[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Actually you were talking about Vert-, I on other the hand was pointing out your FOV worries are just about ungrounded.

 

[Princess Garnet]

Actually you were talking about Vert-, I on other the hand was pointing out your FOV worries are just about ungrounded.

Don't look now. My point just went right over your head.

 

[Jakat]

If you play a game like starcraft 2 that FOV is very important. It may look like a tiny difference but it is a very important difference in many games.

 

[whypowt]

I made this exact argument a couple of months ago at work, when my boss wanted to move from 22" 16:10 monitors to 23" 16:9 1080p ones as a department standard. A lot of people at my job have a hard enough time seeing the 22" monitors at 1680x1050 clearly, let alone a 23" at 1920x1080.

your boss is an idiot, the physical hieght of the 23" may be a few mm bigger than the 22", so pixel pitch will be about the same, all it will add is more width, text size will be identical on both.

....how to blow $100's for very little gain in 1 easy lesson.

 

[46480]

Have bought a couple of Logitech mouse, keyboards, web cameras.
All of them have been rock solid.

One of the best brands you can find in local shops here.

 

[Princess Garnet]

First off, sorry if I came off slightly rude in my last post. You just seemed to miss my point, only to turn around and say it was ungrounded.

What I meant was, you can't call the extra width "nothing" and then turn around and clamor about the same ratio of difference in the vertical aspect. That's just a little silly. You yourself called it small, so if anything, you were making your own point about the lack of vertical space a bit more ungrounded, only to turn around and say my point was ungrounded.

If you play a game like starcraft 2 that FOV is very important. It may look like a tiny difference but it is a very important difference in many games.

I saw this difference in Tiberium Wars when trying 1920x1200 and 1920x1080. The latter had a fair bit more FOV. It's not an earth shattering difference, no, but it's the same percentage difference as the amount of lost vertical space.

Were I to upgrade now, why go from one older standard to another one going that way? Games are being made for 16:9. If I were to upgrade, THAT would be one of the highest considerations, NOT desktop space, because if THAT were a huge priority, I'd just be better off staying where I'm at. The point of more desktop space at the same width, again while true, doesn't matter as much as the other things, like the cost and the FOV. The extra vertical space at the desktop is the only real argument, and in the end, I'd learn to live with it. Less FOV and more cost trump that to a buyer with considerations like me (again, were I a buyer at the moment).

 

[Phil]

Phil, I've never seen a Playstation 3 menu or whatever that is, or that game, but as n_w95482 said, it looks stretched to me. I can't deal with stretching... at all.

You guys (Playstation 3 owners/gamers), what reason do you have to desire 16:10? Desktop/PC users do have a legitimate reason to, but for games, no. Why would you want it? For games, it's nothing but less FOV.

Phil, you're not getting 16:10. All you're doing is getting 16:9 and stretching it, which defeats the purpose of even playing it on 16:10 to begin with.This is one of the things I was getting at. If I was buying a monitor right now (which would probably be ~24" or so), I'm not paying a premium to get 120 pixels for the desktop and end up with less FOV in games. If I were to upgrade now, one of the main reasons would be for the FOV in games (which is why I showed Tiberium Wars as an example). The extra desktop space argument, while true, looses merit in my case. It is already going to be less than what I'm coming from anyway. Therefore, we can deduce I'm not doing the move for the desktop space, rather simply the extra horizontal space/FOV in games. So why would I move to something that has less desktop space than what I have now AND less FOV in games than 16:9?That's not fully true. I already said this.

People have this false misconception that going from 4:3 to 16:x is some massive, massive difference compared to 16:10 to 16:9, but I already showed with numbers that going from 16:10 to 16:9 is exactly "only" half of that difference.

If it makes it easier than comparing aspect ratios, let's use an example with resolutions.

4:3 is 1920x1440
16:10 is 1920x1200
16:9 is 1920x1080

What do we get when we compare? 1440 minus 1200 is 240. 1200 minus 1080 is 120. What's 240 compared to 120? It's double. Therefore the drop from 16:10 to 16:9 is exactly "only" half that of 4:3 to 16:10. People just have a common misconception otherwise.

By the way, can a staff member split/move the posts that have to do with aspect ratio/resolution/FOV into it's own new topic (called "Aspect Ratio" or something), since this has gotten off track, but remained a good discussion?

I know I am not getting 16:10. I also do not prefer to play my PS3 on a 16:10 aspect ratio. But as of now I have my PC and PS3 hooked up to the same monitor, my 28". To me it's not a big deal. I sold my 23" that was 1920 x 1080p that I usually played my PS3 on. And I never noticed the difference. I was actually surprised about how un-stretched the picture looked. Since my monitor has a feature called "Full HD 1080p Capability" that could be the reason. Seriously, I barely noticed the difference. I usually run multiple monitors anyway so it was never a really big deal for me in the first place.

For you, 16:9 would be the best deal, as yes it does provide more viewing area in games. As a good compromise, get a 2048 x 1156 screen. You will get a little more actual area to play with while keeping the same aspect ratio. I had a 23.5" Dell with the same res and my PS3 games looked great on it as well.

Oh and Masta...I resent that .

Everytime I go to Microcenter I see all the high end mice and I like nah....Ill get it next time, ill stick with my $15 dollar one. One of these days I will get a respectable gaming mouse. Not now though

 

[n_w95482]

your boss is an idiot, the physical hieght of the 23" may be a few mm bigger than the 22", so pixel pitch will be about the same, all it will add is more width, text size will be identical on both.

....how to blow $100's for very little gain in 1 easy lesson.

The pixel pitch on the 23" is slightly smaller. The price between the two monitors is about $10 apart.

 

[Princess Garnet]

As a good compromise, get a 2048 x 1156 screen.

How common are those? I've always taken interest to that niche resolution. From what I use now (1600x1200), losing 44 vertical pixel rows is nearly nothing (for reference, the taskbar in Windows 7 is ~40 pixels if I remember right), so it'd be about the same but with the width of 2048 (I can get it now, but 2048x1536 is so small and blurry). That actually does sound like the perfect one.

 

[whypowt]

The pixel pitch on the 23" is slightly smaller. The price between the two monitors is about $10 apart.

i thought he was replacing the 22" with 23" not choosing which one to upgrade to from say 19"? maybe i misread, but it seems a small useless upgrade if 22 to 23, unless he is trading them in for $10ea - better to wait for 27" to drop, then upgrade, otherwise your boss is still an idiot, unless he is just replacing faulty 22", as making good tech obsolete for such little gain is counter-productive.

 

[n_w95482]

What we do with parts is recommend which ones for other departments to order. We previously had the 22", now we're having them order the 23" instead. Usually when they're replacing a monitor, it's a dead 15" LCD, 17" LCD, or some sort of CRT. Most people at my work don't have the desk space for a 27".

 

[whypowt]

ok, now that's cleared up, your boss is no longer an idiot then....

 

[Phil]

How common are those? I've always taken interest to that niche resolution. From what I use now (1600x1200), losing 44 vertical pixel rows is nearly nothing (for reference, the taskbar in Windows 7 is ~40 pixels if I remember right), so it'd be about the same but with the width of 2048 (I can get it now, but 2048x1536 is so small and blurry). That actually does sound like the perfect one.

Relatively rare. And virtually unheard of with an IPS panel. But my Dell was really nice though, the panel looked much better then similar panels in the same class.

The Dell is on the right.

 

[46480]

*Note to self.

Remember to pay a stealth visit to Phil's, Spyhop's, RAP's, DS's and @ruantec's houses.

Got it.

 

[Leiw]

Most Logitech products I've owned have always worked well until I decided it was time to replace them with newer tech. Only my 2.1 Z4 speaker set is starting to make weird noises after 4 years of use. Will probably still keep it for now as it only does it every once in a while.

 

[Princess Garnet]

Maybe Logitech wants to capture my heart afterall.

My speakers have, finally, all but gone out. At this point, I am lucky to get one channel coming in, let alone two, and that's after playing with them for too long. After seeing Spyhop and few others mention their good service (why not say something sooner!?), I figured I had nothing to lose by at least trying.

The good news is, they are taking care of me. This is a bit odd too since Newegg's page (which is where I bought it) says the Z2300s have a two year limited warranty, and it was three years to the day that I initially contacted Logitech about this. If I remember right, it was a few months after the two year mark that I started having this problem, and even at that point, it wasn't yet bad enough, which is why I initially thought I was in the dark due to an infamous flaw and poor design decision on Logitech's part. Well, they're taking care of it, which is good regardless.

The potentially bad part? They no longer have the part number in stock, and want to give me Z623s as replacement instead.

After reading around, these sound like a small step down. They are smaller, and seemingly have less power all around. They are said to have lacking mids, and many comparisons are done with the Z2200s and Z2300s (they are the same thing save the Z2200s had better satellites) and the Z2300s come out on top. They are probably offering me these since they are it's successor and closest match since the Z2300s aren't in production/stock anymore.

So... I'm not sure how to feel. One one hand, they are taking care of it (seemingly with the warranty out, but maybe mine had it, or maybe they are taking care of me since it's an infamous issue). On the other hand, I have had to deal with the issue and get a potential step down in the end.

I'm going to do it though. I have no speakers otherwise (well, there's that $20 no name set I have, but that's for my HDTV). Logitech's support get's an A (not A+, but A). They took care of it relatively quickly, apologized for the small delay, and were very friendly and no hassle to the point. I'm still going to definitely look elsewhere for my next actual speaker purchase, but I won't count them out. I know I just got bad luck draws but it does impact my perception.

I still have to post pictures of my new monitor anyway, so when I also get those, you'll see both. I just hope they aren't bad.

P.S. I wonder if my Rumblepad II would qualify for an F510 to even it out...

 

[n_w95482]

Good to hear that Logitech support is doing something about it. I've been wondering how well my G27 wheel will stand up to my abuse, your post puts my mind at rest a little bit .

 

[Princess Garnet]

Here's the comparison write up I was shown from someone.

http://forums.logitech.com/t5/Speak...t5/Speakers/Is-Logitech-Z-623-the-true-successor-of-Logitech-Z-2300/td-p/541244

Basically, you can see the side effect of our societies drive for "cheaper cheaper cheaper" stuff. Other companies come in with cheaper stuff, and people flock to it, so Logitech had to respond, and the ones I have are one of the last "good" proprietary 2.1 setups, and Logitech's closest best now is worse than what I have.

 

[whypowt]

sound quality has been diminishing for a while now - i look at my 13yr old 8ohm dual 7" woofer 4-way stereo [2.0] speakers now, and mourn for the day i have to replace them [will likely have to custom make my own] now it's 6 or 4ohm [2.1-7.1] pieces of s**t with smaller speakers.