digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Why gigantic screens are the best computer upgrades ever.

slate.com — Whether you're a PC or Mac user, the humongous 24-inch iMac that Apple unwrapped on Wednesday drives home a point: Speed is good, but spread is better.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Dweller99, on 10/12/2007, -26/+41if 24" is good then 30" must be great.

    http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/monitor_3007wfp?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

    • siMac, on 10/12/2007, -62/+56It sure is.

      http://www.apple.com/displays/
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -10/+64I sit pretty close to my PC at home, my 19 inch monitor is plenty for me. At work, I have a 21 inch screen. After a day of staring at it, my eyes and head hurt because it's just too big for me. This is not a freaking TV that you sit far away from and want your visual sense to be engulfed by. This is something that'll be one or two feet away from your nose.

      Probably one of the biggest issues that arises from having a big screen in front of your face all day is the fact that almost everything you do on your computer nowadays looks very, very white. Most web pages have white backgrounds, most applications (Word, etc) have white backgrounds. As the screen gets larger, you realize more and more that it does NOT look like the "paper" it tries to emulate. Instead, it looks like a giant light bulb shining into your face for hours at a time.

      However, I will say that I'd very much enjoy a wide-screen monitor. Not a huge one, but wide-screen is definitely the way to go.
    • interiot, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20And 37" is even better. Okay, it's still only 1920x1080, but I've got a Westinghouse display. Add an office chair, folding table, and mouse, and it's a normal computer. Roll that out of the way, and use the wireless keyboard or remote from the couch, and it's an HTPC. When other people come over, I use it as much for YouTube or Google Maps as I do for traditional media.
    • rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -7/+35i found it funny that siMac thought that Dweller99 was having a go at apple.
    • siMac, on 10/12/2007, -23/+12I run a calibrated Eizo CG221 at work with a second CRT monitor for pallettes etc. The Eizo is 22" and calibrated at 5500°K. The combination of the warm white point and the extra size has eliminated the eye fatigue I sometimes experienced with my previous Barco CRT. So much so that I have taken to web browsing on the main monitor instead of the second one, even if it is riskier to my job! :-P

      So yeah, more is better - just turn the brightness down if it hurtses your eyeses....
    • ksponge, on 10/12/2007, -40/+34Why does anyone care about this at all? Screens this size have been available for years. Are mac people jacking off to this due to the Mac in the title or what?
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16"...calibrated at 5500°K. The combination of the warm white point and the extra size has eliminated the eye fatigue..."

      Tried that on my monitor just now. Everything looks very deeply yellow.
    • siMac, on 10/12/2007, -36/+14Did you even read the title? And which 'Mac people' are jacking off to anything here?
    • siMac, on 10/12/2007, -26/+16"Everything looks very deeply yellow."

      That's a warm white. Cool whites are bluer. Depends what you're using your monitor for, I'm in prepress so my monitor is calibrated at the standard prepress white point, but I know it looks strange to people who aren't used to it.
    • phronko, on 10/12/2007, -18/+21"I found it funny that siMac thought that Dweller99 was having a go at apple."

      I found it funny that you thought that giving a Mac example of a big screen was a response to the perception of having a go at Apple.

      Ouch, my brain is bleeding.
    • penguinopus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11It's not just size, its resolution and speed. The Apple/Dell 30" is truly amazing at 2560x1600x60hz. Google Earth 4 @ 4Mpixels rocks, but I'm biased.

      The only single monitor higher res was the IBM T-221 22" with a 3840x2400 (9Mpixel(!)) resolution. The problem it had was that even multiple DVI cables couldn't feed it faster than 41fps.

      http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=8578
    • strcmp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16@ilyag

      It's not about how big everything is; the productivity gains come from being able to tile windows across your monitor without their overlapping. For example, it is often useful to be able to see the content of a browser window while word processing. Large monitors allow you to do this while keeping both windows at comfortable sizes. This applies to having multiple monitors as well.
    • JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@interiot

      I've heard great things about that Westinghouse 1080p display. Any issues with it? How much did you pay? Can you really drive it with a computer set to 1920x1080p? How far away can you get before text becomes unreadable?
    • interiot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@JohnboiWaltune: $1800. Never had any trouble whatsoever with 1080p from a computer, either over VGA or DVI. The white-balance is just a bit off, but it's still a good display for the money.

      I use the computer at 2' away. From my couch at 6' away, I can't see all the 1080p details (I have a single dead pixel that you can't see from the couch, for instance). I zoom the browser text when I sit on the couch, just to make it comfortable to read (Opera is great for this, Firefox is okay). It's just nice to not have to buy two separate PC's and displays that each do basically the same thing (but I'm single, maybe couples/families wouldn't see that as an advantage).
    • drgruney, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I'd wrather have 2 displays over 1 big display any day. Does the iMac support multiple monitors anymore? My sister's G4 does... but I dunno about the new ones.
    • devoinregress, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4If you are going with 30" get the Apple cinema display. All other sizes get the Dell ones. They are the same pannels so just get grab the cheaper one.
    • TheCount, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9So now Apple gets the credit for large screens as well?
    • ramsinks.com, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2my 42 is great.
    • SoullessDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I have dual 19 inch monitors... whiile this takes up more desk space I prefer it to a larger monitor. Not only because it gives more width to work with allowing more open applications at once, it is nice to have the divider... ok, this on this screen and this on this screen.
    • PaulC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@jbarnett
      We have several hundred LCD monitors where I work, and we haven't had a single one fail in the year I have been working here. I'd say that LCD's have great lifetimes, as long as they aren't abused.
    • freakygeeky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I recenty bought a Samsung 244T 24.3" widescreen display and I wouldn't trade it for anything. Prior to this, I purchsed an Apple 23" Cinema Display that went back to the store the next day for inconsistent backlight, backlight bleed, and stuck pixels. Don't get me wrong about my Apple opinion, the Samsung 244T is for use with a Mac Pro.
    • Drumrboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm running 50 75" 9348700x239033 displays and i needed to buy an auditorium to fit em all in!
      i had to mount em on the ceiling so i've learned to live horizontally...
      its not that bad... you get used to it...

      all in all... My E-Penis is HUGE!!!!!
    • Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hey! The Samsung 244T is the monitor I'm seriously considering. I have yet to hear anything negative about them. IMHO, anything larger would be overkill.

      Besides, I have a Hitachi 52" plasma in the living room to play games on if I want the 'big experience.'
  • johnsjottings, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8I've got a widescreen Dell 24" running at 1680x1050 and while it's awesome I am regretting not going for the full 30!
    • Alexx3k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24The Dell 24" runs at 1920x1200 - If your at 1680 x 1050 then your using a dell 20" widescreen.

      I couldn't agree with this article more, Since I upgraded from my 19" to a dell 24" - I've never understood people buying high powered computers and tiny screens - to me the screen is the most important aspect, especially for a web developer or someone who uses their computer for work. Plus dell 24" are only around £500 on ebay these days - hardly breaking the bank. 30" is still a little on the expensive side for your average home user.
    • Hiker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Just a shame about the gradient banding issue a lot of new Dell 24" owners are experiencing (talking about the 2407 here) even AFTER Dell issued their fixed displays. I have a 2007 myself which had the gradient banding issue and Dell replaced my A00 with an A02 which no longer has it in Desktp mode (yay!). And I hear Dell have no intentions of releasing an A03 2407 so the poor ppl STILL having the gradient banding prob are stuck with it apparently .
    • master_of_fm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i have had an A02 revision 2407WFP for about a month now and for general use and gaming the gradient issues are not a problem. i bought mine through costco so if i have any problems or unhappy with it for any reason i can return it no questions asked. i defintely would not recommend my monitor to a friend of mine whose is a professional photographer, he still uses dual 20 inch crts for all of his main work.

      i just look at it using the rule of diminishing returns, you spend more and more money to get that last few percent of perfomance. for me $750 and the performance offered by the 2407WFP was well worth it and I can live with a monitor that might have some minor gradient issuses
    • johnsjottings, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I am a moron - you are right, I was looking at the 24" when I was shopping around. Ineed, it is a 20". Dang, 30" might just be too big for this little workspace but it would be awesome above my treadmill office.
    • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1my 1080p TV is connected to my computer, running through VGA at 1920x1080. Its pretty good, but my nVidia 6600 cant handle that resolution in CSS or Oblivion
  • ImPerial99, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12the closest if come to a 30" is the cinema display in the store, and man was it nice!!!
    • siMac, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7At Expo in Paris they were running FinalCut Pro on dual 30 inchers. That was a head turner.
    • drgruney, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1They are pretty, but one day I was in the Apple store playing on dual 30s with one of their Final Cut systems. It was too big. I would prefer manufacturers focus on higher resolutions in 19-21 inch displays than making larger displays.
    • SpoBo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Having realy high-resolutions on smaller screens isn't the best option for everyone. For example a 24" screen doubles perfectly as a TV for watching movies. Also, you have to focus way too hard. And if you use a computer for 12h a day that's very tiring.

      The next upgrade I'm getting is a 24" screen. Too bad the new dells have all these wierd problems :(
    • freakygeeky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@SpoBo, look at the Samsung 244T instead.
  • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -43/+12I've always said that spread is better.

    Oh ... we're talking about computer displays?
  • Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21"If you're feeling stymied by your computer, buy the monitor now and wait until Windows Vista comes out to upgrade the rest of your PC."

    The author tells us to buy the screen now and wait till Vista for a new processor, despite the fact that you won't be able to watch HD video on a screen that is not part of MS's trusted platform module (of which there are only a few screens out yet). Furthermore, large flat panel prices are falling much better than processor prices, so I'd say this is some pretty awful advice he's giving out.
    • iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -53/+17Or you buy a Mac now, that is the best deal. Mac OS X is so much better than Vista.
    • Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -23/+29"Mac OS X is so much better than Vista."

      Yea? How?
    • Lagged2Death, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33If everyone goes out and buys a fancy widescreen LCD that can't work with Windows' HD DRM, then Windows' HD DRM will be stillborn and will fail.

      Sounds like a plan to me.
    • cmiller1, on 10/12/2007, -19/+9@Ramble: if you don't know, then there is very little than can be done to teach you as hundreds of mac fans have argued why millions of times in the articles and comments on digg, you've obviously just chosen to put your fingers in your ears so very little can be done for your condition
    • msergeant, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17@Ramble ... To start with, Mac OS X is out now, not in BETA/RC stage.
    • cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11What makes you guys think that the HD DRM that would affect display on Vista won't also affect displays with OS X?
    • freakygeeky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can buy HDCP LCD monitors today that will work with Vista. The Samsung 244T has HDCP and I believe the Dell 2407WFP does too.
    • Drumrboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1that was kinda a factor when i got my gateway fpd2185W... doesnt really come recommended from me though... too many problems (USB hub failed, Dead Pixel in the replacement) although the customer service wasnt THAT horrible...
  • darksheer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+71Definitely agree with this article and we have for a long time. The 3 pieces of your computer you should be most concerned with are:

