• Recommended by TR
ViewSonic VX2260wm 22in Full HD Monitor


Our Score


User Score

Review Price free/subscription

Remember that transition from 4:3 to widescreen LCD monitors? A lot of folks, myself included, wondered why the industry didn't just move to TVs' standard 16:9 aspect ratio, rather than creating yet another one in the form of 16:10. Oh sure, I'm well aware of the arguments for this decision and even agree with many, but the simple fact is that it did create a lot of confusion for users. Now we do seem to be moving to 16:9 PC monitors after all, which combines with the recent trend for higher resolutions in smaller screen sizes to give us the slim and attractive ViewSonic VX2260wm, a Full HD (1080p) 22in monitor.

Design-wise, it's a very similar beast to ViewSonic's 19in VX1962wm. Thankfully, the company has decided to get rid of the one that didn't work in that model: the grey line across the base. This means that most of the VX2260wm is now unbroken piano black; the only exceptions being the stand's matte 'leg' and silver trim on three sides of the bezel.

One area where things have taken a step back is in assembly, or rather, disassembly. Instead of the VX1962wm's screw-in base, its 22in cousin uses a click-in system that's a bit of a nightmare to get loose again. This might become if, god forbid, you ever have to return the monitor for a replacement, but besides this few consumers will ever need to disassemble their monitor.

As usual, ViewSonic provides VGA and DVI cables, though there is also a HDMI connection on hand for which no cable is provided. HDMI makes a lot of sense on a monitor like this, seeing that its 1080p panel offers the ideal resolution for your PS3 or Xbox 360.

There's also a 3.5mm audio jack to pipe sound in when you're using DVI or VGA, as HDMI carries both audio and video signals. These feed the VX2260wm's twin 1.5W SRS speakers, which as usual aren't up to much. They deliver all the impact of a soggy paper shotgun and though they never strain themselves enough to cause distortion, at barely audible volume levels that's hardly much of an achievement.

Yet fear not; all's not lost on the audio front. Unlike so many other monitors featuring sound inputs and/or HDMI, the VX2260wm actually has a 3.5mm audio out jack, allowing you to stream stuff through to a decent pair of headphones or standalone speakers. Well done ViewSonic; it's amazing how many manufacturers fail to provide this simple, inexpensive feature.

Getting back to the display's physical design, it's a real shame that the slender, curved stand doesn't offer anything but (an admittedly very generous amount of) tilt, since the screen's bezel is one of the slimmer ones around. The exception to this is the bottom part, where it bulges into a stylish curve sporting the ViewSonic name and an LED that doubles as power button. When the monitor is receiving a video signal, the LED glows blue. It's small but bright and cannot be dimmed, so might be distracting to some.

Along the lower edge of this curve you'll find the soft touch menu and shortcut buttons, again identical to those on the ViewSonic's 19in VX1962wm. Button '1' calls up the menu and acts as a 'back' button and button '2' acts as an Enter button or input selector. After this we have two buttons marked with arrows that act as up/down and also provide convenient access to volume and contrast/brightness.

Next page


November 22, 2008, 5:20 am

How would you compare the viewing angles on this monitor to the viewing angles on the VX1962wm?

Horace Coker

November 25, 2008, 2:14 am

I don't remember that transition from 4:3 to widescreen LCD monitors because there never was one - the vast majority of LCD monitors were 5:4! It was the CRT monitors that were 4:3. I never could understand why we went from 4:3 CRT to 5:4 LCD.


November 25, 2008, 8:17 pm

@Renoir: The VX1962wm's are superior.

@Horace Coker: The vast majority {i}became{i/} 5:4 (1280&#2151024) because 17-19in became the most popular size, but have you forgotten that the first LCDs were 800x600 or 1024&#215768 (both 4:3)? That high-end ones (i.e. everything over 19in) were 1600 x 1200 (4:3)? "there never was one" indeed.

As to your CRT point, that's even more flawed. In case you hadn't noticed, many of those were also 1280 x 1024 (5:4).

On my part, I should probably have mentioned 5:4, but part of the reason I didn't was that many people don't even realize it exists, and 'square-screen' is commonly labeled 4:3 when speaking of aspect ratio.

Horace Coker

November 26, 2008, 2:30 pm


I don&#8217t understand your reasoning why most LCD monitors evolved into 5:4 aspect ratio because 17-19in became the most popular size. The 17-19in dimension you refer to is the diagonal size of the screen and nothing to do with the aspect ratio! Why did the manufacturers choose 5:4 on this particular diagonal size? It doesn&#8217t make sense &#8211 it could quite easily have been 4:3 just like the CRT monitors. It would have meant the horizontal width and vertical height of the screen would have had to be different but so what? The point I&#8217m making is that any size of diagonal can be 4:3, 5:4, 8:5 or 16:9. There is nothing written in stone that a 17-19in LCD monitor has to be 5:4 aspect ratio.

