![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Widescreen or not?
- Thread starter Kryogen
- Start date
lowrider007
Weaksauce
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 72
Yes definitely, once you've used a w/s your wonder how you ever coped with a *square* screen lol, seriously tho if your thinking about going widescreen then I would'nt go for anything less than 20", 1680x1050 is a lovely resolution, what screen/res are you running atm ?
I'm using a 5 years old samsung syncmaster 750s, 17 inch, 1024*768.
I don't want to spend too much on this, but not too cheap either. I usually keep my monitors for a while, and why pay 300$CAN if I can pay 400 and have something that will last longer and that I'll like better. But 400CAN is the max I'm going to pay I think.
Can I still play games and stuff like starcraft and counter strike on a WS monitor?
I could get the Viewsonic VX2025WM(20 inch WS 8 ms 800:1) for 389$ CAN, and the VX922 (19 inch 2ms regular, 650:1) for 295$CAN. (100$ more is nothing for me if it's really worth it).
8ms instead of 2ms, what do you guys think?
Viewsonic VX2025WM 20IN LCD Monitor BLACK/SILVER Widescreen 1680X1050 8MS 800:1 VGA DVI W/ Cable
Viewsonic VX922 19IN TFT LCD 1280X1024 650:1 2MS VGA DVI-D Silver Black Monitor
I don't want to spend too much on this, but not too cheap either. I usually keep my monitors for a while, and why pay 300$CAN if I can pay 400 and have something that will last longer and that I'll like better. But 400CAN is the max I'm going to pay I think.
Can I still play games and stuff like starcraft and counter strike on a WS monitor?
I could get the Viewsonic VX2025WM(20 inch WS 8 ms 800:1) for 389$ CAN, and the VX922 (19 inch 2ms regular, 650:1) for 295$CAN. (100$ more is nothing for me if it's really worth it).
8ms instead of 2ms, what do you guys think?
Viewsonic VX2025WM 20IN LCD Monitor BLACK/SILVER Widescreen 1680X1050 8MS 800:1 VGA DVI W/ Cable
Viewsonic VX922 19IN TFT LCD 1280X1024 650:1 2MS VGA DVI-D Silver Black Monitor
Keyser0804
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2004
- Messages
- 211
Yeah, Im looking into a widescreen lcd as well. Might be making the jump from crt. I mainly play cs, watch movies and browse the internet so widescreen makes sense for me. Im sure that cs runs in widescreen, but not sure about starcraft.
8ms and 2ms don't make much of a difference? I'm not a psycho freak, I just want something that will look reasonably good when gaming and watching movies.)
Also, I'm not sure if I really like the fact that a 20 inch widescreen screen is not really taller than my 17 inch CRT. (of course it's much larger but?)
Really not sure between the VX922 or VX2025WM....
Opinions plz
Also, I'm not sure if I really like the fact that a 20 inch widescreen screen is not really taller than my 17 inch CRT. (of course it's much larger but?)
Really not sure between the VX922 or VX2025WM....
Opinions plz
lowrider007
Weaksauce
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 72
Kryogen said:8ms and 2ms don't make much of a difference? I'm not a psycho freak, I just want something that will look reasonably good when gaming and watching movies.)
Also, I'm not sure if I really like the fact that a 20 inch widescreen screen is not really taller than my 17 inch CRT. (of course it's much larger but?)
Really not sure between the VX922 or VX2025WM....
Opinions plz
VX2025WM, it's a no brainer
, why would anyone want to watch movies on a 4:3 screen, yuck, and also practicly all new games now support w/s and most older games can be easerly modded, help here oh and the comment made by alpha0ne about not noticeing the diference in response times, his right, you won't notice the difference AlphexHunter
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 247
It really comes down to this if your in a struggle between the Viewsonic VX922 and W/S Viewsonic VX2025 this is how I cleared my mind on going with the VX2025.
Picture on your desk the VX2025 and the VX922 side by side and you wanna fire up a game
( bf2, cs, fear, ..anything ) seriously witch one would you pick to play the best and have the best time on... i made my pick make yours..
