Looking for some advice :)

1. At "non-native" resolution... some will be OK, others terrible. You'll just have to try yours and see.

2. As for color, that mostly depends upon your "eye". Many users wouldn't notice any difference at all, while others might complain "my monitor's red is the wrong shade"..

There is some controversy over the DVI vs VGA (analog) input. Many swear that DVI is significantly better. I've read expert reviews which state "there is no difference".

Personally, I use the analog input on my monitors. I've checked the display with a magnifying glass on 2 identical monitors... one with VGA, the other with DVI, and could find zero difference.

It is known that *SOME* VGA is inferior.... in many examples where a video card has both DVI and VGA (especially high number of complaints from ATI cards), I think sometimes the maker doesn't pay close attention to the VGA output quality and it *may* not be high. I've deduced that some cards have both DVI and a "slipshod-added VGA port" just so they can say "we have both", for marketing purposes.... thinking, "buyers will use the DVI if available, but we want to say we have both to pick up some additional sales".

The quality of the display is influenced by the video card output, the monitor panel, and the electronics which run the panel. If you have a quality video card with quality VGA output, your display will be good. (If that were not the case, reviews of the monitor would be poor and it wouldn't sell. There is at least one high-priced, high-resolution, 1920x1200, 24" monitor which has ONLY ANALOG input, so it can't be all that bad.)

The Bottom Line... if your monitor has ONLY VGA (and no DVI input), the VGA display is probably going to be good.

If this whole business puts you off, look for a monitor with both DVI and VGA inputs.

Hello,
Does anybody know if a DVI only output graphics card (nVidia 7900GT) can be plugged to Belinea 2225 S1W ????
Do I need a special cable or convertor?
Thanx.

Not too bad for games, though I wouldn't recommend it for the desktop. It does have a "soft" touch to it. If your monitor's scaling is really bad, you can try the graphics driver's scaling instead. According to Hose's earlier post, some monitors are worse than others.

Regarding scaling, should be able to find a solution that ain't too bad. However, regarding response time, keep in mind that LCDs still display "smearing" from the slower response time compared to a CRT. You can notice this in games.

If you do bitmap editing, then yes, definitely. I you don't do any kind of graphics work or video editing, then you may not even notice it.

[quote="Hose"]

Actually, color issues are a problem with a miscalibrated monitor and have nothing to do with 16.2 vs 16.7 million colors. A hardware calibrator should fix a miscalibrated monitor. Some brands come calibrated pretty well, while others are not as accurate. However, a calibrator is often needed if you want to keep the monitor near perfect. (P.S. It may also be possible that wrong colors could be from a bad monitor.)
So, what is the difference between 16.2 and 16.7? dithering.
16.2 uses dithering on certain shades to simulate colors that it cannot reproduce. If this forum allowed file uploads, I'd show you very close to what it looks like.
Here's a definition of dithering: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/dithering.html