[Silver Samurai]

So now that I'm starting to look for a replacement for my macbook, I've been starting to look around for a new monitor. While I was originally going to go with a 20"er due to price, the price of 22"ers have come down, so I figure may as well go for the slightly bigger one.

So my question is, which resolution (1680x1050 or 1920x1080) is better for regular day to day stuff. In my case I'm not really into heavy duty graphics or anything, and the Mac Mini sure as hell isn't going to be running any type of game at a resolution any where near that high (can it even any game that high? lol)
Ive had a 20" monitor back when I had my G5 iMac and loved it, so I'm using that as a reference point.

Thanks.

[teflon]

If you're used to a 20", then Id stick with that over a 22". Nothing other than that 2" isn't that big a jump in size, and you're not gaining anything in terms of resolution. Personally I don't think its worth it, because it's going to be a fairly negligible difference. Just get whats more economic, or 22" for the minor psychological step up.

Course if youy want to go to 24", then there'll be quite a noticeable jump in size and also resolution. There'll be a little bit of a wow factor for a few weeks. 1080p will look fab on it because there'll be no scaling involved, but less than that will look a tiny bit worse (depending on the scalar chip being used), but since you're not going to be gaming on it, that probably wont matter so much right?

Try heading to a computer store and compare them side by side. Even going to the Apple store and comparing the 20" and 24" iMacs side by side. Just play around with them, maybe even ask if you can run some content on both, be it videos or games or whatever.

was I any use?

[The Liberator]

Of course not!

I do not think that there is anything else I could really add. You covered it pretty well Teflon.

Actually, there is something, just make sure you do not buy the Apple displays, they are probably not worth it.

Liberator.

[Sneaky Snake]

I'd go with the 1920x1080, you get more vertical and horizontal res, as well as the 16:9 aspect ratio to hook up a PS3 or 360 to and look great

[Silver Samurai]

Thanks guys, especially Teflon.

I'm ok w/ the 16:10 aspect ration. I wouldn't be watching many movies nor would I hook up a 360 or PS3. I plan on getting a tv for that.

While I'm still unsure about which resolution, a 24"er is simply too expensive for me. I'm leaning towards the 22"er since it's the same if not $10-15 more than the 20's. The higher resolution isn't too crucial, but I'm concerned if I play something like NWN or SimCity4, that knowing that the games can't go to a resolution anywhere near that high, if it will make the game look horrible. But as long as it's playable, I'm content. I don't play that many games really.

As for brands, I'm leaning towards an Acer or possibly an LG or Viewsonic if I can find 1 on sale, whenever I'm ready to buy.

[teflon]

No probs.
Again, definitely go to a retail store and look at a 20" and 22" side by side. If you think that in future you might want to get a 24" screen (for no reason other than that you can), then get a 20" so that you've got that wow factor when you upgrade in size, and it'll last a little bit longer.
Its a silly reason, but it does mean a lot.
My 24" is starting to look a little hum drum now just because Im used to its size now.

For specific models, I don't really have any ideas about 20" or 22" screens, but I would try and aim for a PVA panel over a TN, if you can afford it. Dell have a fairly good reputation here, but I would say to research their revisions, since the internals can change a bit and sometimes one revision sucks whilst another is brilliant.

[The Liberator]

Yeah, the first thing Teflon is saying is so true. When I first saw the G5, I thought that the screen was huge. About a year later, the family bought the Intel iMac, and the 24" screen looked nearly too big.

Also, the only better thing about the 22" is more screen, nothing else really.

Liberator.

[Frigidman]

I run at 1920x1200 on just a 17" screen. The higher resolution is ALWAYS helpful for day to day stuff. I have so many windows and apps running all the time, and the extra pixel realestate is extremely helpful.

The actual physical size of a monitor ... 17, 20, 22 ... it all depends on what you can see personally (are your eyes bad?). I can see each pixel on this 17" at the high resolution no problem. But I know some have trouble with it.

I say go for more res, and physical size comes in second. If they got a 20" at both native res, then def get the one that has higher native res.

[Silver Samurai]

Thanks for the responses guys.

When I had my 20" G5 iMac, I thought 20" was enough. Even with multiple windows open, everything was fine. I rarely had the an issue where I would've wanted a higher resolution or screen. The only time I can think of is the odd time that I watched a 1080p trailer from the Apple Movie trailers site. Besides that, I can't really have 2word docs or firefox open and able to see them all but switching b/w programs is no big deal to me.

My eyes aren't bad. (my rx is -0.25 and even the eye doc says that glasses are optional for me now)
I am considering a monitor like these:
http://www.futuresho...i...9507&catid=
http://www.canadacom...d...&cid=MT.282
http://www.canadacom...d...&cid=MT.282
In this case is the Samsung that much better than the Acer?

