desktop monitor.. is 24" a good screen size

[Warp01]

I have made up my mind about my upgrade: Dell U2410.

I would have preferred a 26"/27" but the resolution 1600x1200 is not easy to find on larger displays, and my card is not very powerful.

Regards.

 

[lifeblood]

Coming from someone who has a 19" monitor, yes, a 24" monitor is good.

Having said that, I have to ask "good for what"? A home theater? probably not. Sitting at a desk and playing games? Yes.

 

[Yuriman]

I would have prefer a 26"/27" but the resolution 1600x1200 is not easy to find on larger displays, and my card is not very powerful.

The U2410 is not 1600x1200, either, it's 1920x1200. Nearly all displays 24" and larger will be 1920x1200, or 1920x1080.

 

[zerocool84]

24" is a good size as bigger is practically always better in monitors/tv's. I went from a 19" to a 23" and now wish I went bigger.

 

[Imp]

Best for me is 24" or 27" at 1920x1200 or even 1920x1080. Sitting 3' from the screen, a 24" is just big enough that you don't have to move your neck when looking at different sides of the screen, and the dot-pitch is reasonable to read text (not as bad with Win 7's adjustable dpi and other text features; even XP was ok). A 27" might be slightly better, but the price is significantly higher than a 24". A 30" is overkill at 2560xwhatever.

 

[borisvodofsky]

Best for me is 24" or 27" at 1920x1200 or even 1920x1080. Sitting 3' from the screen, a 24" is just big enough that you don't have to move your neck when looking at different sides of the screen, and the dot-pitch is reasonable to read text (not as bad with Win 7's adjustable dpi and other text features; even XP was ok). A 27" might be slightly better, but the price is significantly higher than a 24". A 30" is overkill at 2560xwhatever.

Here it is again, Someone who has never used a 30" is dissin' , not worth it, price is too high, overkill,,

No one ever looked back from a 30" 25x16, If you have the money Go for it, DON"T kid urself with the 2x24" BS, Dual monitor might be "ehh" for productivity, but 30" is top notch for everything else.:sneaky:

 

[ecom]

The largest 1600x1200 I've seen was a 20" 4:3 LCD monitor. For the most part 4:3 is starting to become uncommon in favor of 16:10 and 16:9 widescreen monitors. Even then any 1600x1200 screens you find are going to be quite expensive if they are larger than 19". There is a very large price jump from 19" to 20" 4:3 screens. The highest resolution 19" 4:3 screens I've seen were 1440 x 900.

One important thing to consider is what the monitor is used for and your preference. There are 16:10 and 16:9 screens out there and you should decide which you want first.

 

[Pia]

Yeah, it's an excellent size. I've had a Dell 2405FPW for five years now. For productivity (at arm's length - optimal size is always proportional to viewing distance) I don't even want a display that is any wider. Geometric error becomes too great. My idea of optimal flat screen would be a 1:1 ratio, just slightly narrower than my current display, equally tall, and same or higher resolution. If more space is desired, you add displays. The best approximation for this with available products, AFAIK, is multiple 21.5" panels in pivot configuration, but I haven't gone for that because I also use this display for entertainment.

 

[Imp]

Here it is again, Someone who has never used a 30" is dissin' , not worth it, price is too high, overkill,,

No one ever looked back from a 30" 25x16, If you have the money Go for it, DON"T kid urself with the 2x24" BS, Dual monitor might be "ehh" for productivity, but 30" is top notch for everything else.:sneaky:

Nope, never used a 30" and I'm so so so sorry for "dissin". I'm sorry if I belittled your purchase. But, let's take a look:

Dell G2410 at 1920x1080 = $380 ($279 on sale)
Dell U2410 at 1920x1200 = $750 ($599 sale)
Dell 3008WGP at 2560x1600 = $2000 ($1599 sale)
Dell 3007WFP-HC at 2560x1600 = $1599 ($1099 sale)


Seriously. I have a 2407 WFP (older gen U2410) and find it adequate to run 2 windows side by side. If I wanted to, I could afford a 30". Hell, sometimes I do wish for a 30" so I can run larger windows and have more screen real estate. But going from 1920x1200 = 2.304 million pixels to 2560x1600 = 4.096 million pixels is a substantial jump. A 1680x1050 = 1.764 million pixels is a smaller jump to the next step up at 1920x1200.

So, not only do you need to pay $1599/$750 ($1099/$599), more than double at MSRP, you have to pay for the hardware to power it.

If I tried it, would I love it? Probably. Would I run home and pay double? No. It's too much for my needs. The OP didn't say what he does with his monitor, but seeing as his "card is not powerful" and he's looking for a 1600x1200 monitor, just *maybe* a 30" isn't what he's looking for.


Edit: Those are Canadian prices. US prices are:
Dell G2410 at 1920x1080 = $309
Dell U2410 at 1920x1200 = $599 ($539 sale)
Dell 3008WGP at 2560x1600 = $1699
Dell 3007WFP-HC at 2560x1600 = $1399

 

[konakona]

Never had a pleasure of trying out 2560x1600, but 32'' @1080p was a definitely welcome change from 24'' @1920x1200. Not sure what your intended use is though. For productivity, I find this monitor (TV actually) adequate (I am using it some to write my thesis from time to time). Gaming and videos, just aaawesome. IPS-Alpha, only paid $365 shipped for it

 

[redlinez33]

guessing the panasonic 32" ^^^

Have the same thing, awesome.

For productivity I wish it had the extra 120 pixels, and text (especially red text) isnt always the clearest. But gaming rocks on this thing.

 

[yh125d]

I'd sooner go for a 32/37 1080p TV to use as a monitor in that price range

 

[borisvodofsky]

Nope, never used a 30" and I'm so so so sorry for "dissin". I'm sorry if I belittled your purchase. But, let's take a look:

Dell G2410 at 1920x1080 = $380 ($279 on sale)
Dell U2410 at 1920x1200 = $750 ($599 sale)
Dell 3008WGP at 2560x1600 = $2000 ($1599 sale)
Dell 3007WFP-HC at 2560x1600 = $1599 ($1099 sale)


Seriously. I have a 2407 WFP (older gen U2410) and find it adequate to run 2 windows side by side. If I wanted to, I could afford a 30". Hell, sometimes I do wish for a 30" so I can run larger windows and have more screen real estate. But going from 1920x1200 = 2.304 million pixels to 2560x1600 = 4.096 million pixels is a substantial jump. A 1680x1050 = 1.764 million pixels is a smaller jump to the next step up at 1920x1200.

So, not only do you need to pay $1599/$750 ($1099/$599), more than double at MSRP, you have to pay for the hardware to power it.

If I tried it, would I love it? Probably. Would I run home and pay double? No. It's too much for my needs. The OP didn't say what he does with his monitor, but seeing as his "card is not powerful" and he's looking for a 1600x1200 monitor, just *maybe* a 30" isn't what he's looking for.


Edit: Those are Canadian prices. US prices are:
Dell G2410 at 1920x1080 = $309
Dell U2410 at 1920x1200 = $599 ($539 sale)
Dell 3008WGP at 2560x1600 = $1699
Dell 3007WFP-HC at 2560x1600 = $1399

Attack the Price all you want. EVERYONE I know who has bought a 24" regretted it, because it puts them 4-500 dollars away from What they REALLY want../could've had

That's just facts.

I admit I was one of these people. Luckily I'm spoiled.

 

[yh125d]

Attack the Price all you want. EVERYONE I know who has bought a 24" regretted it, because it puts them 4-500 dollars away from What they REALLY want../could've had

That's just facts.

I admit I was one of these people. Luckily I'm spoiled.

Maybe if you buy expensive $500 24" monitors... Those of us who bought $200 24" monitors don't regret it

 

[edplayer]

Attack the Price all you want. EVERYONE I know who has bought a 24" regretted it, because it puts them 4-500 dollars away from What they REALLY want../could've had

I have a 24" monitor and I don't regret buying it at all. Its from Asus and I got it on sale about the time it came out for about $230.


30" sounds nice but I have many other things I would rather put my money towards versus a 30" monitor. If they were in the $500 and less range, Yes, I would consider them.

 

[HopJokey]

I bought a $180 dollar 2048x1152 23 inch LCD. I love it and definitely do not regret it despite it being a TN panel (bad viewing angles).

I would rather have the 27 inch 2560x1440 or 30 inch 2560x1600, but those cost massive $$$.

 

[zuffy]

24" is definitely a good size. If anyone ask for recommendation, it would have to be 23" and up. Nothing smaller. I would get one with a 1920 x 1200 resolution instead of 1920 x 1080 though. That 120 vertical pixels does help.

 

[Mona2010]

I think 24 will be bigger than you want

19 to 21 in good

 

[0roo0roo]

no way.

bigger is better. 21 is not enough. 24" with atleast 1080p is a good size with good resolution density. if you get cheap 26-27 it will be 1080p tv panel and poor quality for desktop use because of low relative resolution. 30" displays should have 2560x1600.

 

[OS]

lol 21" not enough, u guys are spoiled b-----s, i remember having to use fish bowl 14" and 15" crt montors. :X

 

[disappoint]

lol 21" not enough, u guys are spoiled b-----s, i remember having to use fish bowl 14" and 15" crt montors. :X

I used to have a 14" crt back in the day. I also think 21" is tiny nowadays though. 21" is fine for 4:3 ratio screens, but not for 16:9 or 16:10 widescreens. It's downright tiny in widescreen format. I have a 28" 16:10 widescreen and it's saweet!

 

[lifeblood]

I used to have a 14" crt back in the day. I also think 21" is tiny nowadays though. 21" is fine for 4:3 ratio screens, but not for 16:9 or 16:10 widescreens. It's downright tiny in widescreen format. I have a 28" 16:10 widescreen and it's saweet!

How well does that 9800GT in your sig drive that 28"? How much eye candy can you turn on with it? I would think you would have to keep the game settings at medium.

 

[RKS]

I've never understood why people cheap out on a monitor or case. Those two items often last multiple builds. Sometimes it's the same people spend $300-$500 on a GPU that lasts for a year or so.

Personally I thought going from a cheap 19" Dell lcd to the (in)famous SOYO 24" was a fantastic upgrade; until I got a couple 3007s.

 

[Warp01]

Thank you, everybody, for your help.


Regards.

 

[RussianSensation]

no way.

bigger is better. 21 is not enough. 24" with atleast 1080p is a good size with good resolution density. if you get cheap 26-27 it will be 1080p tv panel and poor quality for desktop use because of low relative resolution. 30" displays should have 2560x1600.

If you can actually see pixels 2 feet away on a 27 inch LCD monitor @ 1080P resolution, you should apply for X-men. For productivity a 30 inch 2560x1600 is far superior to a 42 inch 1080P LCD. However, try playing a game or watching a movie. A 42 inch plasma demolishes a 30 inch LCD for movies and games.