For those of you with 27" monitors

dareme

dareme

dareme

Associate
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Posts
3
Are they small enough to sit in front of like smaller screens or do you have to move back a bit? Considering the dell u2711, just thinking that if i have to sit farther back than usual, coupled with the higher resolution making text even smaller, it may be a problem
 
I have the Dell 2709W (a 1920x1200 27 incher) and I find I sit just as close to it as I did with my old Dell 2408WFP (1920x1200 24 incher). It just means that text looks a bit bigger and the whole computer experience is more immersive.

I imagine that with the U2711 it will be very similar, just the text will be a bit smaller than usual (which can be adjusted with windows DPI settings if you want).
 
I also have a 27" it is a 2709 from Dell
I went from 24" to this , the size is great , no need adjust seating postition.

To be honest I would not touch the 2711 with a barge pole (or any other 16:9 LCD)
16:10 for the WIN!
 
I have a dell u2711 and it is an amazing screen!! I sit the same distance behind it as my log HP LP2475w screen it's miles clearer and text for me is perfect! highly recommended!
 
I have the HannsG 27.5" 1920x1200 screen and it's fine to sit in front of all day. I went from a 192 1280x1024 monitor to it and apart from getting used to actually looking around at what's going on on screen have had no problems at all.
 
I also have the Hanns G 27.5".
I used to have a 22" Samsung. I still sit the same distance away from the screen.
I agree with cmndr_andi...... It just makes it a more immersive experience.
 
I had a Dell 2709, and I sat just as close to that as to my old viewsonic 2025 (20.1" 1680x1050) then that broke and they just gave me a u2711. Fantastic screen, and I'm still sitting in the same place.
 
lurkio said:
I also have a 27" it is a 2709 from Dell
I went from 24" to this , the size is great , no need adjust seating postition.

To be honest I would not touch the 2711 with a barge pole (or any other 16:9 LCD)
16:10 for the WIN!
Click to expand...

I use a 16:10 and absolutely love, but I've never owned a 16:9. What's so bad about them?
 
Aside from having a higher resolution and being bigger

16:10 is more useful for the user who does some desktop work as well
as gaming or watching media

16:9 is better suited to the console/movie playback (even tho most movies are 2.35:1 or 1.85:1)

to see the differences go to here http://displaywars.com/
set both to 27" set one to 16:9 other to 16:10 and hit compare
 
Last edited:
I still don't get it.

Surely if you're saying 16:10 is better for heavy desktop users then wouldn't 16:9 be better since there's more room to the side to fit things in?

Seems like a it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.
 
For a given comparable resolution pair all 16:9 does is lose you vertical space. You don't gain anything horizontally.
 
trentlad said:
I still don't get it.

Surely if you're saying 16:10 is better for heavy desktop users then wouldn't 16:9 be better since there's more room to the side to fit things in?

Seems like a it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Click to expand...

Put in simple terms
with a 16:10 @ 1920x1200 you can fit 2 A4 pages on the screen side by side

with 16:9 @ 1920x1080 it cuts the bottom of them off
 
trentlad said:
I still don't get it.

Surely if you're saying 16:10 is better for heavy desktop users then wouldn't 16:9 be better since there's more room to the side to fit things in?

Seems like a it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Click to expand...

Put in simple terms
with a 16:10 @ 1920x1200 you can fit 2 A4 pages on the screen side by side

with 16:9 @ 1920x1080 it cuts the bottom of them off

Didn't the http://displaywars.com/ link give you a better visual representation of the differences ?
 
He might be confused by the fact that 16:9 gives you a wider physical size than 16:10 for a given screen size (since screen size is a diagonal measurement). The pixels are just stretched out a little more horizontally - you don't actually get any extra information displayed.
 
I've got one of each... Whilst I agree that 16:10 (or better yet, portrait monitor) is sometimes beneficial for many windows uses, since a lot of apps use a portrait layout, there isn't really a huge difference. For example.... if you want more vertical space on your 16:9 screen, just stick the taskbar on the side instead of the bottom, and get used to it being there. People saying they'd NEVER use one or the other are being a bit excessive... it's only about a 10% difference between them... not exactly a show-stopper.

But yes for viewing fullscreen media, I tend to watch 16:9 or above films/tv on the 16:9, and 4:3 stuff on the 16:10... it just makes sense.
 
PCM2 said:
He might be confused by the fact that 16:9 gives you a wider physical size than 16:10 for a given screen size (since screen size is a diagonal measurement). The pixels are just stretched out a little more horizontally - you don't actually get any extra information displayed.
Click to expand...

Exactly, however...

I just received a 16:9 screen at work today and, goodness me, I can now 100% understand what Lurkio was talking about. It really does chop off the screen at the bottom and it's pretty irritating. I've had mates say that my 1680x1050 was a "stupid" resolution and now I've used both I beg to differ.

I literally had to write my own DTD display resolution code in XP to get my office laptop's Intel drivers to display in 1920x1080. Previously I've connected my 1680x1050 screen and it worked like a charm and always has done. I can post how that's done if anyone needs it, you can force any computer to display ANY resolution.

We'll see how it goes. I'm sure I just have to get used to it but chopping off pages is pretty hard to get around
 
dareme said:
Are they small enough to sit in front of like smaller screens or do you have to move back a bit? Considering the dell u2711, just thinking that if i have to sit farther back than usual, coupled with the higher resolution making text even smaller, it may be a problem
Click to expand...

I have the HannsG 27.5" and it's very big alright (coming from a 22") but I'm sitting right in front of it no problem. When I first set it up I was absolutely gobsmacked, it just looks so impressive. I don't have to sit back for gaming or browsing at all. I sat back there watching a DVD and that was great too but you can sit right in front of it and it's fine, it's just so big!

It really is more immersive as the screen covers more of my peripheral vision. Absolutely delighted I went from 22" to 27", I would highly recommend it.
 
I bought a 23.6" ASUS which claimed to be 16:9 with a native resolution of 1920x1080. After a lot of messing about (inc. manually adding code to force XP to display that resolution) it turns out its native resolution was 1918x1080.

I do like the screen and it was an absolute barging for something that's won a buyers choice award.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom