If so please point me in their direction.
I want to be able to see a resolution of at least 1280x1024 with at least 80Hz refresh rate.
I have a monitor capable of 1280x1024, but only at 60Hz. It’s horrible to look at, so much that I stay in 1024x768.
1280x1024 is going to make for an awfully small feature size on a 17" monitor. I know you have excellent near vision but 1280 is almost useless for most people on a 17" monitor and short of running a CAD modeler. You’re really going to have to look at the top end models if you want a 85 Hz+ refresh rate on a 17" monitor at 1280x1024. You might be better off getting a 19" monitor if that is the res you want to run.
The best deal on higher end tube monitors I’ve seen is usually at www.ubid.com.
This one is # 1 rated and will do 89hz at 1280x1024
I’m running 1400x1200 on a 15" LCD and I am probably going to go for a 1600x1200 15" for my next laptop. I know lots of people who do 1280x1024 on a 17". Generally, though, you need a pro class monitor.
Ummmm, not to nitpick, but why would you want to run at 1280x1024? Did you mean 1280x960? Or do you like the “squashed” look?
I have a 15" Sony at 1280×1024 & 60Hz and it looks just fine.
I thought 1280x1024 was the next ‘natural’ step from 1024x768.
Now that you mention it Rex it is probably not. It did look squashed when I switched to it last night.
astro I used to run on 1280x1024 all the time, I like being able to fit more controls in the screen (yes I do use cad type programs) and I like the ‘professional’ look of it, and the fact that you can fit more programs on the start bar
And a quick calculation tells me that Rex is right. Well i’ll be. All those months or running in squashed mode without realizing it.
I’ll try 1280x960 when I get home, and see what the refresh is like.
What will give me a true refresh rate reading? (because windows display properties doesn’t. It just stays on whatever you choose, regardless of what the actual refresh rate is)
The reason I assumed 1280x1024 is the next natural step is that after 1024x768, on most windows machines, the modes switch aspect ratio from 1.33333 to 1.25 (1280x1024 is 1.25. 1024x768 and 1280x960 are 1.3333)
Yes, for all “normal” resolutions - 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, 1600x1200 - the aspect ratio therin is 1.33:1 - the standard NTSC resolution. 1280x1024 is a 1.25 ratio - thus things looked squished. If you don’t believe me, switch to a “normal” resolution and use a graphics program to create a “perfect” circle. Save it as your wallpaper the switch to 1280x1024. What should look like O now looks like 0.
IME, you’re better off buying a monitor from Best Buy or CompUSA than online. S&H usually runs $25-$30 online unless you find a free shipping offer or coupon; also, even if you wanna\must buy online, you might wanna go to a B&M store just to see the monitors in action before you buy. My 19" Hitachi looks better to me than any Sony tube out there, but YMMV.
Also, if the price difference between a 17" and 19" is only a few bucks, you should really go for a 19" instead - you won’t regret it, believe me.
I’d do like what Rex says and check out this 19" ViewSonic in person before committing to anything.
Thanks for the help everyone. If I do decide to get a new monitor I will have a look at the 19" ones in ‘person’ If I can find any. I’ll also see if 1280x960 is an acceptable ompromise (if my monitor will sustain a highish refresh rate at that res)
How cheap? And is desktop space a concern?
I had an IBM P202 21" that did 1600x1200 @ 85Hz. It was vertically flat. But the main feature was the excellent and vivid picture of the Trinitron tube. The P202 is actually a rebranded Sony GDM-500PS.
I picked it up off eBay with a year’s warranty for $200 with shipping included, about a year back. You can get them for as less as $150 w/ shipping now.