Tom Reviews 13 LCD Displays 254
n3r0.m4dski11z noted that Tom's Hardware has a review of 13 LCD Displays
for anyone who has been thinking about making the leap from the CRT to that
fancy shmantsy LCD stuff thats all the rage with the kids these days.
As usual, they do a pretty good job explaining the issues. In this
case comparing CRT and LCD technology, as well as covering a ton of
screens.
Slashdot is the Tom's Update Notification (Score:4, Insightful)
When a new story is posted at Tom's, it gets front page status here. Shouldn't there be a "daily updates at well known hardware sites" category for those of us who go to those sites anyways? I just don't see what the point behind Slashdot getting cluttered with a "posting notification" for Tom's, Sharky, Anandtech, etc.
the year of the LCD... (Score:4, Insightful)
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Re:Samsung screwed the pooch - Boycott (Score:1, Insightful)
I, as a consumer, have been underrated by Samsung. I *just* check websites, and it's been a long time since I don't buy computer magazines. I am taking it personal. They don't want web users as consumers ? Fine. I will boycott Samsung. As a system administrator, taking care of 100+ machines, will NEVER more buy Samsung again. I am officially boycotting Samsung.
Suggest you guys do the same. And write letters to Samsung, so they can learn how they screwed up.
And, FYI, I am in no way related to Tom's Hardware.
Re:Samsung screwed up (Score:3, Insightful)
So you wouldn't buy from one of the LCD market/value leaders because they didn't cater to Tom's crew? As far as your feelings on Tom's, I don't know if you'd find industry wide agreement: I personally have seen some bizarro conclusions, and some personal biases and agendas (i.e. like issues like this where he or his crew didn't get a sample in a timely manner and it turns into a personal agenda against whichever company he doesn't like that week). I have little respect for any reviews that rely upon the goodwill of companies either: If Tom's is all that successful that they deserve such props then they should head down to the latest computer store and pick up the monitors (so they're testing actual retail samples rather than picks of the litter), selling them at auction or whatever afterwards to recoup most of the cost. Otherwise they end up in this "love/hate" relationship with OEMs and it seriously affects every review: there is always a colour of bias.
Why no Apple Displays? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not as if Apple's monitors only work on their hardware.
Re:the year of the LCD... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with getting that lower price is that the manufacturers are seeing LCD as a cash cow, and a quick and easy method of getting their development costs back.
Re:Redundant Title (Score:2, Insightful)
What about Apple? (Score:1, Insightful)
I was in a store watching a DVD on one of their widescreen studo displays and it was breahtaking.
Even for PC users these things should be considered.
LCD's and pre-press? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Redundant Title (Score:2, Insightful)
> CRT tube
> ATM machne
> PIN number
> GPS system
> SSN number
> >
> It's fun when acronyms become words.
Hey! You forgot GNU's Not UNIX! ;)
Re:What about dot pitch? (Score:2, Insightful)
Very bad review (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm naive, but I'd say two very relevant qualities of an LCD display, hell any display, are size and resolution.
As far as I can tell, few to none of the "Test Tests" pages provide this information.
The "Conclusion" is actually just a summary of monitor properties with no rankings or opinions gathered presumably from a "review" process. Even then, the summary doesn't include size or resolution.
On the first page, there's no description why these values are not relevant nor significant for the review. Instead, there's three paragraphs regarding why Samsung-France is big and mean for not sending a unit to "review". Not only does that seem like last-page material, it seems unprofessional to even print.
Going back the introductory pages, I did find some references to "only of limited interest for a 15" monitor", and a few other references to "768 pixels". So, after correlating and cross-referencing text from a number of pages in the review, I can make the guess that all the monitors have 15" diagonal with max resolution 1024x768.
Considering the quality of both the review process and the journalism, Samsung was right to not send them a monitor. And, I'm right to resume my practice of never visiting Toms Hardware.
Re:Samsung screwed up (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case, it is a short-term, long-term thing. By relying on vendor test models, Tom's is entering a dance that it cannot win with its outsider posturing.
So Sansung decides it does not want to be part of a review. So Tom's posts a very unprofessional rant about it. Do you think Samsung is ever going to send Tom review units again?
Now, on the short-term, it makes Samsung look bad. A popular and generally respected Web guide runs a review of products and you are not in it. Tom gets a some baby sucker-punches in. Maybe Samsung loses a couple of sales. Maybe enough to even be a fractional blip on their radar (but not likely). Tom wins short-term.
However, the other participants see this. Eventually, some other big player decides it doesn't want to deal with someone that unprofessional, and refuses to send units. Now Tom has a big hole in its coverage, and its readership will fall off because of it.
If you are going to play the independent news card, you can't be beholden to companies for review units.
#1 monitor (Score:2, Insightful)
With a resolution of 1600 by 1024 pixels, the Apple Cinema Display delivers twice the brightness, twice the sharpness, and three times the contrast of ordinary displays
Yup, just like those G4 CPU's that are twice as fast as what Intel offers...
Of course they're comparing a 700mhz Pentium 4 to their 700mhz G4. So what kind of shrimpy LCD are they comparing it to now?
Need I mention... The brightness on that thing is 180 cd/m, and Contrast ratio = 300:1... Sucker. They're comparing their monitor to an LCD with brightness of 90 cd/m, and 100:1 contrast?
Stop buying into Apple's hype.
Disappointing review. (Score:2, Insightful)
Believe it or not, display quality is only one consideration for someone considering the purchase of a new monitor. In my case, I bought a 17" Samsung 760V (1280x1024 native resolution, 16+ million colors, 160-degree viewable angle in both axes) a few months ago and have been nothing but thrilled. Form factor was the major consideration -- given the weight and depth of a 19" CRT, it would have to be placed in a position which would have forced me to turn my head roughly 40 degrees to the right...for hours at a time. With a 17" LCD, however, the viewable area would be comparable to a 19" CRT, but I would be able to place the LCD monitor directly in front of me on my desk. I don't do image editing, but I do spend a lot of time writing, so the ultra-sharp text display and eyestrain reduction far outweighed the color table limitations of an LCD. Finally, since my system had a decently powerful processor/RAM/video card combination, I didn't anticipate a problem running games at the native resolution. (My guess was a good one -- I have had no trouble running Max Payne and Return To Castle Wolfenstein with full detail without motion trails or image degradation.)
I did some research and took the plunge in the LCD market, but it would have been nice to have a decent side-by-side comparison article to read before buying. (I agree with the earlier poster -- in the store, the monitors are often running at a non-native resolution or are hooked to a computer with a terrible graphics card, making even an in-person evaluation somewhat misleading.) Sadly, Tom's article wouldn't have been helpful in the slightest.