@StableX: That avatar looks like something out of Doom. :eek:

Quote from XCNuse :

A 4:3 22" screen would just mean it would be the same.

Do they even make LCD computer monitors with a 4:3 aspect ratio?

Quote from wheel4hummer :

Do they even make LCD computer monitors with a 4:3 aspect ratio?

800x600, 1024x768, 1600x1200... Yes, yes they do

Quote from pb32000 :

800x600, 1024x768, 1600x1200... Yes, yes they do

Well, none of the LCD monitors I've owned have been 4:3, but whatever.

I think it's much more common for an LCD monitor to be 5:4 than 4:3. This is the reason for the 1280x1024 resolution, the 5:4 counterpart to 1280x960.

Quote from Forbin :

I think it's much more common for an LCD monitor to be 5:4 than 4:3. This is the reason for the 1280x1024 resolution, the 5:4 counterpart to 1280x960.

The 1280x1024 has always been the resolution between 1024x768 and 1600x1200. Originally it was somekind of memory reason why it was used instead of 1280x960. Anyway it has been the standard resolution for ages and it has been used in 4:3 CRTs too, even though the image is a bit distorted that way. As it was the standard it was used in 17" and 19" LCDs and as LCDs have perfectly square pixels so the physical monitor had to be 5:4 too. Choosing a 5:4 resolution and shape has nothing to do with LCD technology.

I mentioned nothing to the effect of 5:4 having to do with LCD technology or vice versa, only that it seemed to be a very common LCD shape. Browsing a list of non-widescreen LCD's, I see there are in fact a lot of 4:3 LCD's with resolutions such as 1024x768, 1600x1200, and even the very odd 1400x1050 (although the relation to 1680x1050 is pretty clear).

Quote from Forbin :

I mentioned nothing to the effect of 5:4 having to do with LCD technology or vice versa, only that it seemed to be a very common LCD shape.

No surprise there. 17" and 19" LCDs are 5:4 and they are both popular because when they appeared on the market when LCD was out of the early adopters era and everyone started to have one. They have been the mainstream monitor for a few years now and only now they have started to phase out with introduction of widescreen monitors (19-22" mainly). So no wonder they are common when 90% of monitors sold were one of those for few years

There seemed just to be a misunderstanding that LCDs were the reason for 1280x1024 instead of the other way around.

Another thing to watch out for. Hardly any of the widescreen screens I've looked at had any kind of Aspect Ratio control. That means that if you feed it anything other than 1680x1050 the image will be stretched and distorted to fullscreen without you being able to influence it. So if you plan to play games that don't support 16:10 or want to connect 16:9 devices to your screen (PS3, HDTV box, HD-DVD player etc.) you need to make sure the screen has AR control.

Dell screens have AR control and does quite decent scaling so you can even use non-native resolutions for games that suffer in terms of fps. And (most of them) don't use TN panels.

If the monitor has a DVI connector the scaling can be controlled from the GPU drivers. You can set a fixed aspect ratio scaling (no distortion, but black bars), full screen scaling (the usual way), no scaling (the picture uses only the center pixels (black stuff all over) and the scaling can be done at the software end so the resolution is scaled before it goes to the monitor (the results are much much better).
I don't know about the situation with ATI GPUs, but Nvidia supports this, except the support was broken a while go (97.xx drivers IIRC) and I don't know if it has been fixed in the newer drivers.

ATI doesn't support it AFAIK.

17" and 19" (with a resolution of 1280x1024) LCD monitors are 5:4. Most if not all other non-widescreen LCDs are 4:3.

edit: Whoa didnt realise there was a 2nd page.

The point about scaling is an important one, especially if you play to use an input other than dvi. Tbh I used to play most newer games at 1280x1024 with my old 6600GT, and let it scale, but you dont really want to be doing that, luckily my new 8800 can play anything at 1680x1050 lol.

I've always like the higher spec Dell LCDs, they are quite expensive but pack so many features they are well worth it. Might consider an 24" Dell in September - student loan time :P

4:3 FTW.
Don't know about 22", but I wouldn't say not to ViewSonic 21" LCD VP2130B.
It doesn't help, that it costs $878 USD here, not that I would have $686 .

Sorry for "OT" but how do I find what what kind of panel my flatty has?
my lcd
Viewsonic VP2030b

EDIT: found it already P-MVA. Foudn this too: http://lcdresource.com/tools/matrix-of-all-matrices.htm

Quote from Hyperactive :

Sorry for "OT" but how do I find what what kind of panel my flatty has?
my lcd
Viewsonic VP2030b

A link will do

http://www.flatpanels.dk/skaerme.php Site is in danish, but there is not much you need to know. Just input your monitor in the "Søg efter" field and press Søg.

Quote from J.B. :

Another thing to watch out for. Hardly any of the widescreen screens I've looked at had any kind of Aspect Ratio control.

one more reason to buy an fw900