Price ranges
1920x1200 monitors used to cost about $400 around 2005.
2560x1600 monitors now cost about $700 (used) or $1100-1300 (new).
Where to find
To find some high resolution monitors:
- do a Google product search for "monitor" and filter by 2560x1600 (or desired) resolution
- search Amazon by typing in desired resolution, may need to negatively filter some monitors out
- http://30inchlcds.com/
Maximum graphics card resolution as a cause of resolution ceiling
2560x1600 is the current "maximum" of consumer-level hardware as of 2011 or so, since that is the maximum resolution of most graphics cards (you can check this yourself by looking at the specs of many consumer/professional graphics cards; I haven't checked the ATI cards as thoroughly as NVidia though). Higher resolution would require either a specialized graphics card, or quad-display configuration with two graphics cards and perhaps an adapter; I am not entirely sure about the specifics.
Reasons 1920x1200 may be the highest resolution produced
The reasons monitors probably tail off around 1920x1200 are economic reasons, due to consumers who don't know the difference between screen size and resolution, economies of scale, push to 120Hz "3d" (alternating-shutter-glasses) using up bandwidth, new LCD technologies starting off small, etc. However there may also be a minor technical reason that might possibly contribute, e.g. normal DVI supports at most WUXGA (1920x1200) at 60 Hz, and one requires "dual link" DVI (a modified version of a DVI cable with extra pins) to get higher resolutions/refresh rates.
Or as you say, it could be a conspiracy of price fixation, as another answer suggests. There are times that I have jokingly wondered that myself, with the trend in decreased monitor resolution, especially of laptops.
1920x1050 is also "Full HDTV"... and we know the power of marketing.
Special high-resolution monitors
There are a few rare monitors (e.g. IBM T220/T221 ~22" monitors) with extremely high resolution, but the DPI is so high that the pixels will blur together if you don't have 20-20 vision.
If one enters the realm of medical imaging or projectors, it is possible to achieve extremely high resolutions, but you have to be a millionaire (or company) to afford them.
Why resolution isn't the whole story
Even then, resolution isn't the whole story of a monitor, since there are issues of latency. Some monitors (like the T220s) cannot play movies or drag windows because the rise-fall latency of the pixels leads to ghosting. Many high-resolution monitors may suffer from major issues (like pink-blue areas on the 30" Dells). One may need to buy a stand to adjust the height. If someone is reading this and choosing a monitor, I would encourage them to pay attention to the details.
21920x1200 isn't unheard of for <= 24". For example, HP LP2475W has 1920x1200. – randomguy – 2010-09-17T23:39:38.720
1I have 1920x1200, which I got a few weeks back; but I had to search hard, and pay a little more for it. I think the deal is that 1920x1080 is standard HD TV res. – Lawrence Dol – 2010-09-18T06:59:36.323
1My 15" Laptop has 1920x1200 :grin: – Billy ONeal – 2010-09-21T02:35:20.153
10@randomguy: actually before the advent of "HD" the standard for 24" monitors was 1920x1200, a 10:16 ratio, the standard wide screen ratio for computer monitors. However after "HD" was invented, the people in marketing decided that dumb consumers would more likely buy something with the new catch phrase "high definition" tagged to it, thus we see many many more 1920x1080 monitors than the 1920x1200 monitors. Personally, I own a 1920x1200 monitor which i searched long and hard for because I'm more computer literate than the average consumer. 1920x1200 is better than HD! – Faken – 2010-09-21T02:36:36.083
4@Faken: I agree. I really appreciate the extra space as a programmer. – randomguy – 2010-09-21T12:11:21.623
I think that the best response to this is to get two smaller HD monitors for multitasking. My 22" 1080p monitor at work is almost wide enough to have two full windows side-by-side, but I had a lot more horizontal resolution on the two 17" CRTs that this thing replaced. – Ernie Dunbar – 2011-05-04T16:49:12.467
2Extra vertical pixels are all well and good, but everyone knows that the main reason to have a 1920x1200 display is so that, when you're watching a full HD movie that isn't anamorphic, you can still bring up the media player controls without obscuring any of the video. – Lukasa – 2011-06-18T15:22:38.057