I just came across this interesting desktop monitor

[pianowizard]

This is the first time I have seen a 19.5" 1920x1080 monitor, and it's only $89 shipped from frys.com:

http://www.frys.com/product/8309807?sit ... IN_RSLT_PG

Before this, the smallest desktop monitor with full HD was 21.5".

[85101]

Looks like it only has VGA input. That's a deal breaker for me.

[dr_st]

But at least it's not TN (VA, according to NewEgg), so may be a nice option for a basic desktop monitor.

[pianowizard]

Looks like it only has VGA input. That's a deal breaker for me.

VGA isn't always bad. Many users have problems with VGA only because they don't realize they need to adjust the pixel clock and phase, which can be achieved simply by pushing the monitor's "Auto Adjust" button. I just duplicated this browser window, and put one on my Dell sp2309w and the other on my Samsung SyncMaster 2343. Both are 2048x1152, but the Dell is VGA-driven while the Samsung is DVI-driven, and I really couldn't discern any difference in sharpness. I have had a couple of monitors that did look fuzzier when driven over VGA, but these correspond to no more than 5% of all the monitors I have used.

But at least it's not TN (VA, according to NewEgg), so may be a nice option for a basic desktop monitor.

Excellent point. Assuming this is one of the 95% of monitors that work fine with VGA, I would prefer it over any full HD or lower-res TN monitor with digital input.

This 19.5" 1080p monitor is a great choice for people who want to save desk space. It reminds me of the small number of 19.0" 1680x1050 monitors from the 16:10 era (I have the Acer X193W+BD). The vast majority of monitors with this resolution were either 20.0" or 22.0", so the 19-inchers were nice space savers.

[dr_st]

There are other problems with VGA. The cable is sensitive to interference, and it is also said that some video adapters output a poor signal via VGA. But in a typical desktop situation it can be set up so that it's quite usable.