Has anyone done this upgrade? I’m guessing that the vertical height would be about the same, so it would just be a gain in the width of a few inches. Worth it?
Compare the number of pixels - most 19’s are only 1280 x 1024, where the 22 is likely to be 1600 x 1080 or so, which is about 25% more realestate.
Sort of depends on your use. For normal computer tasks, extra screen real estate is nice and does actually increase productivity (more windows open, etc). One potential downside is that you generally want LCDs to run at their native resolution (see beowulff’s post), which means that text can get a lot smaller. There are ways around this. Personally, I actually prefer a dual monitor setup if you’ve got the space on your desk.
Widescreen is pretty nice for gaming, and more and more games support it these days.
ETA: The Dell 22" widescreen is actually a really nice monitor and cheap as hell.
<bzzzrrrttt!> Warning! Warning! Joke Overload! Warning! paf!
I upgraded from a 19" CRT to a 22" wide screen. I love it. I watch TV, and lots of DVDs on my computer. Also, MLB TV. Definitely worth it for me. I would have gone with the 24" but the jump in price from 22 to 24 was prohibitive.
Depends on what you’re going to do with it. IMO lots of websites display poorly in a widescreen. I’d rather have two monitors.
I switched from a 17" Samsung (1280x1024) to a 22" Gateway (1680x1050). It’s a really nice upgrade, especially for gaming. I paid less for the Gateway than I did for the Samsung several years ago, so it wasn’t too painful. I would love to have gone up to the 24" model and its 1920x1200 resolution, but the extra $300 was more than I could justify.
If you are going to be watching DVDs at your computer, a 22" monitor at standard (arm’s reach) distance is freaking enormous – like having a 60" TV on the other side of the room. Pair it with some nice speakers and an Aeron chair, and you’re a happy camper.
Then don’t open the browser window full screen.
It makes a big difference if you want to watch HD content on your monitor. A 1280 X 1024 monitor can only show 720 lines of resolution in 16 X 9 widescreen, or 435 lines of resolution for a 2.35:1 movies. A widescreen monitor can do native 1080p HD.
But other than that, I’d rather have two 19" monitors side by side - which is what my setup has. Essentially that gives you 2560 X 1024, which is better than a widescreen monitor for overall real estate. Plus you can do things like zoom an application to full screen without it affecting the other monitor.
Can I have the 19" when you’re done with it?
(or buy it, I guess)
Watch out for things like this.
Like Jayrot said, it depends on your use. You may need to upgrade your graphics card if you intend gaming on your rig. That 25% increase in pixels could seriously hit your framerate if your card’s not up to scratch.
If you use it to browse and watch vids, just forget I opened my mouth.
I must have missed a memo. 720 is now prefixed by “only”? (Insert “I’m feeling old” smiley.)
Well, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are native 1080p. So if you want to watch the movies in their native resolution without scaling artifacts, you can’t do it with a typical 19" monitor.
And while the different between 720p and 1080p is small when it comes to watching it on a regular TV from 10’ away, if you’re sitting right in front of a 22" monitor watching a movie, I’ll guarantee you’ll notice the difference in quality.
So the movie argument is definitely tempting. Even for standard TV or DVD which is 480p, it would use a lot more of the screen when scaled-up.
My current 19" with 1280 pixels is 15" wide, so I guess a 22" with 1680 would be around 20", which is really quite a bit wider. The current one is only 17" wide including the bezel…