Picture on your desk the VX2025 and the VX922 side by side and you wanna fire up a game
( bf2, cs, fear, ..anything ) seriously witch one would you pick to play the best and have the best time on... i made my pick make yours..
Shottah_king
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 557
Well when I saw the size of a 20inch widescreen i was in shock of how small the screen looked compared to my 19" lcd. I don't really watch movies on my PC but I do surf the net, do homework, and play games. So for me I would go with a 19"l cd unless the prices of the 24" or 30" widescreens came down. A 20" WS in my opinion lacks vertical height and seems a bit small for a 20" screen. Widescreens get good once after like 22" in my opinion.
20 and 21 in ws format seems waaaayy too small for me. i have a 21 in 4:3 and if i want to play ws i'll just set the resolution to 1600x900 and it has the same horizontal size as the ws monitors (actually bigger compaired to the 20), but why would i do that and lose 300 extra verticle pixels.
now if i had the money for a 30 in ws, i'm on it in a heartbeat! but a 21 or 20 ws is hardly worth getting since i have a 21" 4:3 already.
i'm all for ws, but at that size they don't really seem worth gettting.
now if i had the money for a 30 in ws, i'm on it in a heartbeat! but a 21 or 20 ws is hardly worth getting since i have a 21" 4:3 already.
i'm all for ws, but at that size they don't really seem worth gettting.
I haven't made up my mind yet...
(JiveMofo -> Not really pertinent comment... I'm asking if it's worth it more going from a 17 inch CRT to a 19 inch 4:3 or a 20 inch WS. It's not like I already own a 21 inch 4:3 LCD....)
I don't play THAT much games actually, I mostly just browse, msn, listen to music, watch movies, and sometimes I play some games. For all that, is widescreen better anyway? not really sure...?
(JiveMofo -> Not really pertinent comment... I'm asking if it's worth it more going from a 17 inch CRT to a 19 inch 4:3 or a 20 inch WS. It's not like I already own a 21 inch 4:3 LCD....)
I don't play THAT much games actually, I mostly just browse, msn, listen to music, watch movies, and sometimes I play some games. For all that, is widescreen better anyway? not really sure...?
Asian Dub Foundation
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 7,940
widescreen is the future... go for it.
it make life so much easier... watch movies without smaller black bars... 2 windows side by side, make games more engaging, photopshop and the like are much easier to work with becuase of more workspace.
its a no brainer
it make life so much easier... watch movies without smaller black bars... 2 windows side by side, make games more engaging, photopshop and the like are much easier to work with becuase of more workspace.
its a no brainer
I have the VX2025, I think it's excellent, and it gets my vote.
With that said, JiveMofo, you're incorrect. 20" widescreen monitors are 1680x1050, which is obviously larger than your (awefully contorted on a 4:3 monitor?) 1600x900. You're losing only 150 vertical pixels, and gaining 80 horizontal. Certainly, going from a quality 21" 4:3 to a 20" 16x10 doesn't make sense, but then, how could it? The one you have is bigger, so there's no reason to go smaller for widscreen unless you had a specific use for that.
As far as size goes, the VX2025 is equal to a 19" CRT vertically (I have both next to each other for different uses), and is quite a bit wider. When I first got it and set it up, I was amazed at how much larger it was over my 19"CRT. Yet a few of you are surprised at how small it is. It seems to me that you guys focus a lot on vertical height to determine overall size, with others, such as myself, being more horizontally focused.
I guess what I'm getting at is not to be so dependant on whether a monitor is taller or not, and simply focus on the inches, and, of course, whatever aspect ratio you prefer. If 4:3 looks larger to you to the point that it bothers you, then go 4:3! There's no reason for others to bother with trying to convince you. I got the VX2025 because it's a high quality monitor, 20.1", and widescreen. Those are features I looked for. If widescreen at 20.1" or less doesn't make you happy when a 4:3 20" would, then stop trying to convince yourself that you like widescreen. To each his own!
With that said, JiveMofo, you're incorrect. 20" widescreen monitors are 1680x1050, which is obviously larger than your (awefully contorted on a 4:3 monitor?) 1600x900. You're losing only 150 vertical pixels, and gaining 80 horizontal. Certainly, going from a quality 21" 4:3 to a 20" 16x10 doesn't make sense, but then, how could it? The one you have is bigger, so there's no reason to go smaller for widscreen unless you had a specific use for that.
As far as size goes, the VX2025 is equal to a 19" CRT vertically (I have both next to each other for different uses), and is quite a bit wider. When I first got it and set it up, I was amazed at how much larger it was over my 19"CRT. Yet a few of you are surprised at how small it is. It seems to me that you guys focus a lot on vertical height to determine overall size, with others, such as myself, being more horizontally focused.
I guess what I'm getting at is not to be so dependant on whether a monitor is taller or not, and simply focus on the inches, and, of course, whatever aspect ratio you prefer. If 4:3 looks larger to you to the point that it bothers you, then go 4:3! There's no reason for others to bother with trying to convince you. I got the VX2025 because it's a high quality monitor, 20.1", and widescreen. Those are features I looked for. If widescreen at 20.1" or less doesn't make you happy when a 4:3 20" would, then stop trying to convince yourself that you like widescreen. To each his own!
widescreen seems pretty silly to me. The only reason consumer tv's went widescreen was to better adapt theatrical movies. One of the pro's they keep pushing about WS is that you get more real estate on the sides you'd otherwise be missing. What..in the future..are they going to start pushing a more squareish aspect ratio? Claim you'll get missing real estate in the vertical direction this time?
But it's your choice. I personally don't see a reason for it unless you watch a lot of movies on your computer. And you can always just double up and go dual.
But it's your choice. I personally don't see a reason for it unless you watch a lot of movies on your computer. And you can always just double up and go dual.
You guys are all missing the point. The 20" WS 1680x1050 monitor has more real estate both vertically (26 pixels more) and horizontally (400 pixels more). There are absolutely ZERO benefits to the 19" 1280x1024 5:4 (NOT 4:3) monitor over the 1680x1050 16:10. Absolutely NONE.
You are wrong. A 21" 4:3 LCD (meaning 21" actually viewable) is only 16.8" wide physically. A 20" 16:10 monitor is 16.96" wide physically. If you run something at 1600x1000 (meaning a 16:10 aspect ratio) on your 21" 4:3 monitor, you'd have a display that is 10.5" high and 16.8" wide, making for an effective 19.8" WS 16:10 monitor. The 20" 16:10 display is 10.6" high.JiveMofo said:
Either way, he is comparing a vastly inferior 19" 5:4 display, not a 4:3 21" display.
yes, i was wrong... i should have posted more specific numbers. 21.3 inches is my monitor so yes it is wider than a 20" widescreen by almost a quarter inch.live2sk8 said:
if the choice is between a 19" or a 20" ws then definately go with the widescreen. personal preference though, i can't stand the viewsonic. i had 2 of them this weekend and returned both since i couldn't stand the anti-glare coating's shimmer. if you can get past that it's actually one helluva monitor. if i spent a week with it i probably would ahve gotten over it though.
I went from a 21" Sony CPD-G500 to the Viewsonic V2025WM widescreen and I have not looked back since. I have the Sony on my analog port still (as a secondary display), and I have rarely used it since getting the Viewsonic. I capture, edit and compile video, play games (Quake 3 & 4, SS (FE & SE), Max Payne 1 & 2, Myst, Until Uru (online) and more), watch TV and streaming video and more. It fits into what I like to do, and having the ability to have two windows open side-by-side (realistically sized too), especially during video editing with Premiere Pro, is really nice!
I researched LCD's pretty well as I passed on them since their release due to poor performance, and they have come a long way since then. I don't like to lay out cash for something and later regret my decision, so I mull it over for some time before making a decision. The VX2025WM seemed to be the best bang for the buck, so I decided to take the plunge. I am happy to say I have not regretted the decision one bit.
Look into it, figure out what you want and make your decision. You have to live with it in the end, so make sure you are getting what YOU want. Not what someone else convinces you to get.
I researched LCD's pretty well as I passed on them since their release due to poor performance, and they have come a long way since then. I don't like to lay out cash for something and later regret my decision, so I mull it over for some time before making a decision. The VX2025WM seemed to be the best bang for the buck, so I decided to take the plunge. I am happy to say I have not regretted the decision one bit.
Look into it, figure out what you want and make your decision. You have to live with it in the end, so make sure you are getting what YOU want. Not what someone else convinces you to get.
Shottah_king
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 557
I've read many forums, and articles about the people who enjoy 20" WS displays but in my opinion I would buy a 4:3 20'ch over a 20" WS because you don't lose the vertical height plus u get a wider screen compared to a 19" 5:4 screen.
even a 19" WS (while small) is still pretty nice if you don't have the horsepower to drive 1650 res in games (while interpolation has certianly improved, it's still nowhere near the quality of native res). my wife loves hers and would not give it up
i also prefer a 20" widescreen to a std 20-21" 4:3 any day. it's one of those things where most people whose opinion that a 20" WS is inferior to a std 19-20" are those who have never owned one. most who have made the switch would never go back.
i also prefer a 20" widescreen to a std 20-21" 4:3 any day. it's one of those things where most people whose opinion that a 20" WS is inferior to a std 19-20" are those who have never owned one. most who have made the switch would never go back.
lowrider007
Weaksauce
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 72
why people moan about w/s tft's not being as high as thier 4:3 counter parts is crazy, are you desparete to get more sky in your games , it's much more advantageous to view games in the widescreen format, it's the more natrual way of viewing, simple as, and don't forget, even tho a 20" widescreen is smaller verticly than a 19" 4:3, the 20" can still fit more information verticly than the 19" plus you have the extra desktop space horizontily, honestly, once you've owned a w/s you'll never want to own a 4:3 screen again
, it's much more advantageous to view games in the widescreen format, it's the more natrual way of viewing, simple as, and don't forget, even tho a 20" widescreen is smaller verticly than a 19" 4:3, the 20" can still fit more information verticly than the 19" plus you have the extra desktop space horizontily, honestly, once you've owned a w/s you'll never want to own a 4:3 screen again
D
Deleted member 21895
Guest
KingPing said:My Viewsonic is my first widescreen monitor.......and I dont know how I ever lived without one
Im the exact same way as you.. I picked up the dell 2005 a year ago and dont see how I lived without it... (i also have a 15'' regular lcd for dual display)... the next monitor I buy is going to be widescreen and has to be at the bare minimum bigger than the 2005 (why not?)
Another advantage to widescreen is I like to rotate my display so its vertical... when Im typing a paper for a college english class or something I can see a page and a half of my essay without having to scroll at all.... wide screen ftw
Shottah_king
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 557
CaiNaM said:
Well my laptop's 17" screen is WS and I don't see any advantage of the screen so far. The only thing it makes me do is scroll more since most webpages don't fit on the screen.
I've got a :
iLo 27 inch 1280x768, 16:10, (hdtv)
Nec 20WMGX2BK 1680x1050 16:10 (gaming system)
Veiwsonic VX2025 1680x1050 16:10 (gaming system)
Samsung 175v 1280x1024 5:3 (linux workstation)
15.4 hp zv5000 1920x1200 16:10 ( laptop for fun @ work)
I would go with ws. I mostly game and surf with little dvd encoding, so for me its a no brainer the only non ws is on linux workstation. Its just hard to find a true 16:9 widescreen in the 19-24 inch range if dvds are your thing.
iLo 27 inch 1280x768, 16:10, (hdtv)
Nec 20WMGX2BK 1680x1050 16:10 (gaming system)
Veiwsonic VX2025 1680x1050 16:10 (gaming system)
Samsung 175v 1280x1024 5:3 (linux workstation)
15.4 hp zv5000 1920x1200 16:10 ( laptop for fun @ work)
I would go with ws. I mostly game and surf with little dvd encoding, so for me its a no brainer the only non ws is on linux workstation. Its just hard to find a true 16:9 widescreen in the 19-24 inch range if dvds are your thing.
