Monitor suggestions, replacing an old 4:3 Acer 17'' with 16:10 or not ?

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Paul wrote:
Ale wrote:
Hi all,

actually I've a monitor LCD Acer 17'' with speakers, DVI and VGA
ports and max resolution 1280x1024.
I'm thinking if I have any benefits in changing with a new 16:10 one,
maybe 24'' with resolution 1920x1080 (full hd).

I don't use it for films, just to work and to play games, I've a good
video card (Radeon HD 5770 with 1GB DDR5) and windows 7 x64.


Thanks and best regards to all,
Ale

All that is doing, is giving you a wider screen. You'll
end up with about the same number of pixels vertically.

Some monitor options would be

1280 x 1024 (your current monitor with 5:4 aspect)

1920 x 1080 just wider
1920 x 1200 gain some vertical pixels
1600 x 1200 a 4:3 aspect ratio, a small improvement on X
and Y 2560 x 1600 30" monitor with plenty of pixels, needs
dual link DVI and one HD 5770 description
mentions that resolution as being supported.

There really aren't any good options for the 1600x1200 one. The
monitor doesn't end up being much larger than what you've got. Wide
screen format has kinda forced out the other kinds.

So then there would be 1920 x 1200.

One for a bit less than $300.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824176141

Same company, but over $500. This one has a H-IPS panel, which is
better for viewing angle (178°(H) / 178°(V)). Response time is
6 ms (GTG), so it may also be good enough for gaming. Normally,
a wide viewing angle monitor, is a candidate for Photoshop, because
you can move your head from side to side, without the colors shifting
too much. With a narrower viewing angle, there would be color
shift if you did that. The $300 monitor uses a TN panel with
160°(H) / 160°(V) viewing angle.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824176104

A 2560 x 1600 monitor is huge and typically pretty expensive ($1200+),
so I'm not even going to look for one :-)

Hi Paul.

I'm, still using 4:3 monitors and exclusively IPS. TN is fine for modern
short-screen monitors (in fact I think the move to short-screen was due to
TN being cheap [and nasty]) but just doesn't hack it for decent 4:3 screens
IMO.

If I move to short-screen (or more likely 'when' as 4:3 is getting hard to
get) I'll still go for IPS though. Once you've used them it's hard to go
back.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

On 5/20/2011 5:36 AM, Jon Danniken wrote:
[snip]
I don't think most folks would have have much problem with either 16:9
or 16:10 (still haven't figured out why 16:10 isn't shown as 8:5).

Likely because, for years, folks have been told that, when it comes to LCD
monitors bigger numbers are better. "They" don't want to scare off the
punters by offering an '8:5' screen, I mean, who in their right mind would
buy that? g
--
Shaun.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche