I did not do any review on the ST series (unless you mention other sites), I only put up my personal comment since I'm having both 24" IPS and TN panel. It would be absurd to compare between 2 items with different class. The IPS I'm using cost RM3K+ retail and only can be ordered by business customer while on the other hand, the TN just RM679 and for any end consumer.

Value wise, definitely ST2410 the winner, nuff said. It provides almost all that you need for moderate to high satisfaction level (depending on how you set for yourself). Look at our maDmaN, he's happy with his dual ST2410s despite the white thingy stucking in the middle

Just I have not try on the U2410 myself, but I suppose it almost the same with my LP2475w
Yes, DVI / HDMI = Digital while VGA = Analogue. Despite the facts that VGA technology might have improved all these while, but DVI still provides the least fraction of signal loss. Go all the way to the LCD's native resolution on DVI or HDMI, you couldn't be wrong

The latter part... well... GOOGLE!

I asked yesterday~ blue ray is the only HD available material and it seems no Full HD material is available except maybe rare trailers~ so I seriously think that many people have been duped to think that the better the screen, the better the quality~ it's only partially correct as the input quality is as important when it comes to the second half; the pixels or detail of a video shown~ now I can only watch normal DVDs which I can see a large difference from smaller screens; I see it being more blocky 

thanks, I didn't know that your old one is an IPS~ IPS wins from what I've seens through pics shown in this thread~

I think I got the value out of it~ but I disagree with DELL having good customer service~ I went home to check and still fail to find the 9-digit service tag needed to get through their toll free line for CS~

I asked yesterday~ blue ray is the only HD available material and it seems no Full HD material is available except maybe rare trailers~ so I seriously think that many people have been duped to think that the better the screen, the better the quality~ it's only partially correct as the input quality is as important when it comes to the second half; the pixels or detail of a video shown~ now I can only watch normal DVDs which I can see a large difference from smaller screens; I see it being more blocky 

Frankly speaking, a lot of people being lured to Full HD marketing gimmick as well.

The reason why I said so, is because a lot of people have a misconception that Full HD monitor has sharper and has better screen display.

In real fact, if your source is not full HD resolution, there is little difference between a Full HD monitor with non-full HD monitor. As at that time (without Full HD source aka 1920 x1080), it is the panel quality matter the most.

Want to utilise the HD, then you must have both, ie. monitor + source.

i'm hungry for HD material now~ and I don't think compressing video files will get u better quality, unless it's variable bitrate setting as bitrate is the determinant for quality but not noticeable at some inactive screens~

ips wins over led displays anytime of the day
u can get the Viewsonic VX2268WM for around RM1.3k

Frankly speaking, a lot of people being lured to Full HD marketing gimmick as well.

The reason why I said so, is because a lot of people have a misconception that Full HD monitor has sharper and has better screen display.

In real fact, if your source is not full HD resolution, there is little difference between a Full HD monitor with non-full HD monitor. As at that time (without Full HD source aka 1920 x1080), it is the panel quality matter the most.

Want to utilise the HD, then you must have both, ie. monitor + source.

Is that true ? IPS wins on LED ?

Agree , I dont like full HD , still prefer 19:10 , since mostly for me , getting more work space.How often of you all watching HD movie ? You must need a real HD format to fully perform on a Full HD LCD.

16:9 seems "elongated" for ordinary computer task. But 16:9 is the trend right now. It is must difficult to find a 16:10 monitor, majority goes to 16:9 ratio.

The most annoying marketing gimmick/strategy of Full HD is when sales person try to convince customer to buy a Full HD TV to watch Astro. 

Astro is on 480 if not mistaken, and even the new Astro Beyond which is HD, you just need a HD ready monitor which can full utilise the HD already, as Astro Beyond is under 720 or 1080i which is not yet Full HD definition as well.

Correct me if I am wrong.

We are still seriously lack source of Full HD until nowadays.

Frankly speaking, a lot of people being lured to Full HD marketing gimmick as well.

The reason why I said so, is because a lot of people have a misconception that Full HD monitor has sharper and has better screen display.

In real fact, if your source is not full HD resolution, there is little difference between a Full HD monitor with non-full HD monitor. As at that time (without Full HD source aka 1920 x1080), it is the panel quality matter the most.

Want to utilise the HD, then you must have both, ie. monitor + source.

Yea Full HD LCD but without FullHD movie source... it will make your movie even worse if you only watching 500mb movie.

depends what its encoded to.
if 1gb for a 3min music file...then i wouldnt like to imagine the size of HD movies and how they would even publicly release them on physical formats playable on a entertainment system...

Need URGENT advices... Kindly advise...
Say I've a monitor with following specs:

[1] Native resolution: 1920 x 1080
[2] VGA and DVI inputs
Say my graphic card has the following specs:
[1] Max. resolution (VGA: 2048x1536; DVI: 2560x1600) (my graphic card is 8600GT, is the resolution correct?)
[2] VGA and DVI outputs
If the resolution is set to be lower than the native resolution, e.g. 800x600, the following are observed:

[i] Monitor VGA connected to graphic card VGA: the image is not sharp with colour bleed and text looks fuzzy due to the Analog to digital conversion and the pixel mapping goes astray.
[ii] Monitor DVI connected to graphic card DVI: the displayed text sharpness will still be as good as when the monitor resolution is set at native resolution.

Do you think the above comments are correct?

---

Added on May 7, 2010, 10:59 amAnyone own or view or evaluate a BenQ G2222HDL before?
How's its performance (e.g. image quality, text sharpness, etc.) compared to monitor [2], [3], and [4]?
Is the screen of monitor [1] a "matte display" or "glossy display"?
[1] BenQ G2222HDL
http://www.benq.com/products/LCD/?product=1617

[2] Samsung SM-2233SN 22" Widescreen LCD Monitor
[3] Viewsonic VA2213W 22" TFT Monitor
[4] BenQ G2220HD - LCD display - TFT - 21.5"

What about displaying a 10MP photo on a Full HD (1920x1080) monitor and a HD Ready (1024x768) monitor.  Do they have any difference?