Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Need 19" Glossy Widescreen w/ 1680x1050. Anyone seen one?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
April 30, 2007 3:15:37 PM

I'm looking for a gaming lcd and would love to get a 19" widscreen with a 2-5ms, 1680x1050 res and a glossy screen. If I absolutially can't get that, then I need a good 1440x900 with glossy screen. I saw a vaio all in one comp at best buy that had very attractive glossy 1680x1050 screen and it was 19". Unfortunately U can't buy just the screen since it's got a comp built into the back of it:(  Anyway, please help!
a b 4 Gaming
April 30, 2007 3:28:39 PM

There is a 20" NEC 20WGX2 with the glossy finish.
April 30, 2007 3:48:03 PM

there are quite a few 20's with 1680x1050 but what I want is a 19". I'm mounting this to the side of a micro-atx case and smaller is better in this case. This is a portable system.
Thanks!
April 30, 2007 4:10:29 PM

Quote:
there are quite a few 20's with 1680x1050 but what I want is a 19". I'm mounting this to the side of a micro-atx case and smaller is better in this case. This is a portable system.
Thanks!


There are VERY few 19" wides with Brite Screen. Only one I can think of is the HP w1907, but it has only 1 year warranty.

Better yet, NEC 90GX2... it's not a widescreen, but the display gets highest marks from Newegg buyers and is lower price.
April 30, 2007 4:19:14 PM

I stopped using 4:3 aspect ratios quite a while back and have no desire to return to that. In my mind, wide is the only way to go.
April 30, 2007 4:22:30 PM

Quote:
I stopped using 4:3 aspect ratios quite a while back and have no desire to return to that. In my mind, wide is the only way to go.


You're kidding? Widescreen SXGA, SUCKS compared to 4:3... except the NEC 20WMGX2 (and maybe the Gateway 2185), of course.
April 30, 2007 4:43:12 PM

Why do you say it sucks? First off, we naturally see in "widescreen". Thus to get the most bang for my buck with my natural vision, I go widescreen. If I want a huge ass monitor, I can see it all at once in widescreen but not 4:3. Movies are shot in native widescreen which means if u watch on on your monitor, you either lost most of movie to a black border or you watch fullscreen wich means you can only see like 3/5's of what the director actually meant to show you. Also, I use opera as my main web browser which means on my left hand side I have panels, I have my email controled from the left side of my screen while I browse. On a fullscreen monitor, that means I'd always be scrolling horizontally because the screen isn't wide enough for web pages. I have the only widescreen monitor in my office of like 6 computers and I cringe when I sit down at one of the other computers with their 4:3 monitors. I freakin hate them.
April 30, 2007 5:01:38 PM

Quote:
Why do you say it sucks? First off, we naturally see in "widescreen". Thus to get the most bang for my buck with my natural vision, I go widescreen. If I want a huge ass monitor, I can see it all at once in widescreen but not 4:3. Movies are shot in native widescreen which means if u watch on on your monitor, you either lost most of movie to a black border or you watch fullscreen wich means you can only see like 3/5's of what the director actually meant to show you. Also, I use opera as my main web browser which means on my left hand side I have panels, I have my email controled from the left side of my screen while I browse. On a fullscreen monitor, that means I'd always be scrolling horizontally because the screen isn't wide enough for web pages. I have the only widescreen monitor in my office of like 6 computers and I cringe when I sit down at one of the other computers with their 4:3 monitors. I freakin hate them.