lowrider007
Weaksauce
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 72
Steven301 said:I've got a :
iLo 27 inch 1280x768, 16:10, (hdtv)
Nec 20WMGX2BK 1680x1050 16:10 (gaming system)
Veiwsonic VX2025 1680x1050 16:10 (gaming system)
Samsung 175v 1280x1024 5:3 (linux workstation)
15.4 hp zv5000 1920x1200 16:10 ( laptop for fun @ work)
I would go with ws. I mostly game and surf with little dvd encoding, so for me its a no brainer the only non ws is on linux workstation. Its just hard to find a true 16:9 widescreen in the 19-24 inch range if dvds are your thing.
dude i'm selling my widescreen samsung 21" 215TW due to really bad input lag and the two screens I've been looking at are the 2 you own, the Nec 20WMGX2BK & Veiwsonic VX2025 1680x1050, how do these screen compare input response wise, is thier any input lag on them at all ?, I'm really temped to go for the Veiwsonic VX2025 as I have windows behind me and I think they will reflect in the Nec's glossy screen, would you say out of the Nec & the Veiwsonic one was particuly better in any way ?
thanks
Shottah_king said:
? you have to scroll a lot on any 17" screen
my laptop is a 15" WS (1280x800), and i certainly prefer it to my older compaq's 14" screen (1024x768).
17" desktop lcd's offer 1024x768 natively, so even a "small" 19" WS will have more vertical real estate (1440x900). some 20-21" screens (and higher) offer a pivot on their stand (the gateway FPD2185W comes to mind) so you can change your display from landscape to portrait, offereing a huge amount of vertical screen space.
honestly i see no reason anyone would prefer a std 4:3
CaiNaM said:? you have to scroll a lot on any 17" screen
my laptop is a 15" WS (1280x800), and i certainly prefer it to my older compaq's 14" screen (1024x768).
17" desktop lcd's offer 1024x768 natively, so even a "small" 19" WS will have more vertical real estate (1440x900). some 20-21" screens (and higher) offer a pivot on their stand (the gateway FPD2185W comes to mind) so you can change your display from landscape to portrait, offereing a huge amount of vertical screen space.
honestly i see no reason anyone would prefer a std 4:3
First, my laptop screen is 14.1", and I don't really have a problem with scrolling (1400x1050)
second, 17" desktop lcd's are almost all 1280x1024. a seventeen inch shows more website than a 19" widescreen. The samsung 21" widescreen is 1050 pixels tall, a hair more website than a 17" and the same as my laptop's 14.1". A std. aspect 20" LCD is 1200 pixels tall...I think you are getting the idea.
third, it all depends on what you use your computer for. if it's computing, like internet, word processing, and email etc. I think a std. aspect ratio is more appropriate. If you do lots of multimedia, DVDs and stuff widescreen is probably better.
But I would definitely NOT say that widescreen is always a clear choice over std. remember, a widescreen 20" will always have less square area (size) than a std. 20"
hmm.. my bad on the 17" (never actually had one), guess it's the 15" desktop then heh..
still, i stick to my original assertion as i've seen nary a person who has actually used a WS extensively state he wants to go back to 4:3 (hmm.. maybe we should start a poll?). besides, video drivers support portrait/landscape modes, so if the vertical real estate is really that important to you, it's a driver setting change and get an arm to rotate the monitor (while i would like to be able to do that, i've yet to find i've had to do that), or while it's certainly more cumbersome, you can simply rotate the monitor 90 degrees and hold it, or have someone do it for you
nifty stand if your widescreen doesn't support rotate/height adj: Ergotron Neo-Flex LCD Stand
still, i stick to my original assertion as i've seen nary a person who has actually used a WS extensively state he wants to go back to 4:3 (hmm.. maybe we should start a poll?). besides, video drivers support portrait/landscape modes, so if the vertical real estate is really that important to you, it's a driver setting change and get an arm to rotate the monitor (while i would like to be able to do that, i've yet to find i've had to do that), or while it's certainly more cumbersome, you can simply rotate the monitor 90 degrees and hold it, or have someone do it for you
nifty stand if your widescreen doesn't support rotate/height adj: Ergotron Neo-Flex LCD Stand
Lots of reason people still want to use 4:3. It is just bigger in the same size is the main one. Extra height is more usefull than the extra width. And there is a lot more extra height compared to a tiny amount of extra width.
For 16:10, A lot of people are fashion driven and even more tend to support to death whatever they bought for whatever reasons.
