|
On January 09 2011 09:11 telfire wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 09:05 Marcus420 wrote:On January 09 2011 08:45 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:42 Marcus420 wrote:On January 09 2011 08:33 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:23 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 09 2011 08:07 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:03 TheAngelofDeath wrote:
24" of 1080p beauty. :D On that note, I would highly, HIGHLY recommend the OP to stay WAYYYYY away from "1080p" or "HD" monitors. That is actually an extremely low resolution for a monitor that big (not saying they are bad, but if you're gonna spend that much money get more pixels!) So you're saying go spend twice as much money to get a monitor like your's? For normal people not converting their computer into a home entertainment center, or doing some sort of high precision graphic design, a 24" HD monitor is fine for an average budget. Not everyone wants to go spend $250 on a 27 inch monitor that doesn't have HD =/ What do you mean that doesn't have HD? HD is a resolution.. all monitors have a resolution. HD just happens to be a low one. And last I checked there was little price difference between a big monitor with a decent resolution and a big monitor with a terribad resolution, mostly because uninformed individuals like yourself mistakenly believe "HD" is good in some way. What are you talking about? What resolution are you talking about? 1080P HD is the most common HD computer monitors. 1080P is perfect. HD is not "low" or "terribad" If youre saying only 2560 x 1600 is the only way to go, please show us something that isn't ridiculously expensive. You sound like the one that is uninformed, plus youre completely derailing this thread. I have a Dell U2311H. One of the best computer IPS monitors on the market that is 300$ or less if you can get it on sale. Edited my post to be more clear I hope... But sorry, you are wrong. 1080P is very low and has been for about 5 years on monitors this large. I thought the purpose of the thread was he wanted recommendations on a new monitor? I'm just trying to help him out, stating the inarguable fact that "HD" is not actually a very good resolution if you're buying a monitor this large. I'm just making the recommendation that he get a decent resolution monitor if he's going to buy one this big, because I fail to see the purpose of a huge monitor that displays barely more pixels than my phone screen. The derailing happened when people argued with me and started spewing pure misinformation like "HD>not HD". I'm not currently in the market for a monitor, and I'm not about to do a bunch of research to prove myself to a couple clueless forum trolls, but I know HP and Dell offer 2560x1600 monitors and the prices would depend when/where you got it. I would of course recommend spending some effort to find a good deal regardless, if it costs full retail it's a bad deal. 1920 x 1080 is not a 'low" resolution. I have no idea where you are getting this from. There are SOME monitors that are higher, 1920 x 1200, etc. Those monitors tend to be VERY expensive, which most normal people wouldn't need a few extra pixels anyways. 1920 x 1080 is perfectly fine for a 24 inch monitor or less, anything more would just be overkill. What computer monitor do you deem "decent" or even very good? Id really, REALLY like to know, because i will eat my socks if it is a good price(less than $500) You must be thinking of a 52 inch (example)1080 p monitor/TV. Then yes i would agree that a higher resolution would be in store. I dont get how you can come off calling other people "forum trolls". When people buy computer monitors, they look for something that is a nice size, but isnt too big. Most people, when buying a computer monitor would spend less than $500. The monitors that fall into this category are 22' - 24' 1920x1080 res monitors AND they are far from bad, like you seem to make it sound. If you dont agree with this, post an example. I do not agree, and I will not post an example, because I'm too lazy and I've nothing to prove. I have had 3 monitors in a row that were at least 2550x1500 and it's not like I'm rich, I've never spent more than $500 on a monitor. I know that for a fact so I'm done here. I don't have to prove anything to your douche ass.
Wow, just wow. I've rarely posted in the last few years, but this troll is just too much.
Let's see:
What monitor's support 2560x1600? ONLY 30" monitors, and that's a fact. You have a 27"? Then it's either 1920x(1080/1200), or 2560x1440.
You spent less than $500 and had at least 2560x1600? What, did you find an IBM T220 in a pawn shop?
Five years ago, 1280x1024 was the standard. Maybe you're referring to 1024p, but you sure as hell don't seem like it. You make 1920x1080 sound like 1024x768.
All I read from your post is trying to convince the OP to find "at least" a $700+ monitor, but at $250. Your statements make no sense to anyone who is even half informed regarding PC hardware.
Yes, you'll likely tell me to stop trolling, but it's pretty obvious who's the troll. I'm not here to call anyone a "douche ass." I'm just stating the facts. You have nothing to prove? No kidding, that's why you're wrong.
