Jump to content

What Size Computer Monitor Do You Use?

Perrie Juran

By Perrie Juran,
in General Discussion Forum

 Share
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3842 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Knutz Scorpio

Knutz Scorpio

Posted
Posted

I checked 19", however ....

My system uses two monitors, a 19" and a 17", and both are the old 4:3 aspect ration instead of the wide-screen 16:9.  A 19" wide-screen actually looks small to me because the screen height is so much shorter.

And yes, they are both LCD monitors, NOT the old space hogging space heater CRTs (which my cat misses)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Perrie Juran
Perrie Juran

I will update this if I get more respondents.

Tari Landar

Tari Landar

Posted
Posted

I use a 17" monitor with this pc. Well, I have 4 systems, 2 that I use daily. They both have the same model monitor, but they don't sit side by side. I can't use two monitors at once anymore. I do good being able to see 60-80% of what's on just one of them at any given moment.(sl or otherwise). I'm legally blind though, so probably best to take my opinion as not being typical lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Czari Zenovka

Czari Zenovka

Posted
Posted

Deja Letov wrote:

Czari Zenovka wrote:

Deja Letov wrote:

This should be interesting. Are you going to post results on the forum? I'm using. 24". Actually two of them side by side.

Show off!!!  :matte-motes-wink-tongue:

hahha you should see my work setup Czari,it's even better at home with 3 floating HD screens...It's like the matrix looking at my monitors all lined up. I keep teling them they should buy me the same setup for home use so that when I do work from home I see things exactly the same. That's important right? LOL

 

*Ill also add that these 22" monitors are displaying at 1920X1080.

Now I'm really depressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Madelaine McMasters

Madelaine McMasters

Posted
Posted

Monti Messmer wrote:

At work i have an 18" CRT.

Boss "Bigger screens dont speed up work u just want to watch ......" lol

 

Sorry for that excurse back to topic.

 

Monti

Monti Messmer wrote:

At work i have an 18" CRT.

Boss "Bigger screens dont speed up work u just want to watch ......" lol

 

Sorry for that excurse back to topic.

 

Monti

I had this discussion with my colleagues. Some of them thought that getting the fastest CPU was important. I argued that having a bigger screen was more important, except under certain circumstances. I continue to believe that. The time I waste moving stuff around on a cramped desktop can't be made up by a fast CPU.

 

 

Graphics or compute intensive things like SL or gene sequencing argue for speedy chips, but for everything else, give me an expansive display.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coby Foden

Coby Foden

Posted
Posted

Knutz Scorpio wrote:

I checked 19", however ....

My system uses two monitors, a 19" and a 17", and both are the old 4:3 aspect ration instead of the wide-screen 16:9.  A 19" wide-screen actually looks small to me because the screen height is so much shorter.

Personally I prefer the 16:10 aspect ratio wide screen monitors over the 16:9 ones.  The latter is ok for TVs and watching movies but for general computer use it always feels cramped in vertical space.

aspect-ratios.jpg

 

[ETA]

So what does this mean?

Let's say your old monitor is 4:3 aspect ratio, resolution 1600 x 1200 and you switch to wide screen monitor.

From the above monitors:

• With 16:10 aspect ratio you have the same vertical resolution as with the old 4:3 monitor.  And you get the additional resolution in width.

• With 16:9 aspect ratio you will get the additional resolution in width (the same as with 16:10 monitor), but you loose in vertical resolution.  Thus you feel this monitor as being cramped in vertical space compared to the old 4:3 monitor.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Qie Niangao

Qie Niangao

Posted
Posted

It's unfortunate that the 1920 x 1200 resolution has become rare. Having those few extra pixels in height over HDTV resolution really makes a big difference.

I'm surprised and disappointed that 4K (3840 × 2160) monitors are still so expensive (> $5000). Well, it's not surprising in the timeframe of the past year or so, but starting three years ago, one might have expected we'd all be using those now. I mean, the iPad's "Retina" (2048-by-1536) display has to be pretty cheap to make, and it has all kinds of constraints that don't apply to a desktop monitor. (Of course that doesn't stop Apple from asking a thousand dollars for their "Thunderbolt" display at a comparable 2560x1440 resolution.)

Evidently, LCD resolutions are still driven by native TV formats, cable-cutters notwithstanding. So we lose 1920x1200, and have to wait until there's enough video content before there's enough 4K production volume so they can be priced within reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Perrie Juran

Perrie Juran

Posted
  • Author
Posted

LCD_screen_sizes.svg.png

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_size

Also there is:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution  and   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_display_resolution

 

I had thought about making the Survey multiple choice but wanted to get an idea of the primary.  Probably too late in the game to change it.

I was exepcting to see more smaller sizes checked (under 19 inch) because of the number of lap top users who post in the Forum. 

I will post results sometime on Monday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
161488303349

161488303349

Posted
Posted

I would have liked to get a more pixels HDTV capable but cant afford it. is big price jump from 1920x1080

I nearly get a straight out monitor but decide to get the LG HDTV. mostly bc of price. but also can just direct plug in my game consoles and music players and it just goes. same stereo sound outputs and that

also bc of the IPS tech in it. like when play two up games on it then can see the screen really well when sit to the side. as good as when sit direct in front

for normal computer use (text and that) then is actual a bit blurry. bc 1920x1080 is not enough pixels for the 27" space. like you mention 

+

so if anyone reading this and thinking about what to get for computer use and you don't play games much then don't buy a big screen much over 19" or about if you only get 1920x1080

you will have to test your own eyes tho. but general rule is less pixels appear to the eyes as crisper/sharper on a smaller screen when the monitors use the same tech/resolution

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Marigold Devin

Marigold Devin

Posted
Posted

Czari Zenovka wrote:

Perrie Juran wrote:

 
I was exepcting to see more smaller sizes checked (under 19 inch) because of the number of lap top users who post in the Forum. 

 

I'm holding up the fort for you on the small monitor front.  Except, I'm not using a laptop.
:/

Ditto me

Both this desktop and my laptop are 17" screens.

I'd only treat a bigger screen like I treat my handbag and fill it too full anyway :matte-motes-big-grin-wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3842 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...