Re: Monitors

From	Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.misc
Subject	Re: Monitors
Date	2012-06-03 19:06 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<ic4nqsvvu7.fsf@home.home> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <jqb3c0$iut$1@dont-email.me> <icmx4m26fv.fsf@home.home> <E9OdnYRqU9m6BVbSnZ2dnUVZ7q-dnZ2d@lyse.net> <iczk8kw9yk.fsf@home.home> <1NGdnX0PD7JWT1bSnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@lyse.net>

Show all headers | View raw

David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 03/06/12 20:01, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> For an LCD you shop for resolution and size.
>>>> I'm currently at 20.5 inches and 1600x1200.
>>>> (DELL).
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't mind 24 inches or even 30 but anything less than
>>>> the vertical 1200 is out of the question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1600x1200 are getting rare and expensive.  The majority of screens use
>>> full HD resolution - 1920 x 1080.  I agree that having 1200 pixels
>>> vertically is much nicer than 1080 for a computer - but on my brief
>>> check of prices, the cheapest 1600 x 1200 I found is almost 50% more
>>> expensive than the cheapest 1920 x 1200 - and over three times the
>>> price of the cheapest 1920 x 1080.
>>>
>>> If you've got the money, there is a lot to be said for 2560x1440 - you
>>> get a nice big monitor, and the price is getting quite
>>> reasonable. Remember that a good monitor will last longer than your
>>> computer, and make a bigger difference to your working environment
>>> than the speed of the processor or graphics card.
>>
>> Yes I agree with everything you've said.
>>
>> Maybe because I've had CRTs and now LCDs with 1200 vertical pixels so long
>> I'm slightly prejudiced.  But I would not trade my 20.5 1600x1200 for
>> 30 inches of 1920x1080.  I'd consider that a loss of 120 pixels with
>> the horizontal gain being no real advantage.
>>
>
> Once you've got used to 1920 width, the horizontal gain /is/ a real
> advantage.  But I'd hate to lose the 120 vertical pixels - at my
> office, 1920 x 1200 is the standard size.  I do have one 1920 x 1080,
> and it's missing vertical resolution bugs me.
>
> At home I have a Dell U2711, with 2560 x 1440, which is /very/ nice.

I remember.  I bought the DELL 2100FP at the same price point the
U2711 is currently at.

Probably what I'll buy if this thing ever dies or they get
a lot cheaper.

>> You're right that the prices really start to go up at the higher
>> resolutions but for me, the monitor is the most important part of
>> the whole machine.
>>
>
> You've misread me a little.  Prices are going /up/ for 1600 x 1200 -
> but they are going /down/ for 1920 x 1200 (and 1920 x 1080 are very
> cheap) and 2560 x 1440.
>
> In other words, for computing use (rather than just watching TV on
> your computer), 1920 x 1200 is the spot to aim for, unless you lack
> the physical space for the width.  You get more horizontal pixels, the
> same vertical resolution, and a lower price.  But if you can afford
> it, 2560x1440 is a worthwhile investment for serious use.

Serious user here.
Plus, you only live once.

-- 
Dan Espen

Thread

Monitors Steve <tinker123@gmail.com> - 2012-05-20 05:52 -0700
  Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-05-20 17:29 +0200
    Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-05-20 15:35 +0000
      Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-01 17:17 +0000
        Re: Monitors Patrick <Patrick@none.com> - 2012-06-01 18:58 +0000
          Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-01 19:09 +0000
            Re: Monitors Patrick <0001patrick@gmail.com> - 2012-06-01 23:35 +0000
            Re: Monitors Patrick <0001patrick@gmail.com> - 2012-06-01 23:47 +0000
          Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-01 15:11 -0400
            Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-06-03 19:00 +0200
              Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-03 14:01 -0400
                Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-06-03 23:10 +0200
                Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-03 19:06 -0400
        Re: Monitors Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2012-06-02 04:51 +0000
          Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-02 05:36 +0000
          Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-02 10:41 +0100
          Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-04 14:27 +0000
            Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-04 17:23 +0200
              Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-04 15:31 +0000
                Re: Monitors David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-06-05 09:14 +0200
                Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-05 15:46 +0000
              Re: Monitors J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-06-04 15:41 +0000
                Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-04 18:27 +0200
                Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-04 17:00 +0000
                Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-04 14:14 -0400
                Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-04 18:17 +0000
                Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-04 18:58 +0000
                Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-04 16:33 -0400
                Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-04 21:17 +0000
                Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-04 20:52 +0000
        Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-02 12:36 +0000
          Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-06-02 11:59 -0400
            Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-02 17:34 +0000
              Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-06-02 15:40 -0400
              Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-02 23:45 +0100
                Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-03 00:46 +0200
                Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-02 23:52 +0100
                Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-03 00:54 +0200
                Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-03 00:08 +0100
                Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-03 02:52 +0000
                Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-03 13:08 +0100
                Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-03 13:10 +0000
                Re: Monitors Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2012-06-03 09:57 -0400
                Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-03 14:25 +0000
                Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-03 10:05 +0200
                Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-06-03 08:00 -0400
                Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-03 18:16 +0000
    Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-05-24 11:10 -0400
      Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-05-24 19:32 +0200
        Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-05-25 20:09 -0400
          Re: Monitors J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-05-26 09:35 +0000
            Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-05-26 08:07 -0400
              Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-05-26 19:49 +0200
            Re: Monitors Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> - 2012-05-26 16:42 +0000
  Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-05-26 00:32 +0000

csiph-web