Anyone ever go from a larger panel back down to a smaller panel.

N

Nearsite

Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
965
In today's hardware world, everyone seems to want to upgrade from smaller, slower, to faster and bigger. It seems bigger is almost always 'better'. But I say thee NAY!

I'm currently running with a BenQ V2400W and although it's nice to have so much screen real estate, I'm finding that I really don't need that much monitor as all I really do is game, and encode a couple of movies.

My question is, has anyone ever gone from a larger monitor back down to a smaller one, and if so, what was your experience like, positive, negative, no difference?
 
my next monitor will probably be a 22" or 23" 1680x1050

the 30" is amazing but too much to replace, and the 2560x1600 just means you need smoking graphics to play any games
 
I can't see why you'd want a smaller monitor for gaming. The bigger it is the more immersive the experience.

The only time I've gone back to a smaller monitor is when the bigger one quits working. Oh, the horror.:(
 
My work monitor is only 19", and it's really difficult to work on it compared to the 27.5" at home. :(
 
The only thing you gain by going smaller is deskspace. I say buy a bigger desk!

Dave
 
dark_reign said:
I can't see why you'd want a smaller monitor for gaming. The bigger it is the more immersive the experience.

The only time I've gone back to a smaller monitor is when the bigger one quits working. Oh, the horror.:(
Click to expand...
In gaming, bigger doesn't allways mean better. Monitor size depends on many factors, such as design and size of your desk, room, setup and space around it. Also it depends on computer performance because big monitors have very high native resolutions and not all games can be rendered fast on that resolution. Monitor must be well size for user not because it is big or not, for example If I had over 24 inch monitor on my desk, it would be too close to me and probably the screen would be bigger than my vision field, that could result in not seeing Head-up Display information and other important parts of the image. In other way some personal needs can come to this, not everyone like widescreen monitors and standard aspect ratio monitors were biggest 20 inch only.

As of downgrades, I think they are normal but for most board users it's harder to pass through it because most of us are computer enthusiasts who have different demands and requirements than most computer users(temporaily I experienced many downgrades due to malfunction of mainly used hw and it was not that bad).
 
Acer_Sheep said:
In gaming, bigger doesn't allways mean better. Monitor size depends on many factors, such as design and size of your desk, room, setup and space around it. Also it depends on computer performance because big monitors have very high native resolutions and not all games can be rendered fast on that resolution. Monitor must be well size for user not because it is big or not, for example If I had over 24 inch monitor on my desk, it would be too close to me and probably the screen would be bigger than my vision field, that could result in not seeing Head-up Display information and other important parts of the image. In other way some personal needs can come to this, not everyone like widescreen monitors and standard aspect ratio monitors were biggest 20 inch only.
Click to expand...
You can down res games if the performance is choppy at the native res. Going from 1920x1200 to 1650x1050 results in better performance and only a slight loss in IQ. With aspect scaling, IQ isn't nearly as bad.

I would agree that you shouldn't be gaming with a low-end video card on a bigger display, but my point was that when you go back to something like a 17" monitor from a 24" monitor, you lose a lot of immersion. It's not the end of the world, but it's just not the same experience.

As for a 24" monitor being too close, you can easily push it back or you can sit back further. If the desk is that shallow in depth, then I'd get a bigger one.;)
 
dark_reign said:
As for a 24" monitor being too close, you can easily push it back or you can sit back further. If the desk is that shallow in depth, then I'd get a bigger one.;)
Click to expand...

Some of us live in apartments. ;)

I agree about being so close, though. I had been using a 17" 4:3 LCD for many years (all through college) and just recently went up to a 20" 16:10 display. Wasn't a huge vertical size difference, but the extra width is very nice. Also, a 20" widescreen is all that will fit on my desk, as well (it takes up basically the entire monitor "area" in terms of width and height.) I sit about a foot or two away from the screen, so getting anything larger wouldn't make any sense anyway.
 
I went from a 22.5" viewable FW900 CRT to a 20.1" NEC 20WMGX2. The FW900 was getting wonky in its old age - the screen would blank out momentarily if I stepped on certain areas of the floor, the geometry was a bit messed up so I couldn't ever get the screen to be quite square, and Hz other than 60Hz tended to experience jittering.

The reason I went smaller was that I've lost all of my peripheral vision, and realized I was missing cues in games because I couldn't see the outer two inches of either side of the FW900, so there was no point in getting a bigger monitor. So I got the best smaller gaming monitor that existed at the time, and as far as I can tell they haven't made anything better, so I'm quite happy with my choice.
 
I live by myself bnut often go back to my parents' place for a few days every couple of weeks, so I'm often changing monitor size. I go from the 22" on my PC here, to my old 20" that my Mum now uses, to the 19" LCDs that my Dad uses down to the 17" CRT that's on my old computer at their place.

Its no big deal really, maybe when I first started doing it it'd take me a day or two to get used to a smaller monitor, now it only takes a couple of hours. People make a big deal about monitor size, but the fact is, you have the "wow" factor of going to a bigger monitor for about a week before you get used to it, then likewise it annoys you going back to a small monitor for a while then you just accept it and use it anyway. As long as you are sitting close enough to actually read it I rarely have a problem going to a smaller monitor. It only really bothers me when I'm watching movies on my PC, coz I usually sit away a couple of metres when watching movies, then you notice the size difference.

Its more the resolution than anything else, smaller monitor usually = lower resolution and you have to get used to the reduced workspace, but once you do its fine. To be honest I can't notice the difference between a 20" and a 22" because they are the same res (obviously newer 22" may be 1920x1080, but I'm talking about the 1680x1050 variety). All that happens is I tend to sit a little closer to the 20" so I can read the text, but its not even a conscious thing. My brain automatically tells my body to sit the distance away that makes the text large enough to read clearly, so I really dont notice the difference unless I'm looking for it.
 
I have 3 monitors split between my primary PC and my HTPC.

Primary PC has 26" NEC 2690WUXi and 19" Planar PX191 connected to it. I'm planning on replacing the PX191 with the 26" PX2611w.

HTPC has a 23.5" Asus VK246H connected to it for limited usage.
 
I have a 20in at home that I love going back to. I'm currently working off of my 13in laptop, and boy coming home to a 20in from a measly 13in is like going home into the arms of woman, yea it’s that beautiful.

Enough of that, I've always thought of getting a 24in but could never bring myself to do it because I spend the majority of my time on my laptop.

So in a sense I go from a larger panel to a smaller one all the time, I've gotten use to using a 13in, but it makes my experience that much better when I do use my 20in.
 
My main htpc machine is connected to the 46" LCD, but for browsing/work I prefer sitting closer to the smaller screens, like a couple 20"-24". This is more of a situational preference, for gaming and movies bigger is better ;)
 
I'm running a 42" 1080p TV and 22" 1080p LCD.
I can play/watch the same things on both but regardless of how close I sit to the LCD, it is in no way a substitute for the size of the big TV for gaming/films.
Immersion is everything.

A few years back I used a 120" projector, the immersion on that was incredible.
I used to watch everything and anything (from 4 metres away too, real easy on the eyes) because it feels so much more involving.
The 42" TV is much higher res but doesnt have the same grand feel to it, sad.
 
In my home office, I write and work on spreadsheets in front of a window with a nice view that helps me think. I have tried 19, 21, 22, and 24 inch LCD monitors with this computer and settled upon the 21 inch, which is the largest I can use without blocking the view. There was also an issue with desk space.

Some of us old spreadsheet users figured out long ago that it's easier to navigate around a large spreadsheet if the rows on screen are standardized to, say, 25 and the rows on the printed page are, say, 50. This makes it possible to move quickly to a particular page by using the Page Down key, avoiding excessive use of the mouse. Using "large fonts" (120 dpi) in Windows, the default row height and 125% zoom in Excel, and one row of icons at the top of the spreadsheet, you get 25 rows on screen with a 19 inch (1440x900) widescreen monitor positioned horizontally. Hold down the Page Down button and you can reliably scroll down to a row that is some multiple of 25.

For spreadsheet work, I was actually very happy with that setup, and I could see out the window too. With larger monitors the problem is that there is no practical scenario that places 50 rows on the screen, and keeping 25 rows on screen requires increasing the zoom (or alternatively, increasing the font size in Windows, which will have the same effect). With the 21 inch (1680x1050) monitor, I have to use 155% zoom to get 25 rows on screen. This is about the limit--everything is very readable but anything larger would look comical. When I tried a 24 inch monitor here, it required 175% zoom, and text size was too large to be comfortable. Of course, increasing zoom also reduces the spreadsheet "real estate" that is visible horizontally.

I found the 24 inch display a little uncomfortable for spreadsheet work because I had to rely more on peripheral vision and turning my head, and I had the uneasy sense that I was missing stuff. I don't think I would want a larger display for spreadsheet work.

