Largest NON-Widescreen LCD?

I got 2 . btw $100 of that 250 I mentioned is shipping related. I got both of mine locally for 200 and 150 respectively. I then built a wooden bunk that has one of them by my bed on one computer and the other at the bottom of the bunk connected to another computer. Best money I ever spent on computer parts easily

running any game cloned on the fw900 and a dell 2407wfp is like night and day from my experiences

I still use an 17" CRT

BossBorot said:

I got 2 . btw $100 of that 250 I mentioned is shipping related. I got both of mine locally for 200 and 150 respectively. I then built a wooden bunk that has one of them by my bed on one computer and the other at the bottom of the bunk connected to another computer. Best money I ever spent on computer parts easily

running any game cloned on the fw900 and a dell 2407wfp is like night and day from my experiences

Click to expand...

*walks away in anger and jealousy of you*

Just pick up something like this

I'm with you on this too man. 4:3 aspect is way better for working with documents and surfing the web. I'd go widescreen if I was getting a dedicated gaming monitor or for watching a lot of movies. But IMO 4:3 is a better "all around" monitor ratio. I used to be a die hard samsung fan but it seems as of late they are producing a varying degree of quality on their monitors. The "panel lottery" is in full effect and I think more and more companies are heading this direction. I do notice on their website they have about 10 different 4:3 ratio panels still available. But sleuthing out which one is going to be the best for gaming is anybody's guess. It really depends where the panel came from, not just because it's a samsung

Since many people have jumped on the size and widescreen bandwagon, the quality overall on all monitors has taken a nosedive.

Imo it's all about the vertical resolution when talking 4:3 versus 16:10. If a 16:10 has the same (or close) vertical resolution it will have more horizontal and therefore more screenspace in total. So I don't understand how somone can say that a 1200 vertical resolution 4:3 is better than a 1200 vertical resolution 16:10, or 1024 vertical 4:3 is better than a 1050 vertical 16:10. I'm not getting in to the CRT vs LCD debate though