Closing Thoughts

When we first opened the box to unpack the HP w2207, we were pretty impressed by the outward appearance. Many of the less expensive LCDs end up with very cheap stands, but HP clearly didn't go that route. On the other hand, this 22" LCD is anything but cheap. We have been very impressed with all of the 24" and larger LCDs that we've tested, and with the higher price tag of the w2207 we were hopeful that we might find a 22" LCD that could separate itself from the crowd. Did it manage to do this in our opinion? Not really.

In terms of features, you do get all of the necessary options. The cheaper LCDs often cut corners in terms of construction and features, and HP didn't follow their example. You get an attractive, durable LCD with a stand that provides tilt, height, and pivot adjustments. The stand alone is worth at least $50 relative to what you get with entry level 22" LCDs. You also get a couple of USB ports, and to top it all off you get a mirror finish on the front of your display. Truthfully, we could do without the reflective surfaces, but that's open to personal opinion.

When it comes to actually using the HP w2207, there were some areas where it clearly surpassed other LCDs. It produces some of the best blacks that we've yet seen from an LCD, and this in turn helps it to achieve high contrast ratios. HP informed us that the glossy LCD panel helps in this regard, and we do have to agree that it helps to give more vibrancy to colors and images. If you can deal with the fingerprints that are sure to accumulate over time, you might find a lot to like with this display. However, there are drawbacks.

Color accuracy was at best average among LCDs. The w2207 placed near the bottom of the charts in all of our Delta E results, before or after calibration. We still feel most people could live with the color accuracy, but the real question is whether they're willing to pay this much for a 22" LCD that comes with a one-year warranty. Both Dell and Gateway offer 24" LCDs that come with three-year warranties for around $650 (give or take depending on any rebates or promotions that might be running). You can also find the 24" Samsung 245BW for under $500, although that would be without a three-year warranty. At a base price of $360 and $110 more to get a three-year warranty, we would be far more inclined to upgrade to one of the 24" offerings. You get a better LCD panel technology (S-PVA instead of TN+film), a larger display size, and an increased resolution. On some of the 24" LCDs like the Dell and Gateway offerings, you also get multiple inputs that would allow the display to function as an HDTV, or something that could be used with a gaming console.

If you're trying to keep the price below $400 and you don't care about the relatively short warranty, the HP w2207 might be worth a look. There aren't very many 22" LCDs that actually offer a good-quality stand, and the dark blacks are definitely attractive. For a lot of people, however, we would recommend either saving money and getting one of the more economical 22" LCDs or else spend more and get a 24" LCD. Among 22" LCDs, the Samsung 225BW as an example also offers pivot and height adjustment and costs about $100 less, though black levels on that particular model aren't as good as on the w2207.

There are pros and cons to any display, so as usual the individual will need to decide what features and qualities are most important and choose accordingly. The HP w2207 may very well be the best 22" LCD currently on the market, but despite their popularity 22" LCDs are not at present able to match the overall quality of other LCDs. In this case, you may end up paying more relative to a 20" LCD, only to get a lower quality TN panel. For some, the extra 2" in size may be enough to justify that tradeoff, but for once we're not going to recommend the larger size without some reservations.

Printing Results
POST A COMMENT

43 Comments

View All Comments

  • Bjoern77 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link

    You'll find that Monitor to be very popular in Europe, specially Germany due to it's low price.
    Well - low price compared to other monitors.

    EG, the Dell 2407 WFP HC is supposed to cost around 1000$ here, the older version is on "sale" for about 850$. If i see the US-Prices for tfts...ouch. Same goes for a lot of other monitors. The HP is the first i noticed on the us markt which seem to be on a European price level, which, i assume, is at least 25% higher.
    Reply
  • trajan - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link

    The one thing I immediately noticed from the review was the difference between the Gateway 24" and the Dell 24". I've never seen these ratings before -- it looks like in most catagories the Gateway is superior. Am I reading this right? I thought the Dell was the hands down 24" champion! Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link

    The Gateway has a brighter backlight, but in most other areas I felt the 2407WFP and the FPD2485W were about the same. I prefer the appearance of the Dell LCD over the Gateway LCD, and the extremely bright backlight on the Gateway means that you usually have to spend more time tuning things if you don't want to be blinded. If you had them both set to the same intensity, however, I don't think most people would be able to tell the difference between the panels. Reply
  • nilepez - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link

    I'm still using an old CRT, and I don't know why one would compare at a monitor with a max resolution of 1600x1050 to a CRT that was likely capable at least 1800x1440 and 1920x1440 was fairly common. Mine goes higher, but the refresh rate is too slow at that point.

    I personally think that the 24" displays are the first ones that are comparable to 21" monitors. The 22" monitors are more comparable to some of the better 19" monitors (though I suppose there may have been crappy 21" monitors with a max usable res of 16x12.

    I personally wish I could justify the 30" monitors, but at current prices, I'd be better off going dual monitor with 2 24" models (desktop space is king :) )
    Reply
  • Jodiuh - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link

    Have you seen a nice 20in S-IPS next to your old CRT? I have an older 19in CRT and it pales in comparison to the NEC or Dell panels. Reply
  • yyrkoon - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link

    I had a professional grade 21" CRT next to my 19" WS LCD, and I have to say that the LCD is much, MUCH better for vibrance/image sharpness. The LCD to boot was also 1/5th-1/6th the cost of the 21" CRT . . . Reply
  • nilepez - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link

    Probably not, given that most stores carry crappy monitors, but I'm really not willing give up real estate to move to a flat screen.

    even at 1920x1440, I feel cramped if I'm I've got more than 2 instances of jedit open (and I'd really like to have 4, and occasionally more, in most cases).

    24" monitors are the smallest monitors with sufficient resolution, although even then, my desktop shrink by almost 20%.
    Reply
  • Great Googly Moogly - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link

    Well, it seems you're forgetting about pixel pitch. Those 1920x1200 24" have quite a high pixel pitch. Certainly a 20.1" LCD with a 1600x1200 resolution is better for you?

    The only LCDs with a decent pixel pitch not stuck in 1991 (seriously) are the 1280x1024 17" (too small, physically, though), 1600x1200 20.1" and the 2560x1600 30".

    The new 1920x1200 26-27" are really atrocious, and the most popular 1680x1050 22" is not up to my standards either--hence the main reason (out of many) why I'm still on an iiyama CRT. And if this trend is still going in a few years, we'll have 720p 40" computer monitors. And everyone will love them.

    So sick and tired of computer display tech going steady backwards since the 90s.
    Reply
  • jc44 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link

    To be fair 2001 was a good year for displays - IBM built the first T221s (24" 3840x2400) :-) 2006 was not such a good year - IBM ceased production of T221s with nothing even vaguely equivalent in sight from anybody :-(
    Reply
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link

    Didn't they cost somewhere around $30,000? no wonder they disappeared. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now