• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

27-inch Asus for $299.99 @ Newegg

Raswan

Raswan

Senior member
Been watching this monitor for some time. With Newegg's Black Friday deal today of free shipping on Asus monitors, plus the code: EMCZZYN67, ends 11/8, brings this monitor down to $299.99. About 30-40$ cheaper than comparable sites. Finally pulled the trigger!
 
mindwreck said:
1920x1080. useless. not even 16:10
Click to expand...

rofl, the only "useless" thing around here is your comment. 1920x1080 is the standard HD 1080p resolution which is what most "normal" people want. Me, personally... a 27" monitor should be 2560x1600.
 
maybe you should have thought a little cause ur post is the same as mine. a 27" needs to be 2560x1600 or its just big for no reason. hence useless...

SunnyD said:
rofl, the only "useless" thing around here is your comment. 1920x1080 is the standard HD 1080p resolution which is what most "normal" people want. Me, personally... a 27" monitor should be 2560x1600.
Click to expand...
 
mindwreck said:
maybe you should have thought a little cause ur post is the same as mine. a 27" needs to be 2560x1600 or its just big for no reason. hence useless...
Click to expand...

Wouldn't 2560x1440 be more appropriate for a 27" monitor?

Anyways, I love my 28" I-Inc that I bought for $250 not too long ago.
 
SunnyD said:
rofl, the only "useless" thing around here is your comment. 1920x1080 is the standard HD 1080p resolution which is what most "normal" people want. Me, personally... a 27" monitor should be 2560x1600.
Click to expand...


2560x1600 isn't what you want then because it's 16:10... so I guess you want it too and don't even realize it.

I don't like 16:9 either, why? Because it's a smaller screen comparatively, less real estate(again comparatively..meaning 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080, 1680x1050 vs 1600x900, etc.) and thus hinders productivity, you lose 1/10 of your screen..maybe better for movies, but not for work.

But we can't do much about it because it's cheaper for a manufacturer to produce just one panel ratio rather than have equipment updated to produce two different ratios.
 
mindwreck said:
maybe you should have thought a little cause ur post is the same as mine. a 27" needs to be 2560x1600 or its just big for no reason. hence useless...
Click to expand...

This $5 bill on the ground is useless because it's not a $10 bill...

Just because someone prefers 16:10 does not make 16:9 useless.
 
arkcom said:
This $5 bill on the ground is useless because it's not a $10 bill...

Just because someone prefers 16:10 does not make 16:9 useless.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If my wife won a complete Snap-On tool set in a drawing, she would think it was useless. She would then give it to me and I would think it was fantastic. One item, two completely different opinions of it.

It's all personal preference and perspective. I prefer 16:10 myself. But the next guy might like 16:9 instead because he can watch his 1080P movies without any letterboxing.
 
It's funny that when people complain about the aspect ratio, they're really complaining about a lack of pixels. If you need more pixels, just buy a second monitor. Back in the day, 21-inch monitors were $600 and up. Today, you can get THREE hi-def panels plus a video card in that budget.
 
1920x1200 on my 28" is not useless. It's mounted on the wall about 4 feet away from my face. If it was 2560x1600, I wouldn't be able to read sh**. That said, 16:10 FTW. 16:9 is a miserable fail. This is a good deal, regardless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top