Monitor suggestions, replacing an old 4:3 Acer 17'' with 16:10 or not ?

[Ale]

Hi all,

actually I've a monitor LCD Acer 17'' with speakers, DVI and VGA ports
and max resolution 1280x1024.
I'm thinking if I have any benefits in changing with a new 16:10 one,
maybe 24'' with resolution 1920x1080 (full hd).

I don't use it for films, just to work and to play games, I've a good
video card (Radeon HD 5770 with 1GB DDR5) and windows 7 x64.


Thanks and best regards to all,
Ale

 

[Seum]

Hi all,

actually I've a monitor LCD Acer 17'' with speakers, DVI and VGA ports
and max resolution 1280x1024.
I'm thinking if I have any benefits in changing with a new 16:10 one,
maybe 24'' with resolution 1920x1080 (full hd).

I don't use it for films, just to work and to play games, I've a good
video card (Radeon HD 5770 with 1GB DDR5) and windows 7 x64.


Thanks and best regards to all,
Ale

I bought a 17" Sony monitor SDM-HX75 5 years ago and it has not
deteriorated one iota since then. In fact I have never had a bad Sony
product. This is not an ad for Sony. It's just my experience.

 

[Paul]

Hi all,

actually I've a monitor LCD Acer 17'' with speakers, DVI and VGA ports
and max resolution 1280x1024.
I'm thinking if I have any benefits in changing with a new 16:10 one,
maybe 24'' with resolution 1920x1080 (full hd).

I don't use it for films, just to work and to play games, I've a good
video card (Radeon HD 5770 with 1GB DDR5) and windows 7 x64.


Thanks and best regards to all,
Ale

All that is doing, is giving you a wider screen. You'll
end up with about the same number of pixels vertically.

Some monitor options would be

1280 x 1024 (your current monitor with 5:4 aspect)

1920 x 1080 just wider
1920 x 1200 gain some vertical pixels
1600 x 1200 a 4:3 aspect ratio, a small improvement on X and Y
2560 x 1600 30" monitor with plenty of pixels, needs dual link DVI
and one HD 5770 description mentions that resolution
as being supported.

There really aren't any good options for the 1600x1200 one. The monitor
doesn't end up being much larger than what you've got. Wide screen format
has kinda forced out the other kinds.

So then there would be 1920 x 1200.

One for a bit less than $300.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176141

Same company, but over $500. This one has a H-IPS panel, which is
better for viewing angle (178°(H) / 178°(V)). Response time is
6 ms (GTG), so it may also be good enough for gaming. Normally,
a wide viewing angle monitor, is a candidate for Photoshop, because
you can move your head from side to side, without the colors shifting
too much. With a narrower viewing angle, there would be color
shift if you did that. The $300 monitor uses a TN panel with
160°(H) / 160°(V) viewing angle.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176104

A 2560 x 1600 monitor is huge and typically pretty expensive ($1200+),
so I'm not even going to look for one

Paul

 

[Alessandro]

So then there would be 1920 x 1200.

Many thanks Paul for your help and detailed suggestion !! I think I'll
go for 1920x1200 one ...

BR
Ale

 

[John McGaw]

Hi all,

actually I've a monitor LCD Acer 17'' with speakers, DVI and VGA ports
and max resolution 1280x1024.
I'm thinking if I have any benefits in changing with a new 16:10 one,
maybe 24'' with resolution 1920x1080 (full hd).

I don't use it for films, just to work and to play games, I've a good
video card (Radeon HD 5770 with 1GB DDR5) and windows 7 x64.


Thanks and best regards to all,
Ale

You might consider multiple monitors as an alternative. That sort of thing
seemed pretentious to me but once I tried it I saw the light.

I've got a pair of Viewsonic 23" HD-resolution monitors stacked vertically
(because of a space-challenged custom computer desk) and the setup is great
for all sorts of jobs. Mostly I keep static items on the top screen that
need to be monitored as well as Windows Explorer windows for current work
files and other necessary but space-consuming windows. Usually the current
work/editing window is alone on the bottom screen. Oh, I have the same
video card and it supports two monitors perfectly via the HDMI ports.
Shopping around for a sale allowed me to buy the second monitor for a
decent price. The version I have is the older non-LED type and when the
model went 'obsolete' the price actually started shooting up quickly but I
really wanted the monitors to be identical. A pair of the equivalent 23"
Viewsonic LED monitors would run around $360 with some careful shopping but
I'm sure that there are cheaper ones available from the big online vendors.

 

[Jon Danniken]

Many thanks Paul for your help and detailed suggestion !! I think I'll
go for 1920x1200 one ...

I'm very happy with the 1920x1200 monitor I've been using for the last
several years; it's just right for desktop use.

Jon

 

[Brian Cryer]

Hi all,

actually I've a monitor LCD Acer 17'' with speakers, DVI and VGA ports
and max resolution 1280x1024.
I'm thinking if I have any benefits in changing with a new 16:10 one,
maybe 24'' with resolution 1920x1080 (full hd).

I don't use it for films, just to work and to play games, I've a good
video card (Radeon HD 5770 with 1GB DDR5) and windows 7 x64.


Thanks and best regards to all,

Personally having moved to a wide screen monitor I wouldn't ever want to go
back. Depending on what you are doing you might find a second monitor
helpful (even with a widescreen), but if it were me I'd go for it.

 

[Nobody > (Revisited)]

I'm very happy with the 1920x1200 monitor I've been using for the last
several years; it's just right for desktop use.

Jon

Mine (ASUS VH222) is 16:9 @ 1920x1024. This is my first "widescreen",
and it definitely took some getting used to, but now I wouldn't change
back to anything less.

The extra horizontal space is great!

What I've settled on is a wide right-side (vertical) Win7 taskbar.

For browsing, it's great!
I can have my bookmarks column open on the far-left side, and my tabs
column next in, and still have a huge space for the browser window itself.

I don't think most folks would have have much problem with either 16:9
or 16:10 (still haven't figured out why 16:10 isn't shown as 8:5).

About the only real reasom I could see for 16:10 over 16:9 would be
movie format purists wanting a 16:9 video layout with that extra "1" at
top or bottom for on-screen controls...


--
"Shit this is it, all the pieces do fit.
We're like that crazy old man jumping
out of the alleyway with a baseball bat,
saying, "Remember me motherfucker?"
Jim “Dandy” Mangrum

 

[Jon Danniken]

Mine (ASUS VH222) is 16:9 @ 1920x1024. This is my first "widescreen",
and it definitely took some getting used to, but now I wouldn't change
back to anything less.

The extra horizontal space is great!

What I've settled on is a wide right-side (vertical) Win7 taskbar.

For browsing, it's great!
I can have my bookmarks column open on the far-left side, and my tabs
column next in, and still have a huge space for the browser window
itself.

Aye, this is my first one as well; it replaced a dim and fuzzy 19" CRT about
four years ago.

I still have my taskbar at the bottom though, I guess old habits die hard.
I like your idea of sticking it on the side, though, I might have to try
that one of these days.

Jon

 

[Nobody > (Revisited)]

Aye, this is my first one as well; it replaced a dim and fuzzy 19" CRT about
four years ago.

I still have my taskbar at the bottom though, I guess old habits die hard.
I like your idea of sticking it on the side, though, I might have to try
that one of these days.

Jon

The "side taskbar" does take some time to get used to. I tried it on
both the left and right sides for a while until I settled into putting
it on the right.

Relocating the taskbar is one of those "dirt-simple" things that can
really make things easier. The worst part is that most people don't even
know "You can do THAT in Windows?"

I've clued so many people in on this that it's downright scary.
Pre- "widescreen", many people ended up putting the taskbar on top after
playing with it.

A side taskbar is one of the first things I show to people who just got
into a widescreen monitor. Almost everyone who tries that ends up
keeping it.

--
"Shit this is it, all the pieces do fit.
We're like that crazy old man jumping
out of the alleyway with a baseball bat,
saying, "Remember me motherfucker?"
Jim “Dandy” Mangrum

 

[~misfit~]

All that is doing, is giving you a wider screen. You'll
end up with about the same number of pixels vertically.

Some monitor options would be

1280 x 1024 (your current monitor with 5:4 aspect)

1920 x 1080 just wider
1920 x 1200 gain some vertical pixels
1600 x 1200 a 4:3 aspect ratio, a small improvement on X
and Y 2560 x 1600 30" monitor with plenty of pixels, needs
dual link DVI and one HD 5770 description
mentions that resolution as being supported.

There really aren't any good options for the 1600x1200 one. The
monitor doesn't end up being much larger than what you've got. Wide
screen format has kinda forced out the other kinds.

So then there would be 1920 x 1200.

One for a bit less than $300.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176141

Same company, but over $500. This one has a H-IPS panel, which is
better for viewing angle (178°(H) / 178°(V)). Response time is
6 ms (GTG), so it may also be good enough for gaming. Normally,
a wide viewing angle monitor, is a candidate for Photoshop, because
you can move your head from side to side, without the colors shifting
too much. With a narrower viewing angle, there would be color
shift if you did that. The $300 monitor uses a TN panel with
160°(H) / 160°(V) viewing angle.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176104

A 2560 x 1600 monitor is huge and typically pretty expensive ($1200+),
so I'm not even going to look for one

Hi Paul.

I'm, still using 4:3 monitors and exclusively IPS. TN is fine for modern
short-screen monitors (in fact I think the move to short-screen was due to
TN being cheap [and nasty]) but just doesn't hack it for decent 4:3 screens
IMO.

If I move to short-screen (or more likely 'when' as 4:3 is getting hard to
get) I'll still go for IPS though. Once you've used them it's hard to go
back.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

 

[~misfit~]

On 5/20/2011 5:36 AM, Jon Danniken wrote:
[snip]

I don't think most folks would have have much problem with either 16:9
or 16:10 (still haven't figured out why 16:10 isn't shown as 8:5).

Likely because, for years, folks have been told that, when it comes to LCD
monitors bigger numbers are better. "They" don't want to scare off the
punters by offering an '8:5' screen, I mean, who in their right mind would
buy that? <g>
--
Shaun.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche