Which 19" LCD Monitor?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Nicolaas Hawkins, Jul 4, 2008.

  1. At about the end of January 2009 I shall be looking to replace my 17" AOC
    CRT monitor with a 19" LCD unit. At the present time I have little
    knowledge and no practical experience w.r.t. LCD monitors.

    My budget for this exercise will be $400, absolute.

    I do not do games at all and do not watch but 3-4 movies a year, so I
    would take a lot of convincing to go to wide screen 14;9 OR 16:10 format -
    which I really do not much care for anyway.

    Having done a certain amount of homework, I have concluded that my current
    best options are the Samsung Syncmaster 943b or the Viewsonic VA926. Both
    are 5:4 aspect ratio. Unless there are compelling reasons to not do so
    (e.g., something vastly superior coming along in the meantime), my
    inclination is to go with the Samsung unit.

    I would be interested to hear from others _with practical experience_ in
    this area as to whether I am pointed in the right direction or whether
    there are other things I should perhaps consider.

    Thanks in advance.


    --
    - Nicolaas
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Jul 4, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nicolaas Hawkins

    impossible Guest

    "Nicolaas Hawkins" <> wrote in message
    news:1p4hr6af0uyva$...
    > At about the end of January 2009 I shall be looking to replace my 17" AOC
    > CRT monitor with a 19" LCD unit. At the present time I have little
    > knowledge and no practical experience w.r.t. LCD monitors.
    >
    > My budget for this exercise will be $400, absolute.
    >
    > I do not do games at all and do not watch but 3-4 movies a year, so I
    > would take a lot of convincing to go to wide screen 14;9 OR 16:10 format -
    > which I really do not much care for anyway.
    >
    > Having done a certain amount of homework, I have concluded that my current
    > best options are the Samsung Syncmaster 943b or the Viewsonic VA926. Both
    > are 5:4 aspect ratio. Unless there are compelling reasons to not do so
    > (e.g., something vastly superior coming along in the meantime), my
    > inclination is to go with the Samsung unit.
    >
    > I would be interested to hear from others _with practical experience_ in
    > this area as to whether I am pointed in the right direction or whether
    > there are other things I should perhaps consider.
    >
    > Thanks in advance.
    >
    >
    > --



    Have a look at some of the more thoughtful reviews on the web.

    http://tinyurl.com/655zjd

    Comparative reviews like those from X-bit labs are best, because they
    clearly explain the methodology they use to rate the monitors. Just be
    prepared to work with slightly different model numbers for products sold in
    NZ.
     
    impossible, Jul 4, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nicolaas Hawkins

    Squiggle Guest

    Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    > At about the end of January 2009 I shall be looking to replace my 17" AOC
    > CRT monitor with a 19" LCD unit. At the present time I have little
    > knowledge and no practical experience w.r.t. LCD monitors.
    >
    > My budget for this exercise will be $400, absolute.
    >
    > I do not do games at all and do not watch but 3-4 movies a year, so I
    > would take a lot of convincing to go to wide screen 14;9 OR 16:10 format -
    > which I really do not much care for anyway.
    >
    > Having done a certain amount of homework, I have concluded that my current
    > best options are the Samsung Syncmaster 943b or the Viewsonic VA926. Both
    > are 5:4 aspect ratio. Unless there are compelling reasons to not do so
    > (e.g., something vastly superior coming along in the meantime), my
    > inclination is to go with the Samsung unit.
    >
    > I would be interested to hear from others _with practical experience_ in
    > this area as to whether I am pointed in the right direction or whether
    > there are other things I should perhaps consider.
    >
    > Thanks in advance.
    >
    >


    What do you intend to do with the monitor?
    General web surfing, office documents?
    Anything for which better than average colour rendition would be required?
    Would you ever want to rotate the monitor to potrait orientation? can be
    handy for editting documents

    Also look at the other features you want/need.
    Speakers in monitors tend to be shite, but if all you need is basic
    sound are okay and save desk real estate compared to external speakers.
    USB ports in LCD monotors come in damn handy, I wish i had realised how
    handy when i got my LCD (which does not have them)
     
    Squiggle, Jul 4, 2008
    #3
  4. On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:46:21 +1200, Squiggle <> wrote
    in <news:486d72e1$>:

    > Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >> At about the end of January 2009 I shall be looking to replace my 17" AOC
    >> CRT monitor with a 19" LCD unit. At the present time I have little
    >> knowledge and no practical experience w.r.t. LCD monitors.
    >>
    >> My budget for this exercise will be $400, absolute.
    >>
    >> I do not do games at all and do not watch but 3-4 movies a year, so I
    >> would take a lot of convincing to go to wide screen 14;9 OR 16:10 format -
    >> which I really do not much care for anyway.
    >>
    >> Having done a certain amount of homework, I have concluded that my current
    >> best options are the Samsung Syncmaster 943b or the Viewsonic VA926. Both
    >> are 5:4 aspect ratio. Unless there are compelling reasons to not do so
    >> (e.g., something vastly superior coming along in the meantime), my
    >> inclination is to go with the Samsung unit.
    >>
    >> I would be interested to hear from others _with practical experience_ in
    >> this area as to whether I am pointed in the right direction or whether
    >> there are other things I should perhaps consider.
    >>
    >> Thanks in advance.
    >>

    >
    > What do you intend to do with the monitor?

    Apart from the obvious, you mean? :-\

    > General web surfing,

    yes

    > office documents?

    yes

    > Anything for which better than average colour rendition would be required?

    Working with/on photographs and some spot colour, but no need to colour
    profile for a printer.

    > Would you ever want to rotate the monitor to potrait orientation? can be
    > handy for editting documents

    Possibly for typesetting but never needed so far.

    > Also look at the other features you want/need.
    > Speakers in monitors tend to be shite, but if all you need is basic
    > sound are okay and save desk real estate compared to external speakers.

    I have a good external sound system, and not on the desk.

    > USB ports in LCD monotors come in damn handy, I wish i had realised how
    > handy when i got my LCD (which does not have them)

    Could be useful but I already have a 4-port USB hub on my desk.

    Thanks for the input.

    --
    - Nic.
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Jul 4, 2008
    #4
  5. On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:31:31 GMT, impossible <>
    wrote in <news:Dbebk.183032$TT4.77597@attbi_s22>:

    > "Nicolaas Hawkins" <> wrote in message
    > news:1p4hr6af0uyva$...
    >> At about the end of January 2009 I shall be looking to replace my 17" AOC
    >> CRT monitor with a 19" LCD unit. At the present time I have little
    >> knowledge and no practical experience w.r.t. LCD monitors.
    >>
    >> My budget for this exercise will be $400, absolute.
    >>
    >> I do not do games at all and do not watch but 3-4 movies a year, so I
    >> would take a lot of convincing to go to wide screen 14;9 OR 16:10 format -
    >> which I really do not much care for anyway.
    >>
    >> Having done a certain amount of homework, I have concluded that my current
    >> best options are the Samsung Syncmaster 943b or the Viewsonic VA926. Both
    >> are 5:4 aspect ratio. Unless there are compelling reasons to not do so
    >> (e.g., something vastly superior coming along in the meantime), my
    >> inclination is to go with the Samsung unit.
    >>
    >> I would be interested to hear from others _with practical experience_ in
    >> this area as to whether I am pointed in the right direction or whether
    >> there are other things I should perhaps consider.
    >>
    >> Thanks in advance.
    >>
    >>
    >> --

    >
    > Have a look at some of the more thoughtful reviews on the web.
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/655zjd
    >
    > Comparative reviews like those from X-bit labs are best, because they
    > clearly explain the methodology they use to rate the monitors. Just be
    > prepared to work with slightly different model numbers for products sold in
    > NZ.


    Thank you, I shall go looky.

    --
    - Nic.
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Jul 4, 2008
    #5
  6. Nicolaas Hawkins

    Enkidu Guest

    Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >
    > I do not do games at all and do not watch but 3-4 movies a year, so I
    > would take a lot of convincing to go to wide screen 14;9 OR 16:10 format -
    > which I really do not much care for anyway.
    >

    Yer mad, Nic. Within 18months everything, films, DVDs, TV and web sites
    will be in wide format. Go with the wide screen.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, Jul 4, 2008
    #6
  7. On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:36:46 +1200, Enkidu <>
    wrote in <news:>:

    > Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >>
    >> I do not do games at all and do not watch but 3-4 movies a year, so I
    >> would take a lot of convincing to go to wide screen 14;9 OR 16:10 format -
    >> which I really do not much care for anyway.
    >>

    > Yer mad, Nic. Within 18months everything, films, DVDs, TV and web sites
    > will be in wide format. Go with the wide screen.


    I'm not so sure about that, Cliff ....

    As I've already said, I don't do films, DVDs or TV on the computer, so no
    need of widescreen for those - and I need to sideways-scroll maybe one in
    twelve websites I visit and I can live with that. I can't see it changing
    much in the predictable future, though YMMV.

    A lot of what else I do concerns text editing, typesetting and document
    layout mainly in A-4 portrait format, so I am perfectly comfortable with
    the 4:3 or 5:4 aspect ratio.

    I do not much care for the 14:9 or 16:10 aspect ratios aesthetically, even
    though they more closely approximate the golden ratio - added to which I
    would lose an appreciable amount of vertical resolution that, for the
    types of things I do, I feel I can ill afford to lose.

    --
    - Nic.
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Jul 5, 2008
    #7
  8. Nicolaas Hawkins

    Tony Guest


    > I would be interested to hear from others _with practical experience_ in
    > this area as to whether I am pointed in the right direction or whether
    > there are other things I should perhaps consider.
    >
    > Thanks in advance.
    >



    I have one of these, its a little bigger than your 19inch but still
    within budget and is a fantastic monitor. The wide screen allows you to
    have two a4 size documents side by side which can be very handy.

    http://ascent.co.nz/productspecification.aspx?ItemID=360125
     
    Tony, Jul 6, 2008
    #8
  9. On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:00:19 +1200, ChrisOD <>
    wrote in <news:>:

    > On 2008-07-05, Nicolaas Hawkins <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:36:46 +1200, Enkidu <>
    >> wrote in <news:>:
    >>
    >>> Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> I do not do games at all and do not watch but 3-4 movies a year, so I
    >>>> would take a lot of convincing to go to wide screen 14;9 OR 16:10 format -
    >>>> which I really do not much care for anyway.
    >>>>
    >>> Yer mad, Nic. Within 18months everything, films, DVDs, TV and web sites
    >>> will be in wide format. Go with the wide screen.

    >>
    >> I'm not so sure about that, Cliff ....
    >>
    >> As I've already said, I don't do films, DVDs or TV on the computer, so no
    >> need of widescreen for those - and I need to sideways-scroll maybe one in
    >> twelve websites I visit and I can live with that. I can't see it changing
    >> much in the predictable future, though YMMV.
    >>
    >> A lot of what else I do concerns text editing, typesetting and document
    >> layout mainly in A-4 portrait format, so I am perfectly comfortable with
    >> the 4:3 or 5:4 aspect ratio.
    >>
    >> I do not much care for the 14:9 or 16:10 aspect ratios aesthetically, even
    >> though they more closely approximate the golden ratio - added to which I
    >> would lose an appreciable amount of vertical resolution that, for the
    >> types of things I do, I feel I can ill afford to lose.
    >>

    > Though you realise that a number of widescreen monitors can be rotated to be
    > portrait mode? Thus a widescreen monitor rotated may be even better for your
    > needs!
    >
    > Chris


    Thank you for your input, Chris.

    Yes, I have considered that aspect [sorry!] - but the inescapable fact is
    that I would lose an appreciable amount of resolution in the 'narrow'
    dimension, whether the monitor be rotated to portrait or landscape mode.

    Perhaps my use of the term 'vertical' resolution above was misleading when
    what I really meant was 'narrow-dimension' resolution.

    --
    - Nic.
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Jul 6, 2008
    #9
  10. On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:56:44 +1200, Tony
    <> wrote in
    <news:newscache$ly7k3k$szb$>:

    >> I would be interested to hear from others _with practical experience_ in
    >> this area as to whether I am pointed in the right direction or whether
    >> there are other things I should perhaps consider.
    >>
    >> Thanks in advance.
    >>

    >
    > I have one of these, its a little bigger than your 19inch but still
    > within budget and is a fantastic monitor. The wide screen allows you to
    > have two a4 size documents side by side which can be very handy.
    >
    > http://ascent.co.nz/productspecification.aspx?ItemID=360125


    Hello, Tony ...

    - thanks for the link to the Viewsonic 22 inch wide screen monitor. Nice
    thought. Two points, however:

    1. I have not yet seen a compelling reason _for my purposes_ to go to wide
    screen - albeit that the unit that you point me to is indeed within my
    budget (by about the thickness of its anti-glare coating :) ) and its
    native resolution is 1680x1050 which would give me back the resolution I
    would lose going from 1024 to 900 in the narrow dimension, plus a little
    bit ... which, however, leads to ...

    2. My video card (NVidia GEForce FX5200 128Mb) supports a maximum
    resolution of 1600x1200, so could not support it.

    --
    - Nic.
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Jul 6, 2008
    #10
  11. On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:25:09 +1200, Nicolaas Hawkins
    <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:56:44 +1200, Tony
    ><> wrote in
    ><news:newscache$ly7k3k$szb$>:
    >
    >>> I would be interested to hear from others _with practical experience_ in
    >>> this area as to whether I am pointed in the right direction or whether
    >>> there are other things I should perhaps consider.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks in advance.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I have one of these, its a little bigger than your 19inch but still
    >> within budget and is a fantastic monitor. The wide screen allows you to
    >> have two a4 size documents side by side which can be very handy.
    >>
    >> http://ascent.co.nz/productspecification.aspx?ItemID=360125

    >
    >Hello, Tony ...
    >
    >- thanks for the link to the Viewsonic 22 inch wide screen monitor. Nice
    >thought. Two points, however:
    >
    >1. I have not yet seen a compelling reason _for my purposes_ to go to wide
    >screen - albeit that the unit that you point me to is indeed within my
    >budget (by about the thickness of its anti-glare coating :) ) and its
    >native resolution is 1680x1050 which would give me back the resolution I
    >would lose going from 1024 to 900 in the narrow dimension, plus a little
    >bit ... which, however, leads to ...
    >
    >2. My video card (NVidia GEForce FX5200 128Mb) supports a maximum
    >resolution of 1600x1200, so could not support it.


    1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels
    1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels

    So your card may possibly support that monitor.
     
    Stephen Worthington, Jul 6, 2008
    #11
  12. On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 08:10:05 GMT, Stephen Worthington
    <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
    <news:>:

    > On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:25:09 +1200, Nicolaas Hawkins
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:56:44 +1200, Tony
    >><> wrote in
    >><news:newscache$ly7k3k$szb$>:
    >>
    >>>> I would be interested to hear from others _with practical experience_ in
    >>>> this area as to whether I am pointed in the right direction or whether
    >>>> there are other things I should perhaps consider.
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks in advance.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I have one of these, its a little bigger than your 19inch but still
    >>> within budget and is a fantastic monitor. The wide screen allows you to
    >>> have two a4 size documents side by side which can be very handy.
    >>>
    >>> http://ascent.co.nz/productspecification.aspx?ItemID=360125

    >>
    >>Hello, Tony ...
    >>
    >>- thanks for the link to the Viewsonic 22 inch wide screen monitor. Nice
    >>thought. Two points, however:
    >>
    >>1. I have not yet seen a compelling reason _for my purposes_ to go to wide
    >>screen - albeit that the unit that you point me to is indeed within my
    >>budget (by about the thickness of its anti-glare coating :) ) and its
    >>native resolution is 1680x1050 which would give me back the resolution I
    >>would lose going from 1024 to 900 in the narrow dimension, plus a little
    >>bit ... which, however, leads to ...
    >>
    >>2. My video card (NVidia GEForce FX5200 128Mb) supports a maximum
    >>resolution of 1600x1200, so could not support it.

    >
    > 1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels
    > 1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels
    >
    > So your card may possibly support that monitor.


    Hello, Stephen ...

    With the greatest of respect, when the specs of my video cars day that the
    highest resolution it supports is 1600x1200 I am inclined to believe it,
    total number of pixels notwithstanding. Believe me, I have done my
    homework on this pretty thoroughly.

    --
    - Nic.
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Jul 6, 2008
    #12
  13. Nicolaas Hawkins

    Squiggle Guest

    Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    > On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 08:10:05 GMT, Stephen Worthington
    > <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
    > <news:>:
    >
    >> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:25:09 +1200, Nicolaas Hawkins
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:56:44 +1200, Tony
    >>> <> wrote in
    >>> <news:newscache$ly7k3k$szb$>:
    >>>
    >>>>> I would be interested to hear from others _with practical experience_ in
    >>>>> this area as to whether I am pointed in the right direction or whether
    >>>>> there are other things I should perhaps consider.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks in advance.
    >>>>>
    >>>> I have one of these, its a little bigger than your 19inch but still
    >>>> within budget and is a fantastic monitor. The wide screen allows you to
    >>>> have two a4 size documents side by side which can be very handy.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://ascent.co.nz/productspecification.aspx?ItemID=360125
    >>> Hello, Tony ...
    >>>
    >>> - thanks for the link to the Viewsonic 22 inch wide screen monitor. Nice
    >>> thought. Two points, however:
    >>>
    >>> 1. I have not yet seen a compelling reason _for my purposes_ to go to wide
    >>> screen - albeit that the unit that you point me to is indeed within my
    >>> budget (by about the thickness of its anti-glare coating :) ) and its
    >>> native resolution is 1680x1050 which would give me back the resolution I
    >>> would lose going from 1024 to 900 in the narrow dimension, plus a little
    >>> bit ... which, however, leads to ...
    >>>
    >>> 2. My video card (NVidia GEForce FX5200 128Mb) supports a maximum
    >>> resolution of 1600x1200, so could not support it.

