how are the specs? my friend is gonna sell it to me for $150
http://cms.hannsg.net/onweb.jsp?prod_no=3333333670&webno=33333333:0
http://cms.hannsg.net/onweb.jsp?prod_no=3333333670&webno=33333333:0
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
is this a good monitor?
- Thread starter himynameiscody
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is a bit large for 1920 x 1200 pixel, as displays with that resolution are in the 24" display size area.
Have you used it yet and seen for yourself, if the resolution is acceptable to you, as it might look a bit pixelated?
Have you used it yet and seen for yourself, if the resolution is acceptable to you, as it might look a bit pixelated?
My honest opinion is that 1920x1200 resolution does not belong on any monitor above 23", and even then, it's barely tolerable on anything above 21".
Oh sorry I misread your link earlier, that resolution on a 28" will look terrible. No clue what would be appropriate but definitely something over. 1920x1200
Last edited:
*Sigh* this is kind of a response to both here. Laptop and phone display resolution has shot up while the resolution of desktop displays has remained a bit stagnant. Are either of you aware of a single display outside of maybe medical grade displays that features a 24" panel above 1900x1200? The thunderbolt display is slightly tighter on pitch. It's taller, and it contains a few more pixels in its height. The difference in aspect ratio is why you see a more significant jump in width there. I can't think of a single 16:10 24" panel (outside of possibly medical grade displays) that goes beyond 1900x1200.
cheaper or expensive?
cheaper are usually 1920x1200 or even 1080p.
"expensive" would be the ACD/ATD which are 2560x1440
And? We are talking about a 27" display, with a resolution of a proper 24" display, or am I misunderstanding you, if I even understand you at all?
no idea on the first and i'd say a good deal if it works good and lasts a while.
The ACD/ATD/Dells/NECs with the higher res are from 799$ to over 1000$
I've never heard of it.
Okay you don't understand. There are no 24" displays that go beyond 1900x1200. It doesn't matter if you like it. If you want a 24" display you're looking at 16:10 1900x1200. I used the thunderbolt display as a reference because everyone on here seems to like it, and it's not noticeably higher in ppi. Desktop displays have been outpaced in ppi by smaller screens. You either accept the resolutions available or you don't own a display greater than 17". It's as simple as that
.
I've never heard of it.
Okay you don't understand. There are no 24" displays that go beyond 1900x1200. It doesn't matter if you like it. If you want a 24" display you're looking at 16:10 1900x1200. I used the thunderbolt display as a reference because everyone on here seems to like it, and it's not noticeably higher in ppi. Desktop displays have been outpaced in ppi by smaller screens. You either accept the resolutions available or you don't own a display greater than 17". It's as simple as that
I guess you misunderstood me.
I was not advising the OP to look for a 24" with the resolution of a 27", I was pointing out, that the 27" display s/he looks at, has a resolution 24" displays normally come with, thus it might look a bit pixelated. I have a 17" MBP with that resolution.
Was that understandable?
PS: I have a Hanns-G display right next to me, it is a 17" 4:3 display with 1280 x 1024 pixel, used with my 20" iMac with 1680 x 1050 pixel.
It is an okay display to show panels and windows for settings, but the colour is a bit off (can be remedied with a proper profile I guess) and it looks a bit pixelated.
Okay I'm an idiot. I thought that display was smaller *pounds face on desk*. Bleck I read the comment about "does not belong on a monitor over 23" and found it silly when available 24" displays don't go over 1900x1200. I haven't seen a 27" in that resolution in a very very long time. Edit: not sure if I have at all
Edit edit: sorry for being rude
last edit: I have 21" and a 24" here. The 21" is from early 2006. The 24" is newer. They're 1600x1200 and 1900x1200. If I move my eyes close enough, I can see individual dots, but the detail and color reproduction is actually quite good on both. The newer one is more difficult to calibrate being an Adobe RGB gamut rather than sRGB like. While it would be nice to see higher resolution than this, desktop displays haven't been getting much love in that regard. With laptops the focus seemed to be getting them to a point of displaying 1080 properly for video content.
Corner. 10 minutes. Then ten pounds spinach. With eggs and potatoes.
Anyway, we have cleared our misunderstandings and reached a common ground. Now lets go into politics. They need us. Really need us.
So what's your point ? Because no one makes a 24" monitor with higher than 1920x1200 does not mean 24" t 1920x1200 is tolerable. And the OP is talking about a 28" (27.5 diagonal) monitor, which is even worse.
i just hooked it up. i plugged in with dvi and hdmi...should i change any settings? or is it just personal preference?
Maybe do a colour calibration on the monitor itself and in System Preferences > Displays > Color > Calibrate.
And use the native resolution at least.