Dell G2410 LCD 24" - any good?
- Thread starter Handruin
- Start date
Adcadet
Storage Freak
I looked at that monitor at Best Buy (or maybe it was the 2310) but liked the LG W2361V better (brighter) and managed to snag it for $220. I'm using it now and like it.
Last edited:
I thought it was bad last year, but the newer monitors are shorter yet. Now you don't even get 1200 pixels in a 24" display. I find them difficult to work with in typical office use. The scam here is that the same diagonal has less pixels.
Stereodude
Not really a
I suspect they're somewhat standardizing on panels that are common to TVs since they're cheaper because of economies of scale.
I still don't like any display much more than my old 2005 21.3" LCD.Stereodude
Not really a
Generally you can still get good quality stuff, you just have to be willing to pay for it.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
16:9 = 1920x1080
16:10 = 1920x1200
Most HDTVs are 16x10.
16:10 = 1920x1200
Most HDTVs are 16x10.
ddrueding
Fixture
How does that work? Do they just discard the extra 120 pixels to display 1080P content?
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
It's like the Cowon S9 PMP. Display is 480 x 272. Why the extra 2 pixels? I guess it's a manufacturing thing.
Stereodude
Not really a
You've got that backwards. Most TVs are definitely 16:9.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Nope, they aren't, if you go look at them. In fact, I can't think of a TV that's properly 16:9. They do 16:10 probably as a concession to 4:3 content. Plug in a PC and they're all 1920x1200.
Notebook PCs and 17 and 19" computer displays are the most likely actual 16:9 screens.
Stereodude
Not really a
What on earth are you talking about? I sure as heck don't know where you came up with this factually incorrect information. Nearly all TVs are 16:9 as that is the broadcast standard. Nearly all are 1920x1080, 1366x768, or 1280x720. Those are all 16:9. I have two HDTVs. They are both 16:9. When I was TV shopping every HDTV I saw was 16:9. Please provide some examples of 16:10 TVs.
Previously laptop screens have been 1920x1200 or 1680x1050. Desktop screens have been the same resolutions. More recently a lot of them are moving to 16:9 resolution
OK, I know that it doesn't have the full pixel size as other more expensive 24" monitors and I realize it is inexpensive and that's what I should expect. I found last night that through work I can get another $15 off from this bringing the total shipped cost to $194.
What I plan to use this for is more desktop space. I have two CRT monitors that are 19" in size. One of them (NEC FP950) is just about 9 years old and has been in my cube since I started working here. The other one (Dell something unknown) looks like it was dropped from the back of a truck and is probably 7+ years old. My work is very cheap when it comes to providing monitors.
Accurate color reproduction isn't even a concern. What I want is readable font and plenty of room for spreadsheets and development tools. Aside from the LG W2361V that Adcadet mentioned, what other options would you guys consider for around $200?
What I plan to use this for is more desktop space. I have two CRT monitors that are 19" in size. One of them (NEC FP950) is just about 9 years old and has been in my cube since I started working here. The other one (Dell something unknown) looks like it was dropped from the back of a truck and is probably 7+ years old. My work is very cheap when it comes to providing monitors.
Accurate color reproduction isn't even a concern. What I want is readable font and plenty of room for spreadsheets and development tools. Aside from the LG W2361V that Adcadet mentioned, what other options would you guys consider for around $200?
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
If they support an on-screen resolution of 1920x1200, they're 16x10. When displaying 16:9 content, they have small black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, which both MY HDTVs do.
Sir, you are wrong. Admit your mistake.
Sir, you are wrong. Admit your mistake.
Stereodude
Not really a
I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you please show me a single LCD TV larger than the low mid 20" range that has a LCD panel that is 1920x1200? TVs have scalars in them. They often may accept 1920x1200, but they don't have 1920x1200 pixels on the screen. They simple squish it down, or your video card enables panning.
Some movies are 1.85.1, which is slightly wider than 16:9 (1.7777777), so they have very small bars along the top and bottom.
I'm not wrong, so why would I admit it?
There's a reason it's called 1080p, not 1200p. I reviewed 103 1080p LCD TVs at Crutchfield from Samsung, Panasonic, Mitsubishi, Sony and Toshiba. Every single one of them has 1920x1080 pixels and is listed as 16:9.
Apparently you're suggesting that those 1920x1080 pixels on the TV are not square which gives the TV a 16:10 aspect ratio, and on top of that somehow the TV displays content with 1200 pixels vertically on the TV while maintaining a 1:1 pixel mapping despite the TV having only 1080 pixels. :rotfl:
Why don't you get out a tape measure and measure your TVs height and width? Please report back.
ddrueding
Fixture
Right now if you go to Newegg's LCD TV selection you see the following:
16x9 (95)
16x10 (10)
Other (1)
All the ones that are not 16x9 are low resolution (1680x1050, 1440x900).
I know mine (Sharp Aquos 42", InFocus X10) are both strictly 1920x1080. Unless they have pixels they aren't advertising, but when I set the resolution to 1920x1200 it throws a "no signal" error.
16x9 (95)
16x10 (10)
Other (1)
All the ones that are not 16x9 are low resolution (1680x1050, 1440x900).
I know mine (Sharp Aquos 42", InFocus X10) are both strictly 1920x1080. Unless they have pixels they aren't advertising, but when I set the resolution to 1920x1200 it throws a "no signal" error.
Stereodude
Not really a
And, surprise, surprise, the ones that are 16:10 are 22" or smaller (ie: computer monitors with a tuner). They are 1680x1050 (22") or 1440x900 (19").
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
I have screens all over my apartment that are 16:9 or 16:10. The vast majority of them - TVs or computer screens - are 16:10, being slightly taller than the visibly rectangular 16:9. If I'm not getting an edge-to-edge picture when viewing 16:9 content (not 1.85:1), those extra pixels had to have come from somewhere, right?
Stereodude
Not really a
What extra pixels? There are only 1920x1080 pixels on the LCD panel. There aren't bonus pixels.
Say, have you measured the width and height of the screens yet?
Say, have you measured the width and height of the screens yet?
Stereodude
Not really a
Merc, please post pictures of this image on your large LCD TV showing that it doesn't fill the screen.
Stereodude
Not really a
Ok, so I took some pictures of that test image on a 1920x1200 24" LCD monitor (16:10), and my 1920x1080 52" LCD TV (16:9).
24" 1920x1200 16:10 LCD:
Note there are black bars at the top and bottom of the screen because the image is 16:9, and the screen is 16:10. There is also 1:1 pixel mapping here.
52" 1920x1080 16:9 LCD:
This fills the screen perfectly with 1:1 pixel mapping. There are no unused portions of the LCD panel.
Here's what happens when a 1920x1080 image is stretched to 1920x1200:
Note the moire pattern in the red part of the image (because there isn't 1:1 pixel mapping) and the obvious distortion in the circle of the center of the image.
Still waiting for your pictures and measurements Merc... :cyclops:
24" 1920x1200 16:10 LCD:
Note there are black bars at the top and bottom of the screen because the image is 16:9, and the screen is 16:10. There is also 1:1 pixel mapping here.
52" 1920x1080 16:9 LCD:
This fills the screen perfectly with 1:1 pixel mapping. There are no unused portions of the LCD panel.
Here's what happens when a 1920x1080 image is stretched to 1920x1200:
Note the moire pattern in the red part of the image (because there isn't 1:1 pixel mapping) and the obvious distortion in the circle of the center of the image.
Still waiting for your pictures and measurements Merc... :cyclops:
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Merc is still working at the moment.
Stereodude
Not really a
So, I guess we'll just consider this one settled... :sunny:
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
I got home last night at around 11 due to hellish stupidity from inconsiderate coworkers. When I get a chance I will be taking a look.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
That's not so bad, last week I was at work until 2:35am one night. 17+ hour workdays make you stronger.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
I haven't had anything that bad for a while, but getting home after 14 or so hours of actual work time (as opposed to work + long drive, which is generally a bit easier) all week is kind of obnoxious, especially when it's for my salaried job where I just took a 20% pay cut.
Adcadet
Storage Freak
Try 30 hours.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
I've been there, too.
Fushigi
Storage Is My Life
I've done a double shift on Christmas Eve (had an operator quit with no notice). My longest that I can recall is 23 hours straight. But I've also had runs where it was several days in a row of 14-16 hour days.
I've done the long shifts enough that I can recognize when my reasoning abilities and attention to detail wax and wane.
I've done the long shifts enough that I can recognize when my reasoning abilities and attention to detail wax and wane.
ddrueding
Fixture
I've broken 30 on a few occasions, near 40 once, but the worst is getting less than 4 hours sleep a night for more than a week. I'm almost there now, and I know I'm starting to get stupid. The caffeine does nothing.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Yesterday, I didn't work (it was a holiday here). I spent the afternoon and a part of the evening on a terrace. Today, I worked ~5 hours, but I took the time to lunch again on a terrace because it was so sunny outside. Tomorrow, I'll try to have a tought for all you guys when I'll take my beer on the terrace during lunch.
paugie
Storage is cool
The wife had the flu (not swine flu, thankfully) since last Thursday and wanted me by her side. She went back today to teach. I normally stay at home once every two days so when I want to sleep, I just crawl onto the bed.
My work crises consist of calls for virus removal or restoration of internet access from my friends who insist on slippine in USB flash disks without scanning them. I disable autoplay on their machines but that doesn't help when they insist on accessing them without scanning.
hey, we're OT!
My work crises consist of calls for virus removal or restoration of internet access from my friends who insist on slippine in USB flash disks without scanning them. I disable autoplay on their machines but that doesn't help when they insist on accessing them without scanning.
hey, we're OT!
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
You could disable all the USB ports. Problem solved.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Longest stretch of work for me was 63 hours. I spent a summer writing an enormous batch file to handle a Netware 3 to Netware 4 conversion. I got the job for being the intern that no one quite knew what to do with, but I could program, so someone had the bright idea to give me this job. So I spent several weeks manually upgrading Netware servers and figuring out how to script what I could.
Anyway, the idea was that the script would get run on Friday night and we'd have all weekend to iron out whatever problems resulted from it. Me and four of the most senior Novell people manned a call center and all the rest of the IT staff + contractors were sent out to actually run the installs on all these servers.
All in all I think it did work really well. There were 385 servers and I think my script worked right on 340 of them. The ones where it didn't, though, we spent all weekend and in to Monday morning trying to fix. Two of the "senior" people I was working with had never done an upgrade to Novell 4 and turned out to be mostly worthless, and some of the people in the field were Unix people with no experience dealing with PCs, let alone Netware, so those of us who were supporting the installers didn't get much of a chance to take a break.
It pretty much sucked.
Anyway, the idea was that the script would get run on Friday night and we'd have all weekend to iron out whatever problems resulted from it. Me and four of the most senior Novell people manned a call center and all the rest of the IT staff + contractors were sent out to actually run the installs on all these servers.
All in all I think it did work really well. There were 385 servers and I think my script worked right on 340 of them. The ones where it didn't, though, we spent all weekend and in to Monday morning trying to fix. Two of the "senior" people I was working with had never done an upgrade to Novell 4 and turned out to be mostly worthless, and some of the people in the field were Unix people with no experience dealing with PCs, let alone Netware, so those of us who were supporting the installers didn't get much of a chance to take a break.
It pretty much sucked.