<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_08_2215254</id>
	<title>Small, High-Resolution LCD Monitors?</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1247054100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"I'm a veteran user of an old 17" Dell Trinitron CRT monitor. I run it at 1400x1050 with an 80Hz refresh rate &mdash; about as high as it goes before it'll go out of the monitor's scan range. More recently I've been looking to finally upgrade to an LCD monitor but found that, for the most part, every 17" monitor on the market runs natively at 1280x1024, as does every 19" monitor &mdash; I have to go for a 20" to go higher. Now yes, I know I'm complaining about just 120 pixels horizontal and 26 pixels vertical, but my laptop's 15" display runs natively at 1400x1050. Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " I 'm a veteran user of an old 17 " Dell Trinitron CRT monitor .
I run it at 1400x1050 with an 80Hz refresh rate    about as high as it goes before it 'll go out of the monitor 's scan range .
More recently I 've been looking to finally upgrade to an LCD monitor but found that , for the most part , every 17 " monitor on the market runs natively at 1280x1024 , as does every 19 " monitor    I have to go for a 20 " to go higher .
Now yes , I know I 'm complaining about just 120 pixels horizontal and 26 pixels vertical , but my laptop 's 15 " display runs natively at 1400x1050 .
Is there any standalone monitor on the market that 'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "I'm a veteran user of an old 17" Dell Trinitron CRT monitor.
I run it at 1400x1050 with an 80Hz refresh rate — about as high as it goes before it'll go out of the monitor's scan range.
More recently I've been looking to finally upgrade to an LCD monitor but found that, for the most part, every 17" monitor on the market runs natively at 1280x1024, as does every 19" monitor — I have to go for a 20" to go higher.
Now yes, I know I'm complaining about just 120 pixels horizontal and 26 pixels vertical, but my laptop's 15" display runs natively at 1400x1050.
Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630333</id>
	<title>Yes, a 20" LCD monitor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247058300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm a veteran user of an old 17" Dell Trinitron CRT monitor.... Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?"</p></div></blockquote><p>

Yes, buy a 20" LCD monitor with a 1400x1050 resolution.  They come on stands.  The stands have smaller footprints than your 17" CRT monitor.  The stands have smaller footprints than your 15" laptop.  Your question makes virtually no sense, unless you measure your desk space in a vertical plane and you insist on having the monitor at the same horizontal distance from your eyes as the laptop.

Sheesh.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a veteran user of an old 17 " Dell Trinitron CRT monitor.... Is there any standalone monitor on the market that 'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space ?
" Yes , buy a 20 " LCD monitor with a 1400x1050 resolution .
They come on stands .
The stands have smaller footprints than your 17 " CRT monitor .
The stands have smaller footprints than your 15 " laptop .
Your question makes virtually no sense , unless you measure your desk space in a vertical plane and you insist on having the monitor at the same horizontal distance from your eyes as the laptop .
Sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a veteran user of an old 17" Dell Trinitron CRT monitor.... Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?
"

Yes, buy a 20" LCD monitor with a 1400x1050 resolution.
They come on stands.
The stands have smaller footprints than your 17" CRT monitor.
The stands have smaller footprints than your 15" laptop.
Your question makes virtually no sense, unless you measure your desk space in a vertical plane and you insist on having the monitor at the same horizontal distance from your eyes as the laptop.
Sheesh.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632565</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247076600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Besides, normal aspect ratio is so much nicer mathematically: 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, but 16^2 + 9^2 = not even rational^2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , normal aspect ratio is so much nicer mathematically : 3 ^ 2 + 4 ^ 2 = 5 ^ 2 , but 16 ^ 2 + 9 ^ 2 = not even rational ^ 2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, normal aspect ratio is so much nicer mathematically: 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, but 16^2 + 9^2 = not even rational^2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634041</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe a Projector?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1247137680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, that's an eminently practical and ergonomic solution in <em>so</em> many ways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that 's an eminently practical and ergonomic solution in so many ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that's an eminently practical and ergonomic solution in so many ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630781</id>
	<title>Looking for the opposite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am looking for the exact opposite: a large-ish, low resolution LCD monitor. Why, you ask? There are people out there with bad vision, and if they want to be able to access web pages that some genius designed for a fixed resolution of, say, 1024x768 (preferably in Flash so you can't just increase the font size in the browser), it needs to be displayed on a 20+ inch screen so the text is legible.</p><p>Right now I have my parents set up with a 19" CRT running at 800x600, but there are more and more web pages and programs that require 1024x768.</p><p>Of course one could scale 1024x768 up for a higher-res LCD, but this looks just terrible unless the scale factor is integer.</p><p>Any ideas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am looking for the exact opposite : a large-ish , low resolution LCD monitor .
Why , you ask ?
There are people out there with bad vision , and if they want to be able to access web pages that some genius designed for a fixed resolution of , say , 1024x768 ( preferably in Flash so you ca n't just increase the font size in the browser ) , it needs to be displayed on a 20 + inch screen so the text is legible.Right now I have my parents set up with a 19 " CRT running at 800x600 , but there are more and more web pages and programs that require 1024x768.Of course one could scale 1024x768 up for a higher-res LCD , but this looks just terrible unless the scale factor is integer.Any ideas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am looking for the exact opposite: a large-ish, low resolution LCD monitor.
Why, you ask?
There are people out there with bad vision, and if they want to be able to access web pages that some genius designed for a fixed resolution of, say, 1024x768 (preferably in Flash so you can't just increase the font size in the browser), it needs to be displayed on a 20+ inch screen so the text is legible.Right now I have my parents set up with a 19" CRT running at 800x600, but there are more and more web pages and programs that require 1024x768.Of course one could scale 1024x768 up for a higher-res LCD, but this looks just terrible unless the scale factor is integer.Any ideas?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28635203</id>
	<title>In general the answer is no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247148420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been looking for monitors like this for several years. I used to run 1600x1200 on a 17 inch CRT. When I upgraded to LCDs, I wasn't able to find LCDs with that kind of resolution, even when looking at the high-res medical monitors . Those are you best bet, but you will pay thorught the nose for them.</p><p>I wish someone monitor company would take those high-res laptop screens and turn them into monitors. It irritates me to no end that you can buy a laptop with a 17 inch screen that does 1920x1200, but you can't buy a 17 inch desktop LCD with that same resolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been looking for monitors like this for several years .
I used to run 1600x1200 on a 17 inch CRT .
When I upgraded to LCDs , I was n't able to find LCDs with that kind of resolution , even when looking at the high-res medical monitors .
Those are you best bet , but you will pay thorught the nose for them.I wish someone monitor company would take those high-res laptop screens and turn them into monitors .
It irritates me to no end that you can buy a laptop with a 17 inch screen that does 1920x1200 , but you ca n't buy a 17 inch desktop LCD with that same resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been looking for monitors like this for several years.
I used to run 1600x1200 on a 17 inch CRT.
When I upgraded to LCDs, I wasn't able to find LCDs with that kind of resolution, even when looking at the high-res medical monitors .
Those are you best bet, but you will pay thorught the nose for them.I wish someone monitor company would take those high-res laptop screens and turn them into monitors.
It irritates me to no end that you can buy a laptop with a 17 inch screen that does 1920x1200, but you can't buy a 17 inch desktop LCD with that same resolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630827</id>
	<title>wergle?</title>
	<author>Sarreq Teryx</author>
	<datestamp>1247061600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>my brother has a 16" viewsonic at 1600x1050 (yes, odd res), and my 10" netbook runs at 1366x768, so I'm not quite sure why you can't seem to find a higher res middle-sized screen. should be dead easy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>my brother has a 16 " viewsonic at 1600x1050 ( yes , odd res ) , and my 10 " netbook runs at 1366x768 , so I 'm not quite sure why you ca n't seem to find a higher res middle-sized screen .
should be dead easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my brother has a 16" viewsonic at 1600x1050 (yes, odd res), and my 10" netbook runs at 1366x768, so I'm not quite sure why you can't seem to find a higher res middle-sized screen.
should be dead easy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632245</id>
	<title>CRT Rookie-ism.</title>
	<author>EmperorLinuz</author>
	<datestamp>1247072640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice you were a veteran of a crt cause I am now again a rookie of  two crts and a color video monitor.  Had 2 digital lcds that I lost to the family.  One because of gaming , the other to the lady of the house running ME on a P3.

Me I have a Xeon dual core * 2  with a NVidia dual digital hooked to a NEC AccuSync125F Crt monster that holds candles on top, and the other is a Sony Multiscan CPDE200. My Sony Vaio PCG-GRX700 laptop's LCD blewout so now I have it hook up to a Panasonic monitor that the kids found in the trash.

Normally neither of the LCD's are running digitally.  Can I get my monitors back?  What do u think?

This economy has too turn around so I can get a couple of new monitors since it is probably the only way I will get my other LCD's back.

Forgot to mention the Sony and Color monitors do have an advanced feature - they both have modern style glare screens to protect my eyes. One more nice feature of the color monitor, the hook is a super S-Video hook up!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice you were a veteran of a crt cause I am now again a rookie of two crts and a color video monitor .
Had 2 digital lcds that I lost to the family .
One because of gaming , the other to the lady of the house running ME on a P3 .
Me I have a Xeon dual core * 2 with a NVidia dual digital hooked to a NEC AccuSync125F Crt monster that holds candles on top , and the other is a Sony Multiscan CPDE200 .
My Sony Vaio PCG-GRX700 laptop 's LCD blewout so now I have it hook up to a Panasonic monitor that the kids found in the trash .
Normally neither of the LCD 's are running digitally .
Can I get my monitors back ?
What do u think ?
This economy has too turn around so I can get a couple of new monitors since it is probably the only way I will get my other LCD 's back .
Forgot to mention the Sony and Color monitors do have an advanced feature - they both have modern style glare screens to protect my eyes .
One more nice feature of the color monitor , the hook is a super S-Video hook up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice you were a veteran of a crt cause I am now again a rookie of  two crts and a color video monitor.
Had 2 digital lcds that I lost to the family.
One because of gaming , the other to the lady of the house running ME on a P3.
Me I have a Xeon dual core * 2  with a NVidia dual digital hooked to a NEC AccuSync125F Crt monster that holds candles on top, and the other is a Sony Multiscan CPDE200.
My Sony Vaio PCG-GRX700 laptop's LCD blewout so now I have it hook up to a Panasonic monitor that the kids found in the trash.
Normally neither of the LCD's are running digitally.
Can I get my monitors back?
What do u think?
This economy has too turn around so I can get a couple of new monitors since it is probably the only way I will get my other LCD's back.
Forgot to mention the Sony and Color monitors do have an advanced feature - they both have modern style glare screens to protect my eyes.
One more nice feature of the color monitor, the hook is a super S-Video hook up!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630905</id>
	<title>Your whole argument is invalid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247062080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you keep your LCD further away from you than you would a crt? Do you put things behind your LCD? If the answer to those is "no" then you could use a 100lb trinitron and you wouldn't be "killing any space" more than you would with a 5lb LCD.</p><p>If you want a decent resolution you're not really going to find it without getting a CRT or a VERY expensive LCD. The widescreen virus has infected everyone and shutdown their brains and now people think that they're better off with lower resolutions that old giant CRTs had in 1998.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you keep your LCD further away from you than you would a crt ?
Do you put things behind your LCD ?
If the answer to those is " no " then you could use a 100lb trinitron and you would n't be " killing any space " more than you would with a 5lb LCD.If you want a decent resolution you 're not really going to find it without getting a CRT or a VERY expensive LCD .
The widescreen virus has infected everyone and shutdown their brains and now people think that they 're better off with lower resolutions that old giant CRTs had in 1998 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you keep your LCD further away from you than you would a crt?
Do you put things behind your LCD?
If the answer to those is "no" then you could use a 100lb trinitron and you wouldn't be "killing any space" more than you would with a 5lb LCD.If you want a decent resolution you're not really going to find it without getting a CRT or a VERY expensive LCD.
The widescreen virus has infected everyone and shutdown their brains and now people think that they're better off with lower resolutions that old giant CRTs had in 1998.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630791</id>
	<title>yes</title>
	<author>KatTran</author>
	<datestamp>1247061420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are already killing your desk space now with a 17" CRT.  Any flat panel you get will give you so much more space than the CRT.</p><p>You have learned the dirty little secret of flat panel monitors; 19" monitors are the same as 17" monitors, but with bigger pixels.  It is sad that this extends into the wide screen monitors as well, because a 19" wide is only 1440 x 900.</p><p>So, buy a 20" wide monitor.  The Dell one does 1680 x 1050.  I know it will take way less depth than the CRT, and I'm guessing that it will actually be smaller in all dimensions than the current monitor you have.</p><p><a href="http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=us&amp;l=en&amp;s=biz&amp;cs=555&amp;sku=320-6523" title="dell.com" rel="nofollow">http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=us&amp;l=en&amp;s=biz&amp;cs=555&amp;sku=320-6523</a> [dell.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are already killing your desk space now with a 17 " CRT .
Any flat panel you get will give you so much more space than the CRT.You have learned the dirty little secret of flat panel monitors ; 19 " monitors are the same as 17 " monitors , but with bigger pixels .
It is sad that this extends into the wide screen monitors as well , because a 19 " wide is only 1440 x 900.So , buy a 20 " wide monitor .
The Dell one does 1680 x 1050 .
I know it will take way less depth than the CRT , and I 'm guessing that it will actually be smaller in all dimensions than the current monitor you have.http : //accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx ? c = us&amp;l = en&amp;s = biz&amp;cs = 555&amp;sku = 320-6523 [ dell.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are already killing your desk space now with a 17" CRT.
Any flat panel you get will give you so much more space than the CRT.You have learned the dirty little secret of flat panel monitors; 19" monitors are the same as 17" monitors, but with bigger pixels.
It is sad that this extends into the wide screen monitors as well, because a 19" wide is only 1440 x 900.So, buy a 20" wide monitor.
The Dell one does 1680 x 1050.
I know it will take way less depth than the CRT, and I'm guessing that it will actually be smaller in all dimensions than the current monitor you have.http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=us&amp;l=en&amp;s=biz&amp;cs=555&amp;sku=320-6523 [dell.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28640291</id>
	<title>Fix your font</title>
	<author>duanes1967</author>
	<datestamp>1247169000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At that size and rez - standard fonts would be miniscule!  A standard LCD with standard fonts will give similar screen real estate.  Most LCD's have a VERY sharp picture at their native resolution where as a tube is not as sharp.

I ran 1280x1024 on a 17 for years and had to enlarge the font a bit from standard to read everything.  You should try one out at a local computer store, or Best Buy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At that size and rez - standard fonts would be miniscule !
A standard LCD with standard fonts will give similar screen real estate .
Most LCD 's have a VERY sharp picture at their native resolution where as a tube is not as sharp .
I ran 1280x1024 on a 17 for years and had to enlarge the font a bit from standard to read everything .
You should try one out at a local computer store , or Best Buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At that size and rez - standard fonts would be miniscule!
A standard LCD with standard fonts will give similar screen real estate.
Most LCD's have a VERY sharp picture at their native resolution where as a tube is not as sharp.
I ran 1280x1024 on a 17 for years and had to enlarge the font a bit from standard to read everything.
You should try one out at a local computer store, or Best Buy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28641389</id>
	<title>Re:Pixel density.</title>
	<author>Craig Davison</author>
	<datestamp>1247130060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some others:<br>19" widescreen (16:10) 1680x1050 - 104 ppi<br>23" widescreen (16:9) 2048x1152 - 102 ppi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some others : 19 " widescreen ( 16 : 10 ) 1680x1050 - 104 ppi23 " widescreen ( 16 : 9 ) 2048x1152 - 102 ppi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some others:19" widescreen (16:10) 1680x1050 - 104 ppi23" widescreen (16:9) 2048x1152 - 102 ppi</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632413</id>
	<title>Re:HD Capable</title>
	<author>XDirtypunkX</author>
	<datestamp>1247074740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BenQ G2220HD is 22 inch and its native resolution is 1920x1080. The quality of the display on them is fantastic too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BenQ G2220HD is 22 inch and its native resolution is 1920x1080 .
The quality of the display on them is fantastic too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BenQ G2220HD is 22 inch and its native resolution is 1920x1080.
The quality of the display on them is fantastic too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633133</id>
	<title>ghm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247170860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as i have plans to buy some LCD monitors in near future. i started collecting data from local resellers. as it shows http://markit.at.lt/?id=dot you could just wait. Pixel pitch going smaller. that's makes higer resolutions in smaller screen sizes... but sadly average screen size growing even faster. also resolution is growing as  the screen size.. so it seems that 17" monitors will extinct. as data had been collected just for half a month it doesn't gives a clear view. in other hand.. direction is obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as i have plans to buy some LCD monitors in near future .
i started collecting data from local resellers .
as it shows http : //markit.at.lt/ ? id = dot you could just wait .
Pixel pitch going smaller .
that 's makes higer resolutions in smaller screen sizes... but sadly average screen size growing even faster .
also resolution is growing as the screen size.. so it seems that 17 " monitors will extinct .
as data had been collected just for half a month it does n't gives a clear view .
in other hand.. direction is obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as i have plans to buy some LCD monitors in near future.
i started collecting data from local resellers.
as it shows http://markit.at.lt/?id=dot you could just wait.
Pixel pitch going smaller.
that's makes higer resolutions in smaller screen sizes... but sadly average screen size growing even faster.
also resolution is growing as  the screen size.. so it seems that 17" monitors will extinct.
as data had been collected just for half a month it doesn't gives a clear view.
in other hand.. direction is obvious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633281</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247172600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>WTF?  1920x1200 monitors have been in the $300-400 range for at least a year if not two, and you can get one for under $300 on sale these days.  Of course it's different if you're not happy with a TN panel, but you certainly didn't mention it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ?
1920x1200 monitors have been in the $ 300-400 range for at least a year if not two , and you can get one for under $ 300 on sale these days .
Of course it 's different if you 're not happy with a TN panel , but you certainly did n't mention it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF?
1920x1200 monitors have been in the $300-400 range for at least a year if not two, and you can get one for under $300 on sale these days.
Of course it's different if you're not happy with a TN panel, but you certainly didn't mention it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630757</id>
	<title>Re:Ever heard of Newegg? TigerDirect? Google?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247061000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see a single 17" that does better than 1280x1024. The 19" top out at 1280x1024 or the vertically similar 1680x1050.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see a single 17 " that does better than 1280x1024 .
The 19 " top out at 1280x1024 or the vertically similar 1680x1050 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see a single 17" that does better than 1280x1024.
The 19" top out at 1280x1024 or the vertically similar 1680x1050.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632717</id>
	<title>Re:I read the "answers", now I feel for you..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247078400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1280x1024 is not 4x3...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1280x1024 is not 4x3.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1280x1024 is not 4x3...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633031</id>
	<title>Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247082540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually have a laptop that does 1920 x 1200 on a 15" display. (Dell Latitude D830) I also would like to have that same sort of DPI on a desktop monitor, but as the original poster mentioned no one seems to make such a display for a desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually have a laptop that does 1920 x 1200 on a 15 " display .
( Dell Latitude D830 ) I also would like to have that same sort of DPI on a desktop monitor , but as the original poster mentioned no one seems to make such a display for a desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually have a laptop that does 1920 x 1200 on a 15" display.
(Dell Latitude D830) I also would like to have that same sort of DPI on a desktop monitor, but as the original poster mentioned no one seems to make such a display for a desktop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633249</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247172120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to think the same way, but I took the plunge to widescreen both for my desktop and laptop a while ago. Now I wonder what I was worrying about. So it is all in the mind.</p><p>If this can be of any help: a 24" widescreen just invites putting two applications next to each other, keeping a nice vertical resolution. Little chance of achieving that on a 19" 4:3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to think the same way , but I took the plunge to widescreen both for my desktop and laptop a while ago .
Now I wonder what I was worrying about .
So it is all in the mind.If this can be of any help : a 24 " widescreen just invites putting two applications next to each other , keeping a nice vertical resolution .
Little chance of achieving that on a 19 " 4 : 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to think the same way, but I took the plunge to widescreen both for my desktop and laptop a while ago.
Now I wonder what I was worrying about.
So it is all in the mind.If this can be of any help: a 24" widescreen just invites putting two applications next to each other, keeping a nice vertical resolution.
Little chance of achieving that on a 19" 4:3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631031</id>
	<title>CRT space to LCD space migration</title>
	<author>thatkid\_2002</author>
	<datestamp>1247063040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have just done a 17" CRT to 20" LCD migration this week. Even though the display size is bigger, it takes much less desktop space.</p><p>Compare the following:<br>
######<br>
######<br>
######<br>
4 * 8 = 32 (CRT)<br>
<br>
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ <br>
########<br>
12 * 2 = 24 (LCD)</p><p>
The other advantage of an LCD space wise is that it is easier to put things in and around the base unlike a CRT.</p><p>Half of the reason I switched to LCD was because of health reasons which are:</p><ul>
<li>1024x768 and 17" CRT glare not good for my eyes </li><li> CRTs sit on the table and are hard to elevate properly, and look weird once you do.</li></ul><p>The colour and sharpness from an LCD is better too and for $100 AUD it was too good to refuse.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have just done a 17 " CRT to 20 " LCD migration this week .
Even though the display size is bigger , it takes much less desktop space.Compare the following : # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 4 * 8 = 32 ( CRT ) \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ # # # # # # # # 12 * 2 = 24 ( LCD ) The other advantage of an LCD space wise is that it is easier to put things in and around the base unlike a CRT.Half of the reason I switched to LCD was because of health reasons which are : 1024x768 and 17 " CRT glare not good for my eyes CRTs sit on the table and are hard to elevate properly , and look weird once you do.The colour and sharpness from an LCD is better too and for $ 100 AUD it was too good to refuse .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have just done a 17" CRT to 20" LCD migration this week.
Even though the display size is bigger, it takes much less desktop space.Compare the following:
######
######
######
4 * 8 = 32 (CRT)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 
########
12 * 2 = 24 (LCD)
The other advantage of an LCD space wise is that it is easier to put things in and around the base unlike a CRT.Half of the reason I switched to LCD was because of health reasons which are:
1024x768 and 17" CRT glare not good for my eyes  CRTs sit on the table and are hard to elevate properly, and look weird once you do.The colour and sharpness from an LCD is better too and for $100 AUD it was too good to refuse.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630453</id>
	<title>The dude abides to save your desk space.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247059200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like, get a <a href="http://www.ergotron.com/Products/tabid/65/PRDID/1/language/en-CA/default.aspx" title="ergotron.com" rel="nofollow">desk-mounted monitor arm like this one</a> [ergotron.com], man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like , get a desk-mounted monitor arm like this one [ ergotron.com ] , man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like, get a desk-mounted monitor arm like this one [ergotron.com], man.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630677</id>
	<title>Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.</title>
	<author>spoop</author>
	<datestamp>1247060520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are also 15.4" panels that are 1920x1200, Lenovo (at least used to) offer them on T61p's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are also 15.4 " panels that are 1920x1200 , Lenovo ( at least used to ) offer them on T61p 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are also 15.4" panels that are 1920x1200, Lenovo (at least used to) offer them on T61p's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28639043</id>
	<title>Re:Your whole argument is invalid</title>
	<author>Mal-2</author>
	<datestamp>1247164260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not presume to speak for parent poster, only for myself.</p><p>&gt; Do you keep your LCD further away from you than you would a crt?</p><p>Yes. The screen surface is about 7 inches further from my face than it was when I had CRTs. Because the pixel density is slightly lower and the pixels themselves are much better defined, it does not cause a problem at all.</p><p>&gt; Do you put things behind your LCD?</p><p>No, they're pushed back to the wall or (in the living room) perched precariously on the edge of the table. There is no space behind them to be reclaimed. I have gained the seven inches they've been pushed back, and there is no bulky case sticking out over the edge of the table to get bumped when walking by.</p><p>&gt; If the answer to those is "no" then you could use a 100lb trinitron and you wouldn't be "killing any space" more than you would with a 5lb LCD.</p><p>Yes, I would. I am able to perch the LCDs in such a manner that the space under them that is not consumed by the base is usable for other things. I stick speakers to the bases of my work monitors, and I let my monitors at home "hover" over my amplifiers while using the base space for USB hubs. Granted, I was able to stick a USB hub to the top of a CRT as well, but then I had to stand up to plug or unplug anything.</p><p>Mal-2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not presume to speak for parent poster , only for myself. &gt; Do you keep your LCD further away from you than you would a crt ? Yes .
The screen surface is about 7 inches further from my face than it was when I had CRTs .
Because the pixel density is slightly lower and the pixels themselves are much better defined , it does not cause a problem at all. &gt; Do you put things behind your LCD ? No , they 're pushed back to the wall or ( in the living room ) perched precariously on the edge of the table .
There is no space behind them to be reclaimed .
I have gained the seven inches they 've been pushed back , and there is no bulky case sticking out over the edge of the table to get bumped when walking by. &gt; If the answer to those is " no " then you could use a 100lb trinitron and you would n't be " killing any space " more than you would with a 5lb LCD.Yes , I would .
I am able to perch the LCDs in such a manner that the space under them that is not consumed by the base is usable for other things .
I stick speakers to the bases of my work monitors , and I let my monitors at home " hover " over my amplifiers while using the base space for USB hubs .
Granted , I was able to stick a USB hub to the top of a CRT as well , but then I had to stand up to plug or unplug anything.Mal-2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not presume to speak for parent poster, only for myself.&gt; Do you keep your LCD further away from you than you would a crt?Yes.
The screen surface is about 7 inches further from my face than it was when I had CRTs.
Because the pixel density is slightly lower and the pixels themselves are much better defined, it does not cause a problem at all.&gt; Do you put things behind your LCD?No, they're pushed back to the wall or (in the living room) perched precariously on the edge of the table.
There is no space behind them to be reclaimed.
I have gained the seven inches they've been pushed back, and there is no bulky case sticking out over the edge of the table to get bumped when walking by.&gt; If the answer to those is "no" then you could use a 100lb trinitron and you wouldn't be "killing any space" more than you would with a 5lb LCD.Yes, I would.
I am able to perch the LCDs in such a manner that the space under them that is not consumed by the base is usable for other things.
I stick speakers to the bases of my work monitors, and I let my monitors at home "hover" over my amplifiers while using the base space for USB hubs.
Granted, I was able to stick a USB hub to the top of a CRT as well, but then I had to stand up to plug or unplug anything.Mal-2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28638461</id>
	<title>It's valid for a huge number of situations!</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1247161920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Do you keep your LCD further away from you than you would a crt?</i></p><p>I've <i>never</i> had a CRT and a desk to put it on where the distance from me to the screen wasn't defined by how deep the CRT was, rather than optimal viewing distance.  So <b>yes</b> I put my LCD further away from me than I would a ctr, because I <b>can</b>.</p><p><i>Do you put things behind your LCD?</i></p><p>No, I put things <i>under</i> and <i>in front of</i> my LCD in the space that would otherwise be occupied by a CRT's massive bulk.  For example in my cube right now, I've got two 20" LCD monitors at a comfortable view distance with ample room in front and under for my keyboard and post its and reference books and my mp3 player and so on when a single equivalent CRT would leave room for nothing but the keyboard, much less a second monitor.  In my study at home a CRT would reduce my usable desk space by 50\% and push the screen much closer to my face than is comfortable.  And I know this because in both cases that used to be the situation.  Buying LCDs was a breath of fresh air!</p><p><i>If the answer to those is "no" then you could use a 100lb trinitron and you wouldn't be "killing any space" more than you would with a 5lb LCD.</i></p><p>I'm trying to imagine situations where the answer would be "no", since it has never been for me or anyone around me, and all I can come up with is either a big desk in the middle of your big office so the CRT's ass can hang off the end, or a desk so big that giving up the footprint for a big ass CRT is inconsequential.  Bully for you if that's the case, but it isn't for most of us, either at home or at work.</p><p>The very fact that they were at all concerned with desk space enough to even bring it up means the answers aren't "no".  If desk space is a concern worth even mentioning, then the bulk of a CRT is a big downside.  That is a very valid argument.</p><p><i>If you want a decent resolution you're not really going to find it without getting a CRT or a VERY expensive LCD. The widescreen virus has infected everyone and shutdown their brains and now people think that they're better off with lower resolutions that old giant CRTs had in 1998.</i></p><p>I think 1600x1200 is decent, and those LCDs are quite affordable.  Widescreen LCDs with commensurate resolution aren't really that expensive.  CRTs do still have technological advantages, but many people <b>are</b> better off with an LCD because you can get something whose CRT equivalent would be ludicrously large.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you keep your LCD further away from you than you would a crt ? I 've never had a CRT and a desk to put it on where the distance from me to the screen was n't defined by how deep the CRT was , rather than optimal viewing distance .
So yes I put my LCD further away from me than I would a ctr , because I can.Do you put things behind your LCD ? No , I put things under and in front of my LCD in the space that would otherwise be occupied by a CRT 's massive bulk .
For example in my cube right now , I 've got two 20 " LCD monitors at a comfortable view distance with ample room in front and under for my keyboard and post its and reference books and my mp3 player and so on when a single equivalent CRT would leave room for nothing but the keyboard , much less a second monitor .
In my study at home a CRT would reduce my usable desk space by 50 \ % and push the screen much closer to my face than is comfortable .
And I know this because in both cases that used to be the situation .
Buying LCDs was a breath of fresh air ! If the answer to those is " no " then you could use a 100lb trinitron and you would n't be " killing any space " more than you would with a 5lb LCD.I 'm trying to imagine situations where the answer would be " no " , since it has never been for me or anyone around me , and all I can come up with is either a big desk in the middle of your big office so the CRT 's ass can hang off the end , or a desk so big that giving up the footprint for a big ass CRT is inconsequential .
Bully for you if that 's the case , but it is n't for most of us , either at home or at work.The very fact that they were at all concerned with desk space enough to even bring it up means the answers are n't " no " .
If desk space is a concern worth even mentioning , then the bulk of a CRT is a big downside .
That is a very valid argument.If you want a decent resolution you 're not really going to find it without getting a CRT or a VERY expensive LCD .
The widescreen virus has infected everyone and shutdown their brains and now people think that they 're better off with lower resolutions that old giant CRTs had in 1998.I think 1600x1200 is decent , and those LCDs are quite affordable .
Widescreen LCDs with commensurate resolution are n't really that expensive .
CRTs do still have technological advantages , but many people are better off with an LCD because you can get something whose CRT equivalent would be ludicrously large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you keep your LCD further away from you than you would a crt?I've never had a CRT and a desk to put it on where the distance from me to the screen wasn't defined by how deep the CRT was, rather than optimal viewing distance.
So yes I put my LCD further away from me than I would a ctr, because I can.Do you put things behind your LCD?No, I put things under and in front of my LCD in the space that would otherwise be occupied by a CRT's massive bulk.
For example in my cube right now, I've got two 20" LCD monitors at a comfortable view distance with ample room in front and under for my keyboard and post its and reference books and my mp3 player and so on when a single equivalent CRT would leave room for nothing but the keyboard, much less a second monitor.
In my study at home a CRT would reduce my usable desk space by 50\% and push the screen much closer to my face than is comfortable.
And I know this because in both cases that used to be the situation.
Buying LCDs was a breath of fresh air!If the answer to those is "no" then you could use a 100lb trinitron and you wouldn't be "killing any space" more than you would with a 5lb LCD.I'm trying to imagine situations where the answer would be "no", since it has never been for me or anyone around me, and all I can come up with is either a big desk in the middle of your big office so the CRT's ass can hang off the end, or a desk so big that giving up the footprint for a big ass CRT is inconsequential.
Bully for you if that's the case, but it isn't for most of us, either at home or at work.The very fact that they were at all concerned with desk space enough to even bring it up means the answers aren't "no".
If desk space is a concern worth even mentioning, then the bulk of a CRT is a big downside.
That is a very valid argument.If you want a decent resolution you're not really going to find it without getting a CRT or a VERY expensive LCD.
The widescreen virus has infected everyone and shutdown their brains and now people think that they're better off with lower resolutions that old giant CRTs had in 1998.I think 1600x1200 is decent, and those LCDs are quite affordable.
Widescreen LCDs with commensurate resolution aren't really that expensive.
CRTs do still have technological advantages, but many people are better off with an LCD because you can get something whose CRT equivalent would be ludicrously large.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634447</id>
	<title>Re:Pixel density is the key factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247142180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a Dell Inspiron 17" machine, with a 1920x1200 pixel screen. I searched high and low for an equivalent size LCD monitor. Having happily used a number of their CRT products, eventually, I complained to Iiyama, that their equivalent pixel-sized LCD monitors started at 24", and this is the reply I received.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Dear Sir,</p><p>'ALL' display manufacturers are governed by the production ability of
the glass producers in LCD and the cost effectiveness of display
production. High resolution, small format LCDs are firstly not that
easily to produce at the correct price point 'and' when they produced
for Laptop displays break a number of Health and Safety rules against
'Size of Text'.</p><p>Laptop / Notebooks should only be used for short periods of time, 1-2
hours or 'occasional' use and hence can have higher than average
resolutions; although we know today that most people are glued to them
for a full day!</p><p>Desktop LCD's are designed aesthically to meet the Health and Safety
requirement on screen tilt, average height, height adjustability and
'text size' for the average 8 hour working days.  Basically, to prevent
any eye strain viewing small text or small detail for any length of
time.</p><p>'However' we do have a new product planned in to next 3 months which
will see higher resolutions (1920 x 1080) on mid-size screens 22"/23".
Exact details and pricing are not available yet, but this is on our
company roadmap.</p><p>Hope this explains why this is not possible or more importantly
adviseable.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Dell Inspiron 17 " machine , with a 1920x1200 pixel screen .
I searched high and low for an equivalent size LCD monitor .
Having happily used a number of their CRT products , eventually , I complained to Iiyama , that their equivalent pixel-sized LCD monitors started at 24 " , and this is the reply I received.Dear Sir,'ALL ' display manufacturers are governed by the production ability of the glass producers in LCD and the cost effectiveness of display production .
High resolution , small format LCDs are firstly not that easily to produce at the correct price point 'and ' when they produced for Laptop displays break a number of Health and Safety rules against 'Size of Text'.Laptop / Notebooks should only be used for short periods of time , 1-2 hours or 'occasional ' use and hence can have higher than average resolutions ; although we know today that most people are glued to them for a full day ! Desktop LCD 's are designed aesthically to meet the Health and Safety requirement on screen tilt , average height , height adjustability and 'text size ' for the average 8 hour working days .
Basically , to prevent any eye strain viewing small text or small detail for any length of time .
'However ' we do have a new product planned in to next 3 months which will see higher resolutions ( 1920 x 1080 ) on mid-size screens 22 " /23 " .
Exact details and pricing are not available yet , but this is on our company roadmap.Hope this explains why this is not possible or more importantly adviseable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Dell Inspiron 17" machine, with a 1920x1200 pixel screen.
I searched high and low for an equivalent size LCD monitor.
Having happily used a number of their CRT products, eventually, I complained to Iiyama, that their equivalent pixel-sized LCD monitors started at 24", and this is the reply I received.Dear Sir,'ALL' display manufacturers are governed by the production ability of
the glass producers in LCD and the cost effectiveness of display
production.
High resolution, small format LCDs are firstly not that
easily to produce at the correct price point 'and' when they produced
for Laptop displays break a number of Health and Safety rules against
'Size of Text'.Laptop / Notebooks should only be used for short periods of time, 1-2
hours or 'occasional' use and hence can have higher than average
resolutions; although we know today that most people are glued to them
for a full day!Desktop LCD's are designed aesthically to meet the Health and Safety
requirement on screen tilt, average height, height adjustability and
'text size' for the average 8 hour working days.
Basically, to prevent
any eye strain viewing small text or small detail for any length of
time.
'However' we do have a new product planned in to next 3 months which
will see higher resolutions (1920 x 1080) on mid-size screens 22"/23".
Exact details and pricing are not available yet, but this is on our
company roadmap.Hope this explains why this is not possible or more importantly
adviseable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28643095</id>
	<title>Pixel density: LCD  CRT  Print</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1247137320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have griped about LCD PPI density for a very long time. Dell used to ship a 15" laptop, the 8000 series, that ran 1600 x 1200 resolution.</p><p>Yes. Your mind is blown.</p><p>Why can I not get that kind of resolution on a stand alone display? Why can I not get that kind of density on a 24" wide screen display? Not only is it not available at "consumer" levels, I haven't been able to find one for medical or other insanely over priced markets.</p><p>Once upon a time I posted a slew of stats that included that display along with others and their pixels per inch breakdowns. I don't feel like finding it again. But it was a great post<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have griped about LCD PPI density for a very long time .
Dell used to ship a 15 " laptop , the 8000 series , that ran 1600 x 1200 resolution.Yes .
Your mind is blown.Why can I not get that kind of resolution on a stand alone display ?
Why can I not get that kind of density on a 24 " wide screen display ?
Not only is it not available at " consumer " levels , I have n't been able to find one for medical or other insanely over priced markets.Once upon a time I posted a slew of stats that included that display along with others and their pixels per inch breakdowns .
I do n't feel like finding it again .
But it was a great post ; D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have griped about LCD PPI density for a very long time.
Dell used to ship a 15" laptop, the 8000 series, that ran 1600 x 1200 resolution.Yes.
Your mind is blown.Why can I not get that kind of resolution on a stand alone display?
Why can I not get that kind of density on a 24" wide screen display?
Not only is it not available at "consumer" levels, I haven't been able to find one for medical or other insanely over priced markets.Once upon a time I posted a slew of stats that included that display along with others and their pixels per inch breakdowns.
I don't feel like finding it again.
But it was a great post ;D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631561</id>
	<title>I LOVE DICKS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247067420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>secret phallus, bitches</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>secret phallus , bitches</tokentext>
<sentencetext>secret phallus, bitches</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633333</id>
	<title>huh ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247130240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guy is right. What's the point in having a 19'' LCD monitor at 1280x1024 when you have the same resolution at 17'' LCD monitor ? Actually i'd go for the 17'' as I've already done. Why ? Imagine a 200'' monitor at 1280x1024 resolution and a pixel size equal to the size of my head. It's not about monitor size, it's mainly about resolution ( talking about gaming here ). Actually i do think that efforts must be put in having a smaller dot pitch rather than having bigger monitors. Higher screen resolution would automatically eliminate the antialiasing problem ( imagine a 0,1 or 0,05 mm dot pitch size - in contrast to 0,25 which is now).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy is right .
What 's the point in having a 19' ' LCD monitor at 1280x1024 when you have the same resolution at 17' ' LCD monitor ?
Actually i 'd go for the 17' ' as I 've already done .
Why ?
Imagine a 200' ' monitor at 1280x1024 resolution and a pixel size equal to the size of my head .
It 's not about monitor size , it 's mainly about resolution ( talking about gaming here ) .
Actually i do think that efforts must be put in having a smaller dot pitch rather than having bigger monitors .
Higher screen resolution would automatically eliminate the antialiasing problem ( imagine a 0,1 or 0,05 mm dot pitch size - in contrast to 0,25 which is now ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy is right.
What's the point in having a 19'' LCD monitor at 1280x1024 when you have the same resolution at 17'' LCD monitor ?
Actually i'd go for the 17'' as I've already done.
Why ?
Imagine a 200'' monitor at 1280x1024 resolution and a pixel size equal to the size of my head.
It's not about monitor size, it's mainly about resolution ( talking about gaming here ).
Actually i do think that efforts must be put in having a smaller dot pitch rather than having bigger monitors.
Higher screen resolution would automatically eliminate the antialiasing problem ( imagine a 0,1 or 0,05 mm dot pitch size - in contrast to 0,25 which is now).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633505</id>
	<title>Re:Pixel density is the key factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247132460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am so agreeing !</p><p>And now in the laptop space, you mostly find glossy widescreen. Worst, they're dumping 15"4 for 15"6.<br>WTF as if it wasn't wide enough ! And they do it not only for consumer laptop but for professional line up.</p><p>21th century, is the consumer still the king ? I'd say no as one can only by what is offered<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Everyone want a super short ultra wide screen ? I don't think so.</p><p>Let's not even talk about pixel density<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am so agreeing ! And now in the laptop space , you mostly find glossy widescreen .
Worst , they 're dumping 15 " 4 for 15 " 6.WTF as if it was n't wide enough !
And they do it not only for consumer laptop but for professional line up.21th century , is the consumer still the king ?
I 'd say no as one can only by what is offered ...Everyone want a super short ultra wide screen ?
I do n't think so.Let 's not even talk about pixel density ... : - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am so agreeing !And now in the laptop space, you mostly find glossy widescreen.
Worst, they're dumping 15"4 for 15"6.WTF as if it wasn't wide enough !
And they do it not only for consumer laptop but for professional line up.21th century, is the consumer still the king ?
I'd say no as one can only by what is offered ...Everyone want a super short ultra wide screen ?
I don't think so.Let's not even talk about pixel density ... :-(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632813</id>
	<title>More processes to kill :(</title>
	<author>nikanth</author>
	<datestamp>1247079540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>killall firefox<br>

killall npviewer.bin</htmltext>
<tokenext>killall firefox killall npviewer.bin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>killall firefox

killall npviewer.bin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634277</id>
	<title>Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.</title>
	<author>asc99c</author>
	<datestamp>1247140020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My cheapish Dell laptop had an option for the same screen - I think it's great.</p><p>I've also got the Sony Vaio P for on-call support work.  That has an 8" 1600x768 screen (stuff I support was often designed for minimum 1024x768 resolution) - it's great but if I was using it for more than 10 minutes at a time, I'd need to increase the text size to avoid hurting my eyes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My cheapish Dell laptop had an option for the same screen - I think it 's great.I 've also got the Sony Vaio P for on-call support work .
That has an 8 " 1600x768 screen ( stuff I support was often designed for minimum 1024x768 resolution ) - it 's great but if I was using it for more than 10 minutes at a time , I 'd need to increase the text size to avoid hurting my eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My cheapish Dell laptop had an option for the same screen - I think it's great.I've also got the Sony Vaio P for on-call support work.
That has an 8" 1600x768 screen (stuff I support was often designed for minimum 1024x768 resolution) - it's great but if I was using it for more than 10 minutes at a time, I'd need to increase the text size to avoid hurting my eyes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633835</id>
	<title>Re:Ever heard of Newegg? TigerDirect? Google?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247135880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's nice for you.  Do you want a prize?</p><p>More to the point, you'll notice the *two* requirements specified, the other of which is *resolution*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's nice for you .
Do you want a prize ? More to the point , you 'll notice the * two * requirements specified , the other of which is * resolution * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's nice for you.
Do you want a prize?More to the point, you'll notice the *two* requirements specified, the other of which is *resolution*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632143</id>
	<title>Mod Parent Up!</title>
	<author>W. Justice Black</author>
	<datestamp>1247071620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aah, if I only had mod points.</p><p>I set up some labs with bench space a while back and used exclusively 19" monitors with VESA arms.  The space under the monitor becomes usable (since there's no stand in the way) and the adjustability (and ability to just shove the monitor to the side when not in use) is invaluable.  This gets even better with 2x stands.</p><p>Oh, and with many brackets, you can mount them from above instead of below, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aah , if I only had mod points.I set up some labs with bench space a while back and used exclusively 19 " monitors with VESA arms .
The space under the monitor becomes usable ( since there 's no stand in the way ) and the adjustability ( and ability to just shove the monitor to the side when not in use ) is invaluable .
This gets even better with 2x stands.Oh , and with many brackets , you can mount them from above instead of below , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aah, if I only had mod points.I set up some labs with bench space a while back and used exclusively 19" monitors with VESA arms.
The space under the monitor becomes usable (since there's no stand in the way) and the adjustability (and ability to just shove the monitor to the side when not in use) is invaluable.
This gets even better with 2x stands.Oh, and with many brackets, you can mount them from above instead of below, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28638231</id>
	<title>2005 Dell Inspiron 6000, 1900 X 1200</title>
	<author>veeren76</author>
	<datestamp>1247161080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My 2005 Dell Inspirion 6000, has 15.4" lcd display with highest resolution of 1900 X 1200 (Yes more than full HD 1080p).<br>The display is just awesome, the laptop is still going strong....:), just changed hard disk once, and the OEM hard-disk i have put in a 3.5" external hard-disk encolsure and is working fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My 2005 Dell Inspirion 6000 , has 15.4 " lcd display with highest resolution of 1900 X 1200 ( Yes more than full HD 1080p ) .The display is just awesome , the laptop is still going strong.... : ) , just changed hard disk once , and the OEM hard-disk i have put in a 3.5 " external hard-disk encolsure and is working fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 2005 Dell Inspirion 6000, has 15.4" lcd display with highest resolution of 1900 X 1200 (Yes more than full HD 1080p).The display is just awesome, the laptop is still going strong....:), just changed hard disk once, and the OEM hard-disk i have put in a 3.5" external hard-disk encolsure and is working fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631925</id>
	<title>I have the opposite problem</title>
	<author>grapeape</author>
	<datestamp>1247069880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My clients are increasingly irritated by the high resolutions of newer monitors.  I'd be happy if I could still buy new 1024x768 lcd's unfortunately at least near me there are none to be found.  As a result most of my clients have "fuzzy" screens and trying to explain to them why is a futile effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My clients are increasingly irritated by the high resolutions of newer monitors .
I 'd be happy if I could still buy new 1024x768 lcd 's unfortunately at least near me there are none to be found .
As a result most of my clients have " fuzzy " screens and trying to explain to them why is a futile effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My clients are increasingly irritated by the high resolutions of newer monitors.
I'd be happy if I could still buy new 1024x768 lcd's unfortunately at least near me there are none to be found.
As a result most of my clients have "fuzzy" screens and trying to explain to them why is a futile effort.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630703</id>
	<title>HannsG 281D (aka HG281DBP)</title>
	<author>BertieBaggio</author>
	<datestamp>1247060640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>(In keeping with the time-honoured Slashdot tradition, I'm going to tell you what I think you should know, regardless of what it was you asked for*)</i> </p><p>I quite agree with other posters that you should move to a bigger (&gt; 20") LCD. I recently bought a HannsG 281D 28 inch monitor, which (volume wise) takes up about the same space as a 17-19 inch CRT. It is wider by a long shot, which may present a problem. On the other hand, it does 1920x200 and is about the biggest you can get for under GBP 1000 (and $1000 I'm guessing**).</p><p>In short it's a good monitor: bright, decent colours, and no ghosting. In my opinion, it is cheap for what you get. It's a TN panel, so dont do anything colour critical, but in all honesty you likely won't notice the difference in 95-99\% of cases. I code, play games and watch both hi and low def movies on the monitor, and for all it's much better than using a 19", let alone a 17". Oh, and it has HDMI and VGA inputs. No DVI, but it comes with an HDMI-&gt;DVI cable.</p><p>* Even if the OP doesn't find this useful I'm sure other<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.-ers will, as there are few decent reviews of the HannsG. Yes, this isn't a review, but knowing that someone is using it without problems is useful. As with all decent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. discussions, many will benefit.</p><p>** Yeah, gadget / electronic good price in USD = price in GBP. In this case the HannsG seems to be $350 on Amazon (I got mine from Amazon.co.uk, for what it's worth), so it's not quite the monumental shafting we normally get this side of the pond...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( In keeping with the time-honoured Slashdot tradition , I 'm going to tell you what I think you should know , regardless of what it was you asked for * ) I quite agree with other posters that you should move to a bigger ( &gt; 20 " ) LCD .
I recently bought a HannsG 281D 28 inch monitor , which ( volume wise ) takes up about the same space as a 17-19 inch CRT .
It is wider by a long shot , which may present a problem .
On the other hand , it does 1920x200 and is about the biggest you can get for under GBP 1000 ( and $ 1000 I 'm guessing * * ) .In short it 's a good monitor : bright , decent colours , and no ghosting .
In my opinion , it is cheap for what you get .
It 's a TN panel , so dont do anything colour critical , but in all honesty you likely wo n't notice the difference in 95-99 \ % of cases .
I code , play games and watch both hi and low def movies on the monitor , and for all it 's much better than using a 19 " , let alone a 17 " .
Oh , and it has HDMI and VGA inputs .
No DVI , but it comes with an HDMI- &gt; DVI cable .
* Even if the OP does n't find this useful I 'm sure other /.-ers will , as there are few decent reviews of the HannsG .
Yes , this is n't a review , but knowing that someone is using it without problems is useful .
As with all decent / .
discussions , many will benefit .
* * Yeah , gadget / electronic good price in USD = price in GBP .
In this case the HannsG seems to be $ 350 on Amazon ( I got mine from Amazon.co.uk , for what it 's worth ) , so it 's not quite the monumental shafting we normally get this side of the pond.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> (In keeping with the time-honoured Slashdot tradition, I'm going to tell you what I think you should know, regardless of what it was you asked for*) I quite agree with other posters that you should move to a bigger (&gt; 20") LCD.
I recently bought a HannsG 281D 28 inch monitor, which (volume wise) takes up about the same space as a 17-19 inch CRT.
It is wider by a long shot, which may present a problem.
On the other hand, it does 1920x200 and is about the biggest you can get for under GBP 1000 (and $1000 I'm guessing**).In short it's a good monitor: bright, decent colours, and no ghosting.
In my opinion, it is cheap for what you get.
It's a TN panel, so dont do anything colour critical, but in all honesty you likely won't notice the difference in 95-99\% of cases.
I code, play games and watch both hi and low def movies on the monitor, and for all it's much better than using a 19", let alone a 17".
Oh, and it has HDMI and VGA inputs.
No DVI, but it comes with an HDMI-&gt;DVI cable.
* Even if the OP doesn't find this useful I'm sure other /.-ers will, as there are few decent reviews of the HannsG.
Yes, this isn't a review, but knowing that someone is using it without problems is useful.
As with all decent /.
discussions, many will benefit.
** Yeah, gadget / electronic good price in USD = price in GBP.
In this case the HannsG seems to be $350 on Amazon (I got mine from Amazon.co.uk, for what it's worth), so it's not quite the monumental shafting we normally get this side of the pond...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632475</id>
	<title>Re:Pixel density is the key factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247075760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's eleventy billion monitors on the market that do 1680x1050. You've been looking for 3-4 years for a 1400x1050.</p><p>Really, how much of a difference is there?</p><p>This is something that should have taken 3-4 seconds to get done. Instead, you decided to be an uptight ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's eleventy billion monitors on the market that do 1680x1050 .
You 've been looking for 3-4 years for a 1400x1050.Really , how much of a difference is there ? This is something that should have taken 3-4 seconds to get done .
Instead , you decided to be an uptight ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's eleventy billion monitors on the market that do 1680x1050.
You've been looking for 3-4 years for a 1400x1050.Really, how much of a difference is there?This is something that should have taken 3-4 seconds to get done.
Instead, you decided to be an uptight ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631741</id>
	<title>Aspect Ratio and Size</title>
	<author>gte275e</author>
	<datestamp>1247068500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to <a href="http://displaywars.com/17-inch-4x3-vs-19-inch-16x10" title="displaywars.com" rel="nofollow">DisplayWars.com</a> [displaywars.com], a 19" 16:10 monitor is just a hair shorter than a 17" 4:3 monitor.  To the OP, if you are looking at a new LCD monitor, get a 19-20" widescreen one.  The vertical height will be nearly the same and you'll have about 2.5" more in width.  This shouldn't be too much of a burden on your desk space.  Hell, it'll actually clear a lot of it up.  If you haven't noticed, these new fangled LCD monitors are actually a lot thinner than those CRT monitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to DisplayWars.com [ displaywars.com ] , a 19 " 16 : 10 monitor is just a hair shorter than a 17 " 4 : 3 monitor .
To the OP , if you are looking at a new LCD monitor , get a 19-20 " widescreen one .
The vertical height will be nearly the same and you 'll have about 2.5 " more in width .
This should n't be too much of a burden on your desk space .
Hell , it 'll actually clear a lot of it up .
If you have n't noticed , these new fangled LCD monitors are actually a lot thinner than those CRT monitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to DisplayWars.com [displaywars.com], a 19" 16:10 monitor is just a hair shorter than a 17" 4:3 monitor.
To the OP, if you are looking at a new LCD monitor, get a 19-20" widescreen one.
The vertical height will be nearly the same and you'll have about 2.5" more in width.
This shouldn't be too much of a burden on your desk space.
Hell, it'll actually clear a lot of it up.
If you haven't noticed, these new fangled LCD monitors are actually a lot thinner than those CRT monitors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28636547</id>
	<title>Re:LCDs don't take that much desk space.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247154000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want 1600x1024 in a 17" LCD, there's probably only the old SGI 1600SW. While they sell for US$ 30 at times, they predate the DVI standard, have only an openLDI interface and you'll need an expensive and rare adapter to connect it to a 'normal' PC.<br>

The other high resolution display would be a IBM T221, which is 22" with 3840x2400.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want 1600x1024 in a 17 " LCD , there 's probably only the old SGI 1600SW .
While they sell for US $ 30 at times , they predate the DVI standard , have only an openLDI interface and you 'll need an expensive and rare adapter to connect it to a 'normal ' PC .
The other high resolution display would be a IBM T221 , which is 22 " with 3840x2400 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want 1600x1024 in a 17" LCD, there's probably only the old SGI 1600SW.
While they sell for US$ 30 at times, they predate the DVI standard, have only an openLDI interface and you'll need an expensive and rare adapter to connect it to a 'normal' PC.
The other high resolution display would be a IBM T221, which is 22" with 3840x2400.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28636889</id>
	<title>Re:HD Capable</title>
	<author>OwnedByTwoCats</author>
	<datestamp>1247155260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I used to have an old 17 in CRT that did up to 2560x1600,</p></div></blockquote><p>Almost certainly you did not.  A 4:3 17" diagonal (ignoring the fact that that 17" is exaggerated) is 13.6 inches wide and 10.2 inches tall.  Converting to metric, the display is 345.44 mm wide, and 259.08 mm tall.  A good monitor had 0.22 mm dot pitch, so dividing by 0.22 yields 1570 x 1178 phosphor triads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to have an old 17 in CRT that did up to 2560x1600,Almost certainly you did not .
A 4 : 3 17 " diagonal ( ignoring the fact that that 17 " is exaggerated ) is 13.6 inches wide and 10.2 inches tall .
Converting to metric , the display is 345.44 mm wide , and 259.08 mm tall .
A good monitor had 0.22 mm dot pitch , so dividing by 0.22 yields 1570 x 1178 phosphor triads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to have an old 17 in CRT that did up to 2560x1600,Almost certainly you did not.
A 4:3 17" diagonal (ignoring the fact that that 17" is exaggerated) is 13.6 inches wide and 10.2 inches tall.
Converting to metric, the display is 345.44 mm wide, and 259.08 mm tall.
A good monitor had 0.22 mm dot pitch, so dividing by 0.22 yields 1570 x 1178 phosphor triads.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630909</id>
	<title>Re:HD Capable</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1247062140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a pair of Samsung 21.5" SyncMaster 2233SW monitors on my desk; their native resolution is 1920x1080.  I know you said you don't really want bigger than 21", but 21.5" is close<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>I got them for <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001308&amp;Tpk=Samsung\%202233" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">$180 after rebate on newegg</a> [newegg.com], but no free shipping.  Shop around, YMMV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a pair of Samsung 21.5 " SyncMaster 2233SW monitors on my desk ; their native resolution is 1920x1080 .
I know you said you do n't really want bigger than 21 " , but 21.5 " is close ; ) I got them for $ 180 after rebate on newegg [ newegg.com ] , but no free shipping .
Shop around , YMMV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a pair of Samsung 21.5" SyncMaster 2233SW monitors on my desk; their native resolution is 1920x1080.
I know you said you don't really want bigger than 21", but 21.5" is close ;)I got them for $180 after rebate on newegg [newegg.com], but no free shipping.
Shop around, YMMV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633037</id>
	<title>Re:Killing desk space?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247082600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I move the stuff left and right of the monitor in front of it I can no longer  view the screen. Putting them behind the Monitor isn't an option. Some people have more on their desk than just papers, game maps or leftover pizza.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I move the stuff left and right of the monitor in front of it I can no longer view the screen .
Putting them behind the Monitor is n't an option .
Some people have more on their desk than just papers , game maps or leftover pizza .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I move the stuff left and right of the monitor in front of it I can no longer  view the screen.
Putting them behind the Monitor isn't an option.
Some people have more on their desk than just papers, game maps or leftover pizza.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633531</id>
	<title>96PPI standard</title>
	<author>Atario</author>
	<datestamp>1247132820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much everyone has used a standard of 96 pixels per inch for screen displays since Windows chose it as an assumption many years ago.  Your setup sounds like it's probably around 110PPI -- around 15\% too high.</p><p>Trust me, it's far easier not to fight on this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much everyone has used a standard of 96 pixels per inch for screen displays since Windows chose it as an assumption many years ago .
Your setup sounds like it 's probably around 110PPI -- around 15 \ % too high.Trust me , it 's far easier not to fight on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much everyone has used a standard of 96 pixels per inch for screen displays since Windows chose it as an assumption many years ago.
Your setup sounds like it's probably around 110PPI -- around 15\% too high.Trust me, it's far easier not to fight on this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630973</id>
	<title>Just bite the bullet and buy an LCD.</title>
	<author>Banichi</author>
	<datestamp>1247062620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any desk real estate you lose due to width will be more than made up for in depth.</p><p>I bought a Hanns.G HG216D (22" LCD monitor) from TigerDirect last year for about $150, upgrading from a 17" CRT. Best computer related investment I've ever made. Only one weird pixel, it only shows up as solid red when the area farther down the screen directly under it is white.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any desk real estate you lose due to width will be more than made up for in depth.I bought a Hanns.G HG216D ( 22 " LCD monitor ) from TigerDirect last year for about $ 150 , upgrading from a 17 " CRT .
Best computer related investment I 've ever made .
Only one weird pixel , it only shows up as solid red when the area farther down the screen directly under it is white .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any desk real estate you lose due to width will be more than made up for in depth.I bought a Hanns.G HG216D (22" LCD monitor) from TigerDirect last year for about $150, upgrading from a 17" CRT.
Best computer related investment I've ever made.
Only one weird pixel, it only shows up as solid red when the area farther down the screen directly under it is white.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28647113</id>
	<title>HDTV?</title>
	<author>muzicman</author>
	<datestamp>1247219340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Buy a Full 37" or larger HDTV get a graphics card with a HDMI output.

Voila!

Instant 1920&#215;1080</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy a Full 37 " or larger HDTV get a graphics card with a HDMI output .
Voila ! Instant 1920   1080</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy a Full 37" or larger HDTV get a graphics card with a HDMI output.
Voila!

Instant 1920×1080</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630445</id>
	<title>Dell has a sort by feature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247059080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>dell:<br>1600x1200<br>http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/category.aspx?c=us&amp;l=en&amp;s=dhs&amp;cs=19&amp;category\_id=4009&amp;~ck=anav&amp;nf=4723~0~266593&amp;navla=4723~0~266593</p><p>1900x1200<br>http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/category.aspx?c=us&amp;l=en&amp;s=dhs&amp;cs=19&amp;category\_id=4009&amp;~ck=anav&amp;nf=4723~0~266594&amp;navla=4723~0~266594</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>dell : 1600x1200http : //accessories.us.dell.com/sna/category.aspx ? c = us&amp;l = en&amp;s = dhs&amp;cs = 19&amp;category \ _id = 4009&amp; ~ ck = anav&amp;nf = 4723 ~ 0 ~ 266593&amp;navla = 4723 ~ 0 ~ 2665931900x1200http : //accessories.us.dell.com/sna/category.aspx ? c = us&amp;l = en&amp;s = dhs&amp;cs = 19&amp;category \ _id = 4009&amp; ~ ck = anav&amp;nf = 4723 ~ 0 ~ 266594&amp;navla = 4723 ~ 0 ~ 266594</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dell:1600x1200http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/category.aspx?c=us&amp;l=en&amp;s=dhs&amp;cs=19&amp;category\_id=4009&amp;~ck=anav&amp;nf=4723~0~266593&amp;navla=4723~0~2665931900x1200http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/category.aspx?c=us&amp;l=en&amp;s=dhs&amp;cs=19&amp;category\_id=4009&amp;~ck=anav&amp;nf=4723~0~266594&amp;navla=4723~0~266594</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630915</id>
	<title>Re:ViewSonic is Great for this.</title>
	<author>linzeal</author>
	<datestamp>1247062140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Viewsonic are a crap shoot though, 2 of the past 3 LCD I have had have had cap failures, ballast overheating and uneven lighting.  The other one I have hacked into a 22" art frame and it has been running 24/7 without fail for over a year.  I did add active air cooling on it though.</p><p>My main setup uses <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001GFIMDU?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=srtcr-20&amp;linkCode=xm2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creativeASIN=B001GFIMDU" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">3 of these</a> [amazon.com] and I have yet to find a better bang for the buck without sacrificing picture quality or refresh rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Viewsonic are a crap shoot though , 2 of the past 3 LCD I have had have had cap failures , ballast overheating and uneven lighting .
The other one I have hacked into a 22 " art frame and it has been running 24/7 without fail for over a year .
I did add active air cooling on it though.My main setup uses 3 of these [ amazon.com ] and I have yet to find a better bang for the buck without sacrificing picture quality or refresh rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Viewsonic are a crap shoot though, 2 of the past 3 LCD I have had have had cap failures, ballast overheating and uneven lighting.
The other one I have hacked into a 22" art frame and it has been running 24/7 without fail for over a year.
I did add active air cooling on it though.My main setup uses 3 of these [amazon.com] and I have yet to find a better bang for the buck without sacrificing picture quality or refresh rate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632025</id>
	<title>Re:I read the "answers", now I feel for you..</title>
	<author>denobug</author>
	<datestamp>1247070720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think what most people trying to convey is: there is a better questions to be asked, or there is a much better alternative than the conditions you presented.  Others have presented you with their Google search results.
<br> <br>
By the way I can still order standard 4:3 LCD Monitors.  You might have to get it through the business line product from HP or Dell, but they are better quality product, in my opinion.  And yes, they do offer higher resolutions than the average Joe's LCD Monitor bought from Office Depot.  I did not check the resolutions since usually a 20" can do a lot higher resolution than I can read while squinting my eyes and glasses on.
<br> <br>
I also find out that my eyes gets a lot less tired over the long period of time starring at the LCD monitor than the old CRT tube.  I had the prevlidge of sitting in front of a few 21" giant and the only comments afterwards are to arrange for their replacement ASAP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what most people trying to convey is : there is a better questions to be asked , or there is a much better alternative than the conditions you presented .
Others have presented you with their Google search results .
By the way I can still order standard 4 : 3 LCD Monitors .
You might have to get it through the business line product from HP or Dell , but they are better quality product , in my opinion .
And yes , they do offer higher resolutions than the average Joe 's LCD Monitor bought from Office Depot .
I did not check the resolutions since usually a 20 " can do a lot higher resolution than I can read while squinting my eyes and glasses on .
I also find out that my eyes gets a lot less tired over the long period of time starring at the LCD monitor than the old CRT tube .
I had the prevlidge of sitting in front of a few 21 " giant and the only comments afterwards are to arrange for their replacement ASAP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what most people trying to convey is: there is a better questions to be asked, or there is a much better alternative than the conditions you presented.
Others have presented you with their Google search results.
By the way I can still order standard 4:3 LCD Monitors.
You might have to get it through the business line product from HP or Dell, but they are better quality product, in my opinion.
And yes, they do offer higher resolutions than the average Joe's LCD Monitor bought from Office Depot.
I did not check the resolutions since usually a 20" can do a lot higher resolution than I can read while squinting my eyes and glasses on.
I also find out that my eyes gets a lot less tired over the long period of time starring at the LCD monitor than the old CRT tube.
I had the prevlidge of sitting in front of a few 21" giant and the only comments afterwards are to arrange for their replacement ASAP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630309</id>
	<title>LCDs might waste less space around the screen</title>
	<author>Shag</author>
	<datestamp>1247058120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your 17" CRT probably had a visible area of about 16" and a case of 18-19".  A nice 20" widescreen 1680x1050 LCD really won't eat up all that much space on your desk.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your 17 " CRT probably had a visible area of about 16 " and a case of 18-19 " .
A nice 20 " widescreen 1680x1050 LCD really wo n't eat up all that much space on your desk .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your 17" CRT probably had a visible area of about 16" and a case of 18-19".
A nice 20" widescreen 1680x1050 LCD really won't eat up all that much space on your desk.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634259</id>
	<title>Re:I read the "answers", now I feel for you..</title>
	<author>ArcadiaAlex</author>
	<datestamp>1247139840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree most do not seem to grasp the nature of the question.</p><p>Why can manufacturers make high resolution LCD screens for laptops but do not use these screens to produce similar desktop LCD screens?</p><p>Maybe it is to artificialy boost the laptop market?</p><p>The smallest pixel size I have seen if from the libretto U100 screen, 7.1 inches and 1280 x 768, so why can't I have a 15 inch LCD screen at the same pixel size? ie 2540 x 1536</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree most do not seem to grasp the nature of the question.Why can manufacturers make high resolution LCD screens for laptops but do not use these screens to produce similar desktop LCD screens ? Maybe it is to artificialy boost the laptop market ? The smallest pixel size I have seen if from the libretto U100 screen , 7.1 inches and 1280 x 768 , so why ca n't I have a 15 inch LCD screen at the same pixel size ?
ie 2540 x 1536</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree most do not seem to grasp the nature of the question.Why can manufacturers make high resolution LCD screens for laptops but do not use these screens to produce similar desktop LCD screens?Maybe it is to artificialy boost the laptop market?The smallest pixel size I have seen if from the libretto U100 screen, 7.1 inches and 1280 x 768, so why can't I have a 15 inch LCD screen at the same pixel size?
ie 2540 x 1536</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630939</id>
	<title>I read the "answers", now I feel for you..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247062320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did not consider this question before, but you really made a point: nobody gave a satisfiable answer to 'I look for a 17" LCD with resolution beyond 1280x1024, and hopefully 4:3".<br><br>The technology is definitely out there, my handhald with 9" has 800x480 which could be easily scaled up to 1400 + in your desired form factor (4:3).<br><br>There were even monitors with this kind of attributes a few years back. About 4 years ago I bought my which has the minimal DPI resolution you mentioned. I'm a bit astonished that time stood still in this sector for this amount of time. Not "Moor-ish" at all.<br><br>Guess the answer is, that mainstream did not want it, and niche markets are not asked any-more. Also there is a specific OS that can't handle scaling of wigdets very well, that mostly catalysed this non-development.<br><br>Your answer is: no, there is probably no such thing you are looking for.. Sadly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did not consider this question before , but you really made a point : nobody gave a satisfiable answer to 'I look for a 17 " LCD with resolution beyond 1280x1024 , and hopefully 4 : 3 " .The technology is definitely out there , my handhald with 9 " has 800x480 which could be easily scaled up to 1400 + in your desired form factor ( 4 : 3 ) .There were even monitors with this kind of attributes a few years back .
About 4 years ago I bought my which has the minimal DPI resolution you mentioned .
I 'm a bit astonished that time stood still in this sector for this amount of time .
Not " Moor-ish " at all.Guess the answer is , that mainstream did not want it , and niche markets are not asked any-more .
Also there is a specific OS that ca n't handle scaling of wigdets very well , that mostly catalysed this non-development.Your answer is : no , there is probably no such thing you are looking for.. Sadly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did not consider this question before, but you really made a point: nobody gave a satisfiable answer to 'I look for a 17" LCD with resolution beyond 1280x1024, and hopefully 4:3".The technology is definitely out there, my handhald with 9" has 800x480 which could be easily scaled up to 1400 + in your desired form factor (4:3).There were even monitors with this kind of attributes a few years back.
About 4 years ago I bought my which has the minimal DPI resolution you mentioned.
I'm a bit astonished that time stood still in this sector for this amount of time.
Not "Moor-ish" at all.Guess the answer is, that mainstream did not want it, and niche markets are not asked any-more.
Also there is a specific OS that can't handle scaling of wigdets very well, that mostly catalysed this non-development.Your answer is: no, there is probably no such thing you are looking for.. Sadly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633383</id>
	<title>Re:LCDs don't take that much desk space.</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1247131140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I went for 24" 1920x1200. I have two of them next to each other and thinking of either buying one more or two. That is for my home.</p><p>In the last 10 years each place I worked I had at least two screens and that is for standard desk work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went for 24 " 1920x1200 .
I have two of them next to each other and thinking of either buying one more or two .
That is for my home.In the last 10 years each place I worked I had at least two screens and that is for standard desk work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went for 24" 1920x1200.
I have two of them next to each other and thinking of either buying one more or two.
That is for my home.In the last 10 years each place I worked I had at least two screens and that is for standard desk work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28635579</id>
	<title>I went through a similar transition last winter.</title>
	<author>gun26</author>
	<datestamp>1247150400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was using a Dell P1130 CRT from January 2004, when I bought it used, until last January when I finally made the move to an LCD, a Samsung 2443BW. The Dell is still going strong, although not used often nowadays as it's attached to my spare desktop. I ran the Dell at 1600x1200 resolution and I was loath to give up screen real estate, especially precious vertical resolution. As I found out, almost all monitors today are widescreen to better fit today's movie and HD TV content, even though the resulting sacrifice in vertical resolution is a step backward for most uses of a computer, IMHO. A year or two ago, most 24" widescreen LCDs did 1900x1200 resolution, but starting late last year many manufacturers substituted cheaper models that do 1900x1080, matching HD TV resolution without any letterboxing.

I shopped around until I found a deal on this Samsung which does do the 1900x1200 I was looking for. And it also has vertical height adjustment, something that's very important in LCD monitors with limited viewing angles and which is getting as hard to find as 1200 vertical resolution. Caveat emptor on the Samsung, btw: they sell monitors with and without height adjustment under the same model numbers. I'm relatively satisfied with my choice some 7 months later.

My Dell CRT was a nominal 21" and its actual diagonal picture size was about 18-1/2". The Samsung is a nominal 24" and I measure its picture at 23-3/4" or so - widescreen, of course. Not only are things on screen much sharper as expected with an LCD, but they're a tad bigger as well. Colours on my LCD aren't bad but cheap TN technology LCDs don't render colours very subtly so a graphic artist or photographer would probably spring for a monitor using IPS or VA technology costing several times as much.

Bottom line: don't be afraid of the move to LCD. You'll burn a lot less electricity than a CRT and the LCD will be much less bulky on your desktop despite being a widescreen. In my own case the biggest losers were my cats who loved to lie on the hot top of the Dell CRT and have no corresponding perch on top of my thin LCD, which runs a lot cooler anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was using a Dell P1130 CRT from January 2004 , when I bought it used , until last January when I finally made the move to an LCD , a Samsung 2443BW .
The Dell is still going strong , although not used often nowadays as it 's attached to my spare desktop .
I ran the Dell at 1600x1200 resolution and I was loath to give up screen real estate , especially precious vertical resolution .
As I found out , almost all monitors today are widescreen to better fit today 's movie and HD TV content , even though the resulting sacrifice in vertical resolution is a step backward for most uses of a computer , IMHO .
A year or two ago , most 24 " widescreen LCDs did 1900x1200 resolution , but starting late last year many manufacturers substituted cheaper models that do 1900x1080 , matching HD TV resolution without any letterboxing .
I shopped around until I found a deal on this Samsung which does do the 1900x1200 I was looking for .
And it also has vertical height adjustment , something that 's very important in LCD monitors with limited viewing angles and which is getting as hard to find as 1200 vertical resolution .
Caveat emptor on the Samsung , btw : they sell monitors with and without height adjustment under the same model numbers .
I 'm relatively satisfied with my choice some 7 months later .
My Dell CRT was a nominal 21 " and its actual diagonal picture size was about 18-1/2 " .
The Samsung is a nominal 24 " and I measure its picture at 23-3/4 " or so - widescreen , of course .
Not only are things on screen much sharper as expected with an LCD , but they 're a tad bigger as well .
Colours on my LCD are n't bad but cheap TN technology LCDs do n't render colours very subtly so a graphic artist or photographer would probably spring for a monitor using IPS or VA technology costing several times as much .
Bottom line : do n't be afraid of the move to LCD .
You 'll burn a lot less electricity than a CRT and the LCD will be much less bulky on your desktop despite being a widescreen .
In my own case the biggest losers were my cats who loved to lie on the hot top of the Dell CRT and have no corresponding perch on top of my thin LCD , which runs a lot cooler anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was using a Dell P1130 CRT from January 2004, when I bought it used, until last January when I finally made the move to an LCD, a Samsung 2443BW.
The Dell is still going strong, although not used often nowadays as it's attached to my spare desktop.
I ran the Dell at 1600x1200 resolution and I was loath to give up screen real estate, especially precious vertical resolution.
As I found out, almost all monitors today are widescreen to better fit today's movie and HD TV content, even though the resulting sacrifice in vertical resolution is a step backward for most uses of a computer, IMHO.
A year or two ago, most 24" widescreen LCDs did 1900x1200 resolution, but starting late last year many manufacturers substituted cheaper models that do 1900x1080, matching HD TV resolution without any letterboxing.
I shopped around until I found a deal on this Samsung which does do the 1900x1200 I was looking for.
And it also has vertical height adjustment, something that's very important in LCD monitors with limited viewing angles and which is getting as hard to find as 1200 vertical resolution.
Caveat emptor on the Samsung, btw: they sell monitors with and without height adjustment under the same model numbers.
I'm relatively satisfied with my choice some 7 months later.
My Dell CRT was a nominal 21" and its actual diagonal picture size was about 18-1/2".
The Samsung is a nominal 24" and I measure its picture at 23-3/4" or so - widescreen, of course.
Not only are things on screen much sharper as expected with an LCD, but they're a tad bigger as well.
Colours on my LCD aren't bad but cheap TN technology LCDs don't render colours very subtly so a graphic artist or photographer would probably spring for a monitor using IPS or VA technology costing several times as much.
Bottom line: don't be afraid of the move to LCD.
You'll burn a lot less electricity than a CRT and the LCD will be much less bulky on your desktop despite being a widescreen.
In my own case the biggest losers were my cats who loved to lie on the hot top of the Dell CRT and have no corresponding perch on top of my thin LCD, which runs a lot cooler anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632111</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247071380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sure am glad I bought my 1920x1200 Acer monitor before the trend toward "movie-watching screens" took over. Now you only get the lame 1920x1050 monitors which are less expensive but decidely not as good for computer usage as the ones with more vertical pixels. Chalk up yet another stupid idea by manufacturers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sure am glad I bought my 1920x1200 Acer monitor before the trend toward " movie-watching screens " took over .
Now you only get the lame 1920x1050 monitors which are less expensive but decidely not as good for computer usage as the ones with more vertical pixels .
Chalk up yet another stupid idea by manufacturers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sure am glad I bought my 1920x1200 Acer monitor before the trend toward "movie-watching screens" took over.
Now you only get the lame 1920x1050 monitors which are less expensive but decidely not as good for computer usage as the ones with more vertical pixels.
Chalk up yet another stupid idea by manufacturers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630689</id>
	<title>Buy a replacement laptop screen and mod it.</title>
	<author>pwnies</author>
	<datestamp>1247060580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The answer is no if you're looking for stock monitors with those resolutions. I've looked long and far but to no avail. However, what I was able to do was buy replacement laptop screens with those resolutions. You have to get an adapter kit as well, but it's well worth it if you're looking for density.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is no if you 're looking for stock monitors with those resolutions .
I 've looked long and far but to no avail .
However , what I was able to do was buy replacement laptop screens with those resolutions .
You have to get an adapter kit as well , but it 's well worth it if you 're looking for density .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is no if you're looking for stock monitors with those resolutions.
I've looked long and far but to no avail.
However, what I was able to do was buy replacement laptop screens with those resolutions.
You have to get an adapter kit as well, but it's well worth it if you're looking for density.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630619</id>
	<title>Re:ViewSonic is Great for this.</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1247060220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Besides the Viewsonic, there is also an Acer and and Asus 19" monitor at 1680x1050 resolution.  I'm not sure, but I think they all use the same panel, which sadly is a TN panel (though fairly decent as TN's go).  This is about the best you can get in terms of DPI in the desktop LCD world right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides the Viewsonic , there is also an Acer and and Asus 19 " monitor at 1680x1050 resolution .
I 'm not sure , but I think they all use the same panel , which sadly is a TN panel ( though fairly decent as TN 's go ) .
This is about the best you can get in terms of DPI in the desktop LCD world right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides the Viewsonic, there is also an Acer and and Asus 19" monitor at 1680x1050 resolution.
I'm not sure, but I think they all use the same panel, which sadly is a TN panel (though fairly decent as TN's go).
This is about the best you can get in terms of DPI in the desktop LCD world right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631417</id>
	<title>Just get a larger monitor and push it far away</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1247066280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get a larger monitor and push it further back on your desk.  It's better for your eyes, because they work harder when focusing on objects that are closer.  I run my 24" Apple monitor at a high resolution, (higher then 1680x1050,) and keep it at least four feet from my eyes.</p><p>The current Apple 24" monitor can do 1920x1200:  <a href="http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB382LL/A?fnode=MTY1NDA5OQ&amp;mco=NDE4NDE5Nw" title="apple.com">http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB382LL/A?fnode=MTY1NDA5OQ&amp;mco=NDE4NDE5Nw</a> [apple.com]  If you're at least 27 years old, it's really worth going to a larger monitor and pushing it as far away as possible.  27 is the age that eyestrain starts the monitor is inches away from your face.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get a larger monitor and push it further back on your desk .
It 's better for your eyes , because they work harder when focusing on objects that are closer .
I run my 24 " Apple monitor at a high resolution , ( higher then 1680x1050 , ) and keep it at least four feet from my eyes.The current Apple 24 " monitor can do 1920x1200 : http : //store.apple.com/us/product/MB382LL/A ? fnode = MTY1NDA5OQ&amp;mco = NDE4NDE5Nw [ apple.com ] If you 're at least 27 years old , it 's really worth going to a larger monitor and pushing it as far away as possible .
27 is the age that eyestrain starts the monitor is inches away from your face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get a larger monitor and push it further back on your desk.
It's better for your eyes, because they work harder when focusing on objects that are closer.
I run my 24" Apple monitor at a high resolution, (higher then 1680x1050,) and keep it at least four feet from my eyes.The current Apple 24" monitor can do 1920x1200:  http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB382LL/A?fnode=MTY1NDA5OQ&amp;mco=NDE4NDE5Nw [apple.com]  If you're at least 27 years old, it's really worth going to a larger monitor and pushing it as far away as possible.
27 is the age that eyestrain starts the monitor is inches away from your face.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631133</id>
	<title>Samsung 2342BWX: LCD Monitor with 2048 x 1152</title>
	<author>Ixitar</author>
	<datestamp>1247063880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have this monitor at work and at home.  It has excellent color and is comfortable on the eyes.</p><p><a href="http://www.displayblog.com/2008/11/06/samsung-2342bwx-23-lcd-monitor-with-2048-x-1152/" title="displayblog.com">Samsung 2342BWX: 23&quot; LCD Monitor with 2048 x 1152</a> [displayblog.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have this monitor at work and at home .
It has excellent color and is comfortable on the eyes.Samsung 2342BWX : 23 " LCD Monitor with 2048 x 1152 [ displayblog.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have this monitor at work and at home.
It has excellent color and is comfortable on the eyes.Samsung 2342BWX: 23" LCD Monitor with 2048 x 1152 [displayblog.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28654619</id>
	<title>re:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247218380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing that you want is stupid, and you're stupid for wanting it. Just buy a real monitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that you want is stupid , and you 're stupid for wanting it .
Just buy a real monitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that you want is stupid, and you're stupid for wanting it.
Just buy a real monitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630429</id>
	<title>couple of things...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247059020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>get a Vesa wall mount.  That will free up your desk real estate.</p><p>the dell 2409w is nice and cheap.  Its picture is better than the 2001fp I bought for too much money back too long ago.</p><p>True 1080p HDMI if you ever want to go that route.</p><p>No USB plugs or sound, but your glass did not have those either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>get a Vesa wall mount .
That will free up your desk real estate.the dell 2409w is nice and cheap .
Its picture is better than the 2001fp I bought for too much money back too long ago.True 1080p HDMI if you ever want to go that route.No USB plugs or sound , but your glass did not have those either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>get a Vesa wall mount.
That will free up your desk real estate.the dell 2409w is nice and cheap.
Its picture is better than the 2001fp I bought for too much money back too long ago.True 1080p HDMI if you ever want to go that route.No USB plugs or sound, but your glass did not have those either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632229</id>
	<title>Look harder</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1247072520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cheap laptop that i'm using right now has a 15" screen with 1680x1050 resolution. To the left of it is a 19" screen with the same resolution. If all you can find is 1280x1024 screens then you can't be looking very hard at all.</p><p>(1680x1050 is a fscking stupid resolution to put on a 15" screen, but that's another story altogether<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cheap laptop that i 'm using right now has a 15 " screen with 1680x1050 resolution .
To the left of it is a 19 " screen with the same resolution .
If all you can find is 1280x1024 screens then you ca n't be looking very hard at all .
( 1680x1050 is a fscking stupid resolution to put on a 15 " screen , but that 's another story altogether : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cheap laptop that i'm using right now has a 15" screen with 1680x1050 resolution.
To the left of it is a 19" screen with the same resolution.
If all you can find is 1280x1024 screens then you can't be looking very hard at all.
(1680x1050 is a fscking stupid resolution to put on a 15" screen, but that's another story altogether :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630393</id>
	<title>ViewSonic is Great for this.</title>
	<author>Akir</author>
	<datestamp>1247058660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>my VS11979 is 19" and has a native resolution of 1680*1050, which exceeds your needs. It also has a very high response rate and insanely high contrast ratio. The colors are simply fantastic; I almost fainted when I first watched Big Buck Bunny on it. I also got it dirt cheep at Fry's. And everyone knows ViewSonic displays are the best. Just ignore the fact that it has built-in speakers - they're predictably terrible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>my VS11979 is 19 " and has a native resolution of 1680 * 1050 , which exceeds your needs .
It also has a very high response rate and insanely high contrast ratio .
The colors are simply fantastic ; I almost fainted when I first watched Big Buck Bunny on it .
I also got it dirt cheep at Fry 's .
And everyone knows ViewSonic displays are the best .
Just ignore the fact that it has built-in speakers - they 're predictably terrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my VS11979 is 19" and has a native resolution of 1680*1050, which exceeds your needs.
It also has a very high response rate and insanely high contrast ratio.
The colors are simply fantastic; I almost fainted when I first watched Big Buck Bunny on it.
I also got it dirt cheep at Fry's.
And everyone knows ViewSonic displays are the best.
Just ignore the fact that it has built-in speakers - they're predictably terrible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630719</id>
	<title>Syncmaster 204bw</title>
	<author>w8lvn</author>
	<datestamp>1247060820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have two SyncMaster 204BW that give me 1680x1050 50hz.  Good price as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have two SyncMaster 204BW that give me 1680x1050 50hz .
Good price as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have two SyncMaster 204BW that give me 1680x1050 50hz.
Good price as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632399</id>
	<title>Monitor makers don't want people like you and me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247074560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a Dell laptop from 2005 with a 17" 1920x1200 screen.</p><p>Nobody makes a standalone monitor with a resolution of 1920x1200 smaller than 22".  I want a 17" 1920x1200 LCD monitor, but no manufacturer will bother to make one.  My eyesight is good enough, and my viewing distance short enough, that I can distinguish those pixels.  I want them in a small area.  I don't want big dots.</p><p>I assume they don't want to make such an expensive item, with a potentially high failure rate, for a very small market segment.  Most people think a bigger screen is better.  There are scant few of us who want tiny pixels more than we want big screens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Dell laptop from 2005 with a 17 " 1920x1200 screen.Nobody makes a standalone monitor with a resolution of 1920x1200 smaller than 22 " .
I want a 17 " 1920x1200 LCD monitor , but no manufacturer will bother to make one .
My eyesight is good enough , and my viewing distance short enough , that I can distinguish those pixels .
I want them in a small area .
I do n't want big dots.I assume they do n't want to make such an expensive item , with a potentially high failure rate , for a very small market segment .
Most people think a bigger screen is better .
There are scant few of us who want tiny pixels more than we want big screens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Dell laptop from 2005 with a 17" 1920x1200 screen.Nobody makes a standalone monitor with a resolution of 1920x1200 smaller than 22".
I want a 17" 1920x1200 LCD monitor, but no manufacturer will bother to make one.
My eyesight is good enough, and my viewing distance short enough, that I can distinguish those pixels.
I want them in a small area.
I don't want big dots.I assume they don't want to make such an expensive item, with a potentially high failure rate, for a very small market segment.
Most people think a bigger screen is better.
There are scant few of us who want tiny pixels more than we want big screens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630819</id>
	<title>Aim Big</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have two 2048x1536 20 inch CRTs on my desk right now. You can get them dirt cheap ($100) if you look around. Even with their age, size, and proximity to each other the only real problem I've had is a bit of a convergence issue; usually nothing you can't fix with in a weekend with a little tinkering. For quality a good CRT is still the way to go, at least until SED and FED displays hit the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have two 2048x1536 20 inch CRTs on my desk right now .
You can get them dirt cheap ( $ 100 ) if you look around .
Even with their age , size , and proximity to each other the only real problem I 've had is a bit of a convergence issue ; usually nothing you ca n't fix with in a weekend with a little tinkering .
For quality a good CRT is still the way to go , at least until SED and FED displays hit the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have two 2048x1536 20 inch CRTs on my desk right now.
You can get them dirt cheap ($100) if you look around.
Even with their age, size, and proximity to each other the only real problem I've had is a bit of a convergence issue; usually nothing you can't fix with in a weekend with a little tinkering.
For quality a good CRT is still the way to go, at least until SED and FED displays hit the market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630335</id>
	<title>Umm is this for real?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247058300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm is this for real?</p><p>Well, if is:<br>1) How the heck can you run a 17" CRT monitor at 1400x1050?<br>2) Buy a 20" or bigger LCD, cheap, small in size</p><p>Looking at 2 22" CRT monitors in front of me - old school baby!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm is this for real ? Well , if is : 1 ) How the heck can you run a 17 " CRT monitor at 1400x1050 ? 2 ) Buy a 20 " or bigger LCD , cheap , small in sizeLooking at 2 22 " CRT monitors in front of me - old school baby !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm is this for real?Well, if is:1) How the heck can you run a 17" CRT monitor at 1400x1050?2) Buy a 20" or bigger LCD, cheap, small in sizeLooking at 2 22" CRT monitors in front of me - old school baby!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630967</id>
	<title>Re:Killing desk space?</title>
	<author>vivian</author>
	<datestamp>1247062620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other option of course is to get an LCD and a wall bracket or a desk bracket that allows you to have the monitor off the desk alltogether. You can also get brackets that allow two or three monitors to be mounted to it, but still have just the one upright pole that comes off your desk ( or bolts onto a wall.<br><a href="http://www.megamounts.com.au/shop/lcd-desk-mounts.htm?gclid=COGlvZK5x5sCFcEtpAod-U9fLg" title="megamounts.com.au">http://www.megamounts.com.au/shop/lcd-desk-mounts.htm?gclid=COGlvZK5x5sCFcEtpAod-U9fLg</a> [megamounts.com.au]</p><p>There are many many similar products out there - this is just the first I came across with a quick google search.</p><p>I used to think I needed nothing more than a 17" LCD, but after going to 2x24" monitors @1920x1280 theres no way im ever going back. Virtual desktop space is a lot more valuable to me than real desktop space. if I ever go to 3 monitors though, Im getting myself one of these brackets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other option of course is to get an LCD and a wall bracket or a desk bracket that allows you to have the monitor off the desk alltogether .
You can also get brackets that allow two or three monitors to be mounted to it , but still have just the one upright pole that comes off your desk ( or bolts onto a wall.http : //www.megamounts.com.au/shop/lcd-desk-mounts.htm ? gclid = COGlvZK5x5sCFcEtpAod-U9fLg [ megamounts.com.au ] There are many many similar products out there - this is just the first I came across with a quick google search.I used to think I needed nothing more than a 17 " LCD , but after going to 2x24 " monitors @ 1920x1280 theres no way im ever going back .
Virtual desktop space is a lot more valuable to me than real desktop space .
if I ever go to 3 monitors though , Im getting myself one of these brackets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other option of course is to get an LCD and a wall bracket or a desk bracket that allows you to have the monitor off the desk alltogether.
You can also get brackets that allow two or three monitors to be mounted to it, but still have just the one upright pole that comes off your desk ( or bolts onto a wall.http://www.megamounts.com.au/shop/lcd-desk-mounts.htm?gclid=COGlvZK5x5sCFcEtpAod-U9fLg [megamounts.com.au]There are many many similar products out there - this is just the first I came across with a quick google search.I used to think I needed nothing more than a 17" LCD, but after going to 2x24" monitors @1920x1280 theres no way im ever going back.
Virtual desktop space is a lot more valuable to me than real desktop space.
if I ever go to 3 monitors though, Im getting myself one of these brackets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630829</id>
	<title>Pixel density.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like you want a monitor with a high PPI (pixels per inch).<br>Your original monitor was 17" 4:3 (16" viewable), which at 1440x1050 is 109 ppi. You won't get that in an LCD monitor even if you get something large.</p><p>Here are some common LCD monitor sizes (&gt;= 17") that have &gt;= 95 PPI:<br>17" (5:4) 1280x1024 - 96 ppi<br>17" widescreen (16:10) 1440x900 - 100 ppi<br>20" (4:3) 1600x1200 - 100 ppi<br>21.5" widescreen (16:9) 1920x1080 - 102 ppi<br>30" widescreen (16:10) 2560x1600 - 101 ppi</p><p>So if you want something close in size to your existing monitor, get a 17" widescreen at 1440x900 (e.g. Dell E178WFP).<br>If you want something with a comparable PPI, and equivalent resolution, get a 21.5" widescreen at 1920x1080 (e.g. Dell S2209W)<br>If you want something with the same aspect ratio, and a higher resolution, get a 20" at 1600x1200 (e.g. Dell 2007FP).</p><p>I would pick the 20". As others have said, you can move it further away from your eyes than a CRT if size is an issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you want a monitor with a high PPI ( pixels per inch ) .Your original monitor was 17 " 4 : 3 ( 16 " viewable ) , which at 1440x1050 is 109 ppi .
You wo n't get that in an LCD monitor even if you get something large.Here are some common LCD monitor sizes ( &gt; = 17 " ) that have &gt; = 95 PPI : 17 " ( 5 : 4 ) 1280x1024 - 96 ppi17 " widescreen ( 16 : 10 ) 1440x900 - 100 ppi20 " ( 4 : 3 ) 1600x1200 - 100 ppi21.5 " widescreen ( 16 : 9 ) 1920x1080 - 102 ppi30 " widescreen ( 16 : 10 ) 2560x1600 - 101 ppiSo if you want something close in size to your existing monitor , get a 17 " widescreen at 1440x900 ( e.g .
Dell E178WFP ) .If you want something with a comparable PPI , and equivalent resolution , get a 21.5 " widescreen at 1920x1080 ( e.g .
Dell S2209W ) If you want something with the same aspect ratio , and a higher resolution , get a 20 " at 1600x1200 ( e.g .
Dell 2007FP ) .I would pick the 20 " .
As others have said , you can move it further away from your eyes than a CRT if size is an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you want a monitor with a high PPI (pixels per inch).Your original monitor was 17" 4:3 (16" viewable), which at 1440x1050 is 109 ppi.
You won't get that in an LCD monitor even if you get something large.Here are some common LCD monitor sizes (&gt;= 17") that have &gt;= 95 PPI:17" (5:4) 1280x1024 - 96 ppi17" widescreen (16:10) 1440x900 - 100 ppi20" (4:3) 1600x1200 - 100 ppi21.5" widescreen (16:9) 1920x1080 - 102 ppi30" widescreen (16:10) 2560x1600 - 101 ppiSo if you want something close in size to your existing monitor, get a 17" widescreen at 1440x900 (e.g.
Dell E178WFP).If you want something with a comparable PPI, and equivalent resolution, get a 21.5" widescreen at 1920x1080 (e.g.
Dell S2209W)If you want something with the same aspect ratio, and a higher resolution, get a 20" at 1600x1200 (e.g.
Dell 2007FP).I would pick the 20".
As others have said, you can move it further away from your eyes than a CRT if size is an issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631161</id>
	<title>Try back at Dell</title>
	<author>Baboshka</author>
	<datestamp>1247064120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you looked at Dell (disclamer, I work for Dell) for a replacement for the Dell monitor?  I found 2 for less than $200 each that probably come close enough:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Dell<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; S1709W 17" HD Widescreen Monitor<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Usually Ships 1-2 Days<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Manufacturer Part# K419D<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Dell Part# 320-6965<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Max Resolution: 1440 x 900<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Image Contrast Ratio: 600:1<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Response Time: 8 ms<br>and<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Dell<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; E2009WFP 20 inch Wide Flat Panel Monitor<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Usually Ships Within 24 Hours<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Manufacturer Part# D115J<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Dell Part# 320-7085<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Max Resolution: 1680 x 1050<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Image Contrast Ratio: 1000:1<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Response Time: 5 ms</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you looked at Dell ( disclamer , I work for Dell ) for a replacement for the Dell monitor ?
I found 2 for less than $ 200 each that probably come close enough :     Dell     S1709W 17 " HD Widescreen Monitor     Usually Ships 1-2 Days     Manufacturer Part # K419D     Dell Part # 320-6965     Max Resolution : 1440 x 900     Image Contrast Ratio : 600 : 1     Response Time : 8 msand     Dell     E2009WFP 20 inch Wide Flat Panel Monitor     Usually Ships Within 24 Hours     Manufacturer Part # D115J     Dell Part # 320-7085     Max Resolution : 1680 x 1050     Image Contrast Ratio : 1000 : 1     Response Time : 5 ms</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you looked at Dell (disclamer, I work for Dell) for a replacement for the Dell monitor?
I found 2 for less than $200 each that probably come close enough:
    Dell
    S1709W 17" HD Widescreen Monitor
    Usually Ships 1-2 Days
    Manufacturer Part# K419D
    Dell Part# 320-6965
    Max Resolution: 1440 x 900
    Image Contrast Ratio: 600:1
    Response Time: 8 msand
    Dell
    E2009WFP 20 inch Wide Flat Panel Monitor
    Usually Ships Within 24 Hours
    Manufacturer Part# D115J
    Dell Part# 320-7085
    Max Resolution: 1680 x 1050
    Image Contrast Ratio: 1000:1
    Response Time: 5 ms</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630593</id>
	<title>Re:Use the Google</title>
	<author>Xtifr</author>
	<datestamp>1247060100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or to put it another way: <a href="http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=small+high+resolution+lcd+monitor" title="justfuckinggoogleit.com">just fucking google it</a> [justfuckinggoogleit.com]!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>(Actually, if I were to pick nits, I would point out that going to "goggle.com" may not be quite as productive--in fact, after a quick skim of that site, I might advise carefully avoiding it if you're running windows.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or to put it another way : just fucking google it [ justfuckinggoogleit.com ] !
: ) ( Actually , if I were to pick nits , I would point out that going to " goggle.com " may not be quite as productive--in fact , after a quick skim of that site , I might advise carefully avoiding it if you 're running windows .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or to put it another way: just fucking google it [justfuckinggoogleit.com]!
:)(Actually, if I were to pick nits, I would point out that going to "goggle.com" may not be quite as productive--in fact, after a quick skim of that site, I might advise carefully avoiding it if you're running windows.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630379</id>
	<title>Rare but you can get your hands on one</title>
	<author>jumbocards</author>
	<datestamp>1247058600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is rare but there are 19inch monitors that can do 1680 x 1050.

check asus VW198S.  Good luck</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is rare but there are 19inch monitors that can do 1680 x 1050 . check asus VW198S .
Good luck</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is rare but there are 19inch monitors that can do 1680 x 1050.

check asus VW198S.
Good luck</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632719</id>
	<title>Re:check newegg</title>
	<author>johannesg</author>
	<datestamp>1247078460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out <a href="http://tweakers.net/pricewatch/cat/341?currFilters=eNpLtDKxqi62MjSwUsovSkktcstMzUlRsgaKGFspFRekJmemZSYnlmTm54EELaGqgvOLSkB8oJrE4mSwckOYFFCPZwpU0sTcGMQyBxqVmgwzBMgrKMrMqkoF8moBTk0oqw\%3D\%3D&amp;page=2" title="tweakers.net">here</a> [tweakers.net] as well...</p><p>Who am I kidding. The article was posted hours ago while I slept, no one will ever read this now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out here [ tweakers.net ] as well...Who am I kidding .
The article was posted hours ago while I slept , no one will ever read this now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out here [tweakers.net] as well...Who am I kidding.
The article was posted hours ago while I slept, no one will ever read this now...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632683</id>
	<title>I have grown to like widescreen</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1247078040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Main reason is my field of vision is wider than it is high. Now I will qualify this in saying you need a good resolution screen for this to work. Nothing less than 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 is really what you should shoot for. However the good news is 1920x1200 monitors are plentiful these days. They can be had cheaply if TN panels are fine, and there are nice high quality pro ones if you desire good colour.</p><p>I think it looks great, and you aren't giving up any vertical rez compares to almost any 4:3 screen. The 4:3 equivalent is 1600x1200, which was where nearly all the 4:3 LCDs I knew of capped out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Main reason is my field of vision is wider than it is high .
Now I will qualify this in saying you need a good resolution screen for this to work .
Nothing less than 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 is really what you should shoot for .
However the good news is 1920x1200 monitors are plentiful these days .
They can be had cheaply if TN panels are fine , and there are nice high quality pro ones if you desire good colour.I think it looks great , and you are n't giving up any vertical rez compares to almost any 4 : 3 screen .
The 4 : 3 equivalent is 1600x1200 , which was where nearly all the 4 : 3 LCDs I knew of capped out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Main reason is my field of vision is wider than it is high.
Now I will qualify this in saying you need a good resolution screen for this to work.
Nothing less than 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 is really what you should shoot for.
However the good news is 1920x1200 monitors are plentiful these days.
They can be had cheaply if TN panels are fine, and there are nice high quality pro ones if you desire good colour.I think it looks great, and you aren't giving up any vertical rez compares to almost any 4:3 screen.
The 4:3 equivalent is 1600x1200, which was where nearly all the 4:3 LCDs I knew of capped out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28640063</id>
	<title>the one and only non-sucky solution to LCD problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247168100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>dont buy one. LCDs plainly suck, esp LCD compy monitors, and esp budget LCD compy monitors.</p><p>buy a cheap, used plasma and mount it on your wall. put a desk in front of it.</p><p>or, keep it on its stand and put it on a desk.</p><p>now, its no crt, but at least its not a lcd.</p><p>42" 1920x1080 plasmas can be had for $700 with some searching.</p><p>now, $700 is a lot from some $200 lcd, but youre not paying for nothing. veteran CRT users will see the money well spent.</p><p>pros: huge high res screen which reveals amazing detail within textures, black level performance, primary color accuracy, many inputs, closest replacement for a CRT</p><p>cons: big, heavy, costly (even sounds like a CRT)....umm not too portable.</p><p>buying a good plasma should see you through many years like a good CRT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>dont buy one .
LCDs plainly suck , esp LCD compy monitors , and esp budget LCD compy monitors.buy a cheap , used plasma and mount it on your wall .
put a desk in front of it.or , keep it on its stand and put it on a desk.now , its no crt , but at least its not a lcd.42 " 1920x1080 plasmas can be had for $ 700 with some searching.now , $ 700 is a lot from some $ 200 lcd , but youre not paying for nothing .
veteran CRT users will see the money well spent.pros : huge high res screen which reveals amazing detail within textures , black level performance , primary color accuracy , many inputs , closest replacement for a CRTcons : big , heavy , costly ( even sounds like a CRT ) ....umm not too portable.buying a good plasma should see you through many years like a good CRT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dont buy one.
LCDs plainly suck, esp LCD compy monitors, and esp budget LCD compy monitors.buy a cheap, used plasma and mount it on your wall.
put a desk in front of it.or, keep it on its stand and put it on a desk.now, its no crt, but at least its not a lcd.42" 1920x1080 plasmas can be had for $700 with some searching.now, $700 is a lot from some $200 lcd, but youre not paying for nothing.
veteran CRT users will see the money well spent.pros: huge high res screen which reveals amazing detail within textures, black level performance, primary color accuracy, many inputs, closest replacement for a CRTcons: big, heavy, costly (even sounds like a CRT)....umm not too portable.buying a good plasma should see you through many years like a good CRT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633211</id>
	<title>Re:LCDs might waste less space around the screen</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1247171700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If someone is trying to save 3 inches on the size of a monitor so that it will fit on a desk, the solution is clear: <strong>Buy a new desk!</strong></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone is trying to save 3 inches on the size of a monitor so that it will fit on a desk , the solution is clear : Buy a new desk !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone is trying to save 3 inches on the size of a monitor so that it will fit on a desk, the solution is clear: Buy a new desk!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630455</id>
	<title>Use the Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247059200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go to goggle.com.  It will give you a little box.  In that box, type
<p>
small high resolution lcd monitor
</p><p>
You will immediately find a number of monitors that match your requirements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to goggle.com .
It will give you a little box .
In that box , type small high resolution lcd monitor You will immediately find a number of monitors that match your requirements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to goggle.com.
It will give you a little box.
In that box, type

small high resolution lcd monitor

You will immediately find a number of monitors that match your requirements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631727</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I hate</title>
	<author>zerocool^</author>
	<datestamp>1247068320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me, it's not the widescreen part of it that I hate.  It's the 16x9 part.</p><p>I want a 1920x1200 monitor.  I've been in the market for one for 4 years, and they've been $600 for four years, with no or minimal drops in price.</p><p>If you want a 1920x1080 monitor, those are <i>way</i> cheap!  But if you want those extra 120 vertical pixels?  Sorry, screw you, pay TWICE AS MUCH!!!!LOL.</p><p>I don't get it.  I really don't.  I want the widescreen aspect ratio (16x10, thankyouverymuch).  But I want to be able to use windowed applications that are taller than 1024 pixels.  I currently have a 1600x1200 monitor, and if I wanted to dual monitor, the vertical heighs won't match up.  Plus, I play a game in a windowed 1280x1024 setting (cause I have multiple windows open).  If I only have 1080 vertical pixels, I'll lose about 50-60 between the title bar and the taskbar, meaning I won't be able to see the whole window, or I'll have to slide the title bar off the top of the screen.</p><p>I know these sound like minor gripes, but I'm very particular.  And I can't believe that there haven't been any price drops in 16x10 monitors in so long, when 4:3 and 16:9 LCDs have dropped through the floor.</p><p>~X</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , it 's not the widescreen part of it that I hate .
It 's the 16x9 part.I want a 1920x1200 monitor .
I 've been in the market for one for 4 years , and they 've been $ 600 for four years , with no or minimal drops in price.If you want a 1920x1080 monitor , those are way cheap !
But if you want those extra 120 vertical pixels ?
Sorry , screw you , pay TWICE AS MUCH ! ! !
! LOL.I do n't get it .
I really do n't .
I want the widescreen aspect ratio ( 16x10 , thankyouverymuch ) .
But I want to be able to use windowed applications that are taller than 1024 pixels .
I currently have a 1600x1200 monitor , and if I wanted to dual monitor , the vertical heighs wo n't match up .
Plus , I play a game in a windowed 1280x1024 setting ( cause I have multiple windows open ) .
If I only have 1080 vertical pixels , I 'll lose about 50-60 between the title bar and the taskbar , meaning I wo n't be able to see the whole window , or I 'll have to slide the title bar off the top of the screen.I know these sound like minor gripes , but I 'm very particular .
And I ca n't believe that there have n't been any price drops in 16x10 monitors in so long , when 4 : 3 and 16 : 9 LCDs have dropped through the floor. ~ X</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me, it's not the widescreen part of it that I hate.
It's the 16x9 part.I want a 1920x1200 monitor.
I've been in the market for one for 4 years, and they've been $600 for four years, with no or minimal drops in price.If you want a 1920x1080 monitor, those are way cheap!
But if you want those extra 120 vertical pixels?
Sorry, screw you, pay TWICE AS MUCH!!!
!LOL.I don't get it.
I really don't.
I want the widescreen aspect ratio (16x10, thankyouverymuch).
But I want to be able to use windowed applications that are taller than 1024 pixels.
I currently have a 1600x1200 monitor, and if I wanted to dual monitor, the vertical heighs won't match up.
Plus, I play a game in a windowed 1280x1024 setting (cause I have multiple windows open).
If I only have 1080 vertical pixels, I'll lose about 50-60 between the title bar and the taskbar, meaning I won't be able to see the whole window, or I'll have to slide the title bar off the top of the screen.I know these sound like minor gripes, but I'm very particular.
And I can't believe that there haven't been any price drops in 16x10 monitors in so long, when 4:3 and 16:9 LCDs have dropped through the floor.~X</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630363</id>
	<title>Re:HD Capable</title>
	<author>click2005</author>
	<datestamp>1247058480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not get a TV? Tesco in the UK do 1920x1080 TVs around 20.1 inches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not get a TV ?
Tesco in the UK do 1920x1080 TVs around 20.1 inches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not get a TV?
Tesco in the UK do 1920x1080 TVs around 20.1 inches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630665</id>
	<title>newegg...</title>
	<author>spoop</author>
	<datestamp>1247060460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Asus 16:10 19", 1680x1050 <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236056" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236056</a> [newegg.com]
Samsung 16:9 23", 2048x1152 <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001317" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001317</a> [newegg.com]
Additionally, there are many 16:9 21.5" monitors that are 1920x1080, and Lenovo makes a nice 16:10 22" that's 1920x1200</htmltext>
<tokenext>Asus 16 : 10 19 " , 1680x1050 http : //www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E16824236056 [ newegg.com ] Samsung 16 : 9 23 " , 2048x1152 http : //www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E16824001317 [ newegg.com ] Additionally , there are many 16 : 9 21.5 " monitors that are 1920x1080 , and Lenovo makes a nice 16 : 10 22 " that 's 1920x1200</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asus 16:10 19", 1680x1050 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236056 [newegg.com]
Samsung 16:9 23", 2048x1152 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001317 [newegg.com]
Additionally, there are many 16:9 21.5" monitors that are 1920x1080, and Lenovo makes a nice 16:10 22" that's 1920x1200</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633051</id>
	<title>dude, its 2009</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247083080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and youre gae for not getting an LCD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and youre gae for not getting an LCD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and youre gae for not getting an LCD</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631903</id>
	<title>You're looking at the wrong soloution.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247069640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Replace the desk.<br>2) Get a 4ft square Table<br>3) Get a 32 inch TV capable of 1920X1080 and place it at the opposite end of the table.  The added distance moving from a desk to a table compensates for the size.</p><p>I LOVE my LG 32CL40</p><p>P.S.  This solution is guaranteed to cure that 4:3 fetish.<br>I had a similar concern when moving up from a used Viewsonic EF70 @ 1280X1024.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Replace the desk.2 ) Get a 4ft square Table3 ) Get a 32 inch TV capable of 1920X1080 and place it at the opposite end of the table .
The added distance moving from a desk to a table compensates for the size.I LOVE my LG 32CL40P.S .
This solution is guaranteed to cure that 4 : 3 fetish.I had a similar concern when moving up from a used Viewsonic EF70 @ 1280X1024 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Replace the desk.2) Get a 4ft square Table3) Get a 32 inch TV capable of 1920X1080 and place it at the opposite end of the table.
The added distance moving from a desk to a table compensates for the size.I LOVE my LG 32CL40P.S.
This solution is guaranteed to cure that 4:3 fetish.I had a similar concern when moving up from a used Viewsonic EF70 @ 1280X1024.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630601</id>
	<title>LCDs don't use any desk space.</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1247060100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This guy is using a CRT and he is concerned about desk space???

A 26 inch LCD will use less desk space than his present screen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy is using a CRT and he is concerned about desk space ? ? ?
A 26 inch LCD will use less desk space than his present screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy is using a CRT and he is concerned about desk space???
A 26 inch LCD will use less desk space than his present screen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633359</id>
	<title>Re:I read the "answers", now I feel for you..</title>
	<author>Burpmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1247130480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The technology is definitely out there, my handhald with 9" has 800x480</p></div><p>That's nothing, check out the <a href="http://openpandora.org/" title="openpandora.org" rel="nofollow">Pandora</a> [openpandora.org]: 800x480 on a 4.3" screen</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The technology is definitely out there , my handhald with 9 " has 800x480That 's nothing , check out the Pandora [ openpandora.org ] : 800x480 on a 4.3 " screen</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The technology is definitely out there, my handhald with 9" has 800x480That's nothing, check out the Pandora [openpandora.org]: 800x480 on a 4.3" screen
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28643173</id>
	<title>Re:HD Capable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247137740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm replying on a ThinkPad W500 that has a 15.4" screen with 1900x1200 resolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm replying on a ThinkPad W500 that has a 15.4 " screen with 1900x1200 resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm replying on a ThinkPad W500 that has a 15.4" screen with 1900x1200 resolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630841</id>
	<title>You can get a decent 20" widescreen display.</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1247061660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just recently got myself a LG W2053TQ-PF monitor with 1600x900 resolution. The colors are pretty bright, and the sharpenss is quite good too. I got it for US$149 at Fry's Electronics.</p><p>It should be noted the W2053TQ-PF has both 15-pin VGA and DVI-D inputs, and does support HDCP so you can use it with a computer that can play back [i]Blu-ray[/i] movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just recently got myself a LG W2053TQ-PF monitor with 1600x900 resolution .
The colors are pretty bright , and the sharpenss is quite good too .
I got it for US $ 149 at Fry 's Electronics.It should be noted the W2053TQ-PF has both 15-pin VGA and DVI-D inputs , and does support HDCP so you can use it with a computer that can play back [ i ] Blu-ray [ /i ] movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just recently got myself a LG W2053TQ-PF monitor with 1600x900 resolution.
The colors are pretty bright, and the sharpenss is quite good too.
I got it for US$149 at Fry's Electronics.It should be noted the W2053TQ-PF has both 15-pin VGA and DVI-D inputs, and does support HDCP so you can use it with a computer that can play back [i]Blu-ray[/i] movies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28643103</id>
	<title>Re:Killing desk space?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247137380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get one of those power/watt meters.<br>Plug your monitor in it for an hour.  Do the math on how much it costs to run 8 hours a day.<br>That 20" lcd will pay for itself in a year.  But go with a 22"   And<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... do the 15^2 vs 21*19 viewable area. ( its 70\% more surface area )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get one of those power/watt meters.Plug your monitor in it for an hour .
Do the math on how much it costs to run 8 hours a day.That 20 " lcd will pay for itself in a year .
But go with a 22 " And .... do the 15 ^ 2 vs 21 * 19 viewable area .
( its 70 \ % more surface area )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get one of those power/watt meters.Plug your monitor in it for an hour.
Do the math on how much it costs to run 8 hours a day.That 20" lcd will pay for itself in a year.
But go with a 22"   And .... do the 15^2 vs 21*19 viewable area.
( its 70\% more surface area )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633075</id>
	<title>IBM T221 == 3840 x 2400</title>
	<author>adisakp</author>
	<datestamp>1247169960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want really tiny pixels... get a lightly used <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM\_T220/T221\_LCD\_monitors" title="wikipedia.org">IBM T221</a> [wikipedia.org].  It's 22" but it has very very high DPI and a resolution of 3840 x 2400.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want really tiny pixels... get a lightly used IBM T221 [ wikipedia.org ] .
It 's 22 " but it has very very high DPI and a resolution of 3840 x 2400 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want really tiny pixels... get a lightly used IBM T221 [wikipedia.org].
It's 22" but it has very very high DPI and a resolution of 3840 x 2400.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630221</id>
	<title>Syncmaster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247057880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>19" SyncMaster 943BWX is what I'm using right now at 1400 x 900. Not quite your bag on the vertical end of things, but the SyncMaster line is probably worth looking into.</htmltext>
<tokenext>19 " SyncMaster 943BWX is what I 'm using right now at 1400 x 900 .
Not quite your bag on the vertical end of things , but the SyncMaster line is probably worth looking into .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>19" SyncMaster 943BWX is what I'm using right now at 1400 x 900.
Not quite your bag on the vertical end of things, but the SyncMaster line is probably worth looking into.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630683</id>
	<title>Re:Use the Google</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1247060580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think what he's looking more for is 'high dpi lcd monitor'.  If you type that into Google you'll end up with a bunch of pages where everyone is wondering the pretty much the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what he 's looking more for is 'high dpi lcd monitor' .
If you type that into Google you 'll end up with a bunch of pages where everyone is wondering the pretty much the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what he's looking more for is 'high dpi lcd monitor'.
If you type that into Google you'll end up with a bunch of pages where everyone is wondering the pretty much the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630439</id>
	<title>Yes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247059080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?"</i> </p><p>It's called every LCD monitor larger than 17" ever made.  Seriously, get of the "desk space" argument.  You're talking about going from a 17" CRT to an LCD screen.  You could go to a 22" or 23" LCD and still have more free desk space than you did with your 17" tube.  And more to the point, you can do it for less than $200 if you shop around or wait for a sale.</p><p>Serious, what the fuck is the criteria for getting an "Ask Slashdot" question posted?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any standalone monitor on the market that 'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space ?
" It 's called every LCD monitor larger than 17 " ever made .
Seriously , get of the " desk space " argument .
You 're talking about going from a 17 " CRT to an LCD screen .
You could go to a 22 " or 23 " LCD and still have more free desk space than you did with your 17 " tube .
And more to the point , you can do it for less than $ 200 if you shop around or wait for a sale.Serious , what the fuck is the criteria for getting an " Ask Slashdot " question posted ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?
" It's called every LCD monitor larger than 17" ever made.
Seriously, get of the "desk space" argument.
You're talking about going from a 17" CRT to an LCD screen.
You could go to a 22" or 23" LCD and still have more free desk space than you did with your 17" tube.
And more to the point, you can do it for less than $200 if you shop around or wait for a sale.Serious, what the fuck is the criteria for getting an "Ask Slashdot" question posted?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634679</id>
	<title>Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247144760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple's 17" MacBook Pro can be had with a 1920x1200 17" LED backlit panel, so clearly the technology is out there, and being mass produced.</p></div><p>This is what I use and for me it's a complete replacement for my old set up. Where my desks used to be cramped with a 14" (@1024x768) laptop connected to a 22" (@1680x1050) display with attached keyboard, mouse, webcam, speakers, etc. Now stands one piece of hardware with one cable. Ok, sometimes I plug in headphones. But the point is: There is no need for an external screen and one of my two desks now serve as a meeting table<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br>What I'm trying to say is if you are short on deskspace perhaps you should just get a slightly larger laptop instead of some other display.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's 17 " MacBook Pro can be had with a 1920x1200 17 " LED backlit panel , so clearly the technology is out there , and being mass produced.This is what I use and for me it 's a complete replacement for my old set up .
Where my desks used to be cramped with a 14 " ( @ 1024x768 ) laptop connected to a 22 " ( @ 1680x1050 ) display with attached keyboard , mouse , webcam , speakers , etc .
Now stands one piece of hardware with one cable .
Ok , sometimes I plug in headphones .
But the point is : There is no need for an external screen and one of my two desks now serve as a meeting table : - ) What I 'm trying to say is if you are short on deskspace perhaps you should just get a slightly larger laptop instead of some other display .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's 17" MacBook Pro can be had with a 1920x1200 17" LED backlit panel, so clearly the technology is out there, and being mass produced.This is what I use and for me it's a complete replacement for my old set up.
Where my desks used to be cramped with a 14" (@1024x768) laptop connected to a 22" (@1680x1050) display with attached keyboard, mouse, webcam, speakers, etc.
Now stands one piece of hardware with one cable.
Ok, sometimes I plug in headphones.
But the point is: There is no need for an external screen and one of my two desks now serve as a meeting table :-)What I'm trying to say is if you are short on deskspace perhaps you should just get a slightly larger laptop instead of some other display.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634557</id>
	<title>So get a bigger monitor :D...</title>
	<author>mario\_grgic</author>
	<datestamp>1247143380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that such a bad thing? If you are looking for a laptop, the Apple macbooks have relatively high resolution screens for the sizes. Their 17'' screen is 1920x1200.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that such a bad thing ?
If you are looking for a laptop , the Apple macbooks have relatively high resolution screens for the sizes .
Their 17' ' screen is 1920x1200 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that such a bad thing?
If you are looking for a laptop, the Apple macbooks have relatively high resolution screens for the sizes.
Their 17'' screen is 1920x1200.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28643203</id>
	<title>Re:Buy a replacement laptop screen and mod it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247137860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adapter kit?  Do tell!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adapter kit ?
Do tell !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adapter kit?
Do tell!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631991</id>
	<title>Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247070480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're looking for an IBM T221 or a Viewsonic VP2290b, the screens kick ass but used go for $1000 and up. They haven't been made for 5+ years, so a NOS one is around $3000+, but the monitors are well worth the money. I'm using one right now, the only hard part is you have to have a high DPI mouse and it's small enough to get lost on the screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're looking for an IBM T221 or a Viewsonic VP2290b , the screens kick ass but used go for $ 1000 and up .
They have n't been made for 5 + years , so a NOS one is around $ 3000 + , but the monitors are well worth the money .
I 'm using one right now , the only hard part is you have to have a high DPI mouse and it 's small enough to get lost on the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're looking for an IBM T221 or a Viewsonic VP2290b, the screens kick ass but used go for $1000 and up.
They haven't been made for 5+ years, so a NOS one is around $3000+, but the monitors are well worth the money.
I'm using one right now, the only hard part is you have to have a high DPI mouse and it's small enough to get lost on the screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633039</id>
	<title>Samsung SyncMaster 2033SW (1600 x 900, 20 inches)</title>
	<author>modicr</author>
	<datestamp>1247082600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello!</p><p>Samsung SyncMaster 2033SW looks ok:<br><a href="http://www.contrapositivediary.com/?p=565" title="contrapositivediary.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.contrapositivediary.com/?p=565</a> [contrapositivediary.com]</p><p>And here is a new model F2080 based on a-si TFT/cPVA:<br><a href="http://monitor.samsung.de/produkte/detail2\_specs.aspx?guid=dc219be6-a00c-4678-87c2-fd7296e227fd" title="samsung.de" rel="nofollow">http://monitor.samsung.de/produkte/detail2\_specs.aspx?guid=dc219be6-a00c-4678-87c2-fd7296e227fd</a> [samsung.de]</p><p>BTW, pixel size is just 0.277 mm</p><p>Regards, Roman</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello ! Samsung SyncMaster 2033SW looks ok : http : //www.contrapositivediary.com/ ? p = 565 [ contrapositivediary.com ] And here is a new model F2080 based on a-si TFT/cPVA : http : //monitor.samsung.de/produkte/detail2 \ _specs.aspx ? guid = dc219be6-a00c-4678-87c2-fd7296e227fd [ samsung.de ] BTW , pixel size is just 0.277 mmRegards , Roman</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello!Samsung SyncMaster 2033SW looks ok:http://www.contrapositivediary.com/?p=565 [contrapositivediary.com]And here is a new model F2080 based on a-si TFT/cPVA:http://monitor.samsung.de/produkte/detail2\_specs.aspx?guid=dc219be6-a00c-4678-87c2-fd7296e227fd [samsung.de]BTW, pixel size is just 0.277 mmRegards, Roman</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631071</id>
	<title>Re:Use the Google</title>
	<author>Mojo01010011</author>
	<datestamp>1247063400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I heard Bing gets better results<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard Bing gets better results .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard Bing gets better results ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630331</id>
	<title>there are some you get can get</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247058300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is rare, I can tell you many explainations for it but I don't know the exact reason myself, thus don't want to give you wrong information.</p><p>Anyway, there are LCD panels that do have higher resolution.  Asus VW198S supports 1680x1050 natively.  Good luck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is rare , I can tell you many explainations for it but I do n't know the exact reason myself , thus do n't want to give you wrong information.Anyway , there are LCD panels that do have higher resolution .
Asus VW198S supports 1680x1050 natively .
Good luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is rare, I can tell you many explainations for it but I don't know the exact reason myself, thus don't want to give you wrong information.Anyway, there are LCD panels that do have higher resolution.
Asus VW198S supports 1680x1050 natively.
Good luck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630527</id>
	<title>Ever heard of Newegg?  TigerDirect?  Google?</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1247059680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I located three 17" widescreen monitors in a couple of clicks on Newegg.com.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I located three 17 " widescreen monitors in a couple of clicks on Newegg.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I located three 17" widescreen monitors in a couple of clicks on Newegg.com.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630255</id>
	<title>Sadly...</title>
	<author>XPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1247058000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There really is nothing in the 17-19&#226; range that can project over 1280x1024.  If you step it up to 20&#226; though, they have monitors that go up to 1680x1050 which is quite a nice res.<br>Here&#226;(TM)s a list of a what they have in stock on the egg.   <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;N=1106218475&amp;Description=20\%22\%20monitor&amp;name=1680\%20x\%201050" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;N=1106218475&amp;Description=20\%22\%20monitor&amp;name=1680\%20x\%201050</a> [newegg.com]</p><p>On a side note, I think a 17&#226; with a decent resolution will surprise you more than you think.  You&#226;(TM)re upgrading from an old CRT to an LCD which is a big leap, try going to your local PC shop and have a look at their inventory to get an idea.  Also, you won't hit HD until 22" with 1900x1080 res.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There really is nothing in the 17-19   range that can project over 1280x1024 .
If you step it up to 20   though , they have monitors that go up to 1680x1050 which is quite a nice res.Here   ( TM ) s a list of a what they have in stock on the egg .
http : //www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx ? Submit = ENE&amp;N = 1106218475&amp;Description = 20 \ % 22 \ % 20monitor&amp;name = 1680 \ % 20x \ % 201050 [ newegg.com ] On a side note , I think a 17   with a decent resolution will surprise you more than you think .
You   ( TM ) re upgrading from an old CRT to an LCD which is a big leap , try going to your local PC shop and have a look at their inventory to get an idea .
Also , you wo n't hit HD until 22 " with 1900x1080 res .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There really is nothing in the 17-19â range that can project over 1280x1024.
If you step it up to 20â though, they have monitors that go up to 1680x1050 which is quite a nice res.Hereâ(TM)s a list of a what they have in stock on the egg.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;N=1106218475&amp;Description=20\%22\%20monitor&amp;name=1680\%20x\%201050 [newegg.com]On a side note, I think a 17â with a decent resolution will surprise you more than you think.
Youâ(TM)re upgrading from an old CRT to an LCD which is a big leap, try going to your local PC shop and have a look at their inventory to get an idea.
Also, you won't hit HD until 22" with 1900x1080 res.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28643223</id>
	<title>Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.</title>
	<author>Mattsson</author>
	<datestamp>1247137920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice to see that Apple finally has started letting the customer choose different panel-options for their laptops. Hopefully, they'll start offering glossy/non-glossy as an option too.<br>High resolution laptop-panels are nothing new, though. I had a 1600x1200 15.6" laptop back somewhere around 2000 - 2001, a 1400x1050 14.7" before that. Right now I'm writing on a six year old 1400x1050 15" laptop.</p><p>The main reason why high-density high-resolution panels always have been limited mostly to laptops is probably cost, not availability of the technology itself.<br>Even while mass produced, high-density panels require more expensive production machines and have smaller fault tolerances than standard-density panels, which means worse yields and higher cost.<br>There probably isn't enough market for high-density desktop displays if they cost as much as a bigger, higher quality display with lower pixel-density.<br>In a laptop, you don't want the screen to be too large, since it will make the laptop huge, so you have no option but to go high-density if you want a usable resolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice to see that Apple finally has started letting the customer choose different panel-options for their laptops .
Hopefully , they 'll start offering glossy/non-glossy as an option too.High resolution laptop-panels are nothing new , though .
I had a 1600x1200 15.6 " laptop back somewhere around 2000 - 2001 , a 1400x1050 14.7 " before that .
Right now I 'm writing on a six year old 1400x1050 15 " laptop.The main reason why high-density high-resolution panels always have been limited mostly to laptops is probably cost , not availability of the technology itself.Even while mass produced , high-density panels require more expensive production machines and have smaller fault tolerances than standard-density panels , which means worse yields and higher cost.There probably is n't enough market for high-density desktop displays if they cost as much as a bigger , higher quality display with lower pixel-density.In a laptop , you do n't want the screen to be too large , since it will make the laptop huge , so you have no option but to go high-density if you want a usable resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice to see that Apple finally has started letting the customer choose different panel-options for their laptops.
Hopefully, they'll start offering glossy/non-glossy as an option too.High resolution laptop-panels are nothing new, though.
I had a 1600x1200 15.6" laptop back somewhere around 2000 - 2001, a 1400x1050 14.7" before that.
Right now I'm writing on a six year old 1400x1050 15" laptop.The main reason why high-density high-resolution panels always have been limited mostly to laptops is probably cost, not availability of the technology itself.Even while mass produced, high-density panels require more expensive production machines and have smaller fault tolerances than standard-density panels, which means worse yields and higher cost.There probably isn't enough market for high-density desktop displays if they cost as much as a bigger, higher quality display with lower pixel-density.In a laptop, you don't want the screen to be too large, since it will make the laptop huge, so you have no option but to go high-density if you want a usable resolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28635479</id>
	<title>Re:LCDs might waste less space around the screen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247149980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good point.  The original poster should get out a tape measure and measure the thing.  Then go to a store with a tape measure in hand and see what he is getting...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point .
The original poster should get out a tape measure and measure the thing .
Then go to a store with a tape measure in hand and see what he is getting.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point.
The original poster should get out a tape measure and measure the thing.
Then go to a store with a tape measure in hand and see what he is getting...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634789</id>
	<title>Re:Pixel density is the key factor</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1247145660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because you will need to change from the 4:3 ratio you are used to, but I can find things like that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:<br>
<a href="http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktop-monitors/lcd/value-series/va1716w.htm" title="viewsonic.com">http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktop-monitors/lcd/value-series/va1716w.htm</a> [viewsonic.com] <br> <br>
17", 1440x900. Bear in mind that a desktop is screen is usually used at a further distance than a laptop screen. It makes sense to have less pixels per centimeters for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because you will need to change from the 4 : 3 ratio you are used to , but I can find things like that : http : //www.viewsonic.com/products/desktop-monitors/lcd/value-series/va1716w.htm [ viewsonic.com ] 17 " , 1440x900 .
Bear in mind that a desktop is screen is usually used at a further distance than a laptop screen .
It makes sense to have less pixels per centimeters for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because you will need to change from the 4:3 ratio you are used to, but I can find things like that :
http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktop-monitors/lcd/value-series/va1716w.htm [viewsonic.com]  
17", 1440x900.
Bear in mind that a desktop is screen is usually used at a further distance than a laptop screen.
It makes sense to have less pixels per centimeters for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28635807</id>
	<title>Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247151420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course it is!  I've recently purchased 15" &amp; 17" notebooks with 1680x1050 LCDs.  The 17" model also comes with a higher priced model sporting 1920x1200.</p><p>As to the aspect ratio, you sort of get used to it eventually, although it DOES tend to make you move your head when reading text that spills across the entire width of the screen, but then again so would a LARGE 4:3 aspect ratio monitor.</p><p>The most amusing this that I find about LCDs are the 14-15" notebook models that only come with 1400x900 or 1280x800 or 1376x768(or whatever that res is) resolution panels... blah!  (The panels appear too large to me for such low resolution in 16:9 or 16:10, but would be OK likely for 10-13" models as they'd be slightly higher res than the old 1024x768 4:3 "standard" in that range.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it is !
I 've recently purchased 15 " &amp; 17 " notebooks with 1680x1050 LCDs .
The 17 " model also comes with a higher priced model sporting 1920x1200.As to the aspect ratio , you sort of get used to it eventually , although it DOES tend to make you move your head when reading text that spills across the entire width of the screen , but then again so would a LARGE 4 : 3 aspect ratio monitor.The most amusing this that I find about LCDs are the 14-15 " notebook models that only come with 1400x900 or 1280x800 or 1376x768 ( or whatever that res is ) resolution panels... blah ! ( The panels appear too large to me for such low resolution in 16 : 9 or 16 : 10 , but would be OK likely for 10-13 " models as they 'd be slightly higher res than the old 1024x768 4 : 3 " standard " in that range .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it is!
I've recently purchased 15" &amp; 17" notebooks with 1680x1050 LCDs.
The 17" model also comes with a higher priced model sporting 1920x1200.As to the aspect ratio, you sort of get used to it eventually, although it DOES tend to make you move your head when reading text that spills across the entire width of the screen, but then again so would a LARGE 4:3 aspect ratio monitor.The most amusing this that I find about LCDs are the 14-15" notebook models that only come with 1400x900 or 1280x800 or 1376x768(or whatever that res is) resolution panels... blah!  (The panels appear too large to me for such low resolution in 16:9 or 16:10, but would be OK likely for 10-13" models as they'd be slightly higher res than the old 1024x768 4:3 "standard" in that range.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630849</id>
	<title>Pixel density is the key factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been on this search for three or four years, and all I can come up with is that there's a conspiracy in effect, in order to promote this 'HD' thing the commoners are obsessed with lately.</p><p>I'm posting this from a four year old Thinkpad T43, with 15" display, at 1400x1050.  As long as I've had it, I've been searching for a complimentary display for my desk.  Nothing comes close.  I don't want a 19", 24", or 30" monitor to get this pixel count, and I sure don't want to dodge the reflections on one of those glossy, color pop displays.  If I have to move my head, there's a serious ergonomics problem.</p><p>I have been doing some research, and I can't find anything satisfactory.  Samsung doesn't make a panel capable of what I want, nevermind a finished display..  I thought surely IBM would provide an engineering-quality display @ &gt; 116 PPI, but if they do, I can't find it.</p><p>What I may do, and some others may explore as well, is to follow in the tracks of the homebrew projection TV people, and rig up an old laptop display with a converter and new backlight.</p><p>Some light reading on the subject:</p><p>An <a href="http://www.veritasetvisus.com/VVHR-2,\%20Walker.pdf" title="veritasetvisus.com">interesting paper</a> [veritasetvisus.com] on high pixel density LCD panels from 2005; why there likely are none, and why there likely won't be any.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_displays\_by\_pixel\_density" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_displays\_by\_pixel\_density</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Manufacturers, listen up;  For every one of those business class notebooks you've been selling for 5 years, you have changed the work habits of at least one person.  Sell them a capable desktop display for a third to half the cost of the notebook, and garner a tidy profit.  Just don't put one of those stinking shine panels on the front.  Stick it in the box with some double-sided tape, if the focus group says you have to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been on this search for three or four years , and all I can come up with is that there 's a conspiracy in effect , in order to promote this 'HD ' thing the commoners are obsessed with lately.I 'm posting this from a four year old Thinkpad T43 , with 15 " display , at 1400x1050 .
As long as I 've had it , I 've been searching for a complimentary display for my desk .
Nothing comes close .
I do n't want a 19 " , 24 " , or 30 " monitor to get this pixel count , and I sure do n't want to dodge the reflections on one of those glossy , color pop displays .
If I have to move my head , there 's a serious ergonomics problem.I have been doing some research , and I ca n't find anything satisfactory .
Samsung does n't make a panel capable of what I want , nevermind a finished display.. I thought surely IBM would provide an engineering-quality display @ &gt; 116 PPI , but if they do , I ca n't find it.What I may do , and some others may explore as well , is to follow in the tracks of the homebrew projection TV people , and rig up an old laptop display with a converter and new backlight.Some light reading on the subject : An interesting paper [ veritasetvisus.com ] on high pixel density LCD panels from 2005 ; why there likely are none , and why there likely wo n't be any.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _displays \ _by \ _pixel \ _density [ wikipedia.org ] Manufacturers , listen up ; For every one of those business class notebooks you 've been selling for 5 years , you have changed the work habits of at least one person .
Sell them a capable desktop display for a third to half the cost of the notebook , and garner a tidy profit .
Just do n't put one of those stinking shine panels on the front .
Stick it in the box with some double-sided tape , if the focus group says you have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been on this search for three or four years, and all I can come up with is that there's a conspiracy in effect, in order to promote this 'HD' thing the commoners are obsessed with lately.I'm posting this from a four year old Thinkpad T43, with 15" display, at 1400x1050.
As long as I've had it, I've been searching for a complimentary display for my desk.
Nothing comes close.
I don't want a 19", 24", or 30" monitor to get this pixel count, and I sure don't want to dodge the reflections on one of those glossy, color pop displays.
If I have to move my head, there's a serious ergonomics problem.I have been doing some research, and I can't find anything satisfactory.
Samsung doesn't make a panel capable of what I want, nevermind a finished display..  I thought surely IBM would provide an engineering-quality display @ &gt; 116 PPI, but if they do, I can't find it.What I may do, and some others may explore as well, is to follow in the tracks of the homebrew projection TV people, and rig up an old laptop display with a converter and new backlight.Some light reading on the subject:An interesting paper [veritasetvisus.com] on high pixel density LCD panels from 2005; why there likely are none, and why there likely won't be any.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_displays\_by\_pixel\_density [wikipedia.org]Manufacturers, listen up;  For every one of those business class notebooks you've been selling for 5 years, you have changed the work habits of at least one person.
Sell them a capable desktop display for a third to half the cost of the notebook, and garner a tidy profit.
Just don't put one of those stinking shine panels on the front.
Stick it in the box with some double-sided tape, if the focus group says you have to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631819</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I hate</title>
	<author>Fallen Kell</author>
	<datestamp>1247068920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad almost all computer monitors use the 16:10 aspect ratio (or 8:5)... Do the math 1920/1200 = 16/10....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad almost all computer monitors use the 16 : 10 aspect ratio ( or 8 : 5 ) ... Do the math 1920/1200 = 16/10... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad almost all computer monitors use the 16:10 aspect ratio (or 8:5)... Do the math 1920/1200 = 16/10....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633385</id>
	<title>Useful Tool</title>
	<author>Flossymike</author>
	<datestamp>1247131140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've found the following web site useful when deciding on monitor specs:</p><p><a href="http://www.tvcalculator.com/" title="tvcalculator.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tvcalculator.com/</a> [tvcalculator.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found the following web site useful when deciding on monitor specs : http : //www.tvcalculator.com/ [ tvcalculator.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found the following web site useful when deciding on monitor specs:http://www.tvcalculator.com/ [tvcalculator.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28642153</id>
	<title>A bit bigger, but exactly what is asked about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247133540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.barco.com/corporate/en/products/product\_specs.asp?element=4682&amp;lid=EN</p><p>Medical Reference Display, 4:3 aspect ratio, 20.1" LCD, 1600x1200 native resolution.</p><p>But don't ask how much it costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.barco.com/corporate/en/products/product \ _specs.asp ? element = 4682&amp;lid = ENMedical Reference Display , 4 : 3 aspect ratio , 20.1 " LCD , 1600x1200 native resolution.But do n't ask how much it costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.barco.com/corporate/en/products/product\_specs.asp?element=4682&amp;lid=ENMedical Reference Display, 4:3 aspect ratio, 20.1" LCD, 1600x1200 native resolution.But don't ask how much it costs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631967</id>
	<title>17 inch</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1247070300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<a href="http://www.eworldsale.com/kds-k-726mwb-17-inch-wide-screen-lcd-1400-x-1050-0291mm-500\_5726\_17748.html" title="eworldsale.com">KDS K-726MWB 17 inch WIDE SCREEN LCD 1400 X 1050 0.291MM 500:1 8ms (Black)</a> [eworldsale.com]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>KDS K-726MWB 17 inch WIDE SCREEN LCD 1400 X 1050 0.291MM 500 : 1 8ms ( Black ) [ eworldsale.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
KDS K-726MWB 17 inch WIDE SCREEN LCD 1400 X 1050 0.291MM 500:1 8ms (Black) [eworldsale.com]
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630299</id>
	<title>One thing I hate</title>
	<author>Icegryphon</author>
	<datestamp>1247058120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is most all new Monitors are Widescreen, I hate that 16:9 aspect ratio.<br>
My next new one will have to be normal width 4:3 aspect ratio.<br>
Maybe I am old school, but it just looks right, <br>
besides I like to have a good resolution on more then just horizontal axis</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is most all new Monitors are Widescreen , I hate that 16 : 9 aspect ratio .
My next new one will have to be normal width 4 : 3 aspect ratio .
Maybe I am old school , but it just looks right , besides I like to have a good resolution on more then just horizontal axis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is most all new Monitors are Widescreen, I hate that 16:9 aspect ratio.
My next new one will have to be normal width 4:3 aspect ratio.
Maybe I am old school, but it just looks right, 
besides I like to have a good resolution on more then just horizontal axis</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631201</id>
	<title>What Are You Trying To Achieve By Small?</title>
	<author>nick\_davison</author>
	<datestamp>1247064420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your old CRT was a 17 inch. Understandable... 17s/19s were affordable, 21s and larger got expensive.</p><p>If your issue's price - volumes of sale mean you'll likely get a 20ish widescreen that they sell huge numbers of for the same price or less than a quirkly 17 inch with high res that's only for very, very niche user groups.</p><p>If your issue's desktop width - A 20ish inch LCD with a thin bezel is likely to be smaller than a the 17 inch CRT you're replacing.</p><p>If your issue's desktop depth - That 17 inch CRT you're replacing probably needed a good 18 inches of space between its screen and the wall for the tube. An LCD needs all of about 2 inches. If you're convinced you can't go larger than 17 because you're in a broom closet and sit crazily close, the LCD will move back further and you can have a bigger screen for the same angle of view.</p><p>There may be other reasons you specifically want to stay small. If you let us know what they are, we can suggest possible solutions that would work for you, thinking outside the box. It would be a shame for you to miss out on a far higher quality, much cheaper, better option simply because you're running with an assumption that maybe held true with CRTs but is no longer the case for LCDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your old CRT was a 17 inch .
Understandable... 17s/19s were affordable , 21s and larger got expensive.If your issue 's price - volumes of sale mean you 'll likely get a 20ish widescreen that they sell huge numbers of for the same price or less than a quirkly 17 inch with high res that 's only for very , very niche user groups.If your issue 's desktop width - A 20ish inch LCD with a thin bezel is likely to be smaller than a the 17 inch CRT you 're replacing.If your issue 's desktop depth - That 17 inch CRT you 're replacing probably needed a good 18 inches of space between its screen and the wall for the tube .
An LCD needs all of about 2 inches .
If you 're convinced you ca n't go larger than 17 because you 're in a broom closet and sit crazily close , the LCD will move back further and you can have a bigger screen for the same angle of view.There may be other reasons you specifically want to stay small .
If you let us know what they are , we can suggest possible solutions that would work for you , thinking outside the box .
It would be a shame for you to miss out on a far higher quality , much cheaper , better option simply because you 're running with an assumption that maybe held true with CRTs but is no longer the case for LCDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your old CRT was a 17 inch.
Understandable... 17s/19s were affordable, 21s and larger got expensive.If your issue's price - volumes of sale mean you'll likely get a 20ish widescreen that they sell huge numbers of for the same price or less than a quirkly 17 inch with high res that's only for very, very niche user groups.If your issue's desktop width - A 20ish inch LCD with a thin bezel is likely to be smaller than a the 17 inch CRT you're replacing.If your issue's desktop depth - That 17 inch CRT you're replacing probably needed a good 18 inches of space between its screen and the wall for the tube.
An LCD needs all of about 2 inches.
If you're convinced you can't go larger than 17 because you're in a broom closet and sit crazily close, the LCD will move back further and you can have a bigger screen for the same angle of view.There may be other reasons you specifically want to stay small.
If you let us know what they are, we can suggest possible solutions that would work for you, thinking outside the box.
It would be a shame for you to miss out on a far higher quality, much cheaper, better option simply because you're running with an assumption that maybe held true with CRTs but is no longer the case for LCDs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28635249</id>
	<title>Without killing your desk space???</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1247148720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're using a 17" Trinitron!</p><p>Compared to that behemoth, even a 22" widescreen LCD will be saving you desk space.  Take it from someone who is using a 24" widescreen Gateway on the same desk he used to use a 17" Trinitron on - I have far more desk space than I used to.</p><p>Also, Dell's site currently lists 13 monitors in the 17-19" range that do 1440x900.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're using a 17 " Trinitron ! Compared to that behemoth , even a 22 " widescreen LCD will be saving you desk space .
Take it from someone who is using a 24 " widescreen Gateway on the same desk he used to use a 17 " Trinitron on - I have far more desk space than I used to.Also , Dell 's site currently lists 13 monitors in the 17-19 " range that do 1440x900 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're using a 17" Trinitron!Compared to that behemoth, even a 22" widescreen LCD will be saving you desk space.
Take it from someone who is using a 24" widescreen Gateway on the same desk he used to use a 17" Trinitron on - I have far more desk space than I used to.Also, Dell's site currently lists 13 monitors in the 17-19" range that do 1440x900.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632705</id>
	<title>Re:HD Capable</title>
	<author>iamhassi</author>
	<datestamp>1247078340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=21" title="google.com">google 21" LCD 1920x1080</a> [google.com]  There's a <a href="http://www.buy.com/prod/asus-vh222h-21-6-widescreen-hd-lcd-monitor-1920-x-1080-20000-1-5ms-hdmi/q/loc/101/210447664.html" title="buy.com">ton</a> [buy.com] <a href="http://www.buy.com/prod/samsung-2243swx-21-5-widescreen-lcd-monitor-5ms-15000-1-dc-1920-x-1080/q/loc/101/210742852.html" title="buy.com">of</a> [buy.com] <a href="http://www.buy.com/prod/acer-h213h-bmid-21-5-widescreen-lcd-monitor-20000-1-dc-5ms-1920-x-1080/q/loc/101/209890517.html" title="buy.com">options</a> [buy.com].
<br> <br>
Seriously doesn't anyone google anymore?  It took you longer to type your question then it took me to find the answer on google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>google 21 " LCD 1920x1080 [ google.com ] There 's a ton [ buy.com ] of [ buy.com ] options [ buy.com ] .
Seriously does n't anyone google anymore ?
It took you longer to type your question then it took me to find the answer on google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google 21" LCD 1920x1080 [google.com]  There's a ton [buy.com] of [buy.com] options [buy.com].
Seriously doesn't anyone google anymore?
It took you longer to type your question then it took me to find the answer on google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632807</id>
	<title>Re:Looking for the opposite</title>
	<author>raygundan</author>
	<datestamp>1247079420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is widely available, and known as a "television" or "hdtv".  The trick is making sure you find one that has a 1:1 display mode so that there is no scaling of the input signal.  You should be able to find a 720p (likely 1366x768 or similar actual resolution) in 32" sizes relatively easily, with HDMI and VGA inputs.</p><p>Because you want to display 1024x768 rather than 1366x768, you'll have black bars on the sides-- but you should be able to find something large enough to accomodate you in the TV aisle at Costco or wherever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is widely available , and known as a " television " or " hdtv " .
The trick is making sure you find one that has a 1 : 1 display mode so that there is no scaling of the input signal .
You should be able to find a 720p ( likely 1366x768 or similar actual resolution ) in 32 " sizes relatively easily , with HDMI and VGA inputs.Because you want to display 1024x768 rather than 1366x768 , you 'll have black bars on the sides-- but you should be able to find something large enough to accomodate you in the TV aisle at Costco or wherever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is widely available, and known as a "television" or "hdtv".
The trick is making sure you find one that has a 1:1 display mode so that there is no scaling of the input signal.
You should be able to find a 720p (likely 1366x768 or similar actual resolution) in 32" sizes relatively easily, with HDMI and VGA inputs.Because you want to display 1024x768 rather than 1366x768, you'll have black bars on the sides-- but you should be able to find something large enough to accomodate you in the TV aisle at Costco or wherever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631121</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly...</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1247063760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, you won't hit HD until 22" with 1900x1080 res.</p></div><p>Samsung has a 21.5" LCD at 1920x1080.  <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001319" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">$180 after rebate at newegg</a> [newegg.com].  A pair of these decorates my desk.</p><p>Other than that, though, I think you're right; they just don't make HD-resolution standalone monitors any smaller.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , you wo n't hit HD until 22 " with 1900x1080 res.Samsung has a 21.5 " LCD at 1920x1080 .
$ 180 after rebate at newegg [ newegg.com ] .
A pair of these decorates my desk.Other than that , though , I think you 're right ; they just do n't make HD-resolution standalone monitors any smaller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, you won't hit HD until 22" with 1900x1080 res.Samsung has a 21.5" LCD at 1920x1080.
$180 after rebate at newegg [newegg.com].
A pair of these decorates my desk.Other than that, though, I think you're right; they just don't make HD-resolution standalone monitors any smaller.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630375</id>
	<title>I'm in a similar quandry.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247058600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?"</i></p><p>I'm looking for some factual data that is likely to appear somewhere on the Internet.  I don't want to make others do the work for me, so I'm looking for some kind of "engine" that might help me search various online resources simultaneously.  Is there any means by which one could do such research, and if so, where might I find it?</p><p>If possible, I'd like to do this without killing my desk space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any standalone monitor on the market that 'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space ?
" I 'm looking for some factual data that is likely to appear somewhere on the Internet .
I do n't want to make others do the work for me , so I 'm looking for some kind of " engine " that might help me search various online resources simultaneously .
Is there any means by which one could do such research , and if so , where might I find it ? If possible , I 'd like to do this without killing my desk space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?
"I'm looking for some factual data that is likely to appear somewhere on the Internet.
I don't want to make others do the work for me, so I'm looking for some kind of "engine" that might help me search various online resources simultaneously.
Is there any means by which one could do such research, and if so, where might I find it?If possible, I'd like to do this without killing my desk space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28637467</id>
	<title>Laptops have them..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247157540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. Why not desktops?</p><p>I have an older laptop (Dell, Pentium M 1.4ghz) with a 15" widesreen display that sports a 1920x1200 resolution I know they still make similar panels in laptops today. (Yes those are mind-bogglingly small pixels and yes I can count every one of them from 3 ft away) I still use this machine because with the right wm you're able to cram a wonderful amount of useful things on to the screen at the same time.</p><p>Why can't I find something similar for a desktop? I'd LOVE a small display with a super high res and I know a lot of other people would too.</p><p>The only non-widescreen panel you'll find for a reasonable price<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/will/ be a 14", 15" or 19" panel at 1280x1024. Anything else is pretty much specialty, and you'll pay out the ass for it. For other size/res I suggest getting used to 16:9 or 16:10 because that's all you are going to find.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. Why not desktops ? I have an older laptop ( Dell , Pentium M 1.4ghz ) with a 15 " widesreen display that sports a 1920x1200 resolution I know they still make similar panels in laptops today .
( Yes those are mind-bogglingly small pixels and yes I can count every one of them from 3 ft away ) I still use this machine because with the right wm you 're able to cram a wonderful amount of useful things on to the screen at the same time.Why ca n't I find something similar for a desktop ?
I 'd LOVE a small display with a super high res and I know a lot of other people would too.The only non-widescreen panel you 'll find for a reasonable price /will/ be a 14 " , 15 " or 19 " panel at 1280x1024 .
Anything else is pretty much specialty , and you 'll pay out the ass for it .
For other size/res I suggest getting used to 16 : 9 or 16 : 10 because that 's all you are going to find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. Why not desktops?I have an older laptop (Dell, Pentium M 1.4ghz) with a 15" widesreen display that sports a 1920x1200 resolution I know they still make similar panels in laptops today.
(Yes those are mind-bogglingly small pixels and yes I can count every one of them from 3 ft away) I still use this machine because with the right wm you're able to cram a wonderful amount of useful things on to the screen at the same time.Why can't I find something similar for a desktop?
I'd LOVE a small display with a super high res and I know a lot of other people would too.The only non-widescreen panel you'll find for a reasonable price /will/ be a 14", 15" or 19" panel at 1280x1024.
Anything else is pretty much specialty, and you'll pay out the ass for it.
For other size/res I suggest getting used to 16:9 or 16:10 because that's all you are going to find.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630543</id>
	<title>Re:HD Capable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247059740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is where CRTs still win out. I used to have an old 17 in CRT that did up to 2560x1600, made it really painful to read stuff on websites that specify font size, even from up close. Anyone know why LCDs don't do that? Even my 26" here only goes up to 1080i, which is a heck of a lot smaller than that.</p><p>Come to think of it, I may have just answered my own question. Stupid low resolution HD junk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is where CRTs still win out .
I used to have an old 17 in CRT that did up to 2560x1600 , made it really painful to read stuff on websites that specify font size , even from up close .
Anyone know why LCDs do n't do that ?
Even my 26 " here only goes up to 1080i , which is a heck of a lot smaller than that.Come to think of it , I may have just answered my own question .
Stupid low resolution HD junk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is where CRTs still win out.
I used to have an old 17 in CRT that did up to 2560x1600, made it really painful to read stuff on websites that specify font size, even from up close.
Anyone know why LCDs don't do that?
Even my 26" here only goes up to 1080i, which is a heck of a lot smaller than that.Come to think of it, I may have just answered my own question.
Stupid low resolution HD junk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631221</id>
	<title>Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1247064540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the further you are from the display likely the larger the pixels you want.</p></div><p>That's true for television, where the input is assumed to be a photographic image no bigger than 1920x1080 pixels. But for text on a PC, you want a higher DPI screen, and then you can use the operating system's DPI setting to put more pixels in each point. The text doesn't get smaller; it just gets sharper, much like the text on a device with an electronic paper display.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the further you are from the display likely the larger the pixels you want.That 's true for television , where the input is assumed to be a photographic image no bigger than 1920x1080 pixels .
But for text on a PC , you want a higher DPI screen , and then you can use the operating system 's DPI setting to put more pixels in each point .
The text does n't get smaller ; it just gets sharper , much like the text on a device with an electronic paper display .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the further you are from the display likely the larger the pixels you want.That's true for television, where the input is assumed to be a photographic image no bigger than 1920x1080 pixels.
But for text on a PC, you want a higher DPI screen, and then you can use the operating system's DPI setting to put more pixels in each point.
The text doesn't get smaller; it just gets sharper, much like the text on a device with an electronic paper display.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631043</id>
	<title>SGI 1600sw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SGI 1600sw. It's ancient, cost $5000 when new and had a proprietary connector. But you got 1600x1024 in a 17" monitor. And it was from a company that makes supercomputers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SGI 1600sw .
It 's ancient , cost $ 5000 when new and had a proprietary connector .
But you got 1600x1024 in a 17 " monitor .
And it was from a company that makes supercomputers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SGI 1600sw.
It's ancient, cost $5000 when new and had a proprietary connector.
But you got 1600x1024 in a 17" monitor.
And it was from a company that makes supercomputers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630675</id>
	<title>Laptop LCD screen?</title>
	<author>ikono</author>
	<datestamp>1247060520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I want to know is why there is such a dearth of 20 1080p monitors when there are 17 inch laptops with that resolution? Are those laptops misrepresenting the resolution or something? Hell, 16 inch 1080p displays exist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I want to know is why there is such a dearth of 20 1080p monitors when there are 17 inch laptops with that resolution ?
Are those laptops misrepresenting the resolution or something ?
Hell , 16 inch 1080p displays exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I want to know is why there is such a dearth of 20 1080p monitors when there are 17 inch laptops with that resolution?
Are those laptops misrepresenting the resolution or something?
Hell, 16 inch 1080p displays exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634011</id>
	<title>Re:ViewSonic is Great for this.</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1247137440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, let me guess, it's a crappy TN panel, right? If you want a decent screen you want an S-IPS or H-IPS. "Everyone knows Viewsonic displays are the best"? WTF?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , let me guess , it 's a crappy TN panel , right ?
If you want a decent screen you want an S-IPS or H-IPS .
" Everyone knows Viewsonic displays are the best " ?
WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, let me guess, it's a crappy TN panel, right?
If you want a decent screen you want an S-IPS or H-IPS.
"Everyone knows Viewsonic displays are the best"?
WTF?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28637569</id>
	<title>Rewarding laziness</title>
	<author>Krakadoom</author>
	<datestamp>1247157960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I shouldn't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. but seeing as I'm in a good mood, I'll inform the fatally lazy OP.
<br> <br>
ViewSonic VX1962wm<br>
Philips Brilliance 190BW9<br>
ASUS VW192T+
<br> <br>
All 19"ers that run at 1680x1050</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I should n't .. but seeing as I 'm in a good mood , I 'll inform the fatally lazy OP .
ViewSonic VX1962wm Philips Brilliance 190BW9 ASUS VW192T + All 19 " ers that run at 1680x1050</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I shouldn't .. but seeing as I'm in a good mood, I'll inform the fatally lazy OP.
ViewSonic VX1962wm
Philips Brilliance 190BW9
ASUS VW192T+
 
