Yup, found out why they say wide gamut is not god for web surfing and general multimedia usage, you get washed out colours on images that don't specify a colour profile whilst those that do appear overly saturated unless it's a wide gamut profile such as adobeRGB.
Now since 99.9% of web content is sRGB and where not specified defaults to sRGB this makes for one heck of an eyesore surfing the net.
Key example is the OCUK forum blue colour, the blue looks faded and washed out even after enabling colour management in Firefox 3. Google's own Google logo looks faded. This is all after calibration BTW with BlueEye Pro getting a dE of 0.3 average and 0.6 max and a Black point of 0.31.
Vista itself however seems to display colours just fine regardless of profile specified or lack of profile in any image.
Hmmm I'm at 2 worlds about this now!
I'm going to keep the Hazro I think, the downsides of having no stand adjustment and also the heat that builds up and slightly worse black point I will put up with as long as my colours are accurate across the board which they are on the Hazro!
I'm really confused. Perhaps I should just buy your standard Best Buy TN panel like the majority of the world does.
Isn't the Hazro monitor also a wide gamut IPS display. Why would web surfing look better on the Hazro than the HP? Also, I thought a well calibrated ICC profile was supposed to make your colors accurate or more pleasing to view regardless of the image source. Is this not true? Does a wide gamut monitor only look good when the source was actually created using a "wide gamut" color space? Does the source still have to provide its own profile even though the monitor has its own ICC?
I'm still using CRT monitors and have avoided TN panels because of their many limitations. I thought I would be happier purchasing a VA or IPS panel for my first LCD. But now I'm scared. I don't want everyday web surfing and game playing to look ugly. Will the HP really look that bad when just doing everyday computing? Please give me your thoughts.