I do remember that their were a few times where the resolution was a little bit too high for my liking at times when I had the G5, but that was mainly due to web pages having small font sizes I think.

PVA over TN? Man I need to brush up on my tech terms...

[teflon]

for me IPS over PVA over TN. TN is just a stinking pile of gash (I know that cuss doesn't make much sense) for anything but getting really fast response times. PVA and IPS trash it in terms of colour reproduction, viewing angles and probably blacks too.
As a case in point, I can't think of a single TV manufacturer that would dare to use TN panels in their TV. All of them use PVA/MVA panels with Panasonic as the sole exception as they use IPS.

with regards to playing about with having windows side by side, I really haven't found 1080p to be that much better than the 15" screen in my laptop (1440x900). I've kept all my windows the right size to fit the MBP comfortably, since I often unplug still, and having oversized windows is a hassle. The big difference then is that I can see about half of any similarly sized windows should they be placed to the right or below my open window. all right for copying, I guess, but I've always got copy and paste, and I just haven't found it hugely useful. I can always chuck a window onto the MBP screen if I want to anyway.

Ill have a look at those screens and see if I can dig up anything about them tomorrow.
One screen I've seen positive things about at 22" is the Dell 2209WA which has an e-IPS panel, a poorer sibling to the full S-IPS and H-IPS versions. Basically its an IPS done cheap, but retains a lot of the IPS' advantages like good viewing angles and full 8-bit colour. The only downside it has is that its only got 2 inputs (DVI-D and VGA, which should be plenty for you), and it doesn't offer aspect ratio controls of any kind, which would be bad if your input is 16:9 like a PS3, or 4:3 like Starcraft...
Though from what you've said, neither of those should really trouble you much.

[Mr. Selvetarm]

Dell 24 incher. $200 and it makes me tremble wih glee every time I have a project, the screen real estate is immeasurably helpful. It is TN, but honestly unless you/'re a videophile you're not going to notice the difference. ::crosses fingers, and grabs alley cat to defend himself from Teflon::

[teflon]

You realise that finger crossing and alley cats can't protect you from my scathing long distance disgust at your suggestion? In fact, alley cats hate the feel of disgust* and regularly freak out and scratch whoever is silly enough to be holding them at the time... Enjoy the scars...

But if you fancy a TN again go for it! Remember how you have to tilt the MB's screen when you sit up and how you have to turn it if you come at it from an angle? well just make sure you sit directly in front of the screen at all times, and never try to show someone something to do with photo or video or with colours in it unless you're prepared to give up your seat or make them kneel beside you. Oh, and get ready for fake 8-bit colour too...

Heck, Im disappointed that the IPS screens in Apple's laptops get colour distortion when you view them at vertical angles, and often have to grit my teeth with the comparatively poor black levels on all IPS. I couldn't live with a TN... PVA/MVA maybe, but not TN.

*and being picked up by dimwits who would even consider getting a TN panel or all other humans too

[Frigidman]

The reason I like higher resolutions, isn't so I can put things side-by-side... but so that out of the dozens, and sometimes hundreds of txt/ps/web/tunes/IM windows I have opened, I can click on directly without having to bring forward the whole application's set of windows (or use the annoyingly slow and clunkish expose... which works hellishly when you have hundreds of windows open).

Rarely do I have anything side by side. I do like to be able to see all the open tabs for IM's on the bottom of my screen without any other windows overlapping. I also like to see title bars and corners of most my txt docs, cause I am always switching around from one to another (and option-tilde rarely selects the right one the first time).

I also dont, or rarely expand any window the full size of my screen. The only exception being games, or the occasional fullscreen video-viewing. My browser windows all remain a very modest 1100x820. I also never cover up the list of online people in Adium, nor completely cover up the device icons on my desktop (I have half showing, so I can click them immediately no matter what I'm doing).

*shrug*

I love the extra pixel realestate. It makes a huge difference for the way I use a computer for everything but gaming. For gaming ... higher native resolutions = need serious hardware to drive a game at native res... or you get blurry interpolation for a lower res (for a lot of people, this is annoying as hell... but to me, I call it hardware anti-aliasing to get better performance). However, since I rarely, if ever, game on my mac (SACRILEGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), the issue doesnt bother me either way.

[Frigidman]

The "color issue" with LCDs is one that annoys me though. I've not seen any real issues with this 17" MBP screen... but my 52" 1080p monitor I use for my HTPC has some nasty banding issues in the darks (cause its not true millions, its fake millions). My other monitor, a Viewsonic 19" of 1680x1050 res, has SOME issues with darks, but its fixable if I adjust the contrast slider at the GPU level.

