LCD monitor: widescreen or standard?

[Larc]

Looks as if I'm gonna be in the market for a new monitor to replace my ailing
old Viewsonic CRT. Moving to LCD has become a more attractive option, but there
are some valid questions even in that area.

First, would a widescreen or standard aspect screen be better? While widescreen
would be better for watching movies and playing some games, I don't watch many
movies on my computer and play no games. How are the widescreens with ordinary
computer functions? Is the standard 4:3 GUI stretched to a point of obvious
distortion?

Screen size is another consideration. Even though my CRT is supposedly 21", the
actual display is more like 19¾". So I'm thinking a 19" 4:3 LCD would be OK
since the native resolution for that most closely matches the 1280x960 I use
now. A 23" widescreen LCD display should have roughly the same height as a 19"
standard.

I know these questions prove I don't know much about newer LCDs. But I'm
starting to get interested in them now because it seems I have to.

Thanks for your input.

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

 

[Phisherman]

Looks as if I'm gonna be in the market for a new monitor to replace my ailing
old Viewsonic CRT. Moving to LCD has become a more attractive option, but there
are some valid questions even in that area.

First, would a widescreen or standard aspect screen be better? While widescreen
would be better for watching movies and playing some games, I don't watch many
movies on my computer and play no games. How are the widescreens with ordinary
computer functions? Is the standard 4:3 GUI stretched to a point of obvious
distortion?

Screen size is another consideration. Even though my CRT is supposedly 21", the
actual display is more like 19¾". So I'm thinking a 19" 4:3 LCD would be OK
since the native resolution for that most closely matches the 1280x960 I use
now. A 23" widescreen LCD display should have roughly the same height as a 19"
standard.

I know these questions prove I don't know much about newer LCDs. But I'm
starting to get interested in them now because it seems I have to.

Thanks for your input.

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

I have the 20" Samsung 204B, resolution 1600x1200. It was a good deal
at $265. I don't find any distortion. There is a widescreen version
too and these are becoming more popular. The widescreen might cause
some applications to have unused space on both sides. If you stretch
out the image, it's fine for reading text but not for photos.

 

[OSbandito]

Looks as if I'm gonna be in the market for a new monitor to replace my ailing
old Viewsonic CRT. Moving to LCD has become a more attractive option, but there
are some valid questions even in that area.

First, would a widescreen or standard aspect screen be better? While widescreen
would be better for watching movies and playing some games, I don't watch many
movies on my computer and play no games. How are the widescreens with ordinary
computer functions? Is the standard 4:3 GUI stretched to a point of obvious
distortion?

Screen size is another consideration. Even though my CRT is supposedly 21", the
actual display is more like 19*". So I'm thinking a 19" 4:3 LCD would be OK
since the native resolution for that most closely matches the 1280x960 I use
now. A 23" widescreen LCD display should have roughly the same height as a 19"
standard.

I know these questions prove I don't know much about newer LCDs. But I'm
starting to get interested in them now because it seems I have to.

Thanks for your input.

Larc, gots to consider your hardware. for example, does your comp have
a digital DVI output avail for monitor? I'd forget the widescreen and
just buy
the biggest DVI-type display I could afford. If you have only analog
display output on comp, maybe consider buying a graphics card w/DVI.
You'll have the potential for much smoother font rendition with a
digitally-driven display than with analog.

 

[Larc]

| I have the 20" Samsung 204B, resolution 1600x1200. It was a good deal
| at $265. I don't find any distortion. There is a widescreen version
| too and these are becoming more popular. The widescreen might cause
| some applications to have unused space on both sides. If you stretch
| out the image, it's fine for reading text but not for photos.

You really got a super deal on that monitor. About $350 is the lowest price it
seems to be available for at the online stores I checked. I'd be all over it at
the price you paid.

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

 

[Larc]

| Larc, gots to consider your hardware. for example, does your comp have
| a digital DVI output avail for monitor? I'd forget the widescreen and
| just buy
| the biggest DVI-type display I could afford. If you have only analog
| display output on comp, maybe consider buying a graphics card w/DVI.
| You'll have the potential for much smoother font rendition with a
| digitally-driven display than with analog.

My Matrox P650 has only DVI outputs. I have to use an adaptor for my CRT.

Thanks for the suggestion. That may be the way I go.

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

 

[JAD]

| Larc, gots to consider your hardware. for example, does your comp have
| a digital DVI output avail for monitor? I'd forget the widescreen and
| just buy
| the biggest DVI-type display I could afford. If you have only analog
| display output on comp, maybe consider buying a graphics card w/DVI.
| You'll have the potential for much smoother font rendition with a
| digitally-driven display than with analog.

My Matrox P650 has only DVI outputs. I have to use an adaptor for my CRT.

Thanks for the suggestion. That may be the way I go.

I'm going through the transition of CRT to LCD. I don't use my computer to play DVDs regulary so not
the biggest consideration. A while back we were discussing the way to go about buying a LCD. After
all the discussion the bottom line is to go and look at these monitors at the stores. I did this and
found that 9 times out of 10 the only ones that were on display were the analog interface. If they
had a DVI capable, it was adapted or the analog was used. So, as I agree that thee best way to buy
one is to look at many, check to see where the signal is coming from. Getting back to the wide vs
standard, I'm leaning towards standard, min 19', with both analog and dvi 1280x1024 is a decent
size for my eyes.

MO

 

[Phisherman]

| I have the 20" Samsung 204B, resolution 1600x1200. It was a good deal
| at $265. I don't find any distortion. There is a widescreen version
| too and these are becoming more popular. The widescreen might cause
| some applications to have unused space on both sides. If you stretch
| out the image, it's fine for reading text but not for photos.

You really got a super deal on that monitor. About $350 is the lowest price it
seems to be available for at the online stores I checked. I'd be all over it at
the price you paid.

Larc

Actually I paid 325, then got a $60 rebate from Samsung (grrr, I hate
rebates). If you are patient you can use pricescan.com and they will
email you when (and if) the price drops to whatever you specify. I
got lots of good deals that way.

 

[RussellS]

I'm going through the transition of CRT to LCD. I don't use my computer to
play DVDs regulary so not
the biggest consideration. A while back we were discussing the way to go
about buying a LCD. After
all the discussion the bottom line is to go and look at these monitors at
the stores. I did this and
found that 9 times out of 10 the only ones that were on display were the
analog interface. If they
had a DVI capable, it was adapted or the analog was used. So, as I agree
that thee best way to buy
one is to look at many, check to see where the signal is coming from.
Getting back to the wide vs
standard, I'm leaning towards standard, min 19', with both analog and dvi
1280x1024 is a decent
size for my eyes.

MO

----------------------------------------------------
A not widely known trick of many brick and mortar stores that display LCD
monitors and TVs is that they'll up the brightness/contrast/gamma settings
on some of the slower moving models in order to sell them. If you go into a
store, see if you can reset the monitors to their defaults with the
monitor's built-in OSD menu, and go into the OS graphics card settings to
see if they've tweaked anything as opposed to a model next to it.

Anyway, I recently bought a 22" widescreen Acer, not the best viewing angle
at 160, but the brightness and contrast are excellent and everything razor
sharp at the default 1680x1050 with DVI input. I was going to get a
higher-end Samsung model, but this Acer, normally $349, was $189 for 3 hours
only at a black Friday sale, so I couldn't pass it up. No dead pixels, and
I really like being able to display much more of a spreadsheet/database, or
having 2 side-by-side web pages or Word docs viewable with the widescreen
format.

-Russell
http://tastycomputers.com

 

[Geoff]

First, would a widescreen or standard aspect screen be better?

Not sure if it is better but on my widescreen, I ended up rotating it
because I hate having to scroll all the time.

Screen size is another consideration. Even though my CRT is supposedly
21", the
actual display is more like 19¾".

That is not true with LCD's. If it says it is 20" then the screen is that
size.

Also, use DVI, picture is very sharp.

-g

 

[chairman]

Looks as if I'm gonna be in the market for a new monitor

I test drove a 22" LCD recently. 1650xsomething. No problems
reading, it was very clear.

Real estate was too much actually. I think i'd have run
applications in sized windows rather than full screen if I had kept
it. Full screen it just runs the typical application out
ridiculously wide.

It was a TN 5ms thing. Really ugly vertical viewing angle. Really
ugly. Gawd awful colors too.

Not bad for games though. The viewing angle seemed to be more of a
problem for windows than games.

I think a 19" 4:3 would be a good choice to get you through the next
couple of years til they get a better looking, cheap, bigger model.

 

[Neil H.]

Looks as if I'm gonna be in the market for a new monitor to replace my
ailing
old Viewsonic CRT. Moving to LCD has become a more attractive option, but
there
are some valid questions even in that area.

First, would a widescreen or standard aspect screen be better? While
widescreen
would be better for watching movies and playing some games, I don't watch
many
movies on my computer and play no games. How are the widescreens with
ordinary
computer functions? Is the standard 4:3 GUI stretched to a point of
obvious
distortion?