    >> 1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels
    >> 1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels
    >>
    >> So your card may possibly support that monitor.

    >
    > Hello, Stephen ...
    >
    > With the greatest of respect, when the specs of my video cars day that the
    > highest resolution it supports is 1600x1200 I am inclined to believe it,
    > total number of pixels notwithstanding. Believe me, I have done my
    > homework on this pretty thoroughly.
    >


    Older drivers did not support the widescreen resolutions, a new set of
    drivers and the correct .inf file should fix the problem unde windows.
    Linux might require a bit of fiddling with the X server config files.


    http://thoughtsfrommylife.com/article-626-Viewsonic_VA2226w_Review_-_22_inch_Widescreen_LCD_Monitor
     
    Squiggle, Jul 6, 2008
    #13
  14. On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:28:25 +1200, Squiggle <> wrote
    in <news:48713900$>:

    > Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 08:10:05 GMT, Stephen Worthington
    >> <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
    >> <news:>:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:25:09 +1200, Nicolaas Hawkins
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:56:44 +1200, Tony
    >>>> <> wrote in
    >>>> <news:newscache$ly7k3k$szb$>:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> I would be interested to hear from others _with practical experience_ in
    >>>>>> this area as to whether I am pointed in the right direction or whether
    >>>>>> there are other things I should perhaps consider.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Thanks in advance.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> I have one of these, its a little bigger than your 19inch but still
    >>>>> within budget and is a fantastic monitor. The wide screen allows you to
    >>>>> have two a4 size documents side by side which can be very handy.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://ascent.co.nz/productspecification.aspx?ItemID=360125
    >>>> Hello, Tony ...
    >>>>
    >>>> - thanks for the link to the Viewsonic 22 inch wide screen monitor. Nice
    >>>> thought. Two points, however:
    >>>>
    >>>> 1. I have not yet seen a compelling reason _for my purposes_ to go to wide
    >>>> screen - albeit that the unit that you point me to is indeed within my
    >>>> budget (by about the thickness of its anti-glare coating :) ) and its
    >>>> native resolution is 1680x1050 which would give me back the resolution I
    >>>> would lose going from 1024 to 900 in the narrow dimension, plus a little
    >>>> bit ... which, however, leads to ...
    >>>>
    >>>> 2. My video card (NVidia GEForce FX5200 128Mb) supports a maximum
    >>>> resolution of 1600x1200, so could not support it.
    >>> 1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels
    >>> 1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels
    >>>
    >>> So your card may possibly support that monitor.

    >>
    >> Hello, Stephen ...
    >>
    >> With the greatest of respect, when the specs of my video cars day that the
    >> highest resolution it supports is 1600x1200 I am inclined to believe it,
    >> total number of pixels notwithstanding. Believe me, I have done my
    >> homework on this pretty thoroughly.
    >>

    >
    > Older drivers did not support the widescreen resolutions, a new set of
    > drivers and the correct .inf file should fix the problem unde windows.
    > Linux might require a bit of fiddling with the X server config files.


    Just three days ago I updated to ver 175.16 (the latest) of the driver
    from the NVidia website in the hope that it would support the higher
    resolutions with the FX5200 card. No such luck, alas.

    Not to start a platform war here, but ... Linux? Not in my lifetime.