The first LCD monitor I bought was 1920x1200 16:10. It was the only widescreen I considered big enough. The 1200 line height was the important part, not the width. I got rid of the screen for other reasons and I went to 20"4:3 next. Didn't miss the width at all. Couldn't even think about going to the 20"16:10 because it is such a tiny monitor. Only the same height as a 17" 5:4.
Scale size compare of 20"4:3, 23"16:10, 20" 16:10, 17" 5:4
http://tvcalculator.com/?ec05dc2d34fef178f45bf762ffba04da
Here is an example of 20" 4:3 next 23" 16:10. These are the only screens big enought that I would buy. Note the matching vertical in pixels and size. Next is the 20" 16:10 which is puny in comparison, next to a equally tiny17" which is the exact same height.
Keep this link. Very handy for comparing screen sizes/types.
Here is the last thread about this where it was previously beat to death:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1064476&page=2
Here is someone with both that gets the value of the extra height of 4:3.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1066783
In short lots of reasons to get the 4:3. In short it is bigger and better for just about everything except widescreen movies. And there it is nearly as good. But hey get a Puny, skinny 16:10 20" if that is what you are into.
For 16:10, A lot of people are fashion driven and even more tend to support to death whatever they bought for whatever reasons.
The first LCD monitor I bought was 1920x1200 16:10. It was the only widescreen I considered big enough. The 1200 line height was the important part, not the width. I got rid of the screen for other reasons and I went to 20"4:3 next. Didn't miss the width at all. Couldn't even think about going to the 20"16:10 because it is such a tiny monitor. Only the same height as a 17" 5:4.
Scale size compare of 20"4:3, 23"16:10, 20" 16:10, 17" 5:4
http://tvcalculator.com/?ec05dc2d34fef178f45bf762ffba04da
Here is an example of 20" 4:3 next 23" 16:10. These are the only screens big enought that I would buy. Note the matching vertical in pixels and size. Next is the 20" 16:10 which is puny in comparison, next to a equally tiny17" which is the exact same height.
Keep this link. Very handy for comparing screen sizes/types.
Here is the last thread about this where it was previously beat to death:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1064476&page=2
Here is someone with both that gets the value of the extra height of 4:3.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1066783
In short lots of reasons to get the 4:3. In short it is bigger and better for just about everything except widescreen movies. And there it is nearly as good. But hey get a Puny, skinny 16:10 20" if that is what you are into.
Kryogen said:
First, I would consider what you intend to use your monitor for. For me, I wanted something that was great for graphics design as well as playing fast paced games like Quake4. IMO, a response time of at least 8ms is needed for tolerable speeds in fast fps shooters.
There are severl panel technologies out there, but I really wasn't interested in learning them in intimate detail. What was most important to me was farming user usage experiences and matching them up against specs and my needs. That being said, I ended up deciding to not get a widescreen and found a Viewsonic VP2030B. I didn't want to deal with scaling issues on my gaming system and, to me, it seems that widescreens are still relatively immature in performance and adoption at this time (from a gaming perspective).
IMPORTANT: Narrow down the list of features you desire, go to the retail stores to view the models. If you are unable to do so, look for online retailers that allow you to return the monitor.
If you are looking for something that games and desktops well for around 300 bones, I would suggest the Viewsonic vx2025wm or the Acer AL2051W. I have my Acer coming today, and I will post a mini review this week on it. I don't like the screen of the viewsonic vx2025, but many here at the [H] love them. Trust your eyes, not mine.
If gaming is not important, or you don't play fast pasted fps shooters, the Dell 2007fpw is worth a look, but out of your price range. Personally, I love it's look, but am turned off by their pervasive banding issue and half-arsed fix that really isn't a fix. But you may never notice the banding problem, and the monitor is so beautiful, you may consider buying it anyway (as I once did).
Here's a good lcd roundup.
Be patient and research. Happy hunting.
I too was going through the samething. I ended up getting the VX2025. I havent yet got it as I just ordered it yesterday but I cant wait to hook it up and play a little BF2 on that bad boy. For the cost difference between the 2 I would get the VX2025. I got it from new egg for something like $363 shipped.