And to the OP: 21.5 - 24" 1920x1080 monitor I suggest. They're ridiculously cheap nowadays, and is a very high resolution for anything. It supports "full HD," and any higher will cost a huge amount more (2560x(1440/1600). There was a 2048x1152 23" monitor from Samsung that was relatively cheap, but that was discontinued a while back.
|
On January 09 2011 09:08 telfire wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 09:04 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 09 2011 09:00 Element)LoGiC wrote:On January 09 2011 08:45 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:42 Marcus420 wrote:On January 09 2011 08:33 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:23 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 09 2011 08:07 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:03 TheAngelofDeath wrote:
24" of 1080p beauty. :D On that note, I would highly, HIGHLY recommend the OP to stay WAYYYYY away from "1080p" or "HD" monitors. That is actually an extremely low resolution for a monitor that big (not saying they are bad, but if you're gonna spend that much money get more pixels!) So you're saying go spend twice as much money to get a monitor like your's? For normal people not converting their computer into a home entertainment center, or doing some sort of high precision graphic design, a 24" HD monitor is fine for an average budget. Not everyone wants to go spend $250 on a 27 inch monitor that doesn't have HD =/ What do you mean that doesn't have HD? HD is a resolution.. all monitors have a resolution. HD just happens to be a low one. And last I checked there was little price difference between a big monitor with a decent resolution and a big monitor with a terribad resolution, mostly because uninformed individuals like yourself mistakenly believe "HD" is good in some way. What are you talking about? What resolution are you talking about? 1080P HD is the most common HD computer monitors. 1080P is perfect. HD is not "low" or "terribad" If youre saying only 2560 x 1600 is the only way to go, please show us something that isn't ridiculously expensive. You sound like the one that is uninformed, plus youre completely derailing this thread. I have a Dell U2311H. One of the best computer IPS monitors on the market that is 300$ or less if you can get it on sale. It derails the topic when people like you reply just to start arguments and spew pure misinformation like "HD>not HD". It would continue to derail the thread if I continued to argue with you, so I will not. The bottom line is 2560x1600 is better in every way, and "HD" is likely the lowest resolution you'll ever find on a monitor 24 inches or bigger. When I purchased my monitor the price ended up being less than if I had gone with a low resolution "HD" monitor. Granted, that was partially due to buying my computer at the same time. Just trying to provide useful info to the OP. 2560 x 1600 on 24 inches? Are you serious? If you can find me a reasonably priced 24 inch monitor at that resolution I'll buy it. Newegg doesn't offer one in that resolution for under $1000, and the smallest size is 30 inches. There is no such thing (to my knowledge) as a 24" monitor in that resolution. Well your knowledge is incomplete, and as long as that is the case you shouldn't go around calling people liars because you've never heard of something. Last time I try to offer helpful advice.
You guys need to leave telfire alone, hes the victim here. He`s just trying to give advice by calling people ignorant and not posting any real helpful information.
|
LOL!!! I post my monitor's res, and tellfire goes on an insane hissy fit. This topic is gold.
On January 09 2011 09:53 Kang19 wrote:
LMFAO @ telfire. "HERP DERP YOU GUYS ARE ALL WRONG AND I HAVE HAD PLENTY OF 2560x1600 MONITORS BUT I WONT SHARE ANY MODEL NUMBERS WITH YOU BECAUSE YOURE ALL DOUCHEBAGS!!"
Might be the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Thank you sir! :D
|
Going to have to second the recommendation of a second monitor. I have a 15.4" laptop (1440x900) and a 20" external monitor (1600x900). It's nice that the two have the same vertical dimensions, even though the monitor screen is a couple inches taller than the laptop.
If you're on a budget (or tight on space), you can get a 20" 1600x900 refurbished monitor for $100 or so. Mine is refurbished, but has been going strong for more than a year now.
|
30 inch ZR30W 
|
42 inch hdtv and 22 inch monitor as a secondary one
|
I've heard some good things about BenQ recently, so I'll second Kang19's recommendation. They're supposed to be a pretty good blend of quality and price.
|
|
|
21.5 1920x1080 LG Im more than happy with it
|
23" 1080p Dell IPS u2311h
Brilliant monitor, great viewing angles (ips) amazing colour and no noticable input lag (i play motorstorm on it and feel no lag!)
Reccommend it to anyone actually looking to get another one for a dual monitor setup
|
Dell 2209wa - 22" 1680 x 1050
I like the height of the 16:10 ratio.
|
|
|
15" laptop + 15" extra screen.
For a desktop, I'd probably go 2 x 22" or higher.
|
24" Dell 2405. It's an old school 1920x1200 P-MVA. Market is now saturated with TN's and 1080P monitors it's a bit sad now. I have no idea what the standard monitor is now, but spend good money on whatever you choose to get.
I've had my 24" for 5 years now. When I upgraded to it in 2005, from a 17", it was ridiculous. Even today it's holding a good value. I daresay it is the best purchase I made in my 10 years of building PCs.
|
Right now playing on a 13.3" 1366x768 laptop screen. Ouch my eyessssssssss...
|
I like my 23 inch at 2048x1152.
There was a 2048x1152 23" monitor from Samsung that was relatively cheap, but that was discontinued a while back.
That one yup.
Fucking tight and was only 180 when I got it.
|
I use a 15.6" laptop 1366x768 res. Sometimes I hook it up to my tv in my dorm which is 22" 1080p LED TV.
|
United States93 Posts
I have a 20" (I think, It's been awhile since I bought it), 1600x1200 Dell IPS, and a 19" 800x600 Viewsonic CRT. The LCD is for Starcraft and general tasks, the CRT is for Quake and as a second monitor to watch videos and such on.
|
24" lcd and i run it at 1920x1080
|
Canada13389 Posts
14"laptop screen and a 20" external when im at home
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