    --
    - Nic.
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Jul 6, 2008
    #14
  15. Nicolaas Hawkins

    Squiggle Guest

    Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    > On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:28:25 +1200, Squiggle <> wrote
    > in <news:48713900$>:
    >
    >> Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 08:10:05 GMT, Stephen Worthington
    >>> <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
    >>> <news:>:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:25:09 +1200, Nicolaas Hawkins
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:56:44 +1200, Tony
    >>>>> <> wrote in
    >>>>> <news:newscache$ly7k3k$szb$>:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> I would be interested to hear from others _with practical experience_ in
    >>>>>>> this area as to whether I am pointed in the right direction or whether
    >>>>>>> there are other things I should perhaps consider.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Thanks in advance.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> I have one of these, its a little bigger than your 19inch but still
    >>>>>> within budget and is a fantastic monitor. The wide screen allows you to
    >>>>>> have two a4 size documents side by side which can be very handy.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://ascent.co.nz/productspecification.aspx?ItemID=360125
    >>>>> Hello, Tony ...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> - thanks for the link to the Viewsonic 22 inch wide screen monitor. Nice
    >>>>> thought. Two points, however:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 1. I have not yet seen a compelling reason _for my purposes_ to go to wide
    >>>>> screen - albeit that the unit that you point me to is indeed within my
    >>>>> budget (by about the thickness of its anti-glare coating :) ) and its
    >>>>> native resolution is 1680x1050 which would give me back the resolution I
    >>>>> would lose going from 1024 to 900 in the narrow dimension, plus a little
    >>>>> bit ... which, however, leads to ...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 2. My video card (NVidia GEForce FX5200 128Mb) supports a maximum
    >>>>> resolution of 1600x1200, so could not support it.
    >>>> 1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels
    >>>> 1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels
    >>>>
    >>>> So your card may possibly support that monitor.
    >>> Hello, Stephen ...
    >>>
    >>> With the greatest of respect, when the specs of my video cars day that the
    >>> highest resolution it supports is 1600x1200 I am inclined to believe it,
    >>> total number of pixels notwithstanding. Believe me, I have done my
    >>> homework on this pretty thoroughly.
    >>>

    >> Older drivers did not support the widescreen resolutions, a new set of
    >> drivers and the correct .inf file should fix the problem unde windows.
    >> Linux might require a bit of fiddling with the X server config files.

    >
    > Just three days ago I updated to ver 175.16 (the latest) of the driver
    > from the NVidia website in the hope that it would support the higher
    > resolutions with the FX5200 card. No such luck, alas.
    >



    As it happens i have a PC here with those drivers.
    If you browse to the directory where the nvidia drivers are installed
    (c:\nvidia is the default i beleive) there is a file called "modes.txt".
    In the first section it lists standard modes available to all the
    cards/GPUs listed in the preceeding header. 1680 x 1050 is available in
    8, 16 & 32 bit per pixel colour depth at 60Hz refresh for the FX 5200,
    FX 5200LE and FX 5200 Ultra cards.

    These will not show up in the control panel if the currently connected
    monitor cannot support them, or if windows does not know that the
    currently connected monitor can support them (ie, the .inf file for that
    monitor is not installed)

    > Not to start a platform war here, but ... Linux? Not in my lifetime.


    Fair enough, it has its uses, but the hassles of changing over aren't
    worth it for some.
     
    Squiggle, Jul 6, 2008
    #15
  16. In article <487145ea$>, Squiggle <> wrote:
    (snip)
    >
    >> Not to start a platform war here, but ... Linux? Not in my lifetime.

    >
    >Fair enough, it has its uses, but the hassles of changing over aren't
    >worth it for some.


    Interesting. I am running kubuntu 7.10. The new monitor (AOC LCD) plugged
    in, switched on and went. The point here is that modern screens are a lot
    cleverer at working out what the input is and just displaying it. :)
    Long gone are the days when you had to tell the monitor what to expect ...
    even the last CRT monitor I had did this fine.
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 7, 2008
    #16
  17. On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:23:31 +1200, Squiggle <> wrote
    in <news:487145ea$>:

    >> Just three days ago I updated to ver 175.16 (the latest) of the driver
    >> from the NVidia website in the hope that it would support the higher
    >> resolutions with the FX5200 card. No such luck, alas.
    >>

    >
    > As it happens i have a PC here with those drivers.
    > If you browse to the directory where the nvidia drivers are installed
    > (c:\nvidia is the default i beleive) there is a file called "modes.txt".
    > In the first section it lists standard modes available to all the
    > cards/GPUs listed in the preceeding header. 1680 x 1050 is available in
    > 8, 16 & 32 bit per pixel colour depth at 60Hz refresh for the FX 5200,
    > FX 5200LE and FX 5200 Ultra cards.


    I saw that in the modes.txt and wondered why it didn't show up in the
    available resolutions for the card - whether I had done a bum install.


