24" Lcd Screen, Any Buying Recommendations?

[george]

I am thinking of buying a new 24" LCD screen for my workstation, and was thinking about this model.

What do you guys think? Is this a good buy or should I choose another brand to get the most quality for the money?

I will not using this monitor for gaming.

Also what type of graphics card would I need? I currently have a NVIDIA GeForce 7300 SE card, which isn't that bright and I want a new card. I need a graphics card that can take this new screen plus my old Philips LCD 190S.

What are your recommendations here?

Thanks in advance!

/G

Acer P241WAID

10,900 BAHT (VAT included)

http://www.shop4thai.com/en/product/22179/

Product Description

Display Size: 24" Wide Screen

Native Resolution: 1920x1200

Brightness (typical): -

Contrast Ratio (typical): 3000:1 (ACM)

Response time (typical): 2ms GTG

Input Signal: D-Sub, DVI & HDMI (w/HDCP)

[Guest Reimar]

The Acer is ok. Avoid an BenQ.

For the graphic, I use an EVGA 9800 GT which is excellent even for FS-X. Has 2 DVI ports and you can connect an old CRT monitor with adapter/converter from DVI to VGA

Cheers.

[webfact]

I am thinking of buying a new 24" LCD screen for my workstation, and was thinking about this model.

What do you guys think? Is this a good buy or should I choose another brand to get the most quality for the money?

I will not using this monitor for gaming.

Also what type of graphics card would I need? I currently have a NVIDIA GeForce 7300 SE card, which isn't that bright and I want a new card. I need a graphics card that can take this new screen plus my old Philips LCD 190S.

What are your recommendations here?

Thanks in advance!

/G

Acer P241WAID

10,900 BAHT (VAT included)

http://www.shop4thai.com/en/product/22179/

Product Description

Display Size: 24" Wide Screen

Native Resolution: 1920x1200

Brightness (typical): -

Contrast Ratio (typical): 3000:1 (ACM)

Response time (typical): 2ms GTG

Input Signal: D-Sub, DVI & HDMI (w/HDCP)

I use ACER 243WAid which is almost similar in specs. And I can highly recommend it. I am very satisfied with that monitor

[klikster]

I went through this a few months back. My screen is primarily for text and web browsing. As a result, I wanted clearly readable text to ease my tired old eyes.

It turned out that my "ideal" and affordable screen was a standard 19" (sort of wished I had bought a 21"). I run it at native resolution and it's very easy on the eyes.

People really should do some reading on resolution, native resolution and screen ratios. The web is built for standard 4:3 and not 16:9 resolution. For web pages, fonts are rendered better (more clearly) in native resolution. What is the "standard" photo/camera resolution? Check out the "height" of a 21" standard compared the the height of a 24" wide-screen.

Lots of folks who have wide screens find that for print and photo viewing, a wide screen is actually smaller. The advantage comes with the ability to display side-by-side applications. Another would be the ability to rotate the screen and display 90 degrees.

[nikster]

I have that Acer, I find the vertical viewing angle a bit weak. But you can't argue with the price or the other specs. Horizontal viewing angle is OK.

Nevertheless next time I would go with the HP 24" - I don't know about its vertical viewing angle but it has a nicer stand which is adjustable. The Acer has a fixed stand. Back when I looked the HP 24" model was nearly the same price as the Acer, but the HP was not in stock at the time and I liked the Acer's design better.

Edited December 6, 2008 by nikster

[dave_boo]

I'm going to disagree with klikster.

Widescreen is much better in my opinion. Unless you have absolutely NO peripheal vision, the 4;3 ratio (standard) is extremely distracting because your eyes see around the side of the screen. On a widescreen you aren't constantly scanning back and forth because more information is presented in a contigous line. Granted, you lose some height, but more than make it up in width. If you have an extremely lenghty form, rotate your screen 90 degrees and you can get most (if not all) of it on a widescreen; a standard won't allow you that option because there's hardly any extra (33 percent versus 78 percent more that a widescreen offers) more space when rotated.