All 19"ers that run at 1680x1050</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630661</id>
	<title>Maybe a Projector?</title>
	<author>Excaliburszone</author>
	<datestamp>1247060460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can forgo the monitor and set up a projector instead. Just use your wall as the monitor and mount the projector to your ceiling. Then you should be able to have all your desk space and a ginormous screen that can double as a movie projector as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can forgo the monitor and set up a projector instead .
Just use your wall as the monitor and mount the projector to your ceiling .
Then you should be able to have all your desk space and a ginormous screen that can double as a movie projector as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can forgo the monitor and set up a projector instead.
Just use your wall as the monitor and mount the projector to your ceiling.
Then you should be able to have all your desk space and a ginormous screen that can double as a movie projector as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630249</id>
	<title>check newegg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247057940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>seriuosly.  that power search link on the right hand side of their site isn't there for nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>seriuosly .
that power search link on the right hand side of their site is n't there for nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seriuosly.
that power search link on the right hand side of their site isn't there for nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631053</id>
	<title>UXGA, WUXGA and WQXGA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can buy laptops with UXGA and WUXGA resolutions (15", 1600x1200 for UXGA, 1920x1200 for WUXGA).<br>You can also buy regular LCD's with these resolutions (probably 19" and up)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they cost more</p><p>If desk space isn't an issue, go all out, get a 30" WQXGA at 2560x1600!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can buy laptops with UXGA and WUXGA resolutions ( 15 " , 1600x1200 for UXGA , 1920x1200 for WUXGA ) .You can also buy regular LCD 's with these resolutions ( probably 19 " and up ) ... they cost moreIf desk space is n't an issue , go all out , get a 30 " WQXGA at 2560x1600 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can buy laptops with UXGA and WUXGA resolutions (15", 1600x1200 for UXGA, 1920x1200 for WUXGA).You can also buy regular LCD's with these resolutions (probably 19" and up) ... they cost moreIf desk space isn't an issue, go all out, get a 30" WQXGA at 2560x1600!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28642273</id>
	<title>High Resolution Monitor</title>
	<author>fussyoldfart</author>
	<datestamp>1247134080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.ecost.com/Detail/Monitors/Samsung/2343BWX/44831341.aspx?navid=155439091" title="ecost.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ecost.com/Detail/Monitors/Samsung/2343BWX/44831341.aspx?navid=155439091</a> [ecost.com]<br>Here's high resolution + portrait mode and it doesn't even cost much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ecost.com/Detail/Monitors/Samsung/2343BWX/44831341.aspx ? navid = 155439091 [ ecost.com ] Here 's high resolution + portrait mode and it does n't even cost much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ecost.com/Detail/Monitors/Samsung/2343BWX/44831341.aspx?navid=155439091 [ecost.com]Here's high resolution + portrait mode and it doesn't even cost much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630461</id>
	<title>Re:HD Capable</title>
	<author>MrHanky</author>
	<datestamp>1247059260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are loads of 22" LCDs with 1920x1080. How about this: <a href="http://benq.com/products/LCD/?product=1388&amp;page=specifications" title="benq.com">Link</a> [benq.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are loads of 22 " LCDs with 1920x1080 .
How about this : Link [ benq.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are loads of 22" LCDs with 1920x1080.
How about this: Link [benq.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28635501</id>
	<title>What about big, LOW resolution LCD monitors?</title>
	<author>yyr</author>
	<datestamp>1247150040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I'd really like to see is the complete opposite.
<p>
I work in IT and also have private clients.  Whether it's at work or at home, whenever I deploy an LCD monitor (and set it to the resolution it was designed for) the first request I get is to "make it bigger so I can read it."  I try to explain that this will make things very blurry, but 90\% of the time, they don't care.  If it's a widescreen monitor and their requested resolution is 4:3, and the result is stretched, they still don't care.  It's not just old people, it's middle-aged people too (very few young people work here).
</p><p>
All I ever see now are really high resolutions.  Why aren't there any new 800x600 or 1024x768 17" or 19" LCD monitors?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I 'd really like to see is the complete opposite .
I work in IT and also have private clients .
Whether it 's at work or at home , whenever I deploy an LCD monitor ( and set it to the resolution it was designed for ) the first request I get is to " make it bigger so I can read it .
" I try to explain that this will make things very blurry , but 90 \ % of the time , they do n't care .
If it 's a widescreen monitor and their requested resolution is 4 : 3 , and the result is stretched , they still do n't care .
It 's not just old people , it 's middle-aged people too ( very few young people work here ) .
All I ever see now are really high resolutions .
Why are n't there any new 800x600 or 1024x768 17 " or 19 " LCD monitors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I'd really like to see is the complete opposite.
I work in IT and also have private clients.
Whether it's at work or at home, whenever I deploy an LCD monitor (and set it to the resolution it was designed for) the first request I get is to "make it bigger so I can read it.
"  I try to explain that this will make things very blurry, but 90\% of the time, they don't care.
If it's a widescreen monitor and their requested resolution is 4:3, and the result is stretched, they still don't care.
It's not just old people, it's middle-aged people too (very few young people work here).
All I ever see now are really high resolutions.
Why aren't there any new 800x600 or 1024x768 17" or 19" LCD monitors?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630247</id>
	<title>Killing desk space?</title>
	<author>winterphoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1247057940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I upgraded from my CRT to an LCD I gained tons of desk space.  Just push your monitor back and take whatever stuff you would have had to the side of the monitor in front of it.

In my opinion, desk real estate has more to deal with footprint area than length, but maybe I'm crazy.

(Crazy like a fox)</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I upgraded from my CRT to an LCD I gained tons of desk space .
Just push your monitor back and take whatever stuff you would have had to the side of the monitor in front of it .
In my opinion , desk real estate has more to deal with footprint area than length , but maybe I 'm crazy .
( Crazy like a fox )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I upgraded from my CRT to an LCD I gained tons of desk space.
Just push your monitor back and take whatever stuff you would have had to the side of the monitor in front of it.
In my opinion, desk real estate has more to deal with footprint area than length, but maybe I'm crazy.
(Crazy like a fox)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28636761</id>
	<title>Re:Pixel density is the key factor</title>
	<author>jamiethehutt</author>
	<datestamp>1247154840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I'm posting this from a four year old Thinkpad T43, with 15" display, at 1400x1050.</i>
<br> <br>
I'm also posting for a T43 and the common models of our laptop had a 14.1" screen, which is even higher DPI (and what your probably running). I always thought that higher DPI was better for screens and this laptop has proven it for me, with sharper smother edges on fronts you read faster and more easily. When viewing images the extra sharpness is incredible compared to normal screens. I do all my browsing, writing and coding on this just because of the DPI.
<br> <br>
Finding a new screen for myself is now quite a problem. Everything looks CRAP.
<br> <br>
My desktop has a 20" Sun CRT that runs at 1600x1200 (Sony Trinitron tube) and it's colour is fantastic, it's really <b>really</b> good for gaming with. A 24" TFT is bigger but try running Baldurs Gate, which runs at 600x400, the rescaling artefacts would be terrible. Even my spare screen is a 19" 1600x1200 CRT, another Trinitron - it looks great but the extra inch is good when gaming, still I'd probably use this for the DPI if I did anything else on my desktop.
<br> <br>
So when it comes to getting new screens I really don't know what I'm going to do. All desktop TFTs look <b>crap</b>. Compared to BOTH of my CRTs they are going to have crap DPI and rubbish colour, and artefacts when resizing resolution. And all for a little extra desk space, my desk is a 12 foot by 4 foot dining table so that's not something I'm exactly short of...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm posting this from a four year old Thinkpad T43 , with 15 " display , at 1400x1050 .
I 'm also posting for a T43 and the common models of our laptop had a 14.1 " screen , which is even higher DPI ( and what your probably running ) .
I always thought that higher DPI was better for screens and this laptop has proven it for me , with sharper smother edges on fronts you read faster and more easily .
When viewing images the extra sharpness is incredible compared to normal screens .
I do all my browsing , writing and coding on this just because of the DPI .
Finding a new screen for myself is now quite a problem .
Everything looks CRAP .
My desktop has a 20 " Sun CRT that runs at 1600x1200 ( Sony Trinitron tube ) and it 's colour is fantastic , it 's really really good for gaming with .
A 24 " TFT is bigger but try running Baldurs Gate , which runs at 600x400 , the rescaling artefacts would be terrible .
Even my spare screen is a 19 " 1600x1200 CRT , another Trinitron - it looks great but the extra inch is good when gaming , still I 'd probably use this for the DPI if I did anything else on my desktop .
So when it comes to getting new screens I really do n't know what I 'm going to do .
All desktop TFTs look crap .
Compared to BOTH of my CRTs they are going to have crap DPI and rubbish colour , and artefacts when resizing resolution .
And all for a little extra desk space , my desk is a 12 foot by 4 foot dining table so that 's not something I 'm exactly short of.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm posting this from a four year old Thinkpad T43, with 15" display, at 1400x1050.
I'm also posting for a T43 and the common models of our laptop had a 14.1" screen, which is even higher DPI (and what your probably running).
I always thought that higher DPI was better for screens and this laptop has proven it for me, with sharper smother edges on fronts you read faster and more easily.
When viewing images the extra sharpness is incredible compared to normal screens.
I do all my browsing, writing and coding on this just because of the DPI.
Finding a new screen for myself is now quite a problem.
Everything looks CRAP.
My desktop has a 20" Sun CRT that runs at 1600x1200 (Sony Trinitron tube) and it's colour is fantastic, it's really really good for gaming with.
A 24" TFT is bigger but try running Baldurs Gate, which runs at 600x400, the rescaling artefacts would be terrible.
Even my spare screen is a 19" 1600x1200 CRT, another Trinitron - it looks great but the extra inch is good when gaming, still I'd probably use this for the DPI if I did anything else on my desktop.
So when it comes to getting new screens I really don't know what I'm going to do.
All desktop TFTs look crap.
Compared to BOTH of my CRTs they are going to have crap DPI and rubbish colour, and artefacts when resizing resolution.
And all for a little extra desk space, my desk is a 12 foot by 4 foot dining table so that's not something I'm exactly short of...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631821</id>
	<title>Re:I read the "answers", now I feel for you..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There were even monitors with this kind of attributes a few years back. About 4 years ago I bought my which has the minimal DPI resolution you mentioned. I'm a bit astonished that time stood still in this sector for this amount of time. Not "Moor-ish" at all.</p></div></blockquote><p>
While we're at it, it's even hard to find CRTs like this.
</p><p>
I retired an old CRT that did 1600x1200x72Hz on analog VGA.  Finally died with a bit of smoke.  I got a great replacement that does 1600x1200x85Hz, and that handles 1920x1440x72Hz, but its analog VGA cable is <em>built into the monitor</em>, and cannot be (easily) replaced.  The cable is noticeably thinner and more flexible than the 10-year-old "good" VGA cable I was using on the old monitor.  Every vertical line has a minor analog ringing/echoing/ghosting artifact beside it.
</p><p>
One of these weekends, I'm going to attack it with a soldering iron so I can once again use a properly shielded cable.  There's nothing wrong with the monitor.  I looked it up - it was a high-end monitor in its day a few years ago - yet they still chose to "save" $1.00 by using a cheap cable integral to the monitor.  I hate to go all tinfoil here, but you'd almost think they were <em>trying</em> to force everyone to flat panels.
</p><p>
(I don't have anything against flat panels either, but it drives me nuts that I can't get 100+ pixels per inch in flat panel form, when my eyes, on a suitably-calibrated CRT with a suitably-narrow dot pitch, can make use of 110-120ish.  I paid $0.00 for this CRT, someone who ran it at 1280x1024 and who didn't know how to adjust its convergence was <em>throwing it out</em>!)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There were even monitors with this kind of attributes a few years back .
About 4 years ago I bought my which has the minimal DPI resolution you mentioned .
I 'm a bit astonished that time stood still in this sector for this amount of time .
Not " Moor-ish " at all .
While we 're at it , it 's even hard to find CRTs like this .
I retired an old CRT that did 1600x1200x72Hz on analog VGA .
Finally died with a bit of smoke .
I got a great replacement that does 1600x1200x85Hz , and that handles 1920x1440x72Hz , but its analog VGA cable is built into the monitor , and can not be ( easily ) replaced .
The cable is noticeably thinner and more flexible than the 10-year-old " good " VGA cable I was using on the old monitor .
Every vertical line has a minor analog ringing/echoing/ghosting artifact beside it .
One of these weekends , I 'm going to attack it with a soldering iron so I can once again use a properly shielded cable .
There 's nothing wrong with the monitor .
I looked it up - it was a high-end monitor in its day a few years ago - yet they still chose to " save " $ 1.00 by using a cheap cable integral to the monitor .
I hate to go all tinfoil here , but you 'd almost think they were trying to force everyone to flat panels .
( I do n't have anything against flat panels either , but it drives me nuts that I ca n't get 100 + pixels per inch in flat panel form , when my eyes , on a suitably-calibrated CRT with a suitably-narrow dot pitch , can make use of 110-120ish .
I paid $ 0.00 for this CRT , someone who ran it at 1280x1024 and who did n't know how to adjust its convergence was throwing it out !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were even monitors with this kind of attributes a few years back.
About 4 years ago I bought my which has the minimal DPI resolution you mentioned.
I'm a bit astonished that time stood still in this sector for this amount of time.
Not "Moor-ish" at all.
While we're at it, it's even hard to find CRTs like this.
I retired an old CRT that did 1600x1200x72Hz on analog VGA.
Finally died with a bit of smoke.
I got a great replacement that does 1600x1200x85Hz, and that handles 1920x1440x72Hz, but its analog VGA cable is built into the monitor, and cannot be (easily) replaced.
The cable is noticeably thinner and more flexible than the 10-year-old "good" VGA cable I was using on the old monitor.
Every vertical line has a minor analog ringing/echoing/ghosting artifact beside it.
One of these weekends, I'm going to attack it with a soldering iron so I can once again use a properly shielded cable.
There's nothing wrong with the monitor.
I looked it up - it was a high-end monitor in its day a few years ago - yet they still chose to "save" $1.00 by using a cheap cable integral to the monitor.
I hate to go all tinfoil here, but you'd almost think they were trying to force everyone to flat panels.
(I don't have anything against flat panels either, but it drives me nuts that I can't get 100+ pixels per inch in flat panel form, when my eyes, on a suitably-calibrated CRT with a suitably-narrow dot pitch, can make use of 110-120ish.
I paid $0.00 for this CRT, someone who ran it at 1280x1024 and who didn't know how to adjust its convergence was throwing it out!
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633367</id>
	<title>SGI 1600SW</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1247130780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an old SGI 1600SW 17" monitor, which does 1600x1024 natively (widescreen) which is very similar in size and res to the older 17" macbook pro (1680x1050)... The new macbook pro 17" does 1920x1200 on the same size screen so it must be possible to make a standalone monitor at that res/size...</p><p>One of the biggest things holding back resolutions tho, is as always, windows... windows doesn't detect the monitor dpi properly, so a larger screen at the same resolution will result in everything getting bigger, while a higher resolution just results in everything getting smaller (and often unreadable) rather than simply becoming more detailed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an old SGI 1600SW 17 " monitor , which does 1600x1024 natively ( widescreen ) which is very similar in size and res to the older 17 " macbook pro ( 1680x1050 ) ... The new macbook pro 17 " does 1920x1200 on the same size screen so it must be possible to make a standalone monitor at that res/size...One of the biggest things holding back resolutions tho , is as always , windows... windows does n't detect the monitor dpi properly , so a larger screen at the same resolution will result in everything getting bigger , while a higher resolution just results in everything getting smaller ( and often unreadable ) rather than simply becoming more detailed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an old SGI 1600SW 17" monitor, which does 1600x1024 natively (widescreen) which is very similar in size and res to the older 17" macbook pro (1680x1050)... The new macbook pro 17" does 1920x1200 on the same size screen so it must be possible to make a standalone monitor at that res/size...One of the biggest things holding back resolutions tho, is as always, windows... windows doesn't detect the monitor dpi properly, so a larger screen at the same resolution will result in everything getting bigger, while a higher resolution just results in everything getting smaller (and often unreadable) rather than simply becoming more detailed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632641</id>
	<title>Re:One thing I hate</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1247077500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its because you can make a monitor for computer use and use the same lcd panels in a tv.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its because you can make a monitor for computer use and use the same lcd panels in a tv .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its because you can make a monitor for computer use and use the same lcd panels in a tv.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630795</id>
	<title>moar forums</title>
	<author>xSauronx</author>
	<datestamp>1247061420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>some of you guys need to find a tech forum to call home. to me, these kinds of questions always seem out of place on the front page here. places like arstechnica or anandtech have good forums with tech users and sub forums for information on various technology, hardware, peripherals, networking and general OS help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>some of you guys need to find a tech forum to call home .
to me , these kinds of questions always seem out of place on the front page here .
places like arstechnica or anandtech have good forums with tech users and sub forums for information on various technology , hardware , peripherals , networking and general OS help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some of you guys need to find a tech forum to call home.
to me, these kinds of questions always seem out of place on the front page here.
places like arstechnica or anandtech have good forums with tech users and sub forums for information on various technology, hardware, peripherals, networking and general OS help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631005</id>
	<title>Re:HD Capable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247062800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My ThinkPad T61p has a 15.4" LCD that does 1920x1200 and I love it.  My previous TP T60p was 15" 1600x1200 and this was a nice upgrade.  A lot of 17" laptops can do 1920x1200 but I haven't seen desktop displays that are that high in resolution under 20".  You'd think there might be something out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My ThinkPad T61p has a 15.4 " LCD that does 1920x1200 and I love it .
My previous TP T60p was 15 " 1600x1200 and this was a nice upgrade .
A lot of 17 " laptops can do 1920x1200 but I have n't seen desktop displays that are that high in resolution under 20 " .
You 'd think there might be something out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My ThinkPad T61p has a 15.4" LCD that does 1920x1200 and I love it.
My previous TP T60p was 15" 1600x1200 and this was a nice upgrade.
A lot of 17" laptops can do 1920x1200 but I haven't seen desktop displays that are that high in resolution under 20".
You'd think there might be something out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630501</id>
	<title>The panels are in laptops, but not desktops.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247059500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple's 17" MacBook Pro can be had with a 1920x1200 17" LED backlit panel, so clearly the technology is out there, and being mass produced.</p><p>Still, no one has a desktop display of the same specs, at least that I can find.  I suspect a large part of the reason is you're generally expected to be sitting further from the display at your desktop, and the further you are from the display likely the larger the pixels you want.</p><p>I wold like higher DPI displays in all resolutions though.  IBM used to make 200DPI displays, but I think they stopped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's 17 " MacBook Pro can be had with a 1920x1200 17 " LED backlit panel , so clearly the technology is out there , and being mass produced.Still , no one has a desktop display of the same specs , at least that I can find .
I suspect a large part of the reason is you 're generally expected to be sitting further from the display at your desktop , and the further you are from the display likely the larger the pixels you want.I wold like higher DPI displays in all resolutions though .
IBM used to make 200DPI displays , but I think they stopped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's 17" MacBook Pro can be had with a 1920x1200 17" LED backlit panel, so clearly the technology is out there, and being mass produced.Still, no one has a desktop display of the same specs, at least that I can find.
I suspect a large part of the reason is you're generally expected to be sitting further from the display at your desktop, and the further you are from the display likely the larger the pixels you want.I wold like higher DPI displays in all resolutions though.
IBM used to make 200DPI displays, but I think they stopped.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632473</id>
	<title>SGI 1600SW</title>
	<author>BlacKat</author>
	<datestamp>1247075700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, it may be a decade old but mine is still going strong and has 110dpi, 17.3" widescreen, 1600x1024 native resolution.</p><p>Only downsides are that it not supported by anyone, so eBay is the only real place to find them, and you need an adapter to convert the LVDI to DVI, though many of the ones I have seen on eBay come with the adapter built in.</p><p>However, if you want a high-quality screen that is still comparable to monitors made today, I would suggest looking at them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , it may be a decade old but mine is still going strong and has 110dpi , 17.3 " widescreen , 1600x1024 native resolution.Only downsides are that it not supported by anyone , so eBay is the only real place to find them , and you need an adapter to convert the LVDI to DVI , though many of the ones I have seen on eBay come with the adapter built in.However , if you want a high-quality screen that is still comparable to monitors made today , I would suggest looking at them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, it may be a decade old but mine is still going strong and has 110dpi, 17.3" widescreen, 1600x1024 native resolution.Only downsides are that it not supported by anyone, so eBay is the only real place to find them, and you need an adapter to convert the LVDI to DVI, though many of the ones I have seen on eBay come with the adapter built in.However, if you want a high-quality screen that is still comparable to monitors made today, I would suggest looking at them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631187</id>
	<title>Drop down to 72Hz</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1247064240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's silly to run at 80Hz. You will get more video bandwidth by running at 72Hz. This could be enough to improve the performance of an aged CRT. You may also be able to do 1600 x 1200 although that gets a little blurry on 17". This is why I stick with a 21"CRT for my primary display since I can get the flexibility of a wide range of resolutions and the high resolutions are better than what you can get in an affordable LCD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's silly to run at 80Hz .
You will get more video bandwidth by running at 72Hz .
This could be enough to improve the performance of an aged CRT .
You may also be able to do 1600 x 1200 although that gets a little blurry on 17 " .
This is why I stick with a 21 " CRT for my primary display since I can get the flexibility of a wide range of resolutions and the high resolutions are better than what you can get in an affordable LCD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's silly to run at 80Hz.
You will get more video bandwidth by running at 72Hz.
This could be enough to improve the performance of an aged CRT.
You may also be able to do 1600 x 1200 although that gets a little blurry on 17".
This is why I stick with a 21"CRT for my primary display since I can get the flexibility of a wide range of resolutions and the high resolutions are better than what you can get in an affordable LCD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630595</id>
	<title>Use a Monitor Arm</title>
	<author>Optera</author>
	<datestamp>1247060100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Buy a large LCD monitor and use a good monitor arm with an 18 inch+ reach.  You'll get a big display that takes up practically no desktop space.  At work I use a Humanscale monitor arm which is very nice (but so expensive I would probably never buy one for home use).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy a large LCD monitor and use a good monitor arm with an 18 inch + reach .
You 'll get a big display that takes up practically no desktop space .
At work I use a Humanscale monitor arm which is very nice ( but so expensive I would probably never buy one for home use ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy a large LCD monitor and use a good monitor arm with an 18 inch+ reach.
You'll get a big display that takes up practically no desktop space.
At work I use a Humanscale monitor arm which is very nice (but so expensive I would probably never buy one for home use).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630645</id>
	<title>17" 1440x900?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247060340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are quite a few 17" monitors that run at 1440x900.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are quite a few 17 " monitors that run at 1440x900 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are quite a few 17" monitors that run at 1440x900.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631661</id>
	<title>Re:Pixel density is the key factor</title>
	<author>linuxtuba</author>
	<datestamp>1247067960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I thought surely IBM would provide an engineering-quality display @ &gt; 116 PPI, but if they do, I can't find it</p></div><p>The IBM T221 would work. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM\_T220/T221\_LCD\_monitors" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">T221</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought surely IBM would provide an engineering-quality display @ &gt; 116 PPI , but if they do , I ca n't find itThe IBM T221 would work .
T221 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I thought surely IBM would provide an engineering-quality display @ &gt; 116 PPI, but if they do, I can't find itThe IBM T221 would work.
T221 [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28637053</id>
	<title>DIY Solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247155920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go to <a href="http://www.agilentpixel.com/" title="agilentpixel.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.agilentpixel.com/</a> [agilentpixel.com] and pick up an LP171WU5 ($250) and a controller card ($74), for a 17" monitor that runs at 1920x1200.  It is a nice setup.  They sell enclosures to make it a standalone monitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to http : //www.agilentpixel.com/ [ agilentpixel.com ] and pick up an LP171WU5 ( $ 250 ) and a controller card ( $ 74 ) , for a 17 " monitor that runs at 1920x1200 .
It is a nice setup .
They sell enclosures to make it a standalone monitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to http://www.agilentpixel.com/ [agilentpixel.com] and pick up an LP171WU5 ($250) and a controller card ($74), for a 17" monitor that runs at 1920x1200.
It is a nice setup.
They sell enclosures to make it a standalone monitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631789</id>
	<title>Re:Pixel density is the key factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IBM hasn't made Thinkpads or monitors for quite a while</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM has n't made Thinkpads or monitors for quite a while</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM hasn't made Thinkpads or monitors for quite a while</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28638731</id>
	<title>Medical LCD's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247163180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know there are much higher than normal native resolution medical displays which are LCD's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know there are much higher than normal native resolution medical displays which are LCD 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know there are much higher than normal native resolution medical displays which are LCD's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630433</id>
	<title>Wall mount it...?</title>
	<author>SteelRealm</author>
	<datestamp>1247059020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're considered about space... put it on the wall.  You'll save desk space and I'm sure there is nothing really important you wanna look at behind your CTR.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're considered about space... put it on the wall .
You 'll save desk space and I 'm sure there is nothing really important you wan na look at behind your CTR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're considered about space... put it on the wall.
You'll save desk space and I'm sure there is nothing really important you wanna look at behind your CTR.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631297</id>
	<title>Re:I read the "answers", now I feel for you..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247065260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that a quick Google search of [17" lcd 1400x1050] reveals:</p><p><a href="http://www.eworldsale.com/kds-k-726mwb-17-inch-wide-screen-lcd-1400-x-1050-0291mm-500\_5708\_17748.html" title="eworldsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.eworldsale.com/kds-k-726mwb-17-inch-wide-screen-lcd-1400-x-1050-0291mm-500\_5708\_17748.html</a> [eworldsale.com]</p><p>So yes, there is a 17" LCD that runs at 1400x1050. There may even be other brands and models available, but I stopped after I found what I was looking for. Which was the first link returned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that a quick Google search of [ 17 " lcd 1400x1050 ] reveals : http : //www.eworldsale.com/kds-k-726mwb-17-inch-wide-screen-lcd-1400-x-1050-0291mm-500 \ _5708 \ _17748.html [ eworldsale.com ] So yes , there is a 17 " LCD that runs at 1400x1050 .
There may even be other brands and models available , but I stopped after I found what I was looking for .
Which was the first link returned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that a quick Google search of [17" lcd 1400x1050] reveals:http://www.eworldsale.com/kds-k-726mwb-17-inch-wide-screen-lcd-1400-x-1050-0291mm-500\_5708\_17748.html [eworldsale.com]So yes, there is a 17" LCD that runs at 1400x1050.
There may even be other brands and models available, but I stopped after I found what I was looking for.
Which was the first link returned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630811</id>
	<title>Re:Killing desk space?</title>
	<author>Pentium100</author>
	<datestamp>1247061480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on the desk. I put my 21" CRT monitor in a corner, so it really takes not a lot of space on the desk. However, since the monitor is in the corner, there is not much space to the sides of it. Someone suggested to me that I buy two LCD monitors and put them on my desk - I could do that, but only one monitor behind the other.</p><p>In any case, I'm happy with my CRT monitor and won't change it (I'll but another CRT someday (yes, it will have to be a used one) just to have a second spare - I have one now, but it's only 17").</p><p>What I like about my monitor is that it can display 1920x1440@85Hz (for HD movies, though I can set it to 1920x1200 and adjust the height) and 1600x1200 (for usual stuff, since text at 1920x1440 is hard to read) without any problems or artifacts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on the desk .
I put my 21 " CRT monitor in a corner , so it really takes not a lot of space on the desk .
However , since the monitor is in the corner , there is not much space to the sides of it .
Someone suggested to me that I buy two LCD monitors and put them on my desk - I could do that , but only one monitor behind the other.In any case , I 'm happy with my CRT monitor and wo n't change it ( I 'll but another CRT someday ( yes , it will have to be a used one ) just to have a second spare - I have one now , but it 's only 17 " ) .What I like about my monitor is that it can display 1920x1440 @ 85Hz ( for HD movies , though I can set it to 1920x1200 and adjust the height ) and 1600x1200 ( for usual stuff , since text at 1920x1440 is hard to read ) without any problems or artifacts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on the desk.
I put my 21" CRT monitor in a corner, so it really takes not a lot of space on the desk.
However, since the monitor is in the corner, there is not much space to the sides of it.
Someone suggested to me that I buy two LCD monitors and put them on my desk - I could do that, but only one monitor behind the other.In any case, I'm happy with my CRT monitor and won't change it (I'll but another CRT someday (yes, it will have to be a used one) just to have a second spare - I have one now, but it's only 17").What I like about my monitor is that it can display 1920x1440@85Hz (for HD movies, though I can set it to 1920x1200 and adjust the height) and 1600x1200 (for usual stuff, since text at 1920x1440 is hard to read) without any problems or artifacts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28644785</id>
	<title>Look for a professional grade monitor</title>
	<author>freak132</author>
	<datestamp>1247146740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would suggest that the poster look into professional monitors. I've noticed that consumer laptops also have low resolution displays do not compare to my old thinkpad which happens to be corporate grade. Back when I was looking for a high resolution CRT I went with a professional 19" that hit 2048x1536.

