Woodgrain makes everything better!

Another "monitor" that would be nice in some situations:

Input: Accepts HDMI. Does not accept video inputs that don't carry audio. Does accept audio-only input.
Display: None. May allow passthrough to another device that does display input.
Speakers: Good ones. The "monitor" should be capable of serving as the primary speakers for a device. It doesn't have to be Bose quality (though that would make sense for a more expensive version), but should be better than most monitors.

(Of course, one could probably just call these speakers that just happen to accept HDMI input.)

Yea, one would argue that a monitor is by definition a device that displays data.

I like 16:10. Currently using a ancient 21" 1680x1050-monitor. I don't see myself replacing it for the foreseeable future, as it's a very nice screen, and modern 16:10s are very expensive. The cheapest 1200p I find is twice the price of the cheapest 1080p I find. That's a lot to pay for the extra 120 vertical pixels :P

I call bullshit. No one's computer desk is that neat and tidy. Totally faked pic.


:P

Uh... I can take a picture of my desk at home if you like.

I have a Dell IPS monitor for art work and a VA panel from BenQ for gaming (GW2450)... IPS gaming is alright but i need to blast gamma to much.. my VA panel was the same price and i have zero input lag and really nice color representation.

I do both gaming and photography but monitors made for gaming tend not to have good color accuracy and color accurate monitors tend to be too slow for gaming. My ideal monitor would be a single screen that can do both.

You are in luck, good sir!

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dell-u3415w-34-inch-ultra-wide-curved-monitor,4186-6.html

Got it already, with the exception of the screen size and aspect ratio. Currently running a Qnix 27 inch, PLS monitor (essentially same or better as IPS), 2560x1440, overclocked to 120hz, and due to only having a single dual-link dvi output, it has low latency. If this was 30" and was 16x10, it would be the perfect monitor for me.

Can't reply to everyone but I see some very interesting points :

-Cooling for monitors? Makes sense now that I think about it since OCing other stuff makes them hotter as well. But how do you cool one? The image I get off the top of my head is sticking a laptop cooler to the back :D. I'd like to try to overclock my current one when I eventually upgrade to another.

-4:3 is too rare. I've been using 16:9 my whole life for PCs but I still hate wider aspect ratios in my camera with a passion. I always wondered why anyone would want an image that wide. For gaming, I'm not too sure since I haven't played on a non 16:9 monitor but I don't think they should be the only ones produced. I bet you can get killer horizons with monitors with more space up top and down below.

-I definitely don't get why people use 21:9. Isn't that more of a display-bar than anything else? I can't imagine using one but I bet I'll be frustrated. And what if you play The Order:1886 on it. It'll be like a ribbon of a glass screen. Or do people use it for getting dual monitor-like setup without the borders?

-I wish more games would prioritize framerate over eyecandy. The possibilities for more skill based games is too exciting. Games like Dark Souls with its parry timing or sniping sims with all the realism elements or shootemups would be sweet at those framerates.

I currently have a cheap 1080p TN panel that I'm starting to get tired of. I would love to upgrade to a 2560x1600 screen. That way I could play games in Dosbox with perfect integer scaling of 320x240, 640x480, and 1024x768 resolutions. And it would be less taxing on my video card than 4K when playing modern games. And a VA or IPS/PLS panel would look so much better.... sigh....

I have a cheap 1080p monitor which usually tears in dosbox games. Even if it is Benq.

A 52 inch LED Sharp Quatron.

I love my monitor ^_^