Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Information > Standard or Widescreen monitor?

Reply
Thread Tools

Standard or Widescreen monitor?

 
 
Bazzer Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2006

"kony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:08:56 GMT, "Bazzer Smith"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>True but I think I have made my mind up now on a LCD 1600X1200
>>
>>It will probably be one of these lot or similar, no need for a TV tuner
>>I think cos I get digital TV
>>
>>http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/sto...SortOrder_DOWN
>>
>>
>>However after having looked the problem is the max resolution is 1280 x
>>1024
>>not 1600X1200 so that is a fairly big compromise not that much better
>>than 1024X768 but I guess so I am kind of back to square one!!

>
> 1600x1200 is typically on 20"+, non-widescreen models. They
> are fairly common, it is a bit odd that PCWorld doesn't list
> any.
>
>
>>
>>Where can I get one from?

>
> I'm across the pond, don't know where. Just seek 20"
> non-widescreen, that's a start.
>
>
>>
>>This one might do it but at 900 its well into the 'extortionate price'
>>region!!
>>
>>http://www.digiuk.com/productdetail....ms=&k=&s=0&gt=
>>
>>

>
> If you want some makes and models to search for, use the
> info you can drill-down at Newegg,
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...020+1109909238


I can see I will have serious probs getting one at a reasonable price in the
UK!!





 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roderick Stewart
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Kony wrote:
> >However after having looked the problem is the max resolution is 1280 x 1024
> >not 1600X1200 so that is a fairly big compromise not that much better
> >than 1024X768 but I guess so I am kind of back to square one!!

>
> 1600x1200 is typically on 20"+, non-widescreen models. They
> are fairly common, it is a bit odd that PCWorld doesn't list
> any.


Not really. They cost an arm and a leg so PC World probably wouldn't sell many
from the shop, so not worth the shelf space. They may be common in business
environments, but when you can buy a complete packaged system including a
printer for less than a 20" display, that's what most home users will go for.

I'm using an Iiyama Prolite E511S, which is a superb 1600x1200 non widescreen
display, but I got it from a wholesaler after an internet search. You probably
won't see anything of this size in ordinary high street shops, except in the
Apple Mac showrooms, but then everybody accepts that their stuff is expensive.

Rod.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Agamemnon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2006

"kony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:33:35 +0100, "Agamemnon"
> <(E-Mail Removed)_SPAM> wrote:
>
>>
>>"kony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 04:23:35 +0100, "Agamemnon"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)_SPAM> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"kony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>news(E-Mail Removed) m...
>>>>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 03:17:16 GMT, "ThePunisher"
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Agamemnon" <(E-Mail Removed)_SPAM> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:(E-Mail Removed)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can discern every pixel on my display at 1920x1440.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Baaaahahhahhaha, of course you can Kal-El.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He might be able to in certain situations, like 1 light
>>>>> pixel among a field of dark, but the light pixel won't look
>>>>> the way it's supposed to, nor the adjacent dark ones.
>>>>> They'll be blurred together.
>>>>
>>>>A full stop is one pixel wide by one pixel high and I can see all of
>>>>them
>>>
>>> You can see a blurry part of one, and the blurred adjacent
>>> pixels.

>>
>>The are not blurred on my monitor.
>>

>
> It would be more accurate to claim your eyesight is too shot
> to notice. This is inherant in CRT technology itself, there
> is NO CRT that doesn't do it.
>
>
>
>>> You are conveniently ignoring that CRTs are not "perfect"
>>> either, they have their own gun-focus problems on flatter
>>> screens or glare on non-flat.

>>
>>Not on my monitor.

>
> Yes, on all of them, every last CRT on earth.
> Some do pretty good, you may not notice it much at all, but
> this is because it's a gradual deformation away from the
> center.
>


Not true.

Since you obviously have never used a high quality CRT there is no point in
taking this discussion any further.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> So you're pro-CRT, ok... it's still a poor way to tile 4
>>> windows for use. Most people would laugh if they saw you
>>> trying to use it alongside someone use using 2 wide-screen
>>> LCDs for the same tasks.

>>
>>But I'd have twice as many windows open and on screen at the same time
>>than
>>they did, and at a higher resolution per window, so I'd be the last one
>>laughing.

>
>
> You couldn't even use 4 as well as they do.


POPPYCOCK.

 
Reply With Quote
 
kony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2006
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:49:57 +0100, "Agamemnon"
<(E-Mail Removed)_SPAM> wrote:


>Not true.
>
>Since you obviously have never used a high quality CRT there is no point in
>taking this discussion any further.
>
>>



On the contrary, I've bought well-rated Trinitrons for years
which have far above average contrast.

I've also seen a shedload of monitors in my day, and they
all have this issue that you deny. Perhaps if you ever open
your mind a bit and buy a pair of widescreen LCD for a
side-by-side comparison, then finally you will see what I
mean.

 
Reply With Quote
 
kony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2006
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:01:10 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Kony wrote:
>> >However after having looked the problem is the max resolution is 1280 x 1024
>> >not 1600X1200 so that is a fairly big compromise not that much better
>> >than 1024X768 but I guess so I am kind of back to square one!!

>>
>> 1600x1200 is typically on 20"+, non-widescreen models. They
>> are fairly common, it is a bit odd that PCWorld doesn't list
>> any.

>
>Not really.


Yes, really.
Only recently were widescreen 20" becoming more common.


>They cost an arm and a leg



Maybe in the UK, but I have no idea where you've looked
either.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bazzer Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2006

"Pyriform" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Bazzer Smith wrote:
>> Some good points, but as far as watchng video on a computer I am
>> nearly always watching in a box of some sort so the actual screen
>> shape doesn't matter.

>
> Are you some kind of up-market homeless person?


Have you considered a career as a comedy script writer?

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What are the standard network functions provided in standard C? disappearedng@gmail.com C Programming 5 06-10-2008 08:57 PM
Widescreen: Widescreen TVs at SEARS liukaiyuan DVD Video 0 05-04-2008 01:45 AM
add pexpect to the standard library, standard "install" mechanism. funkyj Python 5 01-20-2006 08:35 PM
How standard is the standard library? steve.leach Python 1 04-18-2005 04:07 PM
Widescreen shows on widescreen TV Limited Edition Clear Vinyl DVD Video 10 04-04-2004 10:03 AM



Advertisments