It's a bit of a moot point anyways since the main lead in the charge to switch to widescreen actually comes from the manufacturers themselves since they get more screens per sheet. Also, all the newest advances are going into widescreen models, for instance can you show me a low response deep black LED backlit model that comes in 4;3 ratio?

[klikster]

I'm going to disagree with klikster.

Widescreen is much better in my opinion. Unless you have absolutely NO peripheal vision, the 4;3 ratio (standard) is extremely distracting because your eyes see around the side of the screen. On a widescreen you aren't constantly scanning back and forth because more information is presented in a contigous line.

The reason newspaper columns are the size they are is so your eyes dont have to traverse as much. Can you imagine reading a nwespaper or magazine where the text runs the full page width?

Also, all the newest advances are going into widescreen models, for instance can you show me a low response deep black LED backlit model that comes in 4;3 ratio?

Well, I'm not sure what "low response" and "deep black" mean .. but it's basically irrelevant. What's available is available and .. what ain't, ain't.

Edited December 6, 2008 by klikster

[dave_boo]

The reason newspaper columns are the size they are is so your eyes dont have to traverse as much. Can you imagine reading a nwespaper or magazine where the text runs the full page width?

Well, I'm not sure what "low response" and "deep black" mean .. but it's basically irrelevant. What's available is available and .. what ain't, ain't.

The reason that newspaper columns are the size they are is based on historical facts. It's much easier to feed narrower paper through the prinitng press (it doesn't crumple as much and ruin the print) when the larger part (the lenght) is still on the roll. Your eyes actually traverse more in a sweeping fashion on a newspaper or 4:3 format which tires them more quickly then reading fewer rows which are longer. Another reason that most newspapers have 2 (or more columns) is that the majority of their readership has the attention span of a guppy. Since we're programmed to read sideways we naturally scan across the page. This knowledge of scanning allows the newspaper to insert multiple columns into the paper to attract your attention. Notice how a novel does NOT split the column, but rather runs the full lenght of the page. That's because they know that if they were to have two columns a reader would naturally try and read across them and would jumble the novel.

I'm sorry you don't know what low response and deep black means. Must be hard to watch movies on your monitor if there's motion blur (indicative of a high response) and your blacks look like murky greys (black levels or more properly contrast ratios).

You are right that you can't live for the new technology that is just around the corner; but if you are unsure of what to buy why wouldn't you want to know what you're getting?

[klikster]

In his OP, the poster said:

I am thinking of buying a new 24" LCD screen for my workstation, and was thinking about this model.

What do you guys think? Is this a good buy or should I choose another brand to get the most quality for the money?

I will not using this monitor for gaming.

You can disagree with me all you like, but displaying fonts in native resolution will result in easier to read TEXT.

And if someone wants to know what they are getting, they go spend some time looking at a monitor that is displaying what they will be displaying on a regular basis.

[dave_boo]

In his OP, the poster said:

I am thinking of buying a new 24" LCD screen for my workstation, and was thinking about this model.

What do you guys think? Is this a good buy or should I choose another brand to get the most quality for the money?

I will not using this monitor for gaming.

You can disagree with me all you like, but displaying fonts in native resolution will result in easier to read TEXT.

And if someone wants to know what they are getting, they go spend some time looking at a monitor that is displaying what they will be displaying on a regular basis.

And I'm sure that you like throwing technical terms around like you know what you're talking about, but native resolution does NOT mean what you think it does. Perhaps you should read up on flexible width (which if the OP is really worried about text mainly would be the what he would be worried about anyways). And I don't know why you are concerned about text only when he is talking about a WORKSTATION. Do you assume that he's only an editor? What about photo manipulation? Would he be OK with a low contrast monitor or one with a limited colour gamut? What if he's talking about CAD/CAM work? Would a high pixel response help him when it's shearing all the delicate lines it's trying to display? Would a VGA connection be ok if he wants to watch HDCP content?

