Beoworlders,

I'm currently a owner of a AG Neovo E-17 lcd, but I felt in love with the design of the 6. The problem is that I don't know if this is a good choice for the pc, because of the  screen reaction and the resolution (or are there mkII mkII types ?). So my question is if there is someone on this forum who uses the 6-22 or maybe even the BC 6-23 for the pc ?
 

It's fine if you can live with the screen resolution. A vertical resolution of 768 pixels is worse than that of the MacBook 13" consumer-based laptop. If you're planning on using an LCD for work, then you probably would need something with a better vertical resolution.

The Apple 20" LCD is dirt cheap these days. Even the 23" is affordable.

I use my pc for video's and sometimes games so I quess 768 pixels isn't that good . I probably will buy the Neovo E-22, or I will smash the display out of the Beovision 6 and put another in it . Actually I hope B&O will release a MKII model, because I really love the design

The Neovo P-19 looks cool too but it hasn't got the charme of the Beovision

 
 

I would buy a mac LCD monitor. So much cheaper and SO much more appropriate.

I agree with the others who have provided feedback. Clearly, the Beocentre 6 is out of the question on price alone.

Many B&O dealers use the Beovision 6-22 for their own PC needs, but I would not..

£399 is a lot to pay for a 20" monitor with, it has to be said, decidedly average specifications. It may look nice but then so does the BV6 - the argument there was that the BV6 is expensive and the specs aren't as good as they could be. You can certainly pick a better panel than the Apple it depends how much you value the look.

If the price doesn't matter to you, I would definately go for the BeoVision 6. I can highly recommend it!

Ruivar

In a certain way the price does matter to me. I'm now searching in a pc monitor class <1000 with really good specs, but the looks of the Bv6 is for me worth the double if the specs would be the same as a screen below 1000,- euro's, and I quess (if I see the replies) that it is not .