The best way to decide on the text-size issue is to try it out at length in other people's homes, or in suitable shops. You can't really do it from the specs or other people's opinions, I'm afraid.
Simply go for a larger monitor than you think you need - using 1920x1080 does really need a pretty sizeable one (mines 24" at home, and more would be better).
Simply go for a larger monitor than you think you need - using 1920x1080 does really need a pretty sizeable one (mines 24" at home, and more would be better).
You can always increase the DPI within windows or as I did get new glasses
Simply go for a larger monitor than you think you need - using 1920x1080 does really need a pretty sizeable one (mines 24" at home, and more would be better).
Yes, I went for a 27 incher in the end, it is *just* right for me but then it's a bit wide on websites, so I usually have browser windows set at 2/3 or 3/4 width.
You can always increase the DPI within windows or as I did get new glasses
I find the text enlargement browser options (CTRL + etc.) invaluable for my old eyes, even on a 27 inch screen! Many of my programs don't let you enlarge text so easily (or at all), though.
That's just a matter of opinion, 1920 x 1080 is absolutely fine for a computer monitor and in fact, it is supplanting the older standard of 1920 x 1200 especially at the lower end. For a dual-use screen (computer or HD video) 1920 x 1080 is perfect - and usually better value for money.
.
Its only supplanting 1920x1200 for greed reasons as there is a greater profit margin in 16:9 screens because the panels don't need produced especially for monitors. Its the same reason why for a while it was standard for TV's under 26" especially at the budget end would come in 16:10 because it was cheaper at the time to use panels produced for monitors which at the time were had a bigger demand than small LCD TV's
Its only supplanting 1920x1200 for greed reasons as there is a greater profit margin in 16:9 screens because the panels don't need produced especially for monitors. Its the same reason why for a while it was standard for TV's under 26" especially at the budget end would come in 16:10 because it was cheaper at the time to use panels produced for monitors which at the time were had a bigger demand than small LCD TV's
16:10 is more natural for documents.
Just depends what the main use of the PC is really.
I've got one PC with a 24" 1920x1200 screen that is used mostly for office type stuff. And it's great for that.
I do play some videos on it, but obviously a Full HD video gives black bars top and bottom.
I've got another with a 23" 1920x1080 screen that is used more for videos and the like, and the display is also cloned to my Full HD telly, which is why I chose that resolution/aspect ratio for that monitor.
A 16:10 monitor couldn't be used as easily, in conjunction with the TV.
Incidentally the 23" 16:9 is almost exactly the same width as the 24" 16:10, so text and icon etc are the same size on both, and perfectly readable to me at that size.
Also, not all monitors have full support for 4:4:4 chroma subsampling over HDMI, which means that a DVI connection may give a sharper picture when displaying a computer image, though it won't make any difference for video images. If you buy a combined TV/monitor there is a good chance it won't support 4:4:4.
Its only supplanting 1920x1200 for greed reasons as there is a greater profit margin in 16:9 screens because the panels don't need produced especially for monitors. Its the same reason why for a while it was standard for TV's under 26" especially at the budget end would come in 16:10 because it was cheaper at the time to use panels produced for monitors which at the time were had a bigger demand than small LCD TV's
16:10 is more natural for documents.
And 16:9 is more natural for widescreen video.
As for the greed thing, well I waited a couple of years before upgrading to a large HD monitor precisely because I did not want a 16:10 screen, or to pay over the odds, but good quality 16:9s were slow to market so I had to wait. I'm glad I did. Would have preferred an IPS monitor but my VA is fine as it happens, though occasionally a bit slow to refresh, and left me with the funds to buy a second one!
Comments
Simply go for a larger monitor than you think you need - using 1920x1080 does really need a pretty sizeable one (mines 24" at home, and more would be better).
You can always increase the DPI within windows or as I did get new glasses
Yes, I went for a 27 incher in the end, it is *just* right for me but then it's a bit wide on websites, so I usually have browser windows set at 2/3 or 3/4 width.
I find the text enlargement browser options (CTRL + etc.) invaluable for my old eyes, even on a 27 inch screen! Many of my programs don't let you enlarge text so easily (or at all), though.
Its only supplanting 1920x1200 for greed reasons as there is a greater profit margin in 16:9 screens because the panels don't need produced especially for monitors. Its the same reason why for a while it was standard for TV's under 26" especially at the budget end would come in 16:10 because it was cheaper at the time to use panels produced for monitors which at the time were had a bigger demand than small LCD TV's
16:10 is more natural for documents.
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/lg-m2232dpz-full-hd-22-led-tv-monitor-18354576-pdt.html
Just depends what the main use of the PC is really.
I've got one PC with a 24" 1920x1200 screen that is used mostly for office type stuff. And it's great for that.
I do play some videos on it, but obviously a Full HD video gives black bars top and bottom.
I've got another with a 23" 1920x1080 screen that is used more for videos and the like, and the display is also cloned to my Full HD telly, which is why I chose that resolution/aspect ratio for that monitor.
A 16:10 monitor couldn't be used as easily, in conjunction with the TV.
Incidentally the 23" 16:9 is almost exactly the same width as the 24" 16:10, so text and icon etc are the same size on both, and perfectly readable to me at that size.
hardly costs any more, works great, and gives you total flexibility.- and no issue with speakers.
And 16:9 is more natural for widescreen video.
As for the greed thing, well I waited a couple of years before upgrading to a large HD monitor precisely because I did not want a 16:10 screen, or to pay over the odds, but good quality 16:9s were slow to market so I had to wait. I'm glad I did. Would have preferred an IPS monitor but my VA is fine as it happens, though occasionally a bit slow to refresh, and left me with the funds to buy a second one!