    Monitor
    Keyboard
    Mouse

    And yet, people always seem to think of them as afterthoughts. They are the parts of your computer which you interact with--they need to work WITH YOU. A Core 2 Duo in one machine is the same as a Core 2 Duo in another and 1gb of ram is 1gb of ram. But those 3 pieces are YOUR interface. If they don't work for you, its not your computer that will be the bottleneck: its you.
    • rpike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19An intelligent statement. I don't think I have ever thought of it like that.
    • iPirate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I agree with they keyboard being an important part. I have been using the same keyboard for about 5 years now because it feels perfect. Every time I go on a new keyboard, there is just something missing. I can still type fast. but not as fast on my old keyboard.
    • Reziarfg, on 10/12/2007, -19/+21gb of RAM is not like any other 1gb of RAM, but then again, that's just nitpicking now. :)
    • luxcanon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Interface is EVERYTHING.
    • cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21You left out a comfy chair too, I'm still looking for the right chair for my home office.
    • Mambo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And a good arrangement as far as desk/chair height to be comfortable.
      I hate my desk in my dorm room, it hurts my arms so bad I can barely type because it is too high.
    • JerodSlay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Don't forget speakers. The eyes and ears get input from monitor and speakers, the hands input through keyboard and mouse. You might say mic for input too, but that's a non-issue.
      Good display and speakers are a must. In the movie business, the first thing you learn is that a film is about 60% sound. If you have crappy sound, you wont get very far.
    • Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2What? So you buy a computer based on the keyboard, mouse, and monitor?

      So, your saying too that because Apple has a 24" screen, a pathetic non-ergonomic keyboard and a mouse with one button, its superior to every other computer our there.

      The screen, mouse, and keyboard are afterthoughs because they are easy to replace and do NOT make a computer.

      CPU, Memory, HD, motherboard, video card, these are the MOST IMPORTANT parts of a computer. Its the reason why you buy a computer in the first place.

      IT IS A TYPICAL MAC USER statement to suggest that the screen is the most important part of a computer purchase, especially considering the statement that the screen IS PART of your computer. It ISN'T part of my computer its an accessory. I use PC's because they are modular, I can replace parts at will, and choose to invest money into better parts, including better screens, keyboards and monitors. I will agree that Apple has to use the best components to make their iMac's because they don't give customers a choice. If they put a lousy LCD monitor on the iMac, people would not buy the iMac.

      I agree that investing good money into decent peripherals is important. Too many cases of CTS and repetitive strain disorder are a testement to people not considering better equipement. BUT IT IS NOT a reason to buy a computer based on these 3 pieces of equipment. And I say again that Apple has done little to improve the useability of 2 of those components.

      If your the type of person that thinks these 3 tyings are the most important part of a computer purchase, then spend your $3000+ getting an iMac, your a typical Mac user that doesn't care whats in the box, just how good the box looks.
    • adiggtion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Very insightful post and 100% true -- nicely written. The monitor is by far the #1 most important piece of equipment in any workstation setup, I am amazed at the fact that some people still don't get this.
    • radiantm3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The same can be said about the Operating System / Software you choose to use. Far more important than the hardware, IMO. I don't want to get into the Windows vs OS X debate as it's all personal preference, but I can't stand it when windows users rip on mac users for paying for more expensive hardware. Personally, I don't buy macs for the hardware. I buy macs to run OS X because I am much more efficient with it than windows (keep in mind I've been using windows since 95 and only started using macs when 10.2 jaguar was released).

      Sure I can build an insanely fast pc for half the price, but that's not going to do me any good if I am more efficient working in an Operating System that isn't supported on that hardware. Faster hardware is great, but in the end it's what you as a user interfaces with best that's most important, whether that be Windows, Linux, Mac OS, or [insert your OS of choice here].
  • XBackstabberX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4this is the truth, i have a Dell 2005FPW 20.1" widescreen monitor and i love it. I wish i had money to buy a bigger monitor. I'd rather have one really big monitor than 2 medium sized monitors anyday
  • rpike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I am running dual Dell 19 inch monitors, but it would be great to trade them in for just one monitor with more real estate.
    • tosusan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have dual Dell 20 in. wide-screens and like someone above posted, it is much nicer to have the division of space that multiple monitors offer. With Ultramon running, you can move windows with a single click and it is far easier to multitask. I tried connecting my main PC to my 50 inch DLP and working on the couch but moving and resizing windows is a pain. If I were to upgrade, it would be another 20 inch for three altogether. IMO, more screens is better than more screen.
    • radiantm3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I personally prefer 1 large monitor than multiple smaller ones. 1 large + 1 [any size] is even better. I like to keep my main tasks all in one large window and other things like email and calendars on a smaller separate display.

      A good example is when working in photoshop. Some people like having a second display for the palettes, but personally I can't stand that. I like my palettes right next to my work area so I can access them quickly when necessary. A large display will give plenty of space for everything.
    • MacD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone using more than one monitor should use a good monitor managament program. I use UltraMon, but there's many others out there. I use CTRL+ to swap my cursor to the next monitor. That way I have my 3d model/2d pic/program on my primary monitor, and my palletes/buttons/other crap on the other monitor; a quick ctrl+ to select a new tool, another ctrl+ to switch back and then use the tool. Toggles/switches/buttons I need very often are relegated to the right click menu or are kept on the primary...but this way you really get an efficiency benefit.

      But multidocument/model/porogram work is even better on a single monitor, as you never need to switch...but some programs you just need that divide between workspace and tools.
  • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Its no good getting a 'giant' screen if your video card isn't able to run it properly.
    I can't think of anything worse than having to play games in the non-native resolution and getting those nasty scaling artifacts that ALL LCDs get when the output res isn't native to the screen.
    Face it, you'd need a pair of 7950GX2s to adequatley play some of the current and upcomming games at the native resolution of a 30" display!