The issue it has, is that if something is rendered "black" (solid black, where it should be zero/zero/zero)... it looks BRIGHER than a super duper dark gray next to it (1/1/1). So, to compensate, I adjust that contrast slider, so that nothing can ever output a solid 0/0/0... while keeping dark grays still close to 1/1/1 as possible. This prevents the monitor from doing something ugly.

Other then that... its a decent monitor. It does suffer from the color brightness issue if I slouch in the chair... so luckily it has tilt, so I can just ooze it forward if I find myself being particularly lazy while playing a game. However, there is a caveat with that. When I slouch, and colors get a bit dimmer/muddier... it actually adds to some games (like oblivion, or dungeon crawlers), because it tones down the 'lets make everything super bright yet its a bloody cave with no fires or windows' syndrome. LOL.

But yeah, eh, everyone has their likes/dislikes and things they can tolerate or not.

Things I hate:
• Bad color banding
• Low refresh rates
• Massive dot pitch
• Super slow response times (like 12+)
• False advertising of colors and response times ...

[Silver Samurai]

Mr. Selvetarm, on July 28th 2009, 10:23 PM, said:

Dell 24 incher. $200 and it makes me tremble wih glee every time I have a project, the screen real estate is immeasurably helpful. It is TN, but honestly unless you/'re a videophile you're not going to notice the difference. ::crosses fingers, and grabs alley cat to defend himself from Teflon::

Sadly that monitor is on the US site. I'm in Canada. The CDN price is $380 which is waay too much.

So in regards to TN and PVA, which is comparable to the macbook monitor?

I'm not a videophile by any means. Ya I like to make it as crisp as possible, but as long as it's good (which is subjective) then it's ok. I've had no issues with any monitor or display I've had yet.

[teflon]

Apple use TN displays in the macbooks and IPS in MBPs, iMacs and their cinema displays.

[Silver Samurai]

teflon, on July 29th 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

Apple use TN displays in the macbooks and IPS in MBPs, iMacs and their cinema displays.

K thanks,
Atleast I now have something to use as a reference point.

[Sneaky Snake]

You might have moved past this but I just upgrading my screen up from a Samsung T220 HD to an Asus P243W. The Asus got good reviews and is cheap (I got my for $214, from Canada Computers). Its a glossy screen which i was skeptical about but its honestly much better then matte, and reflections aren't a problem even with windows behind the screen and on both its left and right - its bright enough that they aren't noticeable. The colours are very vibrant compared to my old Samsung matte screen and movies, pictures, and games look a lot more enticing.

Its a 24" 1920x1200 screen, with DVI, VGA, and HDMI, and 1:1 pixel mapping which is huge if you ever hook a console up to it or want to game at a lower, but native resolution. I strongly recommend this screen.

They have a few left around Ontario if your interested - It says refurb but they were merely sent back for a firmware update to work properly with Nvidia cards, there was no hardware issues.

[Silver Samurai]

Sneaky Snake, on August 1st 2009, 02:40 PM, said:

You might have moved past this but I just upgrading my screen up from a Samsung T220 HD to an Asus P243W. The Asus got good reviews and is cheap (I got my for $214, from Canada Computers). Its a glossy screen which i was skeptical about but its honestly much better then matte, and reflections aren't a problem even with windows behind the screen and on both its left and right - its bright enough that they aren't noticeable. The colours are very vibrant compared to my old Samsung matte screen and movies, pictures, and games look a lot more enticing.

Its a 24" 1920x1200 screen, with DVI, VGA, and HDMI, and 1:1 pixel mapping which is huge if you ever hook a console up to it or want to game at a lower, but native resolution. I strongly recommend this screen.

They have a few left around Ontario if your interested - It says refurb but they were merely sent back for a firmware update to work properly with Nvidia cards, there was no hardware issues.

Good price, but I havent seen any at the Waterloo store.
I always wondered what 1:1 pixel mapping did...
Thanks.

Also should I just go for a refurb and save myself some potential $$$? Or pay a lil more and get the full warranty?
I don't want to buy something and have it die in a few months...

Sorry but how/where do I see what monitor has pixel mapping?

[Sneaky Snake]

Silver Samurai, on August 2nd 2009, 12:39 PM, said:

Good price, but I havent seen any at the Waterloo store.
I always wondered what 1:1 pixel mapping did...
Thanks.

Also should I just go for a refurb and save myself some potential $$$? Or pay a lil more and get the full warranty?
I don't want to buy something and have it die in a few months...

Sorry but how/where do I see what monitor has pixel mapping?

You live in (near) Waterloo ?? That makes three of us. You'd have to look around for a review online to see if the monitor has 1:1 pixel mapping, although 1:1 pixel mapping is usually only found in higher end monitors. Personally I'd go refurb unless you plan on utilizing the warranty , paying the extra for a non-refurb probably won't pay off.