Please refrain from talking out of the exit end of your gastro-intestinal tract if you are unsure of what you're posting....

[george]

Thanks all for your input. So what graphics card should I buy? I this 9600GT one overkill?

ASUS EN9600GT BLACK PEARL/HTDI/512M

http://www.shop4thai.com/en/product/23408/

Specifications

Graphics Engine: NVIDIA GeForce 9600GT

Bus Standard: PCI Express 2.0

Video Memory: DDR3 512MB

Engine Clock: 700 MHz

Shader Clock: 1750 MHz

Memory Clock: 1.9 GHz ( 950 MHz DDR3 )

RAMDAC: 400MHz

Memory Interface: 256-bit

CRT Max Resolution: 2048 x 1536

DVI Max Resolution: 2560 x 1600

D-Sub Output: Yes x 1 (via DVI to D-Sub adaptor x 1 )

DVI Output: Yes x 2 (DVI-I)

HDMI Output: Yes x 1 (via DVI to HDMI adaptor x 1 )

HDTV Output (YPbPr): Yes

HDCP Support: Yes

TV Output: Yes (S-Video to Composite)

Adapter/Cable Bundled:

1 x DVI to D-Sub adaptor

1 x DVI to HDMI adaptor

1 x HDTV-out cable

1 x Power cable

1 x S/PDIF cable

Software Bundled: ASUS Utilities & Driver

[PattayaDavid]

I just recently went throught this display ordeal and it seemed that every monitor that I was interested in purchasing was either not available in Thailand or could be ordered, but was ridiculously expensive unless it had a TN display. I would have bought the HP because I liked the versatility of the stand, easily raised and lowered and could rotate the display 90 degrees, however it had a glossy finish on the display which I felt resulted in too much reflection. Since I had relegated myself to purchasing a TN display, I opted for the 25.5 inch Samsung T260, a great looking display. I also have a Samsung 226, 22 inch display and this the T260 is much better looking. If I were to recommend a 24 inch display, I would say the Samsung T240.

[nikster]

People really should do some reading on resolution, native resolution and screen ratios. The web is built for standard 4:3 and not 16:9 resolution. For web pages, fonts are rendered better (more clearly) in native resolution. What is the "standard" photo/camera resolution? Check out the "height" of a 21" standard compared the the height of a 24" wide-screen.

Any affordable 24" screen will be wide screen, so starting a "but I think 4:3 is a lot better" discussion is kind of pointless, given the topic.

You don't need to stretch your browser window all the way to the edges of the screen - you can have them centered, even in 4:3 format! In fact, any aspect ratio you desire. And then you can see your instant messenger and skype buddy lists on the left and right, or whatever else you have running...

Edited December 7, 2008 by nikster

[monty]

George, if you like a lot of desktop space, have you taught about multiple monitors?

Easy to setup and I like the configurability of it. Just perfect if you have a lot of windows ope, such as news tickers etc.

Mainly used by stock traders as they want to have as much information as possible simultaneously!

Most graphic cards support multiple screens (2 anyway) nowadays.

[sumrit]

I'm going to disagree with klikster.

Widescreen is much better in my opinion. Unless you have absolutely NO peripheal vision, the 4;3 ratio (standard) is extremely distracting because your eyes see around the side of the screen. On a widescreen you aren't constantly scanning back and forth because more information is presented in a contigous line. Granted, you lose some height, but more than make it up in width. If you have an extremely lenghty form, rotate your screen 90 degrees and you can get most (if not all) of it on a widescreen; a standard won't allow you that option because there's hardly any extra (33 percent versus 78 percent more that a widescreen offers) more space when rotated.

It's a bit of a moot point anyways since the main lead in the charge to switch to widescreen actually comes from the manufacturers themselves since they get more screens per sheet. Also, all the newest advances are going into widescreen models, for instance can you show me a low response deep black LED backlit model that comes in 4;3 ratio?

