Originally posted by: Arkaign
Seriously though, you should go look at 22" in person for yourself. Also check out the reviews on newegg.com, they're almost all 5/5 or 4/5 on the better 22s.
There's a lot of snobs around who've seen 1 or 2 TNs (which include almost all laptops .. are *ALL* laptops 'utter crap' or 'garbage'?) and can afford the higher-priced screens, and then they decide to arrogantly crap all over the less expensive alternatives.
They are 5/5 reviews because the average consumer is blissfully ignorant of what makes a good LCD.
And i have just a little experience with how the average consumer thinks too, since i sell them LCDs every day.
What's ironic is that the uninformed consumers actually look at the display to "see" how it looks, since they don't understand specs.
Hence they're often drawn to the glossy displays, since they give a sharper contrast & color in the picture.
The semi-educated customers look at response time & contrast ratio, & will swear by those two features being vitally important, since really, they have no clue what they're looking at either, which ironically enough often has them at a disadvantage to the people who "look at the quality of the monitor".
I will say that yes, the better 22" LCDs are not bad.
But that doesn't make them good.
I get to see in person, on display, basically all the mainstream 22"s that are out there.
Sure, the LG W226WTG or Samsung 226BW are okay, but why settle for okay when you can get good.
That Acer 20" is the same viewing area as one of the 22"s (1680x1050), but a far better screen, so it'd be a good fit for a value display IMO.