Any models in mind?Mint Sauce wrote:
The Samsung closest to 150.
I would recommend a BenQ but they're expensive.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productli … ;catid=948Finray wrote:
Any models in mind?Mint Sauce wrote:
The Samsung closest to 150.
I would recommend a BenQ but they're expensive.
Says it's bad for viewing vertical pics..Sup wrote:
Not widescreen? Why not? I think the biggest non wide screen you can get is a 21".
O rly?Finray wrote:
Says it's bad for viewing vertical pics..Sup wrote:
Not widescreen? Why not? I think the biggest non wide screen you can get is a 21".
Ty mint.
EDIT: misread you.Sup wrote:
Not widescreen? Why not? I think the biggest non wide screen you can get is a 21".
That makes no sense.Finray wrote:
Says it's bad for viewing vertical pics..Sup wrote:
Not widescreen? Why not? I think the biggest non wide screen you can get is a 21".
Ty mint.
Last edited by CrazeD (2009-01-02 05:59:19)
I have that one! I love it!.Sup wrote:
O rly? http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4 … SS400_.jpgFinray wrote:
Says it's bad for viewing vertical pics..Sup wrote:
Not widescreen? Why not? I think the biggest non wide screen you can get is a 21".
Ty mint.
Well he's wrong.Finray wrote:
Says it's bad for viewing vertical pics..Sup wrote:
Not widescreen? Why not? I think the biggest non wide screen you can get is a 21".
Ty mint.
Those HP monitors look super nice. I'm not sure about specs wise, but seeing them in a store they somehow manage to look fucking massive! They seem far bigger than other 24"s..Sup wrote:
O rly? http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4 … SS400_.jpgFinray wrote:
Says it's bad for viewing vertical pics..Sup wrote:
Not widescreen? Why not? I think the biggest non wide screen you can get is a 21".
Ty mint.
Thats cos they're black, its deceiving...ghettoperson wrote:
Those HP monitors look super nice. I'm not sure about specs wise, but seeing them in a store they somehow manage to look fucking massive! They seem far bigger than other 24"s..Sup wrote:
O rly? http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4 … SS400_.jpgFinray wrote:
Says it's bad for viewing vertical pics.
Ty mint.
.Sup wrote:
Thats cos they're black, its deceiving...ghettoperson wrote:
Those HP monitors look super nice. I'm not sure about specs wise, but seeing them in a store they somehow manage to look fucking massive! They seem far bigger than other 24"s.
wat. Nah, it's weird though when you see monitors in shops how differently sized they seem. Some look huge and others tiny. It's down to the design..Sup wrote:
Thats cos they're black, its deceiving...ghettoperson wrote:
Those HP monitors look super nice. I'm not sure about specs wise, but seeing them in a store they somehow manage to look fucking massive! They seem far bigger than other 24"s.
FFS read OP guys!Finray wrote:
My dad's getting a new computer, including a monitor, and he doesn't know what to go with.
Has to be:
Good for displaying photographs
Preferably not widescreen
20-24"
Budget of ~150 pounds.
And go.
No, the size of a monitor is measured diagonally. From corner to corner. A 24" 16:10 thus has less height than a 4:3 24".CrazeD wrote:
EDIT: misread you.Sup wrote:
Not widescreen? Why not? I think the biggest non wide screen you can get is a 21".
Though buying a 4:3 LCD is entirely pointless, seeings they cost more and you have less space.
EDIT 2:That makes no sense.Finray wrote:
Says it's bad for viewing vertical pics..Sup wrote:
Not widescreen? Why not? I think the biggest non wide screen you can get is a 21".
Ty mint.
A 24" wide screen has the same vertical height as a 4:3, but a shit ton more horizontal space. 1920 vs 1600. You do the math.