    Personally I use a projector whenever I want something to be BIG, but thats not to say I'd say no to a 30" cinema display if someone was to offer me one :)
    • radiantm3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Unfortunately (or in my case, fortunately), not everyone makes a living playing video games so people like me can benefit from having a larger display instead of it having a negative impact on my work.
  • edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I've held onto a aging 21" CRT for this resaon. 1920x1200 for £60 is great, especially as a comparable 24" LCD is £600, an order of magnitude greater in cost. Sure, it's be nice to have a little more desk space (though I have a huge desk anyway, I keep the tower on the floor), and it;s be easier to carry, but I've moved the monitor a total of 2 times (once to set it up initially, once when moving house). I can handle a little heavy lifting occasionally for an extra £540 in my wallet. That's £540 I can use to build a 1080p projector, for an even bigger screen!
    • KingBelly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree, atm i have a Dual 21" CRT setup. Im looking into 6 x 21" CRT for video editing. That'll be sweet :)
    • sumadartson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Why is parent being dugg down? He's got a point!

      The author of the article only dwells on high end solutions such as widescreen tfts. The budget solution of running on two high quality crts is much more cost effective.

      I've been running that setup for years now. It comes recommended, especially since you tend to separate your tasks on the different monitors. EG, html code on one, rendered page on the other.

      Combine with XGL+Compiz and establish your reputation as the alpha-geek :D
    • Reno582, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Most of it is about deskspace, two CRTs are quite inexpensive but take up a lot of space, but one flat panel has both screen size and small footprint
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And HUGE cost, lower colour accuracy, and lower refrest/response rate (though they're getting better all the time).
    • radiantm3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Color accuracy as a negative point for LCDs is not an issue for 99% of computer users out there as Neither CRT or LCDs are color accurate out of the box. If you don't have a hardware color calibrator then your colors are probably a bit (or way) off anyways.
  • ifonly, on 10/12/2007, -31/+2I have a Samsung 20.1" 1600x1200, I pitty people on 800x600, thats like 1% of my screen size.
  • xjebbx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5whats better than one 30" is two 23" or even 20" displays. more real estate for much less money!!!
    • monkbone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4One 30-inch (Apple) monitor has more than twice the number of pixels as a 20-inch (Apple) monitor: 2560*1600/(1680*1050) = 2.32. So, 2 20-inch monitors do not have more screen real estate than one 30-incher. But, it would be more economical (buy 3 20-inch screens for the price of one 30-inch).

      For your average person multiple monitor setups are the way to go.

      But for movies, photo editing, etc, get biggest single monitor you can afford.
    • drfranktm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The big advantage in going for a 30" in my opinion is that, when you have more money a little further down the road, you can get a *second* 30", and two 30" screens together is even sweeter than two 24" or two 20". Personally, I love my Dell 2407. Banding issues, you say? Yeah, I guess, if you care to look for them, but it's pretty good value for the price.

      As for a bigger display being the best upgrade possible, I think it really depends on what you do. For games, the extra resolution is useless without the graphics card to drive it, but I'm not a gamer. When watching movies, the 24" of screen size is nice, but the resolution is overkill. High-res comes in handy for pretty much everything else I do, though, as I can keep much more stuff in sight simultaneously. That means much less time spent switching between various application windows, so you can end up being much more productive on a slower machine that has a bigger screen.

      Personally, I decided not to buy any new screen with specs lesser than those of the Dell 2407. In a year or two, I'll probably add another screen of the same size to my setup. I felt like, considering that I'm on my computer almost 40 hours a week, anything smaller would not really be worth the desk space it takes in the long run. I'd have gone for a 3007 instead - and a second one two years from now -, but no low-end Mac can't drive that monster at the moment.
  • GhostCow, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3I RTFA and it's just a guy saying he likes bigger screens more than faster cpus... I don't get it, how did this make it to the front page?

    Marked as lame
    • JerodSlay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5you must have a tiny screen with a $1000 P4 Extreme Edition that is now slower than Core 2 Extremes. We all pity you.
    • GhostCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No, I have a decent 17 inch monitor that I'm quite happy with, and an X2 4400
  • lcarsdeveloper, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Yeah read it the first time man:
    http://digg.com/hardware/Why_gigantic_screens_are_the_best_computer_upgrades_ever
    I think Digg needs to do some work on it's dupe checking, it's a bit worrying when ?nav=tap3 can turn a duplicate into a brand new page.
    How about if when you submit the story, the page connects to the remote URL, grabs the TITLE of the page and uses it as some kind of unique identifier, like a triple check, what are the odds of two completely different articles having the same TITLE, the same Digg headline and being hosted on exactly the same domain?
    Also, when you submit a story, you're given 4 simple guidelines:
    1) Quality Content: Is your story on topic? Make sure your story is appropriate for the topic you're submitting it to.
    2) Link Directly to the Source: Save people time by linking directly to the original news story.
    3) Search First: Avoid duplication by searching to ensure nobody has submitted the same story.
    4) Be Descriptive: You're the story's editor, so explain what it is and why it's cool.

    See for yourself:
    http://digg.com/submit

    I clicked #3, typed in "why gigantic screens are the best computer upgrades ever", and I was given two results. This submission and the previous one.
    I'm allowed to call this a dupe if there's no way a 5 second search wouldn't have found the previous submission. Perhaps if the headlines were different, but you either didn't follow step #3 or you ignored the fact that Cidixat submitted the exact same thing (same headline, same page, same article and exact same description) a day before you.

    Then again, I'm sure they were only kidding when they wrote those 4 steps, it's entirely your choice whether or not you can be bothered following them. I mean the programmers were probably bored and had nothing better to do, so they thought "hey let's write some guidelines for people submitting stories and see how many people actually bother following them, just for a laugh! Who cares if 30% of our stories end up being duplicates, it means we get higher numbers in the stats we can quote to our investors!"

    /rant
    Begin spell check...complete (0 errors found)
    Final check before "Submit Comment"...valid point made
    Estimated probability of comment being dugg-down....70%
    Probability of lcarsdeveloper giving a ***** about it.....0%
    Submitting comment....complete
    • loureiro97, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2email that to the digg staff man , don't spam the comments section more than it already is, please!
    • lcarsdeveloper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2My comment was a reply to this specific story. How is that spam?

      PS already submitted:
      "We will add your suggestion to our list of user requests. If you have any other suggestions, you're always welcome to email us.
      Thank you,
      -The Digg Support Team."
    • ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The problem is that sometimes stories that should get dugg, don't. Depending on the activity of the users. I've seen lots of dupes making it to front page because the first submissions came at a time where nobody was checking or it didn't have a catchy title to draw attention.

      In addition, the ***** of freshly submitted stories that pour from everybody makes it hard for one to hunt for stories. Some of them just miss their "window" of opportunity where they are placed among the lastest stories submitted and they get drawn down quickly by other newly submitted stories. They just get drowned in the crowd.
  • Wavey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25I just added a 23" monitor to my IBM XT and DAMN what a big DOS prompt I have now!

    Thanks, Slate!
  • iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -29/+6""Mac OS X is so much better than Vista."

    Yea? How?"

    Nicer and better interface, great programs, no virus or ***** and more.
    The Vista interface is messy and it is not secure.

    Ask Kevin Rose.
    • lcarsdeveloper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+301) It's called "Reply"
      2) Why does everything have to always get turned into a MS vs Apple debate?

      "Battlestar Galactica Released on DVD"
      Comments:
      WinGuy - Wow that's fantastic, I can't wait to watch this!
      MacFanBoy - Yeah it will look great on my big Mac Screen!
      WinGuy - Mac sucks!!!!
      MacFanBoy - Go to hell you loser, everyone knows that Macs look nicer
      WinGuy - Mac sucks! Get a PC and download Vista RC1!
      MacFanBoy - Buy a Mac!

      Really starting to get sick of this debate. If you like Macs then use them. If you like Windows then use it. If you prefer Linux, use that. If you're happy with your C64, then good for you. Stop telling me about it, I really don't want to hear it anymore. I'm tempted to start making Apple vs MS blogposts and submit them here just to get everyone pissed off at each other (and lets face it, it wouldn't be too hard because you're all so damn fanatical about what OS you use!)

      PS anyone with an overly Apple or MS username (such as iAlex or siMac) needs to get a life.
    • edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"The Vista interface is messy and it is not secure."
      The interface isn't secure? What, does OSX have padlocks on the icons? At least try and make coherant points (even if the whole 'OSX/Vista is arbitarily better' debate is silly anyway).
    • Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13""Mac OS X is so much better than Vista."

      Yea? How?"

      Nicer and better interface, great programs, no virus or ***** and more.
      The Vista interface is messy and it is not secure.

      Ask Kevin Rose."

      why dont you get out off kevin rose's ass.

      and saying that one interface is better than another intreface is just an opinion not a fact. i find XP to be a much better interface than OS X. saying that not as secure is BS FUD. the only reason that windows *insert version here* is "less secure" than something else is that it has 90% (not the exact percentage but rough estimate) of the marketshare so it is a MUCH larger target. if someone was wanting to do the most damage as possible, they would find an exploit in windows. i would bet $1 million that if OS X had 90% of the marketshare, there would be exploits and security holes popping up everywhere.....just like it is with windows.
    • rpike, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14I have to agree with Icarsdeveloper. The Mac/Win debate is about as overdone as George W. Bush getting dragged into everything.
    • angelof, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Icarsdeveloper

      You make a great point. It's quite amusing how people seem to lose it when someone brings up a negative on the OS he uses. Use your computer and be happy since they all pretty much do the same thing.

    • ScottMaximus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8As a Windows Fanboy, I concede that OSX is *at heart* much more secure than Windows. Microsoft does a lot of crazy ***** that makes XP more insecure such as Massive Legacy Support. I mean, Oregon Trail? I want to die of Dysentry in High Definition!
    • scelestus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6@Jeebugorn - That is such a retarded argument. Don't you think with all the Mac users and Apple commercials saying there is no security problems that a bunch of people wouldn't write them just to shut them up? It has nothing to do with market share...it is just a secure OS.
    • JerodSlay, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6YEAH! ask kevin rose! He'll tell ya! OSX p0wns Vista, man!!!!

      give me a break. get Vista and use the remaining money you saved to feed a nation of African children.
    • scelestus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@JerodSlay:

      Windows Vista Ultimate: $399
      Mac OS X: $129

      *scratches head*

      You must be using that new math. Maybe save the money on Vista and buy a larger display...that is what this thread is about right?
  • ismith, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1I have a 1680x1050 17" and a 1280x1024 19" (Acer, cheapy...)

    CPUs are hardly used these days... it's the RAM and Video card that need to be top notch. They handle all the hard work...
  • Kwiter, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I have my old G4 iMac in the Kitchen, Mrs can work and keep an eye on the kiddies, 24" might be a bit much there BUT if I were to put that 24" iMac in the living room with wireless keyboard and mouse I could prolly chuck my 10 year old Toshiba TV ;-)

    I'm guessing this is more for Dorm Room or All in one unit, add a Elgato HD Box and a nice BIG external HD and it would make quite a nice replacement for a TV and VCR(hehehehehehe) and DVD
    • KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I've got my 20" imac set up on my coffee table in the living room. It's nice not having to go to my desk if I just want to check my email, but it's no television killer. I've watched dvd's on the computer and on the tv and find the tv to be a far more enjoyable experience.
  • ashley91, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2I'm quite happy with my HP TFT, with 15ins visible screen size and 1024x768 max. res.
  • iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2lcarsdeveloper there was no reply buttom there, nor on your post.

    • lcarsdeveloper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Unbelievable, you've been on Digg for almost 4 months and you haven't even worked out how to reply?
      To reply to a comment, you hit reply. To reply to a comment's reply, you reply to the first comment and yours will appear undearneath.
    • iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1Dude are you listening on what I am saying? There are no reply buttoms on some people's posts.

      And I don't like Mac OS X just because Kevin does, I had a Mac before I saw Diggnation.
    • Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"Dude are you listening on what I am saying? There are no reply buttoms on some people's posts."

      lol....there are no reply buttons on some people's posts because those posts are comments on another post. like lcars said....if you wish to reply comment about another post you click reply in the original post, then either quote the comment or make a @iAlex, then reply.
  • Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1very interesting article. my 17" crt that i'd been using for 6 years (that i got used and somebody used it before me for some amount of time) finally died recently. i had to downgrade to my wife's 15" lcd. during that tax free weekend a month ago, i bought a 19" widescreen montior (unemployed so i couldnt afford to go any bigger). i love this monitor. i think that once you go wide, you never go back. maybe after i get a steady job i will buy a 20 - 24" widescreen and give my wife my 19" to upgrade 15".
  • NiGHTSChao, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1My friend has his crappy computer hooked up to his 6-3 inch HDTV ^^'

    its awesome
    • jeet404, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1WOW 6-3 inches!!!! I bet he could play any game on high setting and watch HD movies. [/sarcasm]
  • jellomizer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Almost everything you do on your computer can be augmented with a larger screen (Assuming the resolution goes up with the size). Games/HDMovies are given. But programming helps out a lot to. The more full lines of code you can fit on the screen and read the easier it is to follow. Also it is nice to have a full size debugger showing you code along side your app when you are debugging it. Having Word Processors Documents side by side with a fully readable web browser. Larger displays just make life easier.
  • bj00rn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I use two 21" Eizo monitors in my office on one of my dev computers and run them at 3200x1200 resolution, and yes I can second that "bigger is better" when it comes to getting my work done smoother when doing multiple tasks and tools.

    But I have to say that right now I'm in the sofa surfing the web on my 12" iBook, and I wouldn't want to have it any other way. So...


  • WizardofWor, on 10/12/2007, -10/+024" Bahhhh, I have a 37" 1920x1080 as my main computer monitor and would never go back to an itsy bitsy 20" or 24" screen. Everything is awsome about the size of this monitor.
    • master_of_fm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3you seem to be ignorant of the fact the your 37 inch display actually has less resolution than a 23/24inch display which is actually 1920x1200. not to mention that the dpi on that display is going to be 59.5, while my 2407WFP is going to have a dpi of 94.3. your diplsay is fine if you want to sit 6 feet back and watch tv, but try doing any actually work sitting 2 feet in front of the display you will be miserable and scratching your eyes out.
    • drfranktm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Your HDTV's great as a computer monitor because it has a pretty good resolution and you can use it from the couch as well. Had I not been in South Korea at the moment, I'd probably have invested in something similar. I think that a lot of lower-res big-screen TVs are extremely ill-suited for use as computer monitors though. To watch video, a big screen is awesome and resolution isn't too big a deal, but to be productive with your computer, resolution is a HUGE thing...
  • krazygluon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I dunno about the sheer bigger is better war going on, but I do belive the wider is better trend in screens/memory bandwidth/register size/etc is a *good* thing.

    matching your gpu/gfx card to your monitor is definitely more important than having the biggest frikkin thing out there.

    +1 for buying 2 screens cheaper than 1 huge one. its probably also better for separating workflow.

    oh and...for the record the other part of why people say windows is less secure (beyond the fact that it is the OS with the built in "hack me" sign on its back because of their market share) is the fact that it *is* less secure.

    my reasoning: *nix (unix/linux/mac/sun/etc) may not have the desktop marketshare, but its got a big chunk of the server/enterprise market. as much hacking as gets done to that market (there's more profit to be made by hacking that market) you know a lot of hacks are being attempted against linux/unix/sun boxes. I'd like to see some stats from the non-desktop side of the computing world about how often win vs lin/mac boxes get hacked.

    as for viruses I'd reason that marketshare and vulnerability are directly correlated, but my bet is that we still won't see much in the way of *nix viruses as it gains popularity.
  • signal15, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Now if they would just increase the resolution of the laptops like you can get with other manufacturers. I love my macbook, but having something like 1440x900 on it would be much better. Some people are modding their MBP's to have a 1920xSomething screen in them. Unfortunately, no 13.3" screen yet exists in a higher res.
    • skunkyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Ok , first I got a 19inch Sceptre Lcd in 2001 for 1499.99 Canadian , then a Samsung 213T 21.3 Lcd in 2003 for 1299.99 Canadian , then in 2005 an Acer Al2671w 26 inch Lcd for 999.99 Canadian . Screen sizes are larger and the $ have come down . Of course ALL of the above look like laptop screens to me now , cuz I use a Westy LVM 42-2 , a 1920x1080 42 incher as my primary monitor . It Rules ~!
    • JerodSlay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The new bluray and hddvd laptops all have 1080 screens. That's something to look forward to here in a couple of years, all laptops will have that.
  • blakespot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I went from dual 20" (twice 1680x1050)...
    http://www.blakespot.com/list/images/g5_desktop.jpg

    To a single 30" (2560x1600). Far nicer.
    http://www.blakespot.com/images/g5_2560.jpg

    I tried to add in one of the old 20"ers to the mix, but it just seemed wrong - too much, so I took it to the office.
    http://www.blakespot.com/images/g5_30_20.jpg
    • isayx3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2IMO I've always found that dual monitors is better than one, for work and gaming. Even in your case dual 1680x1050 is more pixels than your single 30.

      Nothing beats watching a movie full screen one one while playing WoW full sceen on the other.
    • blakespot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2isayx3,
      I think you need to check your math.... Twice 1680x1050 is about 3.5 megapixels. 2560x1600 is 4 megapixels. And what's more, for webpages it's much nicer having 1600 pixels horizontal and "only" 2560 pixels width as opposed to 3360 pixels wide (across two screens) and only 1050 pixels on the horizontal. Can view much farther down the page on the single 30".

      I thought I'd miss the phyiscal split of the two 20" units, but the 30" takes them hands down.
    • isayx3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You're right I did have my math wrong :)

      But for me I like having the dual monitors. I tend to like thing full screen and with ultramon easier to keep track of all my open apps. I'm a graphic designer so at work it's easier for me to concentrate with my outlook and misc apps (aim, media player, ect) on one monitor while my photoshop is full screen on the other. (opposed to having everying in windows arranged on screen). I do realize what works for me doesn't work for others.
  • DokWho, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3why was Apple even mentioned in this post about Screen sizes

    apple is late to the game on screen sizes

    marked as lame for being so lame
    • drfranktm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Because Apple just came out with a 24" iMac? You might not like it, but Digg has a lot of Mac-lovers and I suspect that this story was initially dugg because of the new 24" iMac.
    • drfranktm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Re-read the description and yes, the article mentions the new iMac. The relevance here is that the iMac is a computer for the average Joe. By offering a 24" model, Apple is saying that this screen size is ready for mainstream use. And yes, these screens have become much cheaper. Apple is doing interesting stuff every now and then. If you really can't stand hearing about it, maybe you should avoid digg completely. No diss intended.
  • gmerin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I absolutely agree with the author except, as a few others have noted, 24" is way too small. 30" should be the minimum and 32" would be better for an entry level machine. I work on a box more than 12 hours / day and the 19" that is my employer's "standard" is grossly insufficient (but then again all my employer's standards are based upon 1960's criteria) and I am exceptionally more productive during two hours at home with my 40" of screen-space than during 10 hours at the office with a 19".
    • Alexx3k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Exactly what combination gives you 40" screen space may I ask? The only realistic combo I can think of is 2x 20" ... which is a horrible setup compared to just a single 24" (I lived with it for almost 3 years before I upgraded). There are no good 40" TFT screens on the market that I know of (Just crappy HD low quality things), so unless your running a dual 20" or 24" and a ... uhh ... 16" I don't see how you've got 40" of quality workspace.

      Plus at the end of the day any designer will tell you it's about pixel space, physical size means next to nothing, though I'm all for increased size
    • gmerin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1dual 20's; and pixel space is only significant if you're doing design and/or cad work which I'm not. I code, design large scale networks, and DBMS performance analysis (using a Dell PE6850 as a workstation), for which the more usable screen space the better. I'm about to extend my desktop across 4 x 20" screens, but now I'm interested to see if Apple or Dell come up with either a dual 30" solution or a 40" single screen.
    • Alexx3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting. I also code - but surely your main concern is still resoloution? A 20" with lower rez will not allow such a large work area, and so many lines per linch of code. I came from a 2x 20" setup and found it to be most irritating for coding; genrally I would fall back into using the left hand screen for code, and the right hand screen for output; which by no means was a very effecient use of space. Now I'm running a Dell 24" central screen and have one of my 20" off to one side, and I still do the exact same thing of using my central screen to work on, and my secondry 20" side screen as an output display. Obviously this setup would be useless for a home user - but I find it very efficent for working on; lots of room to work, and just turn my head to see the results. In an ideal world I'd be sitting on a 30" central screen; but quite simply it's not worth the money at the moment.

      I'll never go back to a standard dual screen setup of trying to spread my desktop over two screen, I think having one main monitor infront of you, and to the side a smaller (well It could be the same size if your loaded) output display is a much nicer work area!
  • ricamac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I use a Mac, but I must tell you that the last time a neighbor asked my advice on if he should make the switch from Windows I told him the best thing he could do was to get a bigger, higher resolution screen. I run 1920 x 1200 on my Mac, and that makes a much bigger difference than which OS you use. All this constant bickering about which OS is better is nonsense. It's personal preference, not religion!
    • ricosalomar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Religion IS a personal preference.
    • drfranktm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, but not all personal preferences are religions. :P
  • toothy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ Hiker
    quote
    And I hear Dell have no intentions of releasing an A03 2407 so the poor ppl STILL having the gradient banding prob are stuck with it apparently ./quote


    The A03 2407WFP has been out for over a week.

    http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/content/dell_2xx7wfp_2.htm#a03
  • SakoTRG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dell 3007WFP - 2560x1600 - no AGP video card support, just the sad little

    Sapphire RADEON X1600 PRO
  • devoinregress, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the more pixles to spread out over the better. if you are stuck with a small screen use virtual desktops.
  • LKBM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This can be taken too far, though: http://flickr.com/photos/lkbm/42051170/

    Upcoming Digg recently had an article ranting about Joel's always talking about needing big monitors. Said this guy, real programmers prefer two or three decently-sized monitors to one huge monitor. I've never done that with a properly working settup, so I don't know really.
  • ArcusOfSV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I read the article. The guy made sense until he started talking about upgrading to Vista.
  • DyMndSkiR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd like to have the budget to experiment with something like this to know.

    I'm stuck using the 15" screen on my laptop, even at work where my laptop on my desk is a good ways away from me. A 24" monitor sure would be nice...
  • DoodleFlash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Imagine having one of these infront of you everyday:
    http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=A0490464

    If 20 inch is good, think of 40...
    • isayx3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For watching movies yes for a computer desiplay I'll pass...1366x768 res at 40in..

