The BenQ VW2420H is slim and presentable, it performs extremely well and far better than its price alone would suggest. For the style and quality conscious, it's a winner.Read full review
I'm very happy with my IPS display, but the sooner TN technology dies, the better. It's about time a reasonable alternative appeared on the budget sector. Less than 200 EUR for a decent 24in display is very fair, even if it's 16:9 and thus a tad smaller still. I guess affordable 27" 16:9 2560 x 1440 MVA displays are just around the corner.
At first read I thought I may buy this monitor but having thought about it a bit more I have decided against it. Will I ever replace my SyncMaster 206BW? I'm sure it's a piece of crap compared to this but a monitor should last you at good 5 years so I should be picky. Especially as I plan on buying 3 of the buggers when I settle on one. If only the Asus VG236H had an IPS panel *sigh*
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore TrustedPhrontis.Show DetailsHide Details
These 1920 by 1080 monitors are fine for HD viewing, that is what they are for after all. They are almost useless as computer monitors, far to much vertical scrolling involved. The old 1600 by 1200 (4:3) in 21" were the best combination, I use an old Dell LCD and its brilliant with most work. I also use a 1920 by 1200 24" Dell as well, and I would rather it was 1920 by 1440 or (4:3) but I dont know if anyone makes one. I know I can rotate the screen but a 1200 by 1920 doesn't work very well either for some things so you are constantly rotating it, a real pain. Please bring back 4:3 in high resolutions 2560 by 1920 in 27" for instance.
@burntoutmouse - I think Andy meant the BenQ EW2420, which does exist, and is slightly cheaper then this model. I've just bought a Samsung TN based monitor for slightly more then this BenQ, so am slightly disappointed I didn't see this review before buying.
@TrustedPhrontis: The normal human eye has a vision arc of at least roughly 120 degrees horizontally by 60 degrees vertically. As modern monitors get ever larger, it's inevitable that they should also get wider as they start to fill the peripheral vision, or else the user would be forced to move their head up and down to view the extremities of the display. That could be quite uncomfortable over an extended period of time.
My 24" 16:10 screen has 1200 vertical pixels, which is as many as my old 22" CRT used to display. I'd rather have the extra 60% of horizontal pixels than not, so I'll take the 24" thanks.
I agree that having more than 1080 vertical pixels would be preferable, but I'd hardly describe it as 'almost useless'. Netbook users seem to (mostly) get along with their paltry 600 pixels.
Besides, there are plenty of business applications for widescreen monitors - side by side windows or documents, spreadsheet viewing and various graphics applications spring to mind.
@TrustedPhrontis. Couldn't agree more! I have never understood the trend for taking a format optimised to suit one pursuit (eb watching cinema) and applying it willy-nilly to another (like web browsing or wordprocessing). Suddenly evertyhing is being shoehorned into a widescreen world, with no regard for fitness for purpose. I take on trust Chris' knowledge of the human eye field of vision, but he makes the case for the prosecution - peripheral vision is a big factor in enjoying a cinematic experience, but I defy anybody to wordprocess or browse the web relying on peripheral vision - for me the action is all in the fovea centralis. Give me a screen I don't need to scroll.
We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.
Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.
Comments
User reviews
There are currently no reviews for this product.
Read more reviews >
To add your own review log in or sign up