First of all, you aren't gonna get a monitor in that size that is good at displaying pictures for that price. There simply are no good ones, as they're all shitty TN panels. Not to even talk about the rare 4:3 ones. They're fuck hard to find and cost a fortune, as no-one wants them. If it being 4:3 is so important, get a good CRT instead. They excel at picture quality, and have that all-important 4:3 aspect ratio. To top it off, they cost a fraction of what a similarly-specced LCD would.SirSchloppy wrote:
FFS read OP guys!Finray wrote:
My dad's getting a new computer, including a monitor, and he doesn't know what to go with.
Has to be:
Good for displaying photographs
Preferably not widescreen
20-24"
Budget of ~150 pounds.
And go.
Last edited by Freezer7Pro (2009-01-02 07:22:05)
There is impossible to find a non widescreen monitor with that price that is 20+"(they start at $600+)SirSchloppy wrote:
FFS read OP guys!Finray wrote:
My dad's getting a new computer, including a monitor, and he doesn't know what to go with.
Has to be:
Good for displaying photographs
Preferably not widescreen
20-24"
Budget of ~150 pounds.
And go.
Madiz wrote:
There is impossible to find a non widescreen monitor with that price that is 20+"(they start at $600+)SirSchloppy wrote:
FFS read OP guys!Finray wrote:
My dad's getting a new computer, including a monitor, and he doesn't know what to go with.
Has to be:
Good for displaying photographs
Preferably not widescreen
20-24"
Budget of ~150 pounds.
And go.
I told my dad that he wanted a CRT instead. He didn't listen.Freezer7Pro wrote:
¨No, the size of a monitor is measured diagonally. From corner to corner. A 24" 16:10 thus has less height than a 4:3 24".CrazeD wrote:
EDIT: misread you.Sup wrote:
Not widescreen? Why not? I think the biggest non wide screen you can get is a 21".
Though buying a 4:3 LCD is entirely pointless, seeings they cost more and you have less space.
EDIT 2:That makes no sense.Finray wrote:
Says it's bad for viewing vertical pics.
Ty mint.
A 24" wide screen has the same vertical height as a 4:3, but a shit ton more horizontal space. 1920 vs 1600. You do the math.First of all, you aren't gonna get a monitor in that size that is good at displaying pictures for that price. There simply are no good ones, as they're all shitty TN panels. Not to even talk about the rare 4:3 ones. They're fuck hard to find and cost a fortune, as no-one wants them. If it being 4:3 is so important, get a good CRT instead. They excel at picture quality, and have that all-important 4:3 aspect ratio. To top it off, they cost a fraction of what a similarly-specced LCD would.SirSchloppy wrote:
FFS read OP guys!Finray wrote:
My dad's getting a new computer, including a monitor, and he doesn't know what to go with.
Has to be:
Good for displaying photographs
Preferably not widescreen
20-24"
Budget of ~150 pounds.
And go.
Well then he can't get one.SirSchloppy wrote:
I told my dad that he wanted a CRT instead. He didn't listen.Freezer7Pro wrote:
¨No, the size of a monitor is measured diagonally. From corner to corner. A 24" 16:10 thus has less height than a 4:3 24".CrazeD wrote:
EDIT: misread you.Sup wrote:
Not widescreen? Why not? I think the biggest non wide screen you can get is a 21".
Though buying a 4:3 LCD is entirely pointless, seeings they cost more and you have less space.
EDIT 2:That makes no sense.Finray wrote:
Says it's bad for viewing vertical pics.
Ty mint.
A 24" wide screen has the same vertical height as a 4:3, but a shit ton more horizontal space. 1920 vs 1600. You do the math.First of all, you aren't gonna get a monitor in that size that is good at displaying pictures for that price. There simply are no good ones, as they're all shitty TN panels. Not to even talk about the rare 4:3 ones. They're fuck hard to find and cost a fortune, as no-one wants them. If it being 4:3 is so important, get a good CRT instead. They excel at picture quality, and have that all-important 4:3 aspect ratio. To top it off, they cost a fraction of what a similarly-specced LCD would.SirSchloppy wrote:
FFS read OP guys!
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-01-17 16:18:17)
Last edited by GR34 (2009-01-17 18:44:55)
