Hello

Today you could buy a screen which supports DVI. Not all modern
screens are DVI supported. They are just VGA supported ones.

I don't play any games like other people.
Does it make a difference by buying a DVI supported screen?

I am still using the old CRT screens at home. However, I use TFT flat
screen at work.

I know it is pointless to have a DVI supported screen if your graphic
card does not support it.

Your thoughts are welcome.

DVI is much better than VGA when it comes to LCD screens. With VGA on an LCD you are converting digital data to an analog signal, sending it through the cable, then converting it back to digital before displaying it. With DVI this digital-analog-digital conversion doesn't happen, so there isn't any quality lost.

You may never notice the difference though, but it usually doesn't cost any more to get a screen supporting DVI.

Thanks Elliott for the comments.
I want to buy those LCD screens. I just visited a few shops. They claim Samsung has the best and you have to pay a bit more for it than Acer, HP and other brands.

I know this computer is some 4 years old. I must buy a graphic card too. The existing graphic card won't support DVI.

I know the factors like contrast and access time are there on LCD screens.

Contrast 1000:1 , 2000:1 , 3001:1 etc.
Access time 5ms and 2ms
I know even the resolution is a factor.

Do you think the above mentioned factors are important to me?
I am not playing any games.

Most stores have them on display, just choose which one looks the best to you. I went to the store expecting to buy the Acer screen they had on sale, but when I saw the HP w2207, I bought it, even though it was considerably more expensive.

Mine is a 5ms screen, I don't notice any ghosting issues under normal use, even with games.


EDIT: Also, play with the display settings like the brightness and contrast. Sometimes they aren't setup properly. They might purposefully make a less expensive display look worse so they sell the more expensive ones.

Elliott wrote the following:
You may never notice the difference though, but it usually doesn't cost any more to get a screen supporting DVI.

---------------------------------------------
Tomorrow morning I hope to buy one. As you mentioned they are on display and for me it is a jungle. They display about 20 screens and price tags varies. I don't know the best solution for me.

Do you think VGA ones are sufficient for me?

Are you pleased with your HP w2207 screen?

Is it a 22" screen?

VGA will more than likely be fine for you, I just happened to already have a card that supported DVI, so I went that route.

I love my HP w2207, and it is a 22", they also have similar models in 19", 20" and 24". It might not be the best choice if it will be facing a window, it has a glossy screen coating. It does have an adjustable height base, which most screens in it's price range don't.

Thanks Elliott for taking time to reply me again.

Some screens has the concept of 'Widescreen'?

What is it? Does it matter for you?

Well, after a certain size, you can't find screens in 4:3 aspect ratio for a reasonable price. There are 22" 4:3 screens out there, but they are very expensive, so 16:9 widescreen is really the only viable option.

I can recommend the LG L226WTQ monitor - 22" widescreen running at 1680x1050. Especially with applications that have toolboxes down the side(s), a widescreen leaves much more space for what your working on - photo editing for instance.

I'm running that from an Nvidia 8400GS card - that's fine for everything apart from 3D games, and cost about £30.00 (GB pounds).

Elliott
I don't know the meaning of 4:3 ratio. What is it?

Silkstone
Does your LG L226WTQ support DVI?

Yes the L226WTQ has both DVI and RGB inputs - you can use either.

The 4:3 is the ratio of the screen width to height, and 4:3 is the conventional aspect ratio before widescreen came along. Widescreen is 16:9 - e.g. 1680 x 1050 pixels for most 22" screens.

(By the way, I also have a Samsung SM2232BW 22" widescreen monitor. The problem is that Samsung fit at least three different type of panel to these monitors, and it's a lottery which one you get. Some types are better than others, and you can't tell what's inside from the serial number. I drew the short straw and got one that isn't so good - it's OK if you profile it using something like the Spyder3, but that doesn't work in Linux.)

Thanks Silkstone

So tomorrow morning I will buy a VGA Wide screen.
Please tell me if I am wrong.
I will buy a 22" inches LG or HP.

I will look for 1680 x 1050 screens.

Very few, if any, computer monitors are 16:9. I think every single 16:9 "computer monitor" is actually an HDTV set which can incidentally also accept input from a computer (often with crippled or flawed functionality).

For better or worse, the computer monitor "standard" is 16:10. It makes no sense, and it's stupid, and it's unfortunate. The only slightly valid justification for it is so that you can view a 16:9 movie full screen as well as the Windows taskbar. Some MORON thought that this was a good idea. Why in the world would you want to ruin your movie watching experience by having this ugly Windows XP taskbar running along the bottom of the screen?

Pathetic.

But like it or not, 16:10 is the de facto standard for computer monitors. It's only slightly less disgusting than the 5:4 "standard" of 1280x1024.

Yep, Isaac, you're absolutely right. If you're more interested in looking at photos than videos, most DSLRs produce an aspect ratio of 1:1.5, so we really need 1200 x 1800.