Mentawl wrote:I'm afraid those three conditions (16:10, inexpensive, not Dell/Asus) are, I'm pretty sure, impossible to satisfy simultaneously. You're going to have to compromise on at least one of them.
TurtlePerson2 wrote:Could you explain to us why the 16:10 is a requirement? 1920x1200 is extremely rare these days and you'll pay a large premium for it. Unless you have a very good reason for the extra 120 vertical pixels, I would recommend that you simply purchase two 1920x1080 monitors.
DPete27 wrote:1) What are you using this monitor for? Most 16:10 monitors are going to be IPS panels geared toward graphic design. While response times are still fairly decent on most IPS monitors, they may produce some ghosting in fast-twitch FPS gaming if you're very sensitive to that sort of thing.
2) What size are you looking for?
3) Why are you so against Dell and Asus when they are probably your best bet for a good quality monitor without spending a ton of money on an NEC, HP Dreamcolor, or the like.
NovusBogus wrote:I'm in the market for a good 24" 16:10 monitor and I want suggestions on where I should be looking.
I'm thinking that you should always run your applications at the native resolution of the monitor. If you need for things to be larger, you should use the scaling options in the OS (set font size to 125% in display properties) and in your applications (hold down Ctrl and spin your mouse wheel in your browser, select "Large UI" in Guild Wars 2, etc.). The Dell U2410 is exceptionally good at scaling different resolutions to fit on its 1920x1200 display. Most of the el-cheapo Korean 27" 2560x1440 monitors are very bad at scaling or incapable of scaling at all.NovusBogus wrote: Any monitor I get needs to support 1680x1050, and preferably support a 4:3 resolution without horizontal stretching. I tend to run fairly low resolutions. I know what you're thinking, "silly Bogus...
JustAnEngineer wrote:You should certainly consider the Dell UltraSharp U2410...
I am calling BS on this. Your Dells at work are most likely the non-Ultrasharp P and S series, which the enthusiasts around here won't touch even if their lives depend on them (ok, may be I exaggerate a little ). For personal use which can span multiple builds, I would want ones that have decent colours, great viewing angles, and long warranties. This means e-IPS at a minimum, and 3-year premium panel warranty that the Ultrasharp's carry. We are talking different animals here.NovusBogus wrote:3) Why are you so against Dell and Asus when they are probably your best bet for a good quality monitor without spending a ton of money on an NEC, HP Dreamcolor, or the like.
I use two Dells at work, a 16:10 and a 16:9, and I'd just rather have a change of scenery when I get home. I realize that's a petty requirement with a number of workarounds, and if I compromise on anything it'd be this, but before making any sort of decision I want the full picture of what all is available.
The viewing angles pretty much say it all: they are TN panels. I won't touch them personally.
One thing about the 2410 (unfortunately not the 2412), you get 4:3 scaling which sort of does the old "aspect scaling" when you run lower, different resolutions. The other cheaper models don't even give you scaling options so they are by default in "stretch" mode, making for some ugly scaled texts/graphics.NovusBogus wrote:I forgot to mention in the OP but any monitor I get needs to support 1680x1050, and preferably support a 4:3 resolution without horizontal stretching. I tend to run fairly low resolutions. I know what you're thinking, "silly Bogus, just get a 27" 16:9 and run a 16:10 rez" and I may wind up doing that, but I'd prefer not to lose the extra couple inches of desk space if it can be helped. This is another area I may wind up compromising on once all the results are in...Costco has a phenomenal in-store deal on a 27" Syncmaster.
Flying Fox wrote:I am not entirely sure about this "losing extra couple inches of desk space" thing. So you want a 24" but want to run lower resolution, do you mean you think the text/graphics are too small for you so want them blown up?
NovusBogus wrote:Flying Fox wrote:I am not entirely sure about this "losing extra couple inches of desk space" thing. So you want a 24" but want to run lower resolution, do you mean you think the text/graphics are too small for you so want them blown up?
Yeah, and a lot of older games don't offer much control over the UI aside from resolution--even a lot of new stuff overlooks this. A lot of the old sprite-based games only offer 4:3 resolutions which is why any monitor I get needs to handle 4:3 reasonably well.
Starfalcon wrote:http://www.avsforum.com/t/1061724/the-unofficial-sony-gdm-fw900-thread. The best 24 inch 16:10 monitor you can get
Damage wrote:Don't try to game the requirements by posting everywhere, guys, or I'll nuke you from space.
l33t-g4m3r wrote:The HP zr24w IMO was the best monitor to get (8-bit & fast response), but is no longer being made. You have to pay more than it's worth to buy it now.
Viewing angles are the biggest problem, it makes colours look "off" if you are not looking at them head-on. Assuming you are looking at them head-on, modern dithering techniques should not produce much banding (unless you use a test pattern to look for them). One thing going for TN is price, but then if a U2312HM costs <$200, I don't see why you have to go down even further to get a TN just to save a few more bucks. Remember a monitor is a longer term investment. It can last through several builds.NovusBogus wrote:I'm not convinced TN is the devil's music so I'm going to go look at some TN monitors next week to see if the drawbacks are too severe for how I'd be using it.
OK, I do my fair share of bashing for people buying "boring Dell", but that is for the computer itself, not monitors. If you read the usual places for monitor recommendations such as TFT Central, the [H], Anandtech, etc., you will see Dell Ultrasharp's are big. Nothing boring about that. When it comes to monitors, you actually want the monitor frame to be inconspicuous so you can focus on the screen(s). You want highly reflective glossy screens and frames? Blindingly bright power-on/indicator lights? Super thick bezels with a dozen stickers? Sure they are not boring, but are distracting.NovusBogus wrote:Still hesitant to go with a boring Dell but it occurred to me that being a Dell shop means I've got access to a reseller, so I've requested a quote on the U2410 and if it's good enough it may sway me. We're about to place a big order with them so maybe they'll be willing to deal. An Ultrasharp would definitely be nicer than what's in the office, my main monitor is a P series but the other one as well as most of the rest are crappy E series that definitley aren't worth what the company pays for them.
Monitor is serious business, "cool" is for people who don't know better.NovusBogus wrote:my cool book
anotherengineer wrote:Not a single mention of NEC!!?!?!
Users browsing this forum: wirerogue and 2 guests