Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

...when standard monitors have more pixels and display area (for the same diagonal size)? This has been so in the last few years and this is so now.

share|improve this question

closed as not a real question by Mokubai, 8088, Linker3000, Journeyman Geek, Sathya Jun 15 '11 at 14:42

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Please give examples. – Daniel Beck Jun 15 '11 at 14:03
Weird, to me a widescreen monitor of equivalent vertical size would have more pixels, hence wide -screen.... – Mokubai Jun 15 '11 at 14:05
Comparing diagonal size is only relevant for devices that share the same aspect ratio. – Mokubai Jun 15 '11 at 14:23
up vote 0 down vote accepted

It's because widescreen is more popular. There are several reasons for this.

There's a prevailing idea that you can 'get more done' on a widescreen monitor.
You can fit more windows side by side on a 16:10 or 16:9 monitor than you can on a 4:3 monitor. Because not everyone has the eyesight to be able to read tiny fonts and windows when using a 4:3 monitor at the native resolution, most people don't care as much about the number of pixels.

Widescreen monitors use the same 16:9 ratio as the widescreen DVD format. Having a monitor that can display this format without the 'nasty black bars' makes having a 16:9 monitor, even with a lower resolution, attractive to the average buyer.

It costs a lot less to make a lower resolution monitor, yet they're perceived as a more advanced piece of technology, so they cost more.

It's like the iPhone and the iPod Touch. The iPhone 4 retails at over $600 with no contract, yet the same equipment without a phone antenna retails for around $200.

share|improve this answer
Although some of what you say is true, none of it explains the price difference (in fact, the original poster's assertion that 4:3 monitors are cheaper isn't true) – bwall Jun 15 '11 at 14:17
Just answering the question to the best of my ability what has been asked. – Tyler Faile Jun 15 '11 at 14:20

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.