12-18-2006, 06:40 PM
|
#1
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Calgary
|
Flat Screen Monitor's is it better to get a 20" or a 19"
I've been looking at getting a new monitor as the one I own is like 15 years old and is not as good as it once was. now i'm looking at a new flat screen and there seems to be a descent drop in price from the 20" to the 19" and since Cp is great for advice on purchases such as this I was wondering what everyone else thinks?
|
|
|
12-18-2006, 06:49 PM
|
#2
|
Scoring Winger
|
at 20 you get the jump in native resolution to 1600x1200 so its worth it if you want that. 19 you get 1280x1024.
|
|
|
12-18-2006, 06:54 PM
|
#3
|
Atomic Nerd
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Calgary
|
Bigger is better. But I have to ask, do you usually like icons and text big on your monitor? Or would you rather have them small and sharp with a lot of extra real-estate space on your desktop?
That's the problem I encounter most with people adjusting from old monitors to newer ones because they have problems adjusting to the jump in resolution.
Keep in mind, that with LCD monitors, not using the native resolution (1280x1024 for 19" and 1600x1200 for 20") will lead to a blurry image that is interpolated.
Also, are you looking for widescreen or normal 4:3?
|
|
|
12-18-2006, 06:58 PM
|
#4
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Calgary
|
well currently I have an NEC MutiSync 5D, I'm running my resolution at 1024X768, I have all my icons set down the left side.
I don't really know the pro's and con's on Wide Screen or Normal but am leaning towards Normal just because Widescreen looks a bit wierd at the moment but if it's better picture and will play games better (BF2, Madden, Nhl'07, Tiger Woods, Etc.) then I'm all for it, 19-20" are basically the one in my price range.
|
|
|
12-18-2006, 06:59 PM
|
#5
|
wins 10 internets
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: slightly to the left
|
i'd recommend the Viewsonic VX2025wm. it's a 20 inch widescreen for a great price, and the monitor itself is one of the best. i've been extremely happy with mine ever since i got it. most every game out now supports a 1680x1050 resolution (which is the native for this monitor) so there are no real drawbacks
|
|
|
12-18-2006, 07:17 PM
|
#6
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Violating Copyrights
|
You get more area with a 16X10 monitor as well. At 20'' you will get 300 sq in and at 4X3 you get 285 sq in.
|
|
|
12-18-2006, 08:40 PM
|
#7
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Calgary
|
__________________
GO FLAMES GO
|
|
|
12-18-2006, 09:15 PM
|
#9
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Violating Copyrights
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by edn88
|
Bah...
If you go that big, you may as well go HD.
Cinema display
|
|
|
12-18-2006, 09:27 PM
|
#11
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Violating Copyrights
|
Just noticed that. Dell should advertise HD. Apple still gets first pick at panels though.
|
|
|
12-18-2006, 09:31 PM
|
#12
|
The new goggles also do nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
|
True, and I think Apple's electronics are a bit better. Reviews seem to have them pretty close though. I wouldn't not take one!
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
|
|
|
12-18-2006, 11:15 PM
|
#13
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
|
I've got two 19". One Dell 1907 and a Samsung 940BW. The Samsung is HDCP compliant and I think the Dell is also. This could be important to future proof yourself when HD dvd comes out for computers or if you use your monitor as an HDTV. I'm also to cheap to buy the 20". Last I looked, the Samsung goes for about $250.
Here it is for $235 http://www.addaxcomputer.com/parts.a...me=adx_monitor
Last edited by Vulcan; 12-18-2006 at 11:25 PM.
|
|
|
12-18-2006, 11:26 PM
|
#14
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravitykillr
well currently I have an NEC MutiSync 5D, I'm running my resolution at 1024X768, I have all my icons set down the left side.
I don't really know the pro's and con's on Wide Screen or Normal but am leaning towards Normal just because Widescreen looks a bit wierd at the moment but if it's better picture and will play games better (BF2, Madden, Nhl'07, Tiger Woods, Etc.) then I'm all for it, 19-20" are basically the one in my price range.
|
Once you play games in widescreen mode you'll never want to go back to normal(4:3). That's applicable to both PC gaming and console gaming. Go for widescreen.
|
|
|
12-19-2006, 08:11 AM
|
#15
|
Backup Goalie
Join Date: Dec 2006
Exp:  
|
I have a widescreen monitor at home and I definitely recommend it. It's great having the extra real estate on your screen.
|
|
|
12-19-2006, 09:13 AM
|
#16
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Sector 7-G
|
Personally, I like to dual monitor things... cheaper, and I find it keeps the windows under control better. Easy to just 'maximize' a windows to a screen. Not so good in gaming though, but great for most apps.
|
|
|
12-19-2006, 02:00 PM
|
#17
|
Scoring Winger
|
As an earlier poster stated, there is a resolution jump between 19" and 20" monitors. 1280 x 1024 vs. 1600 x 1200 for 4:3 monitors and 1440 x 900 vs. 1680 x 1050 for 16:9 widescreen.
I'm not sure that I buy the argument that running 2 small dual screen monitors is better than 1 big monitor. I've ran dual 17" LCDs before and due to the limited real estate (1280x1024) of each individual screen, it was a pain for things like Visual Studio, Photoshop, and other things that benefit from a larger single screen. I've since picked up a Dell 2405FPW and the single 1920x1200 screen is much better than dual 1280x1024 set up. I guess I can still run one or both of the 17" in dual or triple screen mode, but the single large monitor is good enough and I rather have the desk real estate. I'm tempted to go up to one of those 30" 2560 x 1600 monsters.
EDIT: I guess the "widescreen" monitors are actually 16:10, not 16:9. Computer monitors don't follow TV standards for whatever reason.
Last edited by CubicleGeek; 12-19-2006 at 02:03 PM.
|
|
|
12-19-2006, 02:27 PM
|
#18
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in your blind spot.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CubicleGeek
As an earlier poster stated, there is a resolution jump between 19" and 20" monitors. 1280 x 1024 vs. 1600 x 1200 for 4:3 monitors and 1440 x 900 vs. 1680 x 1050 for 16:9 widescreen.
....
EDIT: I guess the "widescreen" monitors are actually 16:10, not 16:9. Computer monitors don't follow TV standards for whatever reason.
|
And 17" and 19" LCD monitors are 5x4. CRT monitors are 4x3.
I also have the 2405pfw and love it. But at work I wish I had dual monitors - it would be better for all the data mapping and following of online documentation without needing to alt-tab all the time. Different tools for different tasks.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
|
|
|
12-19-2006, 02:50 PM
|
#19
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver
|
go widescreen if you can afford it. i love my gateway 21".
|
|
|
12-19-2006, 03:02 PM
|
#20
|
The new goggles also do nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
|
I prefer my widescreen monitor at home, but at work I have dual 21" 1600x1200 LCDs and it's awesome. I prefer dual screens for work.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:56 AM.
|
|