Samsung Unveils 5M:1 Contrast Ratio LED Monitor Comments

What is wrong with the standard of 1900 x 1200 (16:10)? 16:9 only benefits the manufacturers (i.e. they can get 10% more panels out of the same amount of glass).

It's 1920x1200, not 1900x1200.

It seems to be a land grab, lower prices will hurt manufacturers in the long run by decreasing profit margins but by pumping out cheaper panels now I guess the manufacturers doing so are hoping to increase their market share so they're left standing when the novelty of cheap large screens wears off, sanity returns and people start buying what actually suits their usage best.

i hate touch buttons. with a vengeance - especially when baby sisters only need to brush a hand lightly across the surface of the touch buttons to wreck havoc on your properly tuned display (or home cinema system *cough* samsung)

@ilovethemonkeyhead - Totally agree. When touchscreen buttons are as reliable as physical ones, then I'll start liking them. My last monitor, a Samsung, had them and they were either too sensitive, or didn't register at all, when you touched them. It seems like a case of manufacturers putting them in because they're shiny & new, not because they work better then what came before.

That's possibly the most beautiful monitor I've seen. Like Peter said, I much prefer the 16:9 aspect ratio and may consider this as an upgrade to my HP w2207h - I need a 24inch screen!

@ Xiphias I kinda see where your coming from but I don't know how we ever coped with 15 and 17 inch monitors. I think 20inch is an absolute minimum but I can't ever see a need to go beyond 24, anything more than that's just overkill.