need a 20-24in lcd

T

TMCM

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
1,628
I am looking to get a 20-24 in LCD monitor. I would like to spend under $500. I really would like to have the "Glossy" screen. I just don't know what the different names are for it. I currently have an Acer AL1951 that I am going to give to my mother. It has been a good monitor but the blacks are not as black as I would like them. I have read about the LG L226WTX-BF Black 22" http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824005088
and that looks like a good deal but I can't find any info if it has the matte screen or glossy screen.
The SAMSUNG 226BW Black 22" looks pretty good but I think it might not have the glossy screen. Plus I heard some bad things about the 225bw.
Of Course there is the NEC Display Solutions 20WMGX2 but I have a hard time spending over $550 on a 20" screen...

I think 22" is the happy middle ground for me but please speak up. I would like to order a monitor in the next day or 2. I have also seen some of the gateway monitors and they seem to look pretty damn nice. Any one know about them?

Thanks
 
Spend the extra and get the 2407 WFP best 24inch bang for the buck. 22inch WS just doesn't cut it. 1920 x 1200 is the sweetspot for WS, and as usual, bigger usually looks much nicer, but I couldn't afford my 2407 and a 3007 so I dropped the 3007.
 
I would rather stay under the $500 mark. If I want to game on a big screen I will hook it up to a projector.
 
I think Acer do a 22" glossy screen. I can't be absolutely sure it's glossy though, i've been trying to find out because i want one! Fromt the top of my head, i think the model number is AC2216WSD or it might be AL2216WSD, one or the other.
 
Sinister Crayon said:
Spend the extra and get the 2407 WFP best 24inch bang for the buck. 22inch WS just doesn't cut it. 1920 x 1200 is the sweetspot for WS, and as usual, bigger usually looks much nicer, but I couldn't afford my 2407 and a 3007 so I dropped the 3007.
Click to expand...

I agree....although a little birdie told me that Dell was near releasing a 2407WFP-HC which usually means the older model gets discounted. The OP might want to wait for this to happen and avoid buyers remorse seeing the same monitor for $100 less a week later.;)
 
I currently have the Acer AL1951 and it does have the glossy screen. Its pretty good but I wish the blacks were better. Its like the screen light is a little to much.

As I said before I don't want to spend over $500 for a monitor and I don't really see a need for a 27" for me. If I want to game on a huge screen I would just use a projector. Unless you want to help pay for the larger monitor I would like to stay with in my budget.
 
any one? I have been looking at the 24in gateway and the 24 in dell..... there is also the 22in samsung.... any one have anything to say about either of those?
 
1680x1050 WS monitor is nothing more then a 1280x1024 monitor stretched horizontally (maybe 1-2cm extra in height from 19") IMO
 
How is there a "difference" between 1680X1050 and 1900X1200 if both displays are 16:10 and simply a different size and resolution?
 
Eastcoasthandle said:
1680x1050 WS monitor is nothing more then a 1280x1024 monitor stretched horizontally (maybe 1-2cm extra in height from 19")
As the diagram illustrates, there is a difference between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. This is probably the reason for the increase in price.
But some stick to 22" because:
-it fits their desk
-it's cheaper then some 19" monitor
-etc.
Click to expand...

a 1680x1050 monitor is not "nothing more then a 1280x1024 monitor stretched horizontally". Using your logic, a 1900x1200 monitor is nothing more than a vga montor stretched horizontally and scaled up some. While the image you linked to is definitely helpful to illustrate the differences between 4:3, 5:4, 16:9 and 16:10 aspect ratios, what you said doesn't really make any sense.

When buying monitors there are a couple things you have to consider, yes resolution and aspect ratio are important but one big factor is also dpi (dots-per-inch). 20" Wides and 22" Wides are (generally) both 1680x1050 monitors. The same image displayed on both monitors will be bigger on the 22" of course, but will look crisper and lines will appear sharper (and less jagged) on the 20" because there are the same number of pixels in a much tighter area.

My vote would be to save up for a 24" in that it's the highest resolution you're likely to display without necessarily have to purchase a dual-link graphics card, and that way later on you won't wish you would've gone with the 1900x1200 panel
 
gunner1 said:
How is there a "difference" between 1680X1050 and 1900X1200 if both displays are 16:10 and simply a different size and resolution?
Click to expand...
I guess by your definition they are exactly the same because they share the same aspect ratio? :rolleyes:
For starters most 24" monitors:
- come with higher brightness
- come with higher Contrast Ratio
- have higher resolution
- have smaller Pixel Pitch

Just to name a few so there is a "difference" between 22" monitors and 24" monitors. Yes, the brightness and contrast ratio is more subjective but the pixel pitch and resolution are not and this is what sets a 24" apart from a 22".
 
kidicarus74 said:
a 1680x1050 monitor is not "nothing more then a 1280x1024 monitor stretched horizontally". Using your logic, a 1900x1200 monitor is nothing more than a vga montor stretched horizontally and scaled up some. While the image you linked to is definitely helpful to illustrate the differences between 4:3, 5:4, 16:9 and 16:10 aspect ratios, what you said doesn't really make any sense.

When buying monitors there are a couple things you have to consider, yes resolution and aspect ratio are important but one big factor is also dpi (dots-per-inch). 20" Wides and 22" Wides are (generally) both 1680x1050 monitors. The same image displayed on both monitors will be bigger on the 22" of course, but will look crisper and lines will appear sharper (and less jagged) on the 20" because there are the same number of pixels in a much tighter area.

My vote would be to save up for a 24" in that it's the highest resolution you're likely to display without necessarily have to purchase a dual-link graphics card, and that way later on you won't wish you would've gone with the 1900x1200 panel
Click to expand...
That is my opinion on the matter, not saying it's etched in stone. And
22" has a pixel pitch of .283mm
24" has a pixel pitch of .270mm
 
can we get this thread back on topic? I am leaning towards the gateway since it seems to offer alot of inputs along with a good price.... has any one heard anything bad about them? Whats this I hear about Dell switching panels in the monitors? Would the 2407 be a wrong move?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top