Monitor questions

Somewhere on teh interweb kony typed:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:29:56 +1300, "~misfit~"
> <misfit61nz.DeleteThis@yahoot.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Somewhere on teh interweb kony typed:
>>> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:16:40 -0600, "void" wrote:
>>
>>>> I think I will go with a non-widescreen monitor for backward
>>>> compatibility reasons (I have some games that only run in
>>>> non-widescreen resolutions).
>>>
>>> That is a good plan, especially considering that the G400
>>> isn't powerful enough to run newer 3D games that can use
>>> widescreen resolutions.
>>
>> 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.

That is what I'm seeing here. I managed to find a couple of non-widescreen
monitors marginally larger than my 19" but they're far dearer than the
widescreen options. It's just not worth if for the few extra pixels.

> 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.

Ahh, OK, I didn't know that. I used nVidia too. A 7800GT in this machine and
2 x ti4200, a ti4400, an FX5600 and a couple GF2 MX400s in various machines.
The only ATI I have is a 9000 Pro which I got cheap second-hand and used
mainly for a media centre as the TV out is good.

>> 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.

Sadly, the only ones I can find aren't cheap at all, especially in
comparison with the widescreen counterparts. From what I've seen, they've
never come down in price, never hit "mainstream". However, now it seems that
22" and 24" widescreens are going mainstream.

> 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.

Most of the games I play are 5 years old or more. (LOL, in fact all of
them). Some will run at 1024x768 but my favourite runs at 800x600 max. I
don't pay much for that hobby. <g>

>>> If yours do not, I suggest getting a 20 to 21" 1600x1200
>>> display, as it is 4:3 ratio and at worst the game could run
>>> at a more traditional and common 1024 x768 or 800x600,
>>> though of course since these are not the LCD's native
>>> resolution the game will be less sharp, but it is far less
>>> important on many games than on reading text at native
>>> resolution.
>>
>> 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.

It seems we have similar preferences and usage patterns.

> 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.

The only display I'd have closer than 2 feet would be a laptop screen.

> 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.

I couldn't agree more.

Thanks for the input Kony. I'll flag it and continue to use this monitor as
long as it's working well, only "upgrade" when I need to.
--
TTFN,

Shaun.

John Adams wrote:

>Grinder wrote:
>
>> To each his own, but unless your PC is principally a media center, I
>> think widescreen is a waste of money.
>
>Or a gamer. Wider FOV can make a big difference in games. Tunnel vision
>has always been an issue with 4:3 screens with certain kinds of games.

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