Other than watching DVDs, I can't really see the point to a widescreen
monitor on a desktop computer. My new laptop (which I'm using at the moment)
has a widescreen and that's okay. Not only the screen is a little wider, but
of course on a laptop that means the keyboard and chassis are also a little
wider. And you don't lose anything. Instead of the 1024x768 of a standard
15" screen, I have 1280x800 on this 15.4" widescreen. So I've actually
gained 30% of real estate as far as screen content goes. But it would be
more useful to me if it were more vertical real estate rather than
horizontal.

With a widescreen monitor for a desktop computer though, for a comparable
screen size you get more horizontal resolution but *less* vertical
resolution, and you actually lose a little screen real estate in most cases
compared to a similar sized standard monitor. Check the numbers and see for
yourself. Added to that is the fact that (at least in my opinion) for things
like surfing the Internet, newsgroups, or word processing, almost anything
that involves a lot of text, it's more useful to have more *height* than
more width. With a 17" or 19" standard LCD monitor you do get more height
(normally 1280x1024 instead of the 1280x960 that you're getting now) with
your CRT.

Screen size is another consideration. Even though my CRT is supposedly
21", the
actual display is more like 19¾". So I'm thinking a 19" 4:3 LCD would be
OK

But standard 17" or 19" LCD monitors aren't 4:3 -- they're 5:4. That's why
you get more vertical resolution with them and they're still "square
pixels."

Standard 15" LCDs are 4:3 and usually have a maximum resolution of 1024x768.
That's why I like 15" LCDs for playing games that are in the 4:3 aspect
ratio, since on 17" or 19" LCDs those games are slightly stretched
vertically -- though this is not really a problem; the stretch is so small
it's hardly noticeable.

since the native resolution for that most closely matches the 1280x960 I
use
now. A 23" widescreen LCD display should have roughly the same height as
a 19"
standard.

I know these questions prove I don't know much about newer LCDs. But I'm
starting to get interested in them now because it seems I have to.

I like 'em much better and have sold or given away all my CRTs. Only a very
few years ago, one could argue that CRTs were better for some things. But
LCDs have now improved so much, especially in contrast, refresh rate and
viewing angle (which used to be their weaknesses), it's hard to find any
reason not to switch to them. And with a *standard* 17" or 19" LCD, that
extra vertical space is a real benefit for the things I mostly use a
computer for. Again, if watching DVDs on a computer was what I wanted to do,
I'd go for a widescreen monitor without a moment's hesitation. Otherwise, I
can't really see the point.

Even for watching movies, a widescreen computer monitor (aspect ratio 5:8)
is not as wide as a widescreen TV (16:9), but of course it's substantially
closer than a standard monitor.

Neil

 

[Neil H.]

[ . . . ]
like surfing the Internet, newsgroups, or word processing, almost anything
that involves a lot of text, it's more useful to have more *height* than
more width. With a 17" or 19" standard LCD monitor you do get more height
(normally 1280x1024 instead of the 1280x960 that you're getting now) with
your CRT.

Sorry, put the closing parenthesis in the wrong place. That should read,

more width. With a 17" or 19" standard LCD monitor you do get more height
(normally 1280x1024 instead of the 1280x960 that you're getting now with
your CRT).

Neil

 

[chairman]

I test drove a 22" LCD recently. 1650xsomething. No problems
reading, it was very clear.

Just thought I'd better mention one other problem with those 22" TN
LCD's, the thing had a LOT of backlight edge bleedthrough on all
four sides. So much so that it combined with the poor viewing angle
to exaggerate both problems.

Last thing, DVD movies look gawd awful on those screens. Colors are
ugly, and viewing angle is poor/critical.

 

[Larc]

| Looks as if I'm gonna be in the market for a new monitor to replace my ailing
| old Viewsonic CRT. Moving to LCD has become a more attractive option, but there
| are some valid questions even in that area.
|
| First, would a widescreen or standard aspect screen be better? While widescreen
| would be better for watching movies and playing some games, I don't watch many
| movies on my computer and play no games. How are the widescreens with ordinary
| computer functions? Is the standard 4:3 GUI stretched to a point of obvious
| distortion?
|
| Screen size is another consideration. Even though my CRT is supposedly 21", the
| actual display is more like 19¾". So I'm thinking a 19" 4:3 LCD would be OK
| since the native resolution for that most closely matches the 1280x960 I use
| now. A 23" widescreen LCD display should have roughly the same height as a 19"
| standard.

Many thanks for all the excellent suggestions. I finally decided on an NEC
90GX2 (19"), received it yesterday, and am completely delighted with it so far.

Thanks again and Happy Holidays!

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§