I concede that the high-end LCD monitors were, in fact, 4:3 but these were priced out of most peoples reach, especially mine!! When I first looked at moving up to a LCD monitor from my CRT I was baffled as to why all the affordable ones were 5:4 with a native resolution of 1280 x 1024. And my question still stands &#8211 why did it happen? Why was this boring, even more &#8216square&#8217 aspect ratio foisted onto an unsuspecting public?

As to my &#8216even more flawed&#8217 reference to CRT monitors being 4:3 aspect ratio &#8211 yes I had noticed that &#8216many of those were also 1280 x 1024&#8217 which you go on to describe as 5:4. The trouble is, what you are talking about here is resolution aspect ratio and not the physical aspect ratio of the monitor itself which, believe me, was/is 4:3 on CRT sets. I found this out when I upgraded my old 17in CRT to a 19in Mitsubishi Diamond Pro CRT monitor a few years ago. I had the old monitor set at 1024 x 768 (4:3) and set the new one to 1280 x 1024. It soon became apparent that something wasn&#8217t right as my photos looked stretched. I did the maths and discovered that I&#8217d set the resolution to 5:4 (1280 x 1024). I changed the resolution to 1280 x 960 (4:3) and the pictures looked perfect. Not only that, drawing a circle in a graphics program was a perfect circle and not elliptical as it had been at 1280 x 1024 resolution.

This little experiment intrigued me as I had noticed all the 19in plus monitors at my place of work were set to 1280 x 1024 &#8211 that is the reason I initially set my new monitor to the same resolution! Once back at work I physically measured the horizontal and vertical size of the monitors and worked out their aspect ratio which, without exception, was always 4:3 - as I knew they would be. Yet they were all set to 1280 x 1024 which is 5:4 resulting in the images on the screens being distorted. I pointed this out to a few of my colleagues who, I might add, were in total ignorance of resolution and aspect ratio. They didn&#8217t realise that the images were distorted or even care for that matter! Now we come to the point of my ramblings!! I couldn&#8217t change the resolution on any of the monitors at work to 1280 x 960. The options went from 1024 x 768 (4:3) to 1280 x 1024 (5:4). How daft is that? Why was I able to change my own computer to the resolution aspect ratio that matched my monitor aspect ratio but not the ones at work? I eventually put this down to the fact that the computers at work had feeble &#8216on board&#8217 graphics, were as my own computer had a separate high quality graphics card.

This is why you think that some CRT monitors were 5:4, when in actual fact they were 4:3 monitors set at the wrong resolution. I&#8217m pretty sure there&#8217s no such beast as a genuine 5:4 aspect ratio CRT monitor.

I agree entirely with your last comment regarding most people not realising that the 5:4 aspect ratio even exists &#8211 you wouldn&#8217t believe what the average bloke in the street doesn&#8217t realise &#8211 myself included!

Anyway never mind all that now. Keep up the good work at TrustedReviews! Without doubt the best review site on the web!! I particularly liked the review of the Panasonic DMC LX3. So much so I went out and bought one. Now this little baby is an aspect ratio nerds dream come true. You can take pictures at 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9. Other cameras might also do this but not the clever way the LX3 does it! Notice how there&#8217s no 5:4 in there &#8211 good old Panasonic!!



November 26, 2008, 4:00 pm

@Horace Coker: Wow, that's one long reply! :D

As to your first point, I've no idea to be honest - probably something to do with increasing profits somehow ;).

On the second, that's very interesting. I'm afraid I haven't encountered anything like that. My first CRT was a 17in, which ran at 1280 x 1024 as standard if I remember correctly, while my second was a high-end beastie running at 1600 x 1200. Unfortunately the first is now deceased, while the second has been in a box in the garage for years.

LOL, about the "average bloke in the street", I would believe, mate. I once (in the CRT days) walked into a computer shop where I asked if they had or could order any computer monitors that could do 1600 x 1200 at 85hertz or more, only to be told by no less than 3 staff together that such monitors didn't exist! :S

Glad you like the site, btw! The Panasonic DMC LX3 is a firm office favourite. Cheers :D

Ben Haley

December 15, 2008, 8:27 am

Ok, just purchased this monitor the other day and it works flawlessly when I connect it to my PC via DVI. That's about it.

I'm very dissatisfied with it's performance when I connect it to my Xbox 360 though... and that's the main reason I chose this one, being full 1080p and having a fast response time.

When I go to adjust the monitor settings, there is an option for "response time", which has three choices: "normal", "advanced", and "ultra fast". When I choose "advanced" or "ultra fast", any moving image causes discoloration of the pixels affected by the movement. They seem to turn a pinkish light purple color which looks absolutely horrendous. This is extremely noticeable when using "ultra fast". I tried connecting the Xbox using both VGA and HDMI and they both had this problem.

