A while back I mentioned that I was working on a research project involving GIS. Well, I’m still working on it. The work took longer than expected because I had a hard time doing any work in ArcGIS 10 with my computing equipment. See, my monitor was too small and too low-resolution.
ArcGIS 10 really is designed for a high-resolution widescreen monitor. As you can see above, all of the tables and windows I had open left me with hardly any room to see the map. The G had been taken out of GIS. I was using an excellent NEC FE770 17″ CRT monitor at 1024×768 resolution. I vowed that I would keep using that monitor until it died. Well, I broke my vow. I was getting fed-up with this inadequate workspace in ArcGIS and started looking at widescreen LCD monitors. I can work with ease in ArcGIS on my 22″ 16:9 widescreen monitor at work, so I decided I needed to go widescreen.
It was tough for me to abandon my CRT, especially after writing my masterpiece “Wider is not better” in 2007. I tried to avoid buying a widescreen monitor by cranking up the resolution on my CRT to 1280×1024. ArcGIS became usable at that resolution. Graphics looked fine, but text was tiny and blurry. The monitor was putting out 1280×1024, but not very well. It gave me a headache. By the way, the monitor was nominally 17″, but in reality it was 16″. About 18 months ago, I started noticing the horizontal refresh lines going through the screen. I guess I’m trying to justify casting off this old monitor. It was only five or six years old, and still works. Actually, it’s sitting on the floor about eight feet behind me.
As usual, I over-researched my widescreen LCD purchase. I have a tiny desk, so I was limited to what would fit on my desk. I determined that I could fit a 22″ monitor on my desk. That was a good thing, because it ensured that my monitor would have at least the same vertical height as my 17″ 4:3 aspect ratio CRT. Display Wars is a useful website for comparing monitors of different sizes and aspect ratios. Even though I was planning to buy online, I made a trip to CompUSA. I wanted to see the different makes and models of monitor in person. Was Samsung better than Asus? Was Asus better than Acer? I have experience with Acer and Asus LCD monitors, and knew they were decent. I wasn’t interested in Viewsonic after a negative experience many years ago at a job. With the size and acceptable brands determined, I had to figure out if I wanted a 16:10 1680×1050 resolution monitor or a 16:9 1920×1080 resolution monitor. Should I settle for lower resolution but more vertical height, or get “full HD” resolution but less vertical height? Here is a comparison of the two monitors from Display Wars, the 16×10 display is in green:
By going 16:10, I would have nearly 1″ more screen vertically. The resolution wasn’t super important to me. I don’t own or watch HD content on my computer, so that 1080 resolution was irrelevant to me on the 16:9 monitor. The extra 1″ of vertical screen real estate was of more interest to me. The 1680×1050 resolution was much higher than my old 1024×768 anyway.
I spent nearly three hours at CompUSA comparing monitors. All they had on display were 16:9 monitors, except for one massive >30″ monitor that was 16:10. The Asus monitors looked better than the Acers, and I fell in love with the picture quality of a Samsung EX2220X. It was a 16:9 monitor, but the colors were so rich and brilliant. CompUSA has keyboards and mice at each monitor, and they make an internet connection available at each station. It was nice to be able to pull up websites I frequent to see how they would look on each monitor. Me and a scruffy-looking guy were both checking out Newegg to do comparison pricing and read product reviews. It felt kind of naughty to go to Newegg while in a CompUSA store using their internet connection. We both liked the Samsung monitor, and asked an employee if there were anymore in the back of the store. The website said there was only one in stock. Turned out the floor display was that one. I looked around some more and noticed something odd. All of the computers on display were hooked up to 16:10 Acer monitors. How interesting. I figure CompUSA discovered it was better to use the taller 16:10 monitors for the computer displays because the monitors look bigger than their 16:9 counterparts. Well, they are bigger, by more than 10 square inches. So I went back and forth between the computer section and the monitor section, trying to figure out if I liked a 16:10 monitor more than a 16:9 monitor. I liked the 16:10. It seemed less squished vertically and looked bigger (because it is). With that decision made, I went home to do even more research online. I focused on 16:10 monitors. The 16:9 Asus I have at work (VH222H-P) has decent brightness, no ghosting (5ms response rate), and no dead pixels. I decided to go with Asus because of that and because of how they looked better than the Acer monitors at CompUSA.
My monitor of choice was the Asus VW224U. It is a 16:10 monitor running at 1680×1050 resolution, with a 2ms response rate. The reviews also said it is a very bright monitor, and most people turn the brightness way down. The specs say 300 cd/m2, but that doesn’t sound brighter than most other monitors. This is not an LED-lit monitor. While LED-lit monitors use a lot less electricity (~18W vs ~55W), it is not yet a proven technology and can produce a blotchy lighting pattern on the monitor. There are two speakers in the monitor, but if they’re like my Asus at work, they probably don’t sound too great. They’re adequate, but my Logitech speakers would sound better. My boss has a 22″ Asus that turned out to be 16:10. It looked good, and I think it was the successor to the VW224U. I then checked a co-worker’s office and discovered that his monitor was the Asus VW224U! The very monitor I was thinking of buying. I was concerned about its ability to tilt down, since I tend to slouch and sit low (no legroom at my desk). I found the monitor tilted down adequately. After using it for a couple of minutes, I decided to order the VW224U from Amazon. Their price was the lowest. Additionally, there was a $20 rebate that would result in a net price of $129. That’s pretty awesome for a quality 22″ widescreen monitor.
I will note that it has one stuck green pixel and one dead pixel. The dead pixel is only noticeable when it is surrounded by a light color. The stuck green pixel is only noticeable when the surrounding pixels are dark. I’d rather have no imperfect pixels, but at least I don’t have a stuck red pixel. The first LCD monitor I ever used had a stuck red pixel. So annoying. That monitor also had an awful 25ms response rate. Just reading a Word document would result in ghosting. Whoever ordered that monitor at my office didn’t do their homework.
So here’s a photo of my monitor:
That’s Flight Simulator X, specifically the cockpit of the Boeing 737-800. I don’t normally fly using that view (I prefer the virtual cockpit), but it looked more impressive. The game looks great at the higher resolution. I also found some gorgeous liveries I could download for the aircraft. No more fake Orbital Airways. Now I can fly aircraft painted in United, Southwest, and KLM colors. See me taxiing in the rain at Indianapolis International Airport:
So this new monitor will be a boon for my gaming and my productivity. Here is a screenshot of the same ArcGIS work scenario as I showed above, but this time on my new higher-resolution monitor. I can actually see the map I’m working on!
I have also noticed that my photos look better. The photos look more brilliant and subtle lighting of dark surfaces is now visible. On my old monitor, dark areas were really dark and it was hard to see anything.
I’m sad about giving up on my old CRT, especially since it still works. This new monitor is pretty nice, though. I also lament being a sheep and finally jumping on the flat panel widescreen bandwagon. At least I bought a 16:10 monitor instead of a 16:9 monitor that all the sheeple buy.
