The sad thing about all this is that it is the opposite of what technology advances are supposed to promise. We are supposed to be able to get better, faster, superior products at similar or lower costs over time. Instead we're being pushed to get inferior products at the same cost and the manufacturers will do it because it's more profitable and we'll have little choice. This case is worse than just a non-advance lateral shift in that it's deceptive too, the uninformed will just look at the so-called 'size' which thanks to diagonal measurement comes out the same.

TVs should have gone 16:10 instead of the other way around :p

Nearly all of the video I download is 16:9, but it also uses srt files for subs, and I have my players set to display them in the black area underneath the video so that it doesn't overlay. As such, 16:10 is exactly perfect for me, and 16:9 is NOT. So, no thanks.

Die Die Die.

16:9 AND TN??! It looks like even *VA panel lovers will soon be pushed to buying 'pro' screens.

Does anybody use their computer monitors for anything besides viewing videos? Umm, yeah. What are these stupid manufacturers smoking, vertical space is far more valuable than horizontal. 4:3 was ok, 16:9 is ridiculous

I have a 24" LCD in PORTRAIT mode and this widescreen trend drives me crazy.

Consumer laptops have a dumdum 1280x800 resolution too nowadays, WHY WHY WHY

TN = lame
16:9 = lame

Yay, worst of both worlds.

This just pisses me off, sorry but why the hell did they introduce 16:10 in the first place (and why 5:4 while I'm at it?)

Jesus.

Personally, I can't wait for the 221:100 monitors.

How do old games handle this, when they only support the 4:3 or thereabout rations?

Battlefield 2 and 2142 come to mind for that.

I also think this is stupid.

The DisplaySearch article said there'd be higher resolutions.

Where?

All I see here is an opportunity for LCD makers to skimp by reducing the quantity of screen by 10%, and lower resolutions for any given size rather than higher ones.

1920x1200 letterboxed > 1920x1080 anyday.

This is a shame.. those extra 120 vertical pixels actually make a pretty significant difference :\

I like the way that monitor looks - the rounded edges are nice.

You know, something interesting here...
E248WFP - 50W (typical), 80W (max) power consumption
S2409W - 31W (typical), 45W (max) power consumption

Looks like they're using a different type of CCFL, which probably causes the lower power consumption (and the lower max brightness):
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/monitors/S2409W/en/ug/about.h...
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/monitors/E248wfp/en/UG/about....

When are the 1:1 monitors coming out?????? I heard triangular displays were gonna replace all these squarish aspect ratios one day, is that true?

I get four black bars now, I can't wait to upgrade to three.

Meh, give me a 16:7 display or give me death :p

Actually this is good for people who view videos a lot on their monitor, or otherwise use it as a multi-purpose device. PC in by DVI, PS3/360/etc in by HDMI. Shame there's no component input.

1920x1080 is still better than my old 1280x1024 screen at home, and my 1680x1050 main display at work.

I'll wait for the prices to drop a bit as these displays are meant to be cheaper to make, and I might bite!

I might have to scoop up one of those older 24" if this is the way thing are heading. That's a lot of lost pixels. Seems like it would make things seem way too wide without the extra vertical viewing.

/me prays for 1280x720 in a cheap/fast TN.

I don't mind this as long as they make the monitors with some quality panels. In fact, I probably won't bite until they have an LED-backlit 16:9 display mated with a quality panel for less than an arm and a leg.