kony said:
Only you can answer that. It's subjective.
We could try to predict how a different resolution or aspect
ratio might effect your habits, but it would be far too easy
to be wrong as crystal balls are seldom guaranteed accurate.
Hard to say really, I have a vaiety of uses, WS might be useful for
displaying two poker tables for example, but I am not sure about this,
the software might shape the table to suit your monitor shape
(ie give a wide table on WS, but I am not sure, probably not I guess).
If thinking about single-use-at-a-time, widescreen LCD are
best for newer commercially produced video and a nice effect
on some games but not well enough supported on games in
general (though certainly in the future, support for them
will rise but how long and whether you are still using the
same LCD at that point for your primary gaming monitor (if
you game on one at all), we cannot predict either).
I don't really game and I wouldn't think many games are suited
to widescreen, its a pretty restrictive one dimensional format.
Incidently I was playing a bit of the pinball game included with XP
and it is fairly clear it is not suited to WS indeed it would have
helped if my 4:3 monitor was much taller obviously because
of the shape of a pinball table.
Before my first LCD I thought that too, it'll be nice for it
to take up less space. Now I have a lot of empty space
behind my monitor. Someday I'll put something behind it to
take up the space, maybe.
I guess I that would be a nice place for the speakers mine
are currently on the floor and a bit of a nuiscance there.
Mostly I love the per-pixel clarity, vastly diminished
flicker (I can discern even 100Hz refresh rate though I can
work ok with 75Hz or above), and considering your present
monitor seems older and possibly curved, it would be lower
glare too unless the LCD you choose has a hard coating or
plate over it. That can increase the perceived contrast,
but overall I still prefer uncoated (except on a laptop
where the extra protection is nice).
Can't say I have realy ever noticed the flicker.
Some 'sites were always wrong and always will be because the
creator foolishly tries to fit everything and the kitchen
sink on the page, or possibly as bad, they try to have vast
open areas of wasted space so they can have more colored
gradients.
Yes, and non.
If I had only one, it'd be 4:3, 1600x1200.
That's my suggestion unless you have a specific reason to
pick something else.
Mine is 1024 X 758 max, actually I have just realised something which
has made my mind up. When I play poker the standard table is 800X600
so it fills the screen in my usual resolution of 800X660. when I switch to
my highest
resolution I can see one table fully and about 1/3 of the other which makes
it
easier but still very awkward to play too tables.
Now with 1600X1200 I should be able to see *four* tables very nicely, one
in each corner which will be great!! Indeed I will be able to do the same
for
any for standard 800X600 screens.
So that settles it I must go out and get one ASAP!!
Just have to decide which model now!!
I guess the best way is to get down to the stores and see which one I think
looks the best?
With some (typically mid to higher end models), but you may
find you don't need to do it at all because each pixel is so
much more clear and because (assuming you get at least a 19"
which I highly recommend if not 20.x") of the larger size,
you may find you don't need to maximize the window or fit to
fill the whole screen as you would with the 14: CRT.
I suggest you go to a store where they let you navigate
around on their systems on display. See what you find
usable.
Yep.
It depends on what size you buy. I would not recommend 19"
or lower widescreen for the reasons you suggested above, at
least not for a primary monitor. Once you go to a larger
LCD and higher native resolution, then the factors I'd
mentioned above begin to apply again.
I was thiking 17" at first but I guess I may go for 19" or more
if the price is not extortionate!! Otherwise I might find the test hard to
read.
That depends on the size of your toolbars, taskbar, etc.
I think the primary question for someone buying "today" is
do they plan on watching a lot of commercially produced
video on it?
Forget I wrote that, I still suggest a 1600x1200 as the
first replacement for your CRT, except if you'll be gaming
and your video card can't push the pixels fast enough on
your games at 1600x1200. You may find FSAA even more usable
(desirable) on LCD because unlike CRT, LCD doesn't blur the
edges of pixels together. That's not necessarily bad, quite
the opposite but I think you will start to realize your tv
and games have image glitches you didn't notice because you
were watching on a small CRT.
Plan to always use the native resolution. It's not
absolutely horrible on non-native but once you get used to
the higher /native resolution, you'll probably prefer to
leave it there and will have new habits to do whatever
things you'll be doing.
Like anything else the budget would have to be considered.
If at least 20" is manageable, again I suggest 1600x1200 4:3
LCD except for the caveat above about gaming speed. If you
want to go significantly larger than 20.x", widescreen then
becomes more versatile for typical uses because of both the
higher res. and the higher physical space to view.
Then there's multiple monitors... depends on how you'll use
the system most, everything's a compromise.
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/st...ll=true#(any):100:350:PageNo_1: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!!
Where can I get one from?
This one might do it but at £900 its well into the 'extortionate price'
region!!
http://www.digiuk.com/productdetail...4&f2=8&f3=&f4=&f5=&f6=&f=2&t=4&ms=&k=&s=0>=