Yeah, IMO its always the best option to get the smallest physical size available for the resolution. For example, im currently running a 17" and I will be soon choosing a 20" rather than 22" for that 1680x1050 goodness
Yeah, IMO its always the best option to get the smallest physical size available for the resolution. For example, im currently running a 17" and I will be soon choosing a 20" rather than 22" for that 1680x1050 goodness
yeah thats the truth. i think im going to sell my 24" because its kind of a cheap one anyway and doesn't support DHCP (so no ps3 :/) and get a 20" LG. the smaller the screen for the res the better, that and the fact that the 22" LG is like $320-370 :/
me? a 20 or 22" is close enough at 1050. my 24" is ungodly and i dont think i need it anyway (plus i can't play my ps3 on it, which would be nice right now since i don't have an HDTV). plus i think a LG or samsung would look a whole lot better in picture quality.
yeah thats the truth. i think im going to sell my 24" because its kind of a cheap one anyway and doesn't support DHCP (so no ps3 :/) and get a 20" LG. the smaller the screen for the res the better, that and the fact that the 22" LG is like $320-370 :/