I was planning to get a new 16:10 monitor before my computer broke, but now it has become more important and urgent.

All the ones I've found are 1920x1200 (WUXGA), which is fine by me, but they're mostly 24" or 25" - which is ~55cm wide - that's an extra 15cm on my currentbroken 17" 1920x1200 screen which is ~40cm wide... maybe I'll end up sitting 40% further away. :/

When I looked in December, the choice seemed to be between ASUS ProArt or Iiyama ProLite - now it seems the latter have gone, and there's a choice of three:

ASUS ProArt PA24AC
£199 (from £272) from Ebuyer: https://www.ebuyer.com/875082-asus-proart-pa24ac-24-inch-monitor-pa24ac
£199 (from £359) from Asus: https://www.asus.com/uk/displays-desktops/monitors/proart/proart-display-pa24ac/

ASUS ProArt PA248QV
£245 from CCL: https://www.cclonline.com/90lm05k1-b01370-asus-proart-display-pa248qv-monitor-24-1-inch-1920-x-1200-wuxga-ips-panel-amd-freesync-black/
£189 (from £249) from Asus: https://www.asus.com/uk/displays-desktops/monitors/proart/proart-display-pa248qv/

ASUS ProArt PA248CNV
£240 from CCL: https://www.cclonline.com/90lm05k1-b03370-asus-proart-display-pa248cnv-24-inch-wuxga-75hz-ips-professional-monitor-465738/
£269 (down from £299) from Asus: https://www.asus.com/uk/displays-desktops/monitors/proart/proart-display-pa248cnv/

The specifications seem to be very similar, but with enough differences to complicate making a decision.

There are results for PA248QV on https://linux-hardware.org but not for the other two - this only proves the PA248QV works, not that the others don't; the only thing that matters monitor-wise is the interface, right?

They all do DisplayPort v1.2 and they all provide USB v3.2 hubs, so they'll be equally compatible under Debian?

The PA24AC has HDMI v2.0, whilst the others have v1.4, but I can't tell if there are any relevant features in v2 - I'm probably more likely to find the VGA port on the PA248QV useful...

Can anyone help identify any meaningful differences to influence a choice ... or just tell me to flip a three-sided coin and buy the result before they all sell out?

Also, I'm open to other 16:10 suggestions if they're in-stock and have compelling advantages that simplify the decision...

Attempts to find comparisons are just finding useless auto-generated sites, but I did I find one genuine human comparison of a PA248CRV and a PA248QV (and an Eizo 2456): https://misterfpga.org/viewtopic.php?t=6969

Their scores work out at:
PA248CRV 135/150
PA248QV 125/150
Eizo_2456 133/150

Some of their criteria seems specific to the MiSTer, but generally the CRV scores equal or slightly better in all areas, and their conclusion is "As a work/office screen the CRV is superior to the QV."

I guess the question becomes: are there any reasons not to spend the extra £50 and get the PA248CNV...?

Why 16:10 vs. 16:9 (1080p)?

That's the wrong question. Why would you not get a 16:10 monitor!?

Just ask user:CAER and user:CHRISSS and user:DAVE!! and user:GAJIT and user:MATT and user:MILKO and user:PNCOOL

Without trying them I'd only be guessing, but they all have the same type of panel, resolution etc. and near identical stats for performance. I suspect that the majority of parts are identical and that the differences in model are fishing for people looking for very specific spec values. The HDMI 2 thing is meaningless. None of the panels can do better than HD and 8 Bit colour so there's no reason for more than HDMI 1.4. If that model really does support HDMI 2 it's probably because Asus got a good deal on HDMI 2 parts during that manufacturing run.

In short, my guess, and it is a guess, is that these will be pretty well the same monitor. Well, the most expensive one appears to have USB C in it's hub, i.e. a proper 2-way port as opposed to simply USB for display. No idea whether that's a big deal for you.

Personally, I'd go for the cheapest. 

I hadn't noticed the 2-way USB hub, and not currently sure how I feel about it.

I found a review of the QV saying "One minor issue is the built-in power-save mode, which cannot be disabled" - so I checked the manuals and it might be saying all Asus monitors are set to go to sleep after 10 minutes!?

> All ASUS products with the ENERGY STAR logo comply with the ENERGY
> STAR standard, and the power management feature is enabled by default. The
> monitor and computer are automatically set to sleep after 10 and 30 minutes of
> user inactivity.

There's no mention of power management in the OSD section or elsewhere, and I can't find anything else online, so I'm hoping the reviewer just had a weird Windows quirk, and the statement is referring to monitor settings if you get an Asus computer, not a hard-coded timeout. :/

Again, no idea as I've never seen one of the Asus Pro Art monitors. That said, there are plenty of references online to energy-saving choices being part of the standard Pro Art menu choices. They simply wouldn't sell the range if they couldn't stay on unattended. You couldn't sit back and watch a film for instance.

Probably not useful to you but I think with monitors we're at the point where anything in that kinda 200-300 price range will be decent. We've just kinda nailed the technology at this point and there doesn't seem to be any discernable difference between different panels. They're all *perfectly good enough*.

I tell my monitors to not go to sleep at the driver level. I assume that would still work regardless of what settings the monitor itself exposes?

Because 16:10 are more difficult to replace, apparently?

And that's because 16:9 panels are the same aspect ratio as TVs, and have less physical screen space than the equivalent 16:10 screen. Hence they are cheaper to produce, hence why so many manufacturers have "standardised" on them.

16:10 offers more screen space and greater height. Personally I prefer 16:10 screens because I find that they feel less cramped than 16:9 and are better suited for code, documents, web pages - basically anything where there's more height than width. Despite this, they still have sufficient width for gaming, watching videos etc, so strike that perfect sweet-spot between work and entertainment.

@BOUGHTONP: I would recommend trying a 24" screen, they're not as big as you think, and 17" is remarkably small by modern standards. I went from a 19" 4:3 CRT to a 24" 16:10 screen back in t'olden days and quickly got used to the extra space. I then went up to a 27" screen, and then a few years ago (when that popped) I replaced it with a 30" 2560x1600 screen. Each time, I quickly got used to the extra screen space - such that if I work on a 24" screen now, it actually feels rather small. 

Right now, my home setup is a 30" 16:10 central monitor with two old Dell 20" 4:3 TFTs either side for when I'm working. The Dell screens (1600x1200) were liberated from the skip at work, and I find them super-useful for being able to see Outlook, Teams and my current work simultaneously, or for times when I'm working on multiple simultaneous spreadsheets. I struggle to cope now when I'm travelling and am restricted to one screen.

I use a 1080p and 1024x1280 (WXGA?) dual monitor setup. If I want to work with several windows open at once, I prefer the side-by-side method with (e.g.) tool palettes on one display and work window on the other. TBH I don't think I was even aware that 16:10 displays were a thing. If I were arsed about screen real estate beyond my current needs, I might go for an hdpi display. I used one at work (a large-screen, relatively recent iMac), because that's what they had (unfortunately iMacs didn't support multiple displays), and I can't say I've missed it terribly since I retired.

16:10 displays were the original aspect ratio when widescreen monitors first came along back in the mid-late 2000s. Pretty much all widescreen monitors were 16:10, as were widescreen laptop displays for a few years. Then enshitification came along as the manufacturers realised they could make cheaper screens by dropping to 16:9, and could market them more easily "Full HD" and all that, despite the resolution being less than their previous models (1920x1200 became 1920x1080 and all that).

Now they're pretty rare, outside of screens aimed at professional users with calibrated colour and whatnot. Personally, I see them as being a downgrade and always have done.

Thankfully they have returned to laptops in the past few years as they fit much better into the shape of a laptop chassis and avoid the massive top/bottom bezels that were common for a long time.

I ordered the PA248QV from Asus Store on Wednesday, and received order confirmation emails.

By Friday, having received no dispatch confirmation, I phoned to ask what was up. Was told it was stuck on "processing" for an unknown reason. I would get notification by end of day or early tomorrow (i.e. by Saturday morning), because they needed to check with the warehouse. I got the impression the CS agent was fobbing me off, so was unsurprised by the not having received any email.

The Asus Store is operated by "FiveTech Ltd", which is a trading name for "Laptop Outlet", and if I had thought to check before ordering I would have seen large numbers of bad reviews, and ordered from elsewhere instead.

So now I guess I wait until Monday to see if they actually dispatch it, or I start the hassle of getting a refund and go somewhere reliable.

I'm just glad they replaced CRT displays, and that I did too, 10-years later. Fetishizing tech is an expensive game.

> So now I guess I wait until Monday to see if they actually dispatch it, or I start the hassle of getting a refund and go somewhere reliable.

As expected, still no shipping notification, so I called to ask what was up, and was ultimately told it would be 2-4 working days from dispatch, and as that hasn't happened it wouldn't be with me tomorrow.

So I said I wanted to cancel, and they said they would get back to me later today, after they have confirmed with the warehouse team that it hasn't been dispatched. Uh... well, maybe they happen to have a courier pickup at that exact time or something, I dunno. This guy didn't seem as useless as the one I spoke to on Friday, but didn't fill me with confidence either.

A few hours later, realising it was almost 5pm and I hadn't heard anything, I phoned back, and this time spoke to a helpful and polite CS agent who was able to reassure me that it will be cancelled, said it takes 3-5 working days to refund, and so to call back if that hasn't happened by this time next week.

Meanwhile, I ordered from CCL who will deliver tomorrow, and took 38 minutes from order acknowledgement to send dispatch notification and tracking code.

Let's open the bets. Does Pete receive his refund? Or two monitors?...

I'll take "they both arrive, but the first one will be a mis-boxed 16:9 and a week later a damaged refurb is left outside the door." :<

Never change.

Tough remit.