Somewhere on teh interweb kony typed:
I too have some older games I play that don't do widescreen
I don't know if it's the limited model options that we get here in New
Zealand again but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find new
non-widescreen LCD monitors. I have a 19", 1280 x 1024 monitor at the moment
and have been considering getting a larger one. However, after a web search
of the obvious local suppliers all I can find larger than 19" are
widescreen. Is this the same the world over?
It does seem that non-widescreen are becoming less and less
common, but in the US there are still quite a few 19"
1280x1024 models, and a few 20-21" 1600x1200 models, though
recently 22" widescreens have dropped in price so the
remaining 1600x1200 models cost more.
Fortunately, if you have a video card with a decent driver
(I prefer nVidia), there are options for just leaving black
bars on the sides when a game needs a non-widescreen
resolution so you still have a native-display, per-pixel
accurancy.
I thought I'd max the credit
card (again) and get myself a 21" non-widescreen monitor for Xmas, then I
could pass on my (perfectly good) 19" as a Xmas present to someone else.
If you can find a 1600x1200 res. monitor, now would be a
good time to buy it, as they may be harder and harder to
find in the future. I just don't know anything about your
market, what is available. If the cost is too high, a 22"
that you only enjoy for non-gaming could also make sense,
just running the games at 1280x1024... which seems a shame,
but gaming is already pretty expensive, only you can decide
how much to pay for that hobby.
Ahh, OK. So you can get non-widescreen LCDs bigger than 19", I should have
read further. Although it would have to be 21" minimum to make the upgrade
worthwhile for me. Also, my eyes probably wouldn't like 1600x1200 on a
monitor barely larger than this one.
I shall look further.
I have mixed feeling about it. I, unlike some, feel larger
pixel pitch is a good thing, that if the text is too small
it is harder to use, but I can't stand putting a monitor
very close, I am always over 2 feet away from mine. On the
other hand if I were sitting less than 2 feet away, larger
pixels might seem a bit crude and blocky and I would rather
a 1600x1200 res. even if the exact same size display. I
suppose you have to consider your unique uses and see a few
in a store to decide.
Being someone who would rather have multiple displays than
spend a lot on one very large display, I find (at least in
the US, where prices seem lower and discounts are common), I
find the best bang for the buck today to be a 22" 1680x1050,
unless someone is a professional photographer who will then
need a professional quality 8 bit display which tends to
not be available in 22" size... all the 22" I've seen
recently are 6 bit and personally I think some of the better
6 bit look quite good, but some people are pickier than
others. Since I sit further away from mine than many
people, at any given price I would take size over absolute
color accuracy, so long as it isn't a horrible result.
Speaking of horrible results, I find many people seem to
have not compared many monitors, as I have (for example) a
Hanns-G monitor that I find is pretty bad at contrast and
color accuracy, but many people have said they think it's
good. I can't complain as I got it at an exceptional
discount but when I see people saying it's good I can't
imaging what they are comparing it to, as it looks worse
than an average older tech monitor, just larger which is the
opposite of claiming good color and contrast. Putting it
side-by-side with a median quality monitor that much is
obvious and yet people still say it's good, instead of
saying it's good that it's cheap.
I love cheap parts that serve the purpose, but sometimes
it's better to be frank about where the drawbacks are, why
it costs less.
