- Back to homepage

Which 22 inch to choose? Six monitors tested with reaction times from 2 to 5 ms

@ 2007/01/22

We already tested the Acer AL2216W, and now it’s back. We also added to the list the Asus MW221u, Belinea 2225 S1W, HP w22, Fujitsu-Siemens L22-1W and Samsung SyncMaster 225BW.

Besides their price, they stand out with an additional VGA interface (which is always available), various designs, plastic or metal bezels and more or less accurate color rendering. There is also the "Zero dead pixel" policy on one of the screens, which is very much appreciated and an intelligent option.

(Thanks Rutar for the link

)

Comment from HitenMitsurugi @ 2007/01/23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rutar

But you CANNOT recommend a 20" nowadays to ANY user because 22" is the new hotness with a good balance of resolution, size and price.

Bleh 22" is TN, I don't like TN.

20" it iz for me!

As for widescreen or not.. 4:3/5:4 are usually more expensive or do not boast the same specs, when you go to 20" or higher. So bought me a widescreen. The Viewsonic VP2030b has some very nice specs, and would have bought that one, if only it wasn't €150 more expensive than it's widescreen brother (VX2025wm). The dell is cheap enough but its specs are sub par.

Comment from jmke @ 2007/01/23

I never said it wasn't personal favor

I'm just throwing some numbers into the mix

Comment from SuAside @ 2007/01/23

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke

@SuAside
1680x1050: 1764000
1600x1200: 1920000
~8% less pixels and resolution.

I know that pixelwise the difference is there, but i'm saying it's not as simple.

but it is also true that is it more natural for humans to have a widerscreen due to our field of view, but most computer interfaces simply do not take advantage of that, even when displayed on widescreens.

hence it's a simple personal preference that takes the upperhand, not simple math or medical logic.

Comment from Rutar @ 2007/01/22

Widescreen gaming is very cool too.

Comment from jmke @ 2007/01/22

should compare same sizes of course

@SuAside

1680x1050: 1764000
1600x1200: 1920000

~8% less pixels and resolution.

Comment from Rutar @ 2007/01/22

well, a 22 WS is a very attractive size compared to a 20" 5:4

Comment from SuAside @ 2007/01/22

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke

for movies, agreed

for EVERYTHING else, I much prefer same sized 4:3 aspect ratio screen, just do the math

1600x1200
1680x1050

Widescreen gives you less desktop real estate

i wouldnt say less, but different.

anyway, just take a peak at the picture i posted, should point out some differences in size & how the proportions lay compared to eachother.

Comment from jmke @ 2007/01/22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rutar

there is nothing wrong with widescreen

for movies, agreed

for EVERYTHING else, I much prefer same sized 4:3 aspect ratio screen, just do the math

1600x1200
1680x1050

Widescreen gives you less desktop real estate

Comment from SuAside @ 2007/01/22

depends on your personal preference & appearantly jmke doesnt like widescreens, so...

also, keep this in mind:

Comment from Rutar @ 2007/01/22

there is nothing wrong with widescreen

Comment from jmke @ 2007/01/22

only if I can get 22" in NONE widescreen configuration

the Dell at Behardware is the 2007WP, mine is 2001FP , none widescreen ftw

Comment from Rutar @ 2007/01/22

http://www.behardware.com/articles/6...6-8-16-ms.html

even including a nice cherry picker notice for Dell

But you CANNOT recommend a 20" nowadays to ANY user because 22" is the new hotness with a good balance of resolution, size and price.

Comment from jmke @ 2007/01/22

is my 20" Dell screen on there?

http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/s...ad.php?t=23750

surely kicks ***

Comment from Rutar @ 2007/01/22

behardware is my stable source for monitors

If your monitor isn't on behardware, it's not getting bought or recommended by me.

All information and graphics contained in Madshrimps are sole property of the Madshrimps crew and may not be reproduced or copied in any manner without written permission from us.