19inch LCD's Dead? Too small?

[TheRyuu]

With all those large LCD's like the new 30in. dell.
Are 19inch LCD's dead? I just bough a VP930b and was buying that monitor a mistake?

 

[Eureka]

Of course not. It's just that people feel like showing their ePeens. I say the 19" is the best monitor size right now.

Norm

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: wizboy11
With all those large LCD's like the new 30in. dell.
Are 19inch LCD's dead? I just bough a VP930b and was buying that monitor a mistake?

if you want more . . . just add a 2nd one 😉

no mistake

19" LCD seems to be best bang-for-buck now

 

[Demoth]

19 inch LCD is the best bang for the buck, but not the best buy for the price for some. Some people find the res at that size to look pretty poor and some don't realize just how much better 1600X1200 looks on a comperable quality monitor on a 20", 20.1", 20.3" screen.

However, your still looking at about twice the price for a good quality 20.1" screen (samsung's for example) versus a good quality 19", as the 19" market is now fully saturated and established to the point where prices are at a baseline.

Personally, I find sitting right in front of a 30" screen for gaming to actually be worse then a smaller screen. I just don't like that much real estate a foot in front of my face.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: cevilgenius
Of course not. It's just that people feel like showing their ePeens. I say the 19" is the best monitor size right now.

Norm

1600x1200 is far superior for getting work done. We're stuck on 1280x1024 monitors at work and while that's fine for emailing grandma and downloading porn from Bittorrnets, it's not roomy enough for actual work. I'd hate to have to produce anything on a single 1280x1024 display.

 

[Lord Banshee]

i agree it sucks working on 1 19" monitor. i have 1 19" LCD and 1 18" CRT using Dual View. Works pretty good.

But i plan to buy a dell UltraSharp 2007FPW when they come out to replace the CRT.

But if all you going to do is game on it and browse the internet 1280x1024 is fine.

 

[darXoul]

I think that all those 30 inchers are an exaggeration. A large screen for general use and gaming is great to have but 30" is simply too big IMO. A 19" monitor (especially that LCDs have 19" visible diagonal) is OK but 0.294 mm pixels are a bit large, plus 1280*1024 with its 5:4 aspect isn't the most "natural" resolution... However, they are for sure the best bang for the buck.

 

[Eureka]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: cevilgenius
Of course not. It's just that people feel like showing their ePeens. I say the 19" is the best monitor size right now.

Norm

1600x1200 is far superior for getting work done. We're stuck on 1280x1024 monitors at work and while that's fine for emailing grandma and downloading porn from Bittorrnets, it's not roomy enough for actual work. I'd hate to have to produce anything on a single 1280x1024 display.

Indeed, but 20.1" 1600x1200 costs a lot more. And right now, I'm still using 1280 on a 19" CRT anyway, too hard to see anything.

Norm

 

[ElFenix]

i find that 19" LCDs are a waste of money compared to a 17" LCD, which offers the same resolution without the see-it-from-okinawa DPI

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i find that 19" LCDs are a waste of money compared to a 17" LCD, which offers the same resolution without the see-it-from-okinawa DPI

lol

Good point, but pretty much they have stopped making any 8-bit 17" LCDs at this point. That's why I went to an 8-bit 19". Plus I do like the text being bigger.

 

[kmmatney]

A 19" LCD is a great size, especially if you don't have the latest and greatest video card.

To the OP -I see your video card listed as: "Evga 7800GTx2 Nvidia Geforce SLI!!!" in your rig listing. If that's the case, then you have a totally overkill video card for a 19" LCD. You should consider getting a high resolution monitor, or only having a single 7800GT video card. For a 7800GT SLI setup, you should at least have a 1600 x 1200 (or equivalent widescreen) monitor.

 

[sxr7171]

Well since we are moving to widescreen displays we need to change the way we think about screen sizes. A 20" widescreen display is roungly equivalent to a 19" 4:3 display in height (actually it is a bit smaller). In fact you could just consider it a 19" with extra space on the sides. A 24" widescreen is pretty much the same height as a 21" 4:3 with extra space on the sides.

So if you currently have a 19" 4:3 then a 20" 16:10 to many isn't an upgrade in size. So a 19" 4:3 could be considered the same as a 20" 16:10 for those who don't want the wide aspect ratio. If anything you could even think of a 20" WS as a 17" with extra space on the sides. So a 4:3 19" is actually a bigger display for those who need that space on the sides.

So, yes the numbers keep getting bigger but the vertical height is staying almost constant while we get used to the 16:10 aspect ratio.

The big problem that many feel about 19" LCDs is that the resolution tends to be stuck at the typical 17" resolution of 1280x1024. Some people actually like this for bigger text and icons though.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: sxr7171
Well since we are moving to widescreen displays we need to change the way we think about screen sizes. A 20" widescreen display is roungly equivalent to a 19" 4:3 display in height (actually it is a bit smaller). In fact you could just consider it a 19" with extra space on the sides. A 24" widescreen is pretty much the same height as a 21" 4:3 with extra space on the sides.

So if you currently have a 19" 4:3 then a 20" 16:10 to many isn't an upgrade in size. So a 19" 4:3 could be considered the same as a 20" 16:10 for those who don't want the wide aspect ratio. If anything you could even think of a 20" WS as a 17" with extra space on the sides. So a 4:3 19" is actually a bigger display for those who need that space on the sides.

So, yes the numbers keep getting bigger but the vertical height is staying almost constant while we get used to the 16:10 aspect ratio.

The big problem that many feel about 19" LCDs is that the resolution tends to be stuck at the typical 17" resolution of 1280x1024. Some people actually like this for bigger text and icons though.

actually a 20" widescreen is almost equal to a 17" LCD in both physical height and resolution. its much shorter than a 19" LCD

 

[Compellor]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i find that 19" LCDs are a waste of money compared to a 17" LCD, which offers the same resolution without the see-it-from-okinawa DPI

Problem is that 1280x1024 on a 17" is too small. Every 17" CRT I ever had I always ran at 1024x768. That screen resolution is the sweet spot for a 17". All my 19" CRTs I ran at 1280x960. Anything higher and it was just too small.

Once you've used a 19" CRT for several years you ain't going back to a 17" screen no matter what the technology.

 

[Chaotic42]

I'm ready for the next jump in technology.

Where are the super-fine resolution displays at? When will we see 24" 7680x4800 widescreen LCDs? That's what I'm waiting for. I want to be able to look at the monitor and not see the individual pixels.

Of course, such a monitor would be tens of thousands of dollars if not more.

 

[Fox5]

I got my 19" less than a year ago and I'm already thinking of upgrading. Really wish I had spent more and gone for a Dell widescreen. Not that I care that much about widescreen, but the pixel density of a 1280x1024 19" screen is so LOW! Honestly, anything under 100dpi is horrible, give me 120dpi and above please. Not to mention that 6-bit color sucks for contents that relys on vivid colors to look good. Thankfully it still is better than most LCD TVs.

With the switch from analog CRTs to digital LCDs, manufactuers finally accomplished making the display a yearly upgrade along with the cpu and video card. Video quality is just too dependent on the display not to. Of course, since I don't upgrade as often now, I'm trying to wait until a major technology shift before I upgrade again. I'm either waiting for a major improvement in LCDs, or for another display technology to hit mainstream. Along the same idea, my top of the line system from 2003 isn't going to see an upgrade until late 2006.

Prior to my LCD, I had a 21" CRT, which is probably slightly larger in screen size than a 19" LCD (barely), and I usually stuck to 1280x960@100hz, but I was just getting used to gaming at 1600x1200 and 1856x1392 and it sucked to go to a screen that only did not support resolutions that eliminated the need for AA, but at its highest res basically required AA still.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: Compellor

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i find that 19" LCDs are a waste of money compared to a 17" LCD, which offers the same resolution without the see-it-from-okinawa DPI

Problem is that 1280x1024 on a 17" is too small. Every 17" CRT I ever had I always ran at 1024x768. That screen resolution is the sweet spot for a 17". All my 19" CRTs I ran at 1280x960. Anything higher and it was just too small.

Once you've used a 19" CRT for several years you ain't going back to a 17" screen no matter what the technology.

17" CRT = 16" viewable. I used my 17" CRT from 7 years ago at 1280x1024.

 

[uhaulball]

VP201b baby... that is a 20.1" viewsonic lcd with 1600x1200 native res. i suggest that over any 19 inch lcd. I think all 19 inch lcds should have a 1600x1200 native res... but i donno if there are any, thats why i opted for the 20.1...