30" display at 2560x1600 but the new ones are all 2560x1440… which loses a good deal of vertical space.
Another WAG, they can also share a lot of other electronics and firmware between HDTV and monitors.
Actually, if your main purpose is reading, and you like vertical screen space, the best solution is simply to rotate your monitor.
Plenty of monitors allow you to do this, and it really is a much more logical orientation for people who spend all their time with documents and web browsers open on their computer.
As everyone else said, yea.
Pretty much no one likes it, but the monitor industry doesn’t pay attention.
I just purchased a 24" monitor and paid more for it because it was 1920 x 1200.
Care to share what you got? If I buy one, I’ll likely spring for the higher resolution.
Except for the clueless customers who just see 24" and a low price tag.
As long as people buy them, the industry will keep making them.
I recently picked up an HP ZR24W which is native 1920x1200 and I’m pretty pleased with it.
The thing is, if I’m ever going to watch TV or video on it, I might as well get widescreen. I’m not saying they shouldn’t bump up the resolution, since the beauty of video is that you can scale it, but I do understand not sticking with 4:3.
And I always read with two pages at a time on widescreen. It fits two 8.5"x11" pages nearly perfectly.
Yikes - pricey.
But there are multiple “widescreen” standards. 1920x1080 is 16:9. 1920x1200 is 16:10. I prefer the increased height of the 16:10 format, even for watching video on my PC so that there is space for the pop up controls when watching in the full screen.
Thing is, though, that’s not just a 1920x1200 monitor; it also has an IPS (in-plane switching) panel, which means that it has better image quality, particularly color reproduction, than most standard monitors, which generally come with TN (twisted nematic) panels.
TN panels are cheaper, generally have poorer color and contrast, but also generally have faster response times. Because most people don’t need incredibly accurate color rendition for things like web browsing and email and word processing, TN panels are a cheaper and perfectly good solution for most computer users. They have also generally been considered better for gaming, because of their faster response times.
Graphic artists, professional photographers, video editors, and other folks who need accurate color reproduction, but who aren’t as concerned about things like very fast response rates, tend to go for the more expensive IPS monitors.