    > These will not show up in the control panel if the currently connected
    > monitor cannot support them, or if windows does not know that the
    > currently connected monitor can support them (ie, the .inf file for that
    > monitor is not installed)


    Ah, so! In light of that info, it makes sense. The monitor I currently
    have is an AOC 17" CRT and the maximum resolution the card says is
    available is 1600x1200. I normally use it at 1024x768, 32-bit, 60Hz which
    suits my ageing 60+-year-old eyes just fine.

    --
    - Nic.
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Jul 7, 2008
    #17
  18. On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 23:27:41 GMT, Bruce Sinclair
    <> wrote in
    <news:g4rntt$46s$>:

    > In article <487145ea$>, Squiggle <> wrote:
    > (snip)
    >>
    >>> Not to start a platform war here, but ... Linux? Not in my lifetime.

    >>
    >>Fair enough, it has its uses, but the hassles of changing over aren't
    >>worth it for some.

    >
    > Interesting. I am running kubuntu 7.10. The new monitor (AOC LCD) plugged
    > in, switched on and went. The point here is that modern screens are a lot
    > cleverer at working out what the input is and just displaying it. :)
    > Long gone are the days when you had to tell the monitor what to expect ...
    > even the last CRT monitor I had did this fine.


    Out of interest, Bruce, are you feeding it with an analog or digital (DVI)
    signal? My point being that they tend to auto-configure to a DVI signal
    whereas for an analog signal they need setting up.

    --
    - Nic.
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Jul 7, 2008
    #18
  19. Nicolaas Hawkins

    Squiggle Guest

    Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:

    >
    >> These will not show up in the control panel if the currently connected
    >> monitor cannot support them, or if windows does not know that the
    >> currently connected monitor can support them (ie, the .inf file for that
    >> monitor is not installed)

    >
    > Ah, so! In light of that info, it makes sense. The monitor I currently
    > have is an AOC 17" CRT and the maximum resolution the card says is
    > available is 1600x1200. I normally use it at 1024x768, 32-bit, 60Hz which
    > suits my ageing 60+-year-old eyes just fine.
    >


    If you open the nvidia control panel, select the manage custom
    resolutions item on the menu on the left you will see a box labelled
    "Allow modes not exposed by the display". If you enable that checkbox
    then flip back to the change resolution screen you should be able see a
    whole lot of modes that you probably dont want to try on a CRT monitor.

    As Bruce mentioned mostly these days its plug'n'play, but there is still
    the occasional bout of plug'n'pray.
     
    Squiggle, Jul 7, 2008
    #19
  20. On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:34:24 +1200, Squiggle <> wrote
    in <news:>:

    > Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>> These will not show up in the control panel if the currently connected
    >>> monitor cannot support them, or if windows does not know that the
    >>> currently connected monitor can support them (ie, the .inf file for that
    >>> monitor is not installed)

    >>
    >> Ah, so! In light of that info, it makes sense. The monitor I currently
    >> have is an AOC 17" CRT and the maximum resolution the card says is
    >> available is 1600x1200. I normally use it at 1024x768, 32-bit, 60Hz which
    >> suits my ageing 60+-year-old eyes just fine.
    >>

    >
    > If you open the nvidia control panel, select the manage custom
    > resolutions item on the menu on the left you will see a box labelled
    > "Allow modes not exposed by the display". If you enable that checkbox
    > then flip back to the change resolution screen you should be able see a
    > whole lot of modes that you probably dont want to try on a CRT monitor.
    >
    > As Bruce mentioned mostly these days its plug'n'play, but there is still
    > the occasional bout of plug'n'pray.


    Nope. Did as you suggested with the nVidia control panel, but it still
    won't show me anything beyond 1600x1200. Looks like there is something
    else leg-roping it. Maybe I ought to try praying :)


    --
    - Nic.
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Jul 7, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Anthony R Gargano

    Which LCD Monitor?

    Anthony R Gargano, Oct 9, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    745
    Ed Bigelow
    Oct 11, 2003
  2. John
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    713
  3. Goforit

    Which LCD 17inch monitor??

    Goforit, Aug 4, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    363
    Goforit
    Aug 5, 2004
  4. Rajinder Nijjhar

    Which LCD Monitor to buy

    Rajinder Nijjhar, Jan 22, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    557
    Donald
    Jan 25, 2006
  5. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    745
Loading...

Share This Page