In summary: look for a distributor for professional monitors instead of in the consumer stores. Professional monitors have higher resolutions in my experience, at a premium of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would suggest that the poster look into professional monitors .
I 've noticed that consumer laptops also have low resolution displays do not compare to my old thinkpad which happens to be corporate grade .
Back when I was looking for a high resolution CRT I went with a professional 19 " that hit 2048x1536 .
In summary : look for a distributor for professional monitors instead of in the consumer stores .
Professional monitors have higher resolutions in my experience , at a premium of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would suggest that the poster look into professional monitors.
I've noticed that consumer laptops also have low resolution displays do not compare to my old thinkpad which happens to be corporate grade.
Back when I was looking for a high resolution CRT I went with a professional 19" that hit 2048x1536.
In summary: look for a distributor for professional monitors instead of in the consumer stores.
Professional monitors have higher resolutions in my experience, at a premium of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630351</id>
	<title>LCDs don't take that much desk space.</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247058420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being thin,  LCD's don't take much desk space.  Go for a 20".  My Dell 2007WFP has a native resolution of 1680x1050, for example. and uses a little more than 24 sq. inch of desk space.  That's less desk space than the 17" Dell Trinitron it replaced.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being thin , LCD 's do n't take much desk space .
Go for a 20 " .
My Dell 2007WFP has a native resolution of 1680x1050 , for example .
and uses a little more than 24 sq .
inch of desk space .
That 's less desk space than the 17 " Dell Trinitron it replaced .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being thin,  LCD's don't take much desk space.
Go for a 20".
My Dell 2007WFP has a native resolution of 1680x1050, for example.
and uses a little more than 24 sq.
inch of desk space.
That's less desk space than the 17" Dell Trinitron it replaced.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634415</id>
	<title>What's the dot pitch of the CRT?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247141760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because I would be VERY surprised to find it's much less than 0.26mm. That's the pitch between the colour phosphors.</p><p>1400 is finer than the mesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because I would be VERY surprised to find it 's much less than 0.26mm .
That 's the pitch between the colour phosphors.1400 is finer than the mesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because I would be VERY surprised to find it's much less than 0.26mm.
That's the pitch between the colour phosphors.1400 is finer than the mesh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631541</id>
	<title>Free Desk Space</title>
	<author>karlandtanya</author>
	<datestamp>1247067240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stick the desk in a corner, diagonally.<br>Put an old stool in the corner behind it.  Adjust height A/R with a saw, a 2x4, &amp; some nails.<br>Put tube monitor on the stool.<br>Free desk space.</p><p>Look, if you're jonesin' for a shiny new monitor, just buy the damned thing and enjoy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stick the desk in a corner , diagonally.Put an old stool in the corner behind it .
Adjust height A/R with a saw , a 2x4 , &amp; some nails.Put tube monitor on the stool.Free desk space.Look , if you 're jonesin ' for a shiny new monitor , just buy the damned thing and enjoy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stick the desk in a corner, diagonally.Put an old stool in the corner behind it.
Adjust height A/R with a saw, a 2x4, &amp; some nails.Put tube monitor on the stool.Free desk space.Look, if you're jonesin' for a shiny new monitor, just buy the damned thing and enjoy it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630753</id>
	<title>Ban faggots in the USA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Faggots eat the shit from other faggots asses. Do you want that in your community?<br> <br>Write to President Obama and your senators and representatives and ask them to ban faggots in the United States.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Faggots eat the shit from other faggots asses .
Do you want that in your community ?
Write to President Obama and your senators and representatives and ask them to ban faggots in the United States .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Faggots eat the shit from other faggots asses.
Do you want that in your community?
Write to President Obama and your senators and representatives and ask them to ban faggots in the United States.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28642025</id>
	<title>LCDs better with convergence, DVI, etc. Used deals</title>
	<author>bored</author>
	<datestamp>1247133000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First let me say, I've been stuck at sub 2kx1.5k since the early 90's when the first 21" 1900x1280 monitors became affordable. I write/test a lot of code and vertical real estate has a significant affect on my productivity. Now, I use three Samsung 204T's (PVA, 1600x1200, 20"). Two are rotated 90 degrees. My laptop is a lenovo T61p with IPS 1900x1200 15.4" monitor. The lenovo display is fantastic even if it is wide screen. What I wouldn't give to have that kind of PPI in a 24" 4:3..</p><p>How do rotated 20" LCDs compare with two large CRT's? I wouldn't go back. Its primarily two things. First, at those resolutions I would converge my monitors daily. I've never seen a monitor that could run at those resolutions that would stay converged for any length of time. Plus, depending on luck/quality a lot of larger (&gt;19") monitors couldn't keep the edges converged when the center was. My last CRT's had controls which allowed me to converge different parts of the screen, even then, there were areas with issues. The LCD simply doesn't have that problem.</p><p>The second area is DVI, while DVI has its own issues, I've never seen it smear. This is especially important because when I rotate the monitors I really notice video card DAC, or cabling issues. I think its because I've been trained to ignore a certain amount of horizontal bleed, when it shows up vertically the picture looks terrible.</p><p>Finally, there a number of other pluses, for example, I'm sure I have less eye strain now, more desk space, etc.</p><p>In the end, I believe the current crop of LCD monitors are mass produced trash. As others have stated you can get a 24" and rotate it 90. The problem is that I haven't seen a non TN 24" panel, assuming you can even find a 24" with a rotating base, the monitors look terrible when you rotate them. I picked up another 204T a few months ago, via an authorized samsung refurbishing company, for a "used" monitor it was a ripoff, compared with a new non TN one, a fairly decent deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First let me say , I 've been stuck at sub 2kx1.5k since the early 90 's when the first 21 " 1900x1280 monitors became affordable .
I write/test a lot of code and vertical real estate has a significant affect on my productivity .
Now , I use three Samsung 204T 's ( PVA , 1600x1200 , 20 " ) .
Two are rotated 90 degrees .
My laptop is a lenovo T61p with IPS 1900x1200 15.4 " monitor .
The lenovo display is fantastic even if it is wide screen .
What I would n't give to have that kind of PPI in a 24 " 4 : 3..How do rotated 20 " LCDs compare with two large CRT 's ?
I would n't go back .
Its primarily two things .
First , at those resolutions I would converge my monitors daily .
I 've never seen a monitor that could run at those resolutions that would stay converged for any length of time .
Plus , depending on luck/quality a lot of larger ( &gt; 19 " ) monitors could n't keep the edges converged when the center was .
My last CRT 's had controls which allowed me to converge different parts of the screen , even then , there were areas with issues .
The LCD simply does n't have that problem.The second area is DVI , while DVI has its own issues , I 've never seen it smear .
This is especially important because when I rotate the monitors I really notice video card DAC , or cabling issues .
I think its because I 've been trained to ignore a certain amount of horizontal bleed , when it shows up vertically the picture looks terrible.Finally , there a number of other pluses , for example , I 'm sure I have less eye strain now , more desk space , etc.In the end , I believe the current crop of LCD monitors are mass produced trash .
As others have stated you can get a 24 " and rotate it 90 .
The problem is that I have n't seen a non TN 24 " panel , assuming you can even find a 24 " with a rotating base , the monitors look terrible when you rotate them .
I picked up another 204T a few months ago , via an authorized samsung refurbishing company , for a " used " monitor it was a ripoff , compared with a new non TN one , a fairly decent deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First let me say, I've been stuck at sub 2kx1.5k since the early 90's when the first 21" 1900x1280 monitors became affordable.
I write/test a lot of code and vertical real estate has a significant affect on my productivity.
Now, I use three Samsung 204T's (PVA, 1600x1200, 20").
Two are rotated 90 degrees.
My laptop is a lenovo T61p with IPS 1900x1200 15.4" monitor.
The lenovo display is fantastic even if it is wide screen.
What I wouldn't give to have that kind of PPI in a 24" 4:3..How do rotated 20" LCDs compare with two large CRT's?
I wouldn't go back.
Its primarily two things.
First, at those resolutions I would converge my monitors daily.
I've never seen a monitor that could run at those resolutions that would stay converged for any length of time.
Plus, depending on luck/quality a lot of larger (&gt;19") monitors couldn't keep the edges converged when the center was.
My last CRT's had controls which allowed me to converge different parts of the screen, even then, there were areas with issues.
The LCD simply doesn't have that problem.The second area is DVI, while DVI has its own issues, I've never seen it smear.
This is especially important because when I rotate the monitors I really notice video card DAC, or cabling issues.
I think its because I've been trained to ignore a certain amount of horizontal bleed, when it shows up vertically the picture looks terrible.Finally, there a number of other pluses, for example, I'm sure I have less eye strain now, more desk space, etc.In the end, I believe the current crop of LCD monitors are mass produced trash.
As others have stated you can get a 24" and rotate it 90.
The problem is that I haven't seen a non TN 24" panel, assuming you can even find a 24" with a rotating base, the monitors look terrible when you rotate them.
I picked up another 204T a few months ago, via an authorized samsung refurbishing company, for a "used" monitor it was a ripoff, compared with a new non TN one, a fairly decent deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630381</id>
	<title>Re:check newegg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247058600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But, the person wants a small, high-res LCD, correct?</p><p>Assuming 1400x1050 is the minimum the person wants, the smallest LCD newegg has available, if I am not mistaken, is 19" I believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , the person wants a small , high-res LCD , correct ? Assuming 1400x1050 is the minimum the person wants , the smallest LCD newegg has available , if I am not mistaken , is 19 " I believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, the person wants a small, high-res LCD, correct?Assuming 1400x1050 is the minimum the person wants, the smallest LCD newegg has available, if I am not mistaken, is 19" I believe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237</id>
	<title>HD Capable</title>
	<author>knothead99</author>
	<datestamp>1247057940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While you're at it, has anyone seen an HD capable (or higher) monitor smaller than 23-24 inches?  Editing HD video at 1680x1050 isn't fun but I don't really want bigger than a 21 inch monitor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While you 're at it , has anyone seen an HD capable ( or higher ) monitor smaller than 23-24 inches ?
Editing HD video at 1680x1050 is n't fun but I do n't really want bigger than a 21 inch monitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you're at it, has anyone seen an HD capable (or higher) monitor smaller than 23-24 inches?
Editing HD video at 1680x1050 isn't fun but I don't really want bigger than a 21 inch monitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630627</id>
	<title>Me too - res independence!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247060220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. What makes fonts more readable is higher DPI:  A 10 point font should be the same height on a 1600x1200 19" display and a 1024x768 19" display, just clearer on the 1600x1200, because there are more pixels making up each letter.   What I really want is a display at about 300DPI, because that'll at least begin to approach print clarity (good laser printer is 1200DPI), at least with subpixel rendering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
What makes fonts more readable is higher DPI : A 10 point font should be the same height on a 1600x1200 19 " display and a 1024x768 19 " display , just clearer on the 1600x1200 , because there are more pixels making up each letter .
What I really want is a display at about 300DPI , because that 'll at least begin to approach print clarity ( good laser printer is 1200DPI ) , at least with subpixel rendering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
What makes fonts more readable is higher DPI:  A 10 point font should be the same height on a 1600x1200 19" display and a 1024x768 19" display, just clearer on the 1600x1200, because there are more pixels making up each letter.
What I really want is a display at about 300DPI, because that'll at least begin to approach print clarity (good laser printer is 1200DPI), at least with subpixel rendering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630427</id>
	<title>Get a large LCD now. You won't regret.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247058960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget that LCD's are much less deep than CRT's so that they can be wall mounted eating zero space on the desk. Being farther from the eyes also means they need a bigger surface, so get a 22" or larger flat panel and you'll be happy. I also owned a really good 17" CRT years ago, but it was nearly impossible to place in a comfortable way for being so deep. LCD's saved my eyes and a lot of space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that LCD 's are much less deep than CRT 's so that they can be wall mounted eating zero space on the desk .
Being farther from the eyes also means they need a bigger surface , so get a 22 " or larger flat panel and you 'll be happy .
I also owned a really good 17 " CRT years ago , but it was nearly impossible to place in a comfortable way for being so deep .
LCD 's saved my eyes and a lot of space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that LCD's are much less deep than CRT's so that they can be wall mounted eating zero space on the desk.
Being farther from the eyes also means they need a bigger surface, so get a 22" or larger flat panel and you'll be happy.
I also owned a really good 17" CRT years ago, but it was nearly impossible to place in a comfortable way for being so deep.
LCD's saved my eyes and a lot of space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28636177</id>
	<title>Panel Selector SIte</title>
	<author>Liquidretro</author>
	<datestamp>1247152980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/" title="tftcentral.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/</a> [tftcentral.co.uk]

Great site and they even tell you if the panels are TN or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.tftcentral.co.uk/ [ tftcentral.co.uk ] Great site and they even tell you if the panels are TN or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/ [tftcentral.co.uk]

Great site and they even tell you if the panels are TN or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634733</id>
	<title>Just get a 24 inch monitor.</title>
	<author>pyster</author>
	<datestamp>1247145240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used 20 to 22 inch monitors at the highest resolutions my cards would support. 1600x1200, and then later 2000x1500. I was convinced that LCD monitors were junk because they just could do the resolutions I worked and played in. I was afraid a game I play, subspace, would be unplayable on them, that It would interfere with my OCD multitasking. <br> <br>
I was wrong. 1900x1200 is a fine resolution to work in. Subspace plays fine. Plenty of room for OCD multitasking clutter. And man... my monitors used to be 40-60 pounds. I always thought the picture was great, and then I picked up an LCD and was blown away. Get an LCD and an arm and you will be very happy.<br> <br>
One of the best places to research computer hardware is New Egg. User reviews (mostly helpful), best return policy, specs, advanced search options.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used 20 to 22 inch monitors at the highest resolutions my cards would support .
1600x1200 , and then later 2000x1500 .
I was convinced that LCD monitors were junk because they just could do the resolutions I worked and played in .
I was afraid a game I play , subspace , would be unplayable on them , that It would interfere with my OCD multitasking .
I was wrong .
1900x1200 is a fine resolution to work in .
Subspace plays fine .
Plenty of room for OCD multitasking clutter .
And man... my monitors used to be 40-60 pounds .
I always thought the picture was great , and then I picked up an LCD and was blown away .
Get an LCD and an arm and you will be very happy .
One of the best places to research computer hardware is New Egg .
User reviews ( mostly helpful ) , best return policy , specs , advanced search options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used 20 to 22 inch monitors at the highest resolutions my cards would support.
1600x1200, and then later 2000x1500.
I was convinced that LCD monitors were junk because they just could do the resolutions I worked and played in.
I was afraid a game I play, subspace, would be unplayable on them, that It would interfere with my OCD multitasking.
I was wrong.
1900x1200 is a fine resolution to work in.
Subspace plays fine.
Plenty of room for OCD multitasking clutter.
And man... my monitors used to be 40-60 pounds.
I always thought the picture was great, and then I picked up an LCD and was blown away.
Get an LCD and an arm and you will be very happy.
One of the best places to research computer hardware is New Egg.
User reviews (mostly helpful), best return policy, specs, advanced search options.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28637151</id>
	<title>Careful when choosing a 16x9 replacement for 4x3</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247156220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As we all know, all screens are measured diagonally.  So if you are replacing a 17" CRT 4x3 monitor with a 16x9 LCD monitor, regardless of the resolution, make sure you measure the hight of your current screen and buy a 16x9 format that is close to that height.</p><p>I had a 20" CRT and was given a 20" LCD 16x9 and promptly gave it back as it was smaller in height and the native font was smaller than I was used to even set to the same vertical resolution.</p><p>When I bought a 37" LCD screen I watched a program in 4x3 mode did the diagonal measurement and saw that it was around 34".  At that point I decided that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.91 was a good number to convert 4x3 CRT to 16x9 LCD.</p><p>So my new 22" LCD is about the same height as a 20" CRT screen.</p><p>So using 17 and dividing by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.91 you need at least an 18" LCD panel to get the same vertical space your 17" model has.</p><p>DISCLAIMER: Your results may vary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As we all know , all screens are measured diagonally .
So if you are replacing a 17 " CRT 4x3 monitor with a 16x9 LCD monitor , regardless of the resolution , make sure you measure the hight of your current screen and buy a 16x9 format that is close to that height.I had a 20 " CRT and was given a 20 " LCD 16x9 and promptly gave it back as it was smaller in height and the native font was smaller than I was used to even set to the same vertical resolution.When I bought a 37 " LCD screen I watched a program in 4x3 mode did the diagonal measurement and saw that it was around 34 " .
At that point I decided that .91 was a good number to convert 4x3 CRT to 16x9 LCD.So my new 22 " LCD is about the same height as a 20 " CRT screen.So using 17 and dividing by .91 you need at least an 18 " LCD panel to get the same vertical space your 17 " model has.DISCLAIMER : Your results may vary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we all know, all screens are measured diagonally.
So if you are replacing a 17" CRT 4x3 monitor with a 16x9 LCD monitor, regardless of the resolution, make sure you measure the hight of your current screen and buy a 16x9 format that is close to that height.I had a 20" CRT and was given a 20" LCD 16x9 and promptly gave it back as it was smaller in height and the native font was smaller than I was used to even set to the same vertical resolution.When I bought a 37" LCD screen I watched a program in 4x3 mode did the diagonal measurement and saw that it was around 34".
At that point I decided that .91 was a good number to convert 4x3 CRT to 16x9 LCD.So my new 22" LCD is about the same height as a 20" CRT screen.So using 17 and dividing by .91 you need at least an 18" LCD panel to get the same vertical space your 17" model has.DISCLAIMER: Your results may vary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631087</id>
	<title>Acer X193W+BD</title>
	<author>rahuja</author>
	<datestamp>1247063580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Been using since January<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... simply awesome with my MacBook.

<a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009127" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009127</a> [newegg.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Been using since January ... simply awesome with my MacBook .
http : //www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E16824009127 [ newegg.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Been using since January ... simply awesome with my MacBook.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009127 [newegg.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28635479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28639043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28636889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28637151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28636761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28643173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28643203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28636547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28643103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28638461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28643223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28635807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28641389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2215254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631133
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28638461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28639043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630795
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28636547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630601
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28636761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631925
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631071
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28641389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632399
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28643173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630543
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28636889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630363
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630819
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631031
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633249
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28643203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630677
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28643223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28631221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28635807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633031
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630381
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28634041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28635479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633211
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630627
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28643103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28637151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630967
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28632143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28633037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2215254.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2215254.28630703
</commentlist>
</conversation>
