Bigger is not always better

An additional piece of info regarding the Samsung 205BW 20-inch widescreen monitor review posted before. When considering monitors, you want the sharpest picture available at a price you are willing to pay. Unfortunately, it's not necessarily in the best interest of the manufacturer to make that decision an easy one. Specsmanship has for a long time been the bane of the electronics buyer.

As I indicated in my previous review of the Samsung, I believe that, for now at least, this monitor is at the sweet spot in terms of price and technology. What I meant by that is that the pixel size of this monitor is optimum for a sharp, crisp picture without breaking the bank.

Well, now you don't have to take my word for it. As you can see in the following graph, I've plotted the relative pixel sizes (in terms of total volume) for several representative monitors with diagonal measures ranging from 19" to 24". I'm sure you'll recognize the model numbers I've used to create the plot, since I've tried to pick some of the newest and hottest models around. Take a look:

Monitors used for this graph:

• 19": Acer 1916WS
• 20": Samsung SyncMaster 205BW
• 21": Gateway FPD2185W
• 22": Samsung SyncMaster CX223BW
• 24": Dell 2405FPW

If you want a clear, crisp, sharp picture, you need a lot of small pixels. With today's technology, that means a 20" widescreen monitor with 1680x1050 pixel resolution. Bigger screens simply stretch the same number of pixels over a larger area and, at the same viewing distance, will make the same picture less sharp! Even the Dell 24" flat panel, going for approx. $800 today, has larger pixels than the 20" samsung, which can be had for around 300 bucks.

If you are going to hang the monitor on a wall and step far away from it, then bigger is usually better. But if you are going to be sitting the monitor on a desk and trying to do some serious work on it, you don't necessarily want more diagonal inches.

Buyer beware...and good luck!