Madshrimps Forum Madness

Madshrimps Forum Madness (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/)
-   WebNews (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/)
-   -   Which 22 inch to choose? Six monitors tested with reaction times from 2 to 5 ms (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/22-inch-choose-six-monitors-tested-reaction-times-2-5-ms-30351/)

jmke 22nd January 2007 22:35

should compare same sizes of course:)

@SuAside

1680x1050: 1764000
1600x1200: 1920000

~8% less pixels and resolution.

Rutar 22nd January 2007 22:51

Widescreen gaming is very cool too.

SuAside 23rd January 2007 08:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke (Post 138760)
@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.

jmke 23rd January 2007 09:48

I never said it wasn't personal favor;) I'm just throwing some numbers into the mix :D

HitenMitsurugi 23rd January 2007 14:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rutar (Post 138720)
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! :p

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.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:13.

Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO