Another feature of Win7 that lots of people havent discovers in my experiance is instead of ALT TAB to swiitch between applications, you can use the windows key and tab for a fancier task switcher.
I wrote "some windows" - and checking suggests that it is indeed only some! Try it with a command prompt window and a taskbar at left of screen. Winkey + left/right works - but dragging doesn't.
Strange - I have just tried a copy of Elements 9 and it goes to half screen. The only thing I use that wont is the otherwise excellent FastStone viewer.
I've had a Viewsonic VP2365wb for a couple of years now and am very pleased with it. Very well reviewed too, and no doubt cheaper now than I paid.
1920x1080 is the resolution of a "High Defintion" television. Many "Standard Defintion" TV panels don't have that resolution. If thinking of using a telly make sure its panel is "Full HD" not "HD Ready" or some other marketing speak.
And another possible gotcha is that TV uses none square pixels but computers use square ones. Also the pixel pitch may well be finer on a monitor compared to a telly.
I have a Dell 30" 2560 x 1600 and the dot pitch is small even at this slightly bigger level, but defaults can be adjusted for most apps.
I bought my monitor cheap from pcbuyit. They claimed full Dell warranty but I was a bit nervous when the monitor arrived with a few dead pixels. I called pcbuyit and rejected the monitor on this basis. It was then replaced, new one delivered directly by Dell, who then took the old one away (they had a zero dead pixel policy at the time).
So I can recommend pcbuyit, it always makes me confident when a company handles a problem well.
As an aside you appear to pay nearly twice as much for a 1920x1200 monitor as you do for a 1920x1080. I would be tempted to get two
1920x1080 monitors instead.
There are lots & lots of 1920x1080 monitors, and a few 1920x1200.
The Dell U2412M (1920x1200) costs 225 GBP.
Are there many 24" 1920x1080 IPS monitors available for half that price?
ared to pc monitors
Not at all as long as it's HD. My TV is better than the monitor.
I'd really like a 16:10 26" one. Pixel pitch is about the same as my current
5:4 17" monitor and would suit me better. 27" is getting a bit coarse.
It's simply due to the manufacturing; 16:9, or 1080 as we're talking here, is TV size. Trouble is, the real world is, to our eyes. low and wide; documents are tall and thin. Cheap monitors are so as there lots of them made; there are far fewer 16:10 and I read somewhere that 16:9 is about the optimal ratio for productivity. Wait until 21:9 becomes common for TVs - try reading not many lines of text at a yard long!
snip
connections may be relatively fuzzy.
HDMI on the media PC and Mac Mini.
rbel@?.?.invalid:
I'm on an earlier version ... [looks] ... 5.0.2.
Ah, shove it...
And make sure it has a 1:1 pixel mode (aka exact scan or similar phrase) to turn off overscan.
There is something odd. I have a widescreen TV with a VGA port, and it doesn't display perfectly with any of the settings on the driver for my proper monitor. Geometry is slightly wrong. So I'd guess it would need to be used with its own driver - if one were available. The colour is also slightly different, with the grey scale being out.
I prefer 16:10 but I don't think the premium you pay is value for money.
well actually most 32" monitors have more res than a 32" TV BUT the OP didnt want that high a res. Just wanted the size.
its the same.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.