Just note that an LCD monitor that only costs $140 is not going to be a good one. I'd consider ~$200 the bare minimum (and I'd, personally, spend much more if I was buying one now). This is your display, afterall. People go and plunge ~$200 on video cards that they replace sooner, and only have a difference visually that's mostly excluded to games, so why is the monitor something people seem to want to half skimp on?
I know it's your opinion, but what is the reason for considering 5:4? I think 5:4 is a joke. I still think it a waste even inventing that ratio/specific resolution. We were already at 4:3, then suddenly we go narrower, only to immediately shift to widescren. Yeah, that made alot of sense. If you're going away from 4:3, go widescreen. 5:4 is a ratio that only makes sense for internet use/basic PCs. The extra horizontal space is supposed to give you more room to work in that direction (since it's up/down that web pages are usually scrolled). That's the only reason I can come up with for why that ratio/resolution was invented, but honestly, I think it's a joke (along with the fact that most 1280x1024 monitors are TN panel and low grade trash anyway, whereas the widescreen TN ones of higher price are usually half decent).
LCD Panel Technology Explained - S-IPS, S-PVA, MVA and TN
__________________
"Without forgiveness, life is governed by an endless cycle of resentment and retaliation."
"Judge people not of their mistakes, but on how they handle those mistakes."
Core 2 Duo E8600 @4.0GHz- ASUS Maximus Formula (Rampage Formula BIOS 0701) - 8GB (4x 2GB) Corsair XMS2 DDR2 800
MSI nVidia GeForce 8800GT 512MB - 4x Western Digital Caviar 6400AAKS (2,560GB total) - PC Power & Cooling Silencer 610
IBM P275 21" CRT (1600x1200 @100Hz) - Logitech Z-2300 2.1 Sound System - Windows 7 64-bit & Windows XP SP3