I think you've been seduced by marketing. We do not "naturally see widescreen". The ONLY reason we have widescreen monitors today is because there is less waste (more profit) in the blanks from which LCD screens are punched if sized by widescreen params. LCD makers SOLD you on the idea that we "see in widescreen"... total hogwash! They marketed that concept just to increase acceptance of a cheaper product... God Bless Capitalism. (Your pupils are round... therefore, your vertical and horizontal "field of vision" are the same) :lol: 

Even the best widescreen SXGA images look a little "fat" to me, but widescreen UXGA is OK.
April 30, 2007 6:56:05 PM

I've never seen any marketing that says we see better in widescreen. I just feel that I can more actively use my horizontal peripheral vision. So what downsides do you find in using widescreen? I have listed a couple such as more use of my web browser and email, also I work in excel all the time and in most of my files, I had to scroll back and forth horizontally, since most mice don't provide horizontal scrolling without extra steps, it wastes time. Also the joys of entertainment being widescreen. So if it saves me time in using my files and it lets me utilize the maximum amount of screen for entertainment, why would I want 4:3 again?
April 30, 2007 7:00:29 PM

I did a little looking around online and from a brief bit of research seemed to find that our peripheral vision can be trained. Mostly just what our brain actively scans. I do remember when I first switched to widescreen it seemed almost too big because my eyes had to move around a lot. Now I no longer feel that way. Maybe my vision pattern adjusted which could be why I hate the other format now. Maybe I'd get used to it again if I used it for a while. Since I find widescreen more convienent to use, I think I'll stick with it though. My last screen was a 17" 1920x1200 uxga ultra sharp dell and it was one of the nicest looking screens I've seen. U may have something with the sxga vs uxga. Does that correspond to resolutions or something else?
a b 4 Gaming
April 30, 2007 8:32:44 PM

There are also a number of points that were not mentioned.

* For coding, vertical space is more important than horizontal space.
* It can be harder to read and write things if the window is too wide.
* Although you can position more items side by side in widescreen, it also requires more effort to size the windows properly than a dual monitor setup.
* For land based RTS games, widescreen can potentially be more limiting than standard ratio because you would be able to see less of the terrain vertically.
* Standard ratio seems like it would work better for dual monitor setups.


On the widescreen side
* Some apps that have lots of tool panels can probably be used much more productively on a widescreen monitor as you have more room to put the toolboxes. Putting the tool windows on a second monitor, in some cases, may be less productive (while more productive in other apps).
* You can have multiple windows in semi-side by side mode, though it does require some effort arrange properly, which may be more or less productive under certain conditions.
* As noted by the comment about Opera, widescreens allow you to sometimes fit in oddball parts of a program into a "corner" of the screen so to speak (like the toolbars for an image editor, or those features for Opera). A regular dimension monitor, does not give you this little "corner" of the screen that you don't normally focus on for tucking things away. This extra corner of space, due to the odder dimensions, can make a big difference under the right conditions.
April 30, 2007 8:43:53 PM

At last, someone with a halfway intelligent defense of standard screens. You have me convinced that for some people, standard is still best. I've never used widescreen for multiple apps up at once side by side because I've never had enough room. I'd love to see some more options in resolution on widescreen displays. Why is everything 1440x900 for 19" monitors but on my 17" notebook I had 1920x1200? Tonight I'm gonna go back to best buy and pick a monitor. I would shop somewhere else but I have a bunch of rewards certificates from a friend buying a 50" plasma and using my rewardzone card. I wish sony hadn't gotten out of the display market, I love sony displays.
May 1, 2007 1:03:57 AM

Quote:
"... My last screen was a 17" 1920x1200 uxga ultra sharp dell and it was one of the nicest looking screens I've seen. U may have something with the sxga vs uxga. Does that correspond to resolutions or something else?


In desktop monitors, SXGA is either (1) 5:4, 1280x1024, the normal resolution of 17" & 19" LCDs, (2) 16:10, 1440x900, in 19" widescreens, or (3) 16:10, 1680x1050, in 20-22" widescreens.

UXGA is either 4:3, 1600x1200, in 20.1" LCDs, (2) 16:10, 1920x1200, in 24-28" LCDs, or (3) 16:10, 2560x1600, in 30" LCDs.

The reason you liked your 17" UXGA laptop screen was because the images were especially sharp. That screen is very nice... probably has the smallest pixels in the industry.
May 1, 2007 12:42:28 PM

Quote:
"... [1] Why do you say it sucks?... [2] I have the only widescreen monitor in my office of like 6 computers and I cringe when I sit down at one of the other computers with their 4:3 monitors. I freakin hate them.