Writing in Word is a question I have not resolved yet. Pivoting the 21 inch monitor to Portrait orientation might be the answer, but I'm also going to see if there is any advantage to working with two pages side by side.

I stayed with the 21 inch monitor because it has superior image quality to the 19 inch display that it replaced and the larger size is useful when writing in Word.

SD45
 
The thing is, I don't buy the whole 'immersion' arguement for getting bigger monitors.

I remember back in the day playing Legend of Zelda on a 19 inch tube TV and being totally immersed in the game.

I remember when Warcraft 2 came out and playing the game on a 17 inch CRT and being totally immersed, same goes for Starcraft 2.

I think immersion comes from being in the 'zone' by playing a game you truly enjoy, more than the size of the monitor you're using. Think of playing a game you aren't all too keen on, on your giant sized HDTV, monitor, projector or what have you, and tell me you still have that 'immersive' experience.
 
CanadaOwnsJoo said:
2560x1600 just means you need smoking graphics to play any games
Click to expand...

This here. I was torn between a 22 Acer and a 24 Sceptre this weekend. I ended up getting the 22 because I didn't want to spend more no video card right now.
 
I've only got three LCD monitors not counting my LCD TV that can be used as one. I've got my 30" LCD and two 20" LCD's. I hate using the 20's.
 
Nearsite said:
The thing is, I don't buy the whole 'immersion' arguement for getting bigger monitors.

I remember back in the day playing Legend of Zelda on a 19 inch tube TV and being totally immersed in the game.

I remember when Warcraft 2 came out and playing the game on a 17 inch CRT and being totally immersed, same goes for Starcraft 2.

I think immersion comes from being in the 'zone' by playing a game you truly enjoy, more than the size of the monitor you're using. Think of playing a game you aren't all too keen on, on your giant sized HDTV, monitor, projector or what have you, and tell me you still have that 'immersive' experience.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but a bigger screen definitely helps the immersion factor.

As for me, I have gotten used to going from a dual 24" setup to a single 20" monitor back and forth and I adjusted relatively quickly although the lower resolution is much more noticeable once you've seen more. Still, I can adjust to the smaller resolution and smaller screen size very quickly.
 
Nearsite said:
The thing is, I don't buy the whole 'immersion' arguement for getting bigger monitors.

I remember back in the day playing Legend of Zelda on a 19 inch tube TV and being totally immersed in the game.

I remember when Warcraft 2 came out and playing the game on a 17 inch CRT and being totally immersed, same goes for Starcraft 2.

I think immersion comes from being in the 'zone' by playing a game you truly enjoy, more than the size of the monitor you're using. Think of playing a game you aren't all too keen on, on your giant sized HDTV, monitor, projector or what have you, and tell me you still have that 'immersive' experience.
Click to expand...

It's not the end all be all, it’s just a factor that adds to it, a huge monitor won't make a crappy game amazing, but it will make that already amazing game, even better to enjoy, that already amazing movie even better to watch. It won't make that crappy movie or crappy game any better though. Going from a 13in to a 20in for me makes everything better, be it work or play.
 
Sold my 30" Dell 3007WFP-HC to pay for my new gaming lappy, and had enough left over to get the 26" Doublesight DS-265w. Not really much of a downgrade, more like a sidegrade IMO (better panel and A-TW polarizer made up well for the lack of 2560x1600 leetness).
 
i use 32" 1080p lcdtv b/c i like the rez vs screen size. you can be much more accurate @ 1080p on a 32" than you can @ 2560x1600 @ 30". it's the reason we used to play CS on CAL/STA/etc on a 19-21" CRT @ 800x600 or 1024x768. smaller rez = bigger targets. bigger targets = bigger heads = easy headshots.
 
Somnambulator said:
i use 32" 1080p lcdtv b/c i like the rez vs screen size. you can be much more accurate @ 1080p on a 32" than you can @ 2560x1600 @ 30". it's the reason we used to play CS on CAL/STA/etc on a 19-21" CRT @ 800x600 or 1024x768. smaller rez = bigger targets. bigger targets = bigger heads = easy headshots.
Click to expand...
That's the great thing about 30" computer LCD's. You can properly scale down to 1280x800 without the image looking blurry as it's exactly half its native resolution. You can play any competitive game at a lower resolution and it will look much better than any CRT. If that's not enough then I would suggest gaming on a large LCD, Plasma, or projector. :eek: :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top