Power usage is a minor issue unless you're running a large business/university. People hype the power reduction of LED but there are much more important factors to a monitor.
For one thing, the 2412 is e-IPS which means it only has 6-bit color plus dithering. Its LED backlight also uses PWM and the instant on and off flicker can cause eyestrain. A CCFL backlight goes on and off more gently, due to afterglow and such. Edge-lit LED backlighting tends to have more uniformity problems than higher-end CCFL panels.
tftcentral found that the 2412 has mediocre uniformity (at least their sample).
e-IPS doesn't offer viewing angles as wide as an H-IPS monitor like this one.
Other than the resolution, which offers the extra 120 vertical pixels, I don't see why anyone would want a 2412 over an A-MVA panel if they're shopping for standard gamut. Now that A-MVA's response times are greatly improved the real contrast of those panels makes them better than the 2412. Dell does offer an A-MVA 24", although it is high-gloss. Matte screens are available from BenQ.
e-IPS was a good solution before A-MVA managed to get its pixel response speed up. Now, graphics pros should stick with higher-grade IPS but for most regular people A-MVA is a better option. However, it is unfortunate that they are limited to 1080p resolution, though.
We don't use CRTs anymore. We don't use EGA or VGA monitors. I hope the small sRGB color space is going to go away soon since GB-LED backlighting has come out and should come down in price with volume scaling.
I strongly disagree.
A 16 by 10 aspect ratio is a tremendously
important feature. You completely dismiss the extra 120 pixels of the 2412. Here's the thing, multiply that 120 pixels by the full width of the monitor and it quickly adds up to a huge amount of screen real estate. These 16:10 Dell monitors display more pixels that most 27" monitors
on the market.
16 by 9 aspect ratios were not designed for productivity, they were designed for televisions, for viewing TV and movies. 16 by 10 is more productive for most uses, for most users. Yes, that extra increment makes a big difference in day to day work.
CCFL's not only use a lot more power, they create a lot more heat. Put a few, large CCFL monitors in a room and the difference is noticeable. Especially in warmer climates, it is not a beneficial feature.
PWM? I use professional grade CRT monitors, CCFL backlit monitors, and LED backlit monitors. PWM eye strain from PWM on LED is a complete non issue. (Why CRT? They still offer very accurate color.)
You're complaining about e-IPS dithering? Were you given a "blind test", it's incredibly unlikely that you'd be able to tell the difference. Yes, the difference between an 8 and 10 bit panel is discernible, but ONLY when using specific software applications specifically designed to take advantage of the extra gamut. Lets be clear, 30 BPP screens are so rare that the number of software applications written to take advantage of them is vanishingly small.
Viewing angles? The viewing angles of the 2412 are fantastic, amazing. At least as good as the 30 bit IPS monitors we have.
As for A-MVA, many MVA panels also use dithering, not that you'd probably notice, but since you've mentioned dithering is a showstopper, just thought I'd point out that MVA is not free of that particular "scourge".
The real problem with MVA is aspect ratios. When a manufacturer starts making them in aspect ratios designed for work
instead of play
, I'll take notice. As you point out, all the A-MVA monitors are made using TV aspect ratios. Until a manufacturer releases one with a professional aspect ratio, it's not a professional solution. It's not even better for average users. Average users are better off with a reliable, long-lasting LED backlight. Average users are better off with a 16:10 aspect screen. Right now, MVA isn't even in the game.