1. Widescreen is mostly a marketing ploy. The makers get like "one more screen per blank" (less waste, more profit), so they sold us on the idea that widescreen is better when actually it isn't. Some widescreen SXGA images get horizontally stretched out of proportion, some text becomes blurred or disproportional as well.

2. "4:3" is a commonly misued term. Many refer to the traditional params of 17 & 19" monitors as 4:3, when they are actually 5:4. 4:3 is the traditional ratio of 1600x1200, 20.1", UXGA monitors. They really aren't "hate-able" by anyone except gamers, who value response time over all else. The widescreen version of UXGA, usually 1920x1200, is good too.
May 3, 2007 3:22:40 PM

Quote:
The makers get like "one more screen per blank" (less waste, more profit)
Agreed, one of the main reasons that 22" wide is the (currently) fastest-selling panel on the market today: more real estate for the same (or less) cash.

Quote:
Some widescreen SXGA images get horizontally stretched out of proportion, some text becomes blurred or disproportional as well.
I don't understand why this would be the case as theoretically, a pixel is a pixel (and we are talking LCD and not CRT technology here) and the assignment of a number of pixels to a certain image is application-driven, not HW, AFAIK. Did you read something somewhere to the contrary...?

Are you perhaps suggesting that the pixels are spaced differently on the x vs. y-axis planes?

Quote:
"4:3" is a commonly misued term. Many refer to the traditional params of 17 & 19" monitors as 4:3, when they are actually 5:4.
Which makes me wonder why they even bothered with such a ratio (5:4) which is even smaller than 4:3 (1.25 and 1.33, respectively). Heck, while I'm at it, who thought up 16:10 (1.6) when the movie industry's been doing 16:9 (1.78 ) and wider (e.g. "2.35:1") for ages now...! All these ratios & my camera (10Mp Canon 350D) has got it's own ratio of 1.5 (3:2, same as a 4"x6" print)...

...But I digress :p 
May 3, 2007 3:41:44 PM

Quote:
quote="Hose"]Some widescreen SXGA images get horizontally stretched out of proportion, some text becomes blurred or disproportional as well.
I don't understand why this would be the case as theoretically, a pixel is a pixel (and we are talking LCD and not CRT technology here) and the assignment of a number of pixels to a certain image is application-driven, not HW, AFAIK. Did you read something somewhere to the contrary...?

Are you perhaps suggesting that the pixels are spaced differently on the x vs. y-axis planes?



Might be several reasons and I'm probably not aware of all of them.

Many pictures "fill the horizontal", even if it means stretching out of proportion.

Some pixels are not even square.. having differing horizontal and vertical sizes.

I once at BB had 5:4, SXGA of course, 4:3, UXGA, and 16:10, SXGA, screens next to each other... same picuture on all. (The 16:10 was not abnormally stretched.). Comparing human faces, the 5:4 looked like the most normal proportions, the 4:3 looked almost almost the same and normal, but the 16:10 looked horizontally "fat" while the vertical looked squeezed.

If you're always looking at only one, perhaps you adjust to thinking that it looks normal, but I can't see myself ever becoming a fan of 16:10 SXGA unless something changes.
May 3, 2007 4:05:47 PM

It could be that when you were at bb looking at monitors, they weren't set at actual widescreen resolutions. I was at bb last night picking up a second monitor to try with my new system and also helping a friend pick up a cheap desktop. I fixed the resolutions on several of the systems that were wrong. I don't think aspect ratio is a problem as long as you have your resolution set correctly for the monitor. Widescreen monitors basically only have 1 correct resolution or it does distort the pic. 5:4 monitors have a broader range of resolutions that look ok but I'm assuming only the native would be totally accurate. You just wouldn't notice the stretch as much on a 5:4 aspect as opposed to 16:10.
!