Monitor questions

~misfit~ wrote:

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.

Viewsonic 2021m is a 20" monitor with only 1400x1050, a little easier
on the eyes than 1600x1200...

chrisv wrote:

Now we just need affordable video cards that can run the new games at
high rates on these ~2 MegaPixel widescreens.


Agree. And that is why I will stick with 22" widescreen for now and not
go to 24" until vid cards can do them justice. Most of my games run fine
at 1680x1050 with 7950GX2 but need 8800 series or better for some of them.

kony wrote:

Yes it is still an issue, but it is fairly rare to get more
than 2 or 3 dead pixels and most monitors today have none or
one at most. The seller's policy on taking back a monitor
can vary quite a bit, some even have a more comprehensive
total satisfaction type of guarantee meaning you can return
the monitor for any reason... just be sure to investigate
their policy specific to LCDs before purchase.

Samsung has zero dead pixel policy.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:48:03 GMT, John Adams
wrote:

kony wrote:

Yes it is still an issue, but it is fairly rare to get more
than 2 or 3 dead pixels and most monitors today have none or
one at most. The seller's policy on taking back a monitor
can vary quite a bit, some even have a more comprehensive
total satisfaction type of guarantee meaning you can return
the monitor for any reason... just be sure to investigate
their policy specific to LCDs before purchase.

Samsung has zero dead pixel policy.

.... but it seems to be only if returned within 14 days which
is a lot better than some, but IMO 14 days is a short time.

http://erms.samsungelectronics.com/c...OD_ SUB_ID=28

Somewhere on teh interweb chrisv typed:
~misfit~ wrote:

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.

Viewsonic 2021m is a 20" monitor with only 1400x1050, a little easier
on the eyes than 1600x1200...

Hmm, thanks, just Googled it. It looks quite good. However, it doesn't offer
a lot of advantage over my current 19" 1280x1024 (or whatever it is g)
display.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

void wrote:

I have a 7 year old computer with a Matrox Millennium G400 video card and
a 17" CRT monitor. I can run in 800x600 comfortably, but if I try
1024x768, everything is a little small on my monitor. So I want to get a
larger LCD monitor.

Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen resolutions,
what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD monitor? (I might
want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the capability when I upgrade
my computer.) Would the image stretch horizontally so that it fit all of
the screen? (That would be bad.) Or would there be empty black space on
both sides of the image? (That would be better.)

They don't stretch out the image, whether they're set to wide or
regular mode. But the picture looks noticeably sharper when run at
the LCD monitor's native resolution. For the 17" and 19" regular LCDs
I've seen, that's usually 1280x1024 (I haven't found one rated
1024x768) but with wide screens it's usually a wierd number, like
1680x1050 for mine. When I ran it at any other resolutions, even the
very close 1650x1024, the picture looked fuzzy or grainy..

A 19" widescreen is about as tall as a 17" regular screen, a 22"
widescreen is as tall as a 19" regular screen. LCD monitors seem to be
measured accurately, not 1" smaller as CRT monitors are.

Nokia's free monitor test software will let you check for dead pixels
by setting the whole screen to one primary color at a time:

www.majorgeeks.com/download960.html

It also includes test for convergence, focus, and high voltage
regulation, which apply only to CRT monitors.

On or about Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:57:58 -0600 did "void"
dribble thusly:

But I wonder if 1600x1200 on a 20" monitor might seem too small. At work
I use a 24" widescreen monitor, and I'll have to double check, but I think
that the resolution is set to 1920x1200, which seems just right.

1600x1200 on a 4:3 20" (or 21") monitor is almost exactly the same as
1920x1200 on a 16:10 24" monitor.

In other words, the screen is the same height. The 24" is wider, not
taller, so the resolutions match up.

If you consider 1920x1200 on a 24" LCD is just right, then you must
have the crappiest 17" CRT ever to think that 1024x768 is too small.

That LCD at 1920x100 is displaying at 100dpi, while your CRT at
1024x768 is displaying at 75dpi.

Basically, that means you will likely be happy with any larger LCD,
since most display at 100dpi with sharp pixels, which you apparently
have no trouble with, based on how you perceive your work monitor.
--
- Mike

Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.