I have no idea what is causing this. I'll probably end up returning it for the BenQ E2200HD, which people seem to have no problems with.

Ardjuna, did you ever try "ultra fast" with HDMI by any chance?

Ben Haley

December 15, 2008, 8:11 pm

I uploaded a youtube video demonstrating my problem. I think I may have a defective monitor...

Here's the link:


December 31, 2008, 2:02 am

I've just got one of these monitors, partly based on this favourable review -- it's excellent value for money!

Does anyone have any tips in setting it up, regarding brightness/contrast values etc. At defaults, it seems a little bright to me.


January 6, 2009, 5:15 pm

@ Ben Haley: Sorry to hear about your trouble. No, I didn't try 'ultra fast' over HDMI, only in a PC game. Do you happen to have an HDMI-DVI adapter? Would be interesting to see the result of Console over DVI.

@Jabbajabba: Most monitors on the market are set way too bright by default, so toning brightness down is usually advisable. As to other tips, it really depends on your intended uses and lighting. Try playing a movie with subtle dark and light details in the same scene, and adjusting things like brightness and contrast to lose details in neither.

Malcolm Goy

January 19, 2009, 6:53 pm

Is the VX2260WM any good for photographic work - is there a "stretching problem" with the image, and are the colours accurate?...Malcolm

Wayne Harris

January 23, 2009, 4:18 pm

Hello everyone, i already own the Samsung 226BW Monitor, am very happy with it, though not sure if mine is an A Panel or C or whatever, it doesnt tell me on the back of it, anyone know how i can tell?

anyway, my 79 year old Grandmother needs a new 22" monitor, she sits directly in front of the Monitor and just surfs the internet, scans photos in, looks at JPEGS and stuff like that, can anyone recommend a monitor up to &#163180 that would be ideal for her application?



February 5, 2009, 6:59 pm

I'm surprised and dismayed that a screen getting a 9/10 score is "unsuitable for digital artists and photographers". Can you suggest a display in the &#163150 - &#163250 price range that may be better for someone habitually doing photo-editing? Ideally it would be a 22" widescreen but would consider other sizes.

Many Thanks.


February 6, 2009, 7:16 pm

I recently bought the ViewSonic VX2260WM for 200 euros and I'm very pleased with it even if it has a couple of things that are missing or not working as expected.

You can't create your own preset configurations for contrast and brightness in order to switch quickly from a text mode to a video or to a game mode.

The dynamic contrast doesn't work very well while watching movies since it gets "confused" by dark scenes and sometimes it produces a "pulse effect" that&#8217s very annoying.

I use the monitor with a Xbox 360 too and the results are excellent. It has a quick switch button to switch between VGA/DVI/HDMI inputs and it autoswitches if you turn off the current video input and another is on (nice!).

Overall I strongly recommend this monitor given the great quality/price ratio.


February 19, 2009, 6:04 pm

@Malcolm Goy: As I mention in the review, it's NOT suitable for photographic work, at least at anything approaching a professional level - TN monitors in general never are. If you're just looking to edit some home snaps, the VX2260WM will be fine as long as it's viewed from the 'ideal' angle.

@Wayne Harris: The VX2260WM is in your price range but might cause eye-strain due to the high resolution, so the BenQ G2200WT {} seems like a pretty good option, being affordable and fully adjustable for excellent user comfort.

@Straggler: The score is based mainly on value for money here: you simply can't get a monitor that's really good for image editing for under &#163200. As to your monitor, anything that uses a non-TN panel should give you good image quality. That's going to be difficult to find for under &#163300, but you might have some luck with Dell's 20in IPS monitors, or older 24in displays based on MVA/PVA/IPS like the Hyundai 240D.

@EnricoG: Glad you like it :) Thanks for the valuable feedback.

Like I said in the review, this is yet another monitor whose Dynamic Contrast option is best left off.


June 26, 2009, 1:47 pm

vx2260wm is better then BenQ E2200HD ?????

Please help!


August 10, 2010, 10:13 pm

A little confused here. How can a monitor be worth much of anything if the audio is "barely audible"? I bought this monitor a few months ago, but my wife was using it. She's much more accepting than me. I have it now, and I happen to check my voicemails online. Can't be done with this monitor. The audio on my laptop is many time better than this. Basically, this display is OK, if I don't use my computer for anything involving sound (REALLY?!?). Am I supposed to assume that everyone that has this monitor is expected to run out and buy additional speakers? Oh, and about the display, when you set the "optimal resolution" the imagine runs off the screen. So, the sound is literally worthless and the resolution is not as advertised. Wow. People have been conditioned to really accept junk, I suppose.

comments powered by Disqus