The reason the 16:9 ratio was developed (originally for TV's)was because the human eye's natural vision is in 16:9. That's why you tend to be distracted by things at the sides of a 4:3 monitor. A 16:9 monitor (or TV) is therefore easier on the eye the a 4:3 version, especially if you spend a lot of time in front of the screen.

[webfact]

First of all many 17-19" displays are 1280x1024, which is 5:4 aspect ratio!

2 links with very interesting articles on that subject:

http://cnet.nytimes.com/html/ex/nytimes/bg/7608/4.html

http://www.projectorcentral.com/formats.htm

Edited December 7, 2008 by webfact

[dave_boo]

Thanks all for your input. So what graphics card should I buy? I this 9600GT one overkill?

That's a really good card. Can be modded to provide Quadro benefits (you did say workstation). Plus it has 2x dual-link connectors so you can run the highest resolution on each port (2560x1600). Has HDCP and HD-offloading if you're looking to watch some Blu-Ray movies on your machine. And if you're looking to lite-game, it will run everything with just having to turn down the effects on the latest games. Also it looks like Nvidia is porting more of their Cuda architecture to the 8xxx+ series, so there may be some exciting things coming up that you'll be able to use that card for.

George, if you like a lot of desktop space, have you taught about multiple monitors?

Monty as usual you come up with answers that I overlook. Not only could it be cheaper to buy two (say 17") displays and get more desktop space, but having one display in front of you and one angled slightly to the side allows much better multi-tasking. How often do we just maximise windows and have to alt-tab anyways(I do a lot)?

There are some disadvantages though; power consumption will be up, if you try and span something you'll have the two bezels in the way, and with the increase in display are comes an increase in area needed for the monitor(s) on your desk.

First of all many 17-19" displays are 1280x1024, which is 5:4 aspect ratio!

Hunnh? I've owned ONE screen in that size range that has that resolution. All my laptops have been 17" and they've all featured 1680x1050. But all that's a moot point; just show me a 24" that's 4:3 (or 5:4)......

[klikster]

Please refrain from talking out of the exit end of your gastro-intestinal tract if you are unsure of what you're posting....

So much for civil discussions.

[Guest Reimar]

Saw today at Zer Rangsit an Viewsonic 28" for app. THB 12,000Q!! But I haven't time for to get the spec!

Cheers.

[Tod]

The Acer is ok. Avoid an BenQ.

Why avoid BenQ?

[Guest Reimar]

The Acer is ok. Avoid an BenQ.

Why avoid BenQ?

Many problems within a few month!

[webfact]

Saw today at Zer Rangsit an Viewsonic 28" for app. THB 12,000Q!! But I haven't time for to get the spec!

Cheers.

here are the specs

http://www.viewsonic.com.au/products/productspecs.php?id=292

[surface]

Yes, the 9600GT would be overkill. Any PCI-Express video card from ATI or nvidia will do as long as it has two outputs, and possibly some form of TV out if you need that. You should be able to find a good one in the 50 - 75 USD range, or 2 - 3k baht.

Regarding the monitors, I've had some HP's a few years ago and didn't like the image much, but they were cheaper units and probably not indicative of what's out there today. For a 24" model I'd be at the store looking at them if at all possible. Some monitors just look bad. I found the cheap HP's we had to be blurry and have very limited viewing angles.

[Simmo]

Theres an great special on the Samsung T260 at the moment. Shop at the very top floor of pantip

26" LCD 1920x1200 with DVI, HDMI & Analog inputs - 12,900 baht.

[dave_boo]

Please refrain from talking out of the exit end of your gastro-intestinal tract if you are unsure of what you're posting....

So much for civil discussions.

Yeah.....

I was cordially correcting you; had you not been so adament in being right and getting facts presented to you that you decide to ignore for your own benefit I probably wouldn't have resorted to that.