From my point of view, it is very cheap. After spending 2.4k on a U2407WFP and 1.7k on a U2410 (being addicted to large screen resolutions is the worst! ) I wouldn't think too hard about buying a U2412M at RM900. You should go for it.

This post has been edited by everling: Sep 17 2012, 01:22 PM

This was long before LED backlit displays got onto the market. Prices back then was a lot higher. The U2411 is a direct successor to the U2407WFP, and it was much cheaper. Unlike the U2412M, which is a parallel product to the U2411.

16:10 was the standard for computing displays long before 16:9 came along. 16:9 is an invader from the TV market.

1080p is also not suitable very for actual work, because it is too short when compared to 1200p displays. I have both 1080p and 1200p displays and working on the 1200p is a lot less stressful than working on the 1080p.

As for a 1440p 16:9 display, it does avoid the downside of 1080p display, by simply being larger than a 1200p display in all respects. I suppose I could accept such displays, if the 16:9 aspect ratio doesn't bother me at that screen resolution and if they weren't so expensive.

It doesn't matter if it is 23", 24", 40", or even 96". 1080p (1920x1080) is not as suitable for work as a 1200p (1920x1200) display is.

Well, a 2560x1440 16:9 display should be good enough.

Unfortunately Dell's cheap U2412M doesn't have 1:1 or scale to aspect ratio. It only has 16:10, 5:4 and 4:3 scaling. It does not have 16:9 scaling.

In Dell's line up, you would have to buy Dell's U2410 for 1:1 or scale to aspect ratio (the 1280x720 output will be upscaled to 1920x1080) options on a 1920x1200 display, which is quite cost prohibitive for most people. Otherwise you would have to look at the other brands for these options.

It is just the smallest ratio, nothing special to it.

2560:1440 = 16:9, divide by 160 pixels.
1920:1080 = 16:9, divide by 120 pixels.
1024:768 = 4:3, divide by 256 pixels.