4 ms·
I have both an HP LP2475w (24" 1920x1200, IPS) and a 27" 2560x1440 monitor--the same resolution as mentioned here. (I didn't want to deal with potential dead pi
by ericabiz 14y ago
I have both an HP LP2475w (24" 1920x1200, IPS) and a 27" 2560x1440 monitor--the same resolution as mentioned here. (I didn't want to deal with potential dead pixels and scaling issues, so I forked over the $700 for the Asus PB278Q instead of buying the off-brand.)
Honestly, I hate using my HP now. It's a great monitor, but the 2560x1440 resolution on the Asus is amazing. Side by side, the Asus knocks the HP out of the park.
TLDR: It is not worth the downgrade in screen size and resolution just to get a 16x10 aspect ratio. You will never regret going for the 2560x1440 monitor instead.
- lmm 14y agoIt's a pain to cart around, but I love my 10-year-old 2048x1536 CRT, and am alternately amused and saddened that modern displays still have a smaller smallest dimension.
- mtgx 14y agoNew technologies are usually better in some aspects in worse in others. Like LCD was a lot better for the thickness factor, but it took ages to make them the same quality as CRT and for the same reasonable price. Now we're seeing this with OLED displays, too. Much better contrasts, and even having some special properties like being bendable, but cost more than regular LCD's or even IPS LCD's.
- jdboyd 14y agoI had one of those at home. I took the hit on resolution and color to go LCD because the LCD's at work didn't make me feel as tired as the high-res CRT at home did.
- lmm 14y agoI had the opposite; for a long time LCDs gave me headaches, I think because they were all 60Hz. (Recently I've bought a laptop with a 120Hz display, which doesn't give me headaches).