Gateway Intros New Widescreen HD Monitors

Friday, June 26th 2009

Gateway announced two new widescreen LCD monitors in its ranks. The FHD2102 bmidgz is a 21.5 inch display, while the FHD2402 bmidgz is 24 inch. Both offer a native resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels, and brightness of 300 cd/m². While the FHD2102 offers access time of 5 ms and dynamic contrast ratio of 20000:1, the FHD2402 provides 2 ms of access time and 40000:1 dynamic contrast ratio. Both monitors take input from DVI, D-Sub and HDMI. They are mounted with 2W stereo speakers. While the FHD2102 sells for $200, the FHD2402 is priced higher, at $270.

Source: TechConnect Magazine

posted by btarunr - 6:30 PM | Related News |

User comments

by lemonadesoda (8:51 PM) - Reply

The design of the foot is like a cross between a Apple Cinema stand and a Samsung Syncmaster 213/214. Looks nice except for the change in colour around the frame. They cant decide: silver or black.

by e6600 (9:53 PM) - Reply

bring on the damned low price pva and ipe panels already

by Kreij (10:07 PM) - Reply

How does one pronounce "bmidgz" ? Look like nice monitors. Gateway has been known for decent monitors.

by Kitkat (12:48 AM) - Reply

by: lemonadesoda
The design of the foot is like a cross between a Apple Cinema stand and a Samsung Syncmaster 213/214. Looks nice except for the change in colour around the frame. They cant decide: silver or black.

yeah i didnt like that change either i think the early samsungs handled that bettewr eith the silver inlet at the bottom. I want a 25.5 TOC monitor but i REALLY want them to just make a 27 allread not a 26.5 just a 27 TOC i mean. there last 2 anoucements were 24 and 22.

by richardbel (1:39 AM) - Reply

the LCD screen looks cool but im not feeling the foot...

by tastegw (4:45 AM) - Reply

i have the FHD2401, its 1920x1200, why did they reduce the resolution for the newer 24"? mine looks just like the one in the picture. but i can say, i love this monitor, could only imagine the newer one is even nicer.

by ZoneDymo (6:50 AM) - Reply

DAMN IT! Seriously what is with this boring new resolution thing. Every freaking latest monitor is 1920x1080, why dont people make higher 16:9 resolution supporting monitors, why always that freaking 1080p??

by Mussels (7:41 AM) - Reply

by: ZoneDymo
DAMN IT! Seriously what is with this boring new resolution thing. Every freaking latest monitor is 1920x1080, why dont people make higher 16:9 resolution supporting monitors, why always that freaking 1080p??

because its the standard? why did every 15" LCD use 1024x768, and every 17-19" use 1280x1024... because thats what technology allowed, and its what people wanted.

by ZoneDymo (2:02 PM) - Reply

That is not what I mean AND its also not true. They are launching 26,24,23,22 and now 21.5 inch models ALL supporting up to 1920x1080. There are 3, 23 inch monitors out there doing 2048x1152. Why are there no 24 inch models with even higher, not to mention 26 inch models. Why is there no 30 inch model in 16:9?

by Mussels (2:17 PM) - Reply

by: ZoneDymo
That is not what I mean AND its also not true. They are launching 26,24,23,22 and now 21.5 inch models ALL supporting up to 1920x1080. There are 3, 23 inch monitors out there doing 2048x1152. Why are there no 24 inch models with even higher, not to mention 26 inch models. Why is there no 30 inch model in 16:9?

because its expensive, and the next resolution up in 16:9 hasnt been agreed upon by whoever does such things. we had SD, HD, and 'full' HD TV's at their respective resolutions - but the one above has not been decided yet. TV's and PC screens are linked now - same aspect ratio, same resolutions.

by ZoneDymo (9:23 AM) - Reply

Indeed and that is mind blowingly stupid. Use to be 4:3 screens and monitors could do all the way up 2048x1536 and the 16:10 monitors could do 2308x1350 (something like that). Then came along LCD, 16:10, resolutions depending on size, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600. And now with 16:9 it suddenly all different and a problem? Like I said there ARE already 16:9 model monitors doing 2048x1152 and there are Quad HD tv screens.

by Mussels (9:26 AM) - Reply

by: ZoneDymo
Like I said there ARE already 16:9 model monitors doing 2048x1152 and there are Quad HD tv screens.

and they are expensive, hard to manufacture, and not popular. 1080P is a struggle for gaming on PC, HD consoles and blu ray can only go up to it... there is zero pressure for a company to release a screen with a higher resolution. THey will eventually, but why when no one would buy it?

by ZoneDymo (9:31 AM) - Reply

umm there where screens with higher resolutions before? People still want them for editing and autoCAD etc? Also I can game with an 8800GTS G92 on 2048x1536 just fine so saying its a struggle is bs, people are also running multiple monitors at the same time which increases the res even more.

by Mussels (9:47 AM) - Reply

by: ZoneDymo
umm there where screens with higher resolutions before? People still want them for editing and autoCAD etc? Also I can game with an 8800GTS G92 on 2048x1536 just fine so saying its a struggle is bs, people are also running multiple monitors at the same time which increases the res even more.

i'm running a 1080P screen with 4870 crossfire. many games lag on max settings on my machine - there is no way you're getting decent FPS on high settings at that resolution.

by ZoneDymo (2:51 PM) - Reply

well sorry but I am, not in Crysis ofcourse, but in Bioshock, CoD4, R6 Vegas 2, Dead Space, Oblivion, the Witcher, BF2142, I am.

Post your own comment

Username:
Password:
Register Here!