WS price preformance vs 4:3 res LCDs

[Jack Bauer]

Can anyone explain to me why the WS LCDs have better specs that the equivelent priced stand LCDs. This seems strange to me as I would expect to pay more for a quality WS. Is it just down to demand, ie more people buying WS therefore they are cheaper?

 

[Baddass]

The WS models are newer in most cases and so use newer panels (often panels which have only just been released at the same kind of time as the screens). Don't always rely on paper specs though

 

[ihatelag]

The WS models are newer in most cases and so use newer panels (often panels which have only just been released at the same kind of time as the screens). Don't always rely on paper specs though

I always thought that 4:3 was value for money...but nowa days things are changing with WS looking more of a attractive offer (bang per buck) - although your point is ok, it's strange how spec's of 4:3 can parry along side the equivelent priced WS and demand the same amount of money. I can't believe demand would be the reason for the high cost of 4:3 monitors I can't really understand why a 4:3 monitor should cost as much as the WS equiv.

 

[DanF]

The same Diagonal size 4:3 will have more pixels than the WS model = Greater manufacturing costs. WS is more desirable now though and have a fair bit of R&D costs to boot holding up prices.

20" 4:3 1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels
20" 16:10 1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels

so for the same amount of money the 4:3 offers better value for money lol

 

[Jack Bauer]

I was trying to say that if more people are buying WS as long as there is no supply shortage this will push prices down.

Not that i thought i was right, just couldnt think of anything else