      You need at least 1080p
    • JerodSlay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+240 inch 1366x768= 1, 049, 088
      20 inch 1680x1050= 1, 764, 000
      24 inch 1920x1200= 2, 304, 000
      30inch 2560x1600= 4, 096, 000

      The problem with duals is, the eye sees best at certain aspect ratios. dual 20inch wide screens puts that aspect ratio at 32x10, which is wayyyyy too wide. One monitor is good, I've got the Dell 24 and I'm lovin it. Maybe when the 30 gets much cheaper ($1000) I'll get it.
    • master_of_fm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1bigger is not always better, you would have to sit twice as far back on a 40 inch display to make it bearable for doing any serious computer work

      40 inch 1366x768= 1, 049, 088 - DPI = 39.2
      20 inch 1680x1050= 1, 764, 000 - DPI = 99
      24 inch 1920x1200= 2, 304, 000 - DPI = 94.3
      30inch 2560x1600= 4, 096, 000 - DPI = 100
    • isayx3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The problem with duals is, the eye sees best at certain aspect ratios. dual 20inch wide screens puts that aspect ratio at 32x10, which is wayyyyy too wide. "

      Wong, who uses programs full screen across dual monitors...its more like 2x 16:10 ratio no 32x10.
  • jonstafari, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1people still use computer monitors?

    video -> hdtv (or tv). nuff said
  • DarkHack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm hoping to get a 32" LCD HD monitor sometime within a year or so when it get cheaper.
  • tgunner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0How about a 24" Widescreen CRT... anyone?

    http://www.amazon.com/Sony-GDM-FW900-Widescreen-Trinitron-Monitor/dp/B00004YNSR
    • drfranktm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why?!? It's not even that much cheaper!
    • tgunner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No, don't look at that price, they can be had on eBay, and other sites for around $200-250.
    • master_of_fm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2problem is that the geometry on those are horrible compared to an LCD, a buddy of mine manage to get one free a few years back but as you get towards the outer edges of the display the image loses focus. not to mention they weigh a ton some like 100 lbs all at the face of the display 24 inch lcd weighs 20 lbs at the most
  • ramsinks.com, on 10/12/2007, -2/+142in with 1:1 pixel mapping connected to a 4mb connection and a fatty 5.1DTS system a blut tooth m/k with utorrent = only way to fly. 2nd Input is OTAHD.

    At leat the black chieftech case matches the rest...
    ;)


    "OS" .. pfft -- who cares
  • fantasticjon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree with the author. I mean don't necessarily buy the biggest one, but buy the best one for you. 2 points.

    1. A monitor is something you use everyday for hours on end. Don't cut corners on things your use everyday... Monitor, TV, Bed, car, speakers, etc.
    2. A PC is obsolete as soon as you buy it and is a dinosaur in 2 years; a nice monitor will still be a nice monitor in 5 years. (until there is a new technology or interface that compels you to upgrade, or it breaks.)
    • drfranktm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Precisely, which is why I think going with a 24" instead of two 20" monitors can make a lot of sense in the long run. Initially, two 20" can be better than a single 24", but are you going to keep three monitors on your desk when you upgrade? Considering how long monitors can last, I think it's worth the money, if your computer is any kind of work tool, to go for the highest resolution possible, even if, in the short run, you'd have more pixels with two smaller screens.
  • JJorsett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My standard for a "too large" monitor is when I have to turn my head to see the opposite edges.
  • sweetnjguy29, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm not convinced that a monitor upgrade is the best upgrade. It really depends on the rest of the computer setup. A 24" monitor isn't gonna do anyone any good on a 300Mhz PentiumII without a suitable graphics card.

    Not to mention, the wide 30" computers are very...wide. They aren't very tall. Personally...I need more space at the tops and bottoms. I hate scrolling down. It is not very often that I have to scroll side to side. Wide is great for movies, but crappy for anything else.

    I think it is more helpful for computer users to think about their systems minimum requirements. Anything less than a Intel 3.2Gig or Athlon 3200+ processor should be upgraded to at least the 3.2Gig/3200+ level. Anything less than 512Megs of RAM should be upgraded to at least 1 Gig. Anything less than a 17" monitor should be upgraded to at least a 19" monitor.

    Of course, the question becomes, once I have the minimum requirements for my system, should I spend $900 on a new processor or $900 on a new monitor. That is, of course, a very individual question. If you want to encode movies faster, spring for the new processor. If you want to watch movies on a wide scree, get the wide screen.
    • drfranktm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Intel 3.2GHz? I would think the iMac's 2.16GHz Merom (Intel Core 2 Duo) is more than enough for the majority of people, even though it's less than 3.2GHz. I guess you meant a P4 3.2 or some older technology. I agree with you that people need to consider more than the screen. I just think that the monitor is way too often neglected because many people don't have much experience with higher-res screens, so the idea that a high-res screen can make you more productive hasn't really sunk in yet. In general, few people realize how much more enjoyable their computing experience will be if they have a higher-res screen, so they often invest a lot in a faster processor when their money might have been better spent on a higher-res screen.
  • matt.rubin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah i am a perfect subject......

    I got a Athlon 64 3200+

    WIth a 24in Dell monitor
  • craigtheguru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've been using a 20" widescreen display for years now and could not go back to a smaller screen unless its a compromise I make for going mobile with a notebook. I'm thinking of upgrading my screen to a 23"/24" model since I'm starting to feel cramped with only 1680x1050 resolution.
  • spongbros, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2By far the funniest tech-comedy article I've read recently. Why, everybody knows that screen size is nothing compared to the speed and un-crashi-ness of the computer. Who wants to see a 21-inch BSOD?

    Why, if it weren't for Mother's poor eyesight, I'd still be using that good ol' 13-incher I got 10 years ago that took half-an-hour to warm up. Really. I only sit about 10cm from the screen, so I can only see what's going on at one small isolated point at any one time. Bigger screens = more eye scanning.
  • Zoglog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1whatever, this guy is a pussy. 24"

    http://zoglog.clearlyseen.net/photos/westinghouse/pcdesktop.jpg

    42" bitches =p
  • hrdcregmer808, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I got a 21 in widescreen monitor =]
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.