matdem1 wrote:I just bt a 22 in IPS HP monitor at Best BUY after combing newegg, ebay and amazon.... for only $129.99 and it is great but too small....1080p of course... Why do I have to spend double just to add 4 or 5 inches of real estate at the same resolution...
Because trigonometry and engineering economics, that's why.
Assuming a 16:10 resolution, the relationship between the diagnol measurement (which you are quoting) and the lengths of the two sides is:
a^2 + (1.6 * a)^2 = b^2
...where "b" is the diagnol and "a" is the screen height.
Run the math, and the area of the 22" screen is about 217.5 in^2, while the area of the 27" screen is 327.2 in^2...a ratio of 1.5. What this means is that when the LCD manufacturer produces a giant sheet of LCD glass at their foundry, and has to decide what type of screens to print on it, they can get roughly 1.5x as many 22" screens from it as compared to 27" screens, even though both take (roughly) the same amount of manufacturing resources. Then there's the need for the OE assembler to have a backlight spreader with 1.5x as much material area, and provide about 1.5x as much illumination. In other words, the final cost is governed by an exponential relationship, not a linear one, and complicated further by the fact that demand for 22" IPS screens is much higher than the demand for more expensive 27" screens. So 22" screens are plentiful and cheap, while 27" screens are much more expensive.
Or, tl;dr version: you can get a 27" Auria-branded IPS
for $400 at Microcenter, or you can spend $300 and get one of the no-name, no-scaler models off eBay. Or, you can stick with 22" monitors and go to a multi-monitor setup. But you can't get nice things for free, because if you could, I would already have them
He who laughs last, laughs first next time.