LCD Round-up 346
TheKillerBee writes "The TechReport has posted a nice comparison of several different LCDs. A plethora of benches are present to help you decide how to spend that Christmas bonus check!" The screen update times still aren't fast enough for gamers, but they still are ever so delicious.
Bonus Check? (Score:4, Funny)
You obviously don't work in the IT industry, I can see. Perhaps you're a superhero from another dimension who's crimefighting organization still gives bonuses?
Re:Bonus Check? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bonus Check? (Score:2)
Re:Bonus Check? (Score:2, Funny)
"I don't get a Christmas bonus check, you insensitive clod!"
Hello ignorance! (Score:2, Flamebait)
What??? I've been gaming for years on an LCD monitor... what the hell is wrong with the update times? 60Hz is ample for 3d gaming, especially when on an lcd you can't actually see 60Hz flicker... Obviously you don't have an LCD, and you are just spinning the same crap that every other uninformed CRT user is.
Re:Hello ignorance! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hello ignorance! (Score:2, Interesting)
More to the picture than pixel response time (Score:5, Interesting)
I use a sound spectrogram (voice print) display that I scroll in the same way. Synched to the vertical retrace using DirectX and viewed on a glass monitor at over 80 Hz, the scroll is rock solid and blur free. Try this scroll on ANY LCD (even the 20 ms response kind) and it looks like a blurred mess.
I got the same blurred mess when I bumped the glass monitor refresh to 120 Hz but only updated the scroll every other frame (60 Hz). I pointedly don't get a blurred mess when refreshing and updating at 60 Hz.
What this tells me is that a glass monitor gives a stroboscobic image (it flashes the image and goes dim in between refreshes), and for certain kinds of motion (i.e. a scroll or pan of the entire field), you can do amazing things with glass and get garbage with LCD. It also tells me that LCD will never be any good for motion, no matter how fast the response time, because it is not strobing the image.
In your typical game (or even a movie), only part of the scene is changing over a pretty much static background. On the other hand, if you want a game with a scrolling 2-D display, like a moving "treasure map", you are going to notice this difference. With the right image, the effect is quite striking -- you don't need a "Golden Ear" to hear the difference between a tube and transistor amp.
I suppose LCD will eventually take over, and there will be us few glass monitor holdouts, but the LCD will NEVER do motion well, but the masses of people will resign themselves to LCD's being good enough.
Glass? (Score:2)
Re:More to the picture than pixel response time (Score:3, Interesting)
LCD will never be as responsive as CRT because it doesn't "strobe". LCDs always maintain the previous frame until the next update, whereas CRTs always start with a blank slate. Since the chemicals in our eyes are slow-ish to respond, we see it as a continuious image.
So even if a hypothetical (impossible, I know) LCD screen had a 0ms response time, our eyes would still not see the transition (from white to black for example) until after the next update. A CRT will show it before the update because it's always quickly fading to black. For a black to white transition, they would at best, tie.
Try it for yourself (Score:2)
Click on this link [wisc.edu], download the program called TF32, open any WAV file, click with the left mouse to first place left cursor than right cursor, click to down arrow to zoom in, and work the scroller control to scroll the spectrogram. Try this on a CRT and then on an LCD, and then contact cspeech@chorus.net if you think I don't know what I am talking about.
Re:Hello ignorance! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hello ignorance! (Score:3, Informative)
I've been using an LCD panel for everything, including gaming, for a little over a year now. At first, the "ghosting" from the slow diodes is a bit annoying when playing certain games, particularly FPS games and the like.
However, it's nothing you can't get used to, and in some games it is hardly noticeable at all. It's certainly no disadvantage to the player -- at our most recent LAN party I was kickin' a** in Unreal Tournament on my LCD panel. Everyone else had CRTs.
There are lots of pluses that you get with an LCD panel, such as: virtually non-existent refresh flicker, clarity and crispness, light weight (a huge plus if you need to tote your monitor to your LAN parties), small footprint, no glare, and less eyestrain.
I'd never give up all those benefits just because of the small amount of ghosting that I get.
Re:Hello ignorance! (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately this sort of thing has caught on with the masses like refresh rates on video cards. 70% of the people will get the ubercard-9000 even though only 10% of people can benefit from the better refresh.
Re:Hello ignorance! (Score:2)
Flourescent Lighting... (Score:3, Informative)
A good flourescent system using an electronic ballast, however, increases the frequency to the kHz range and produces no visible flicker.
Re:Hello ignorance! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hello ignorance! (Score:4, Interesting)
I concur. I have a 17" AOC LM-700 (1280x1024). First thing I did when I bought it was:
- Play Diablo 2 at 640x480 & 800x600.
- Play Quake 3.
- Watched some DVDs with high action. (Jackie Chan & James Bond.)
I was concerned about potential ghosting and other artifacts (namely aliasing at fractional multiplicative resolutions: 800 does not evenly divide into 1280), but everything looked good. (The LCD applied bi-linear filtering to 800x600 resolutions)
Where LCD's *really* shine (pardon the pun
Sure a pure green gradient (white to pure green) on my LCD has banding (I figure the LCD only has ~ 7 bits for green), but pictures look great on it whethere they are still or moving ones.
I just wish this review, and Tom's would do a *comprehensive* LCD review.
Cheers
Re:Hello ignorance! (Score:2)
I notice some ghosting when I play Quake 3 on my LCD (Viewsonic VP191 or something), but it's still a generally much nicer experience than my CRT was. I would say another big problem with gaming is that you usually need to use an LCD at its native resolution in order for it to look good, and that can be a problem if you want to run at a lower resolution to handle fancier games.
Hmph. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmph. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hmph. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they believe that:
Ignorance is bliss, some people say.
Re:Hmph. (Score:2)
Wrong! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hot Damn! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hot Damn! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hot Damn! (Score:2)
I have considered the fact that for the same amount of money, I could have bought a very good 19" CRT -- make no mistake, the price is far higher than a bigger CRT -- but I certainly do not miss the sag in the middle of my desk or the lack of desktop space that a big CRT takes up. The credit card hurts a little, but the mind is happy.
-schussat
Re:Hot Damn! (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing I have noticed about flat panel displays is that you can get end of life models relativly cheaply if you are prepared to search the web and wait a bit. NEC seem to refresh their monitor range fairly frequently, the one I am using cost over $1000 each but three months later a friend managed to pick one up for around $450. If I had to move jobs and was given a CRT display now, i would seriously consider spending up to $1000 of my own money on this quality of flat screen display, such is the difference it has made to my ability to work.
Why Bother (Score:3, Insightful)
"The good will have to really outweigh the bad and the ugly if you want to justify an opulent LCD purchase to your boss, to yourself, or worse, to your significant other."
Obviously LCD still hasn't bettered CRT so keep you old monitor and spend the dosh on something else instead.
Re:Why Bother (Score:5, Insightful)
Most places I've worked have sprung for Trinitron tubes back when they cost a premium. Why is it unreasonable to think they'll go LCD? Do you have any idea how much these things save in desk space? and frankly, they make users happy, which also helps the bottom line. The up-front cost is a small price to pay for the continuing dividends.
Re:Why Bother (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to stare at text all day long, you'll need a CRT with a fast refresh rate to approach LCD's "no refresh" approach, so in that respect LCDs are far superior. But, if you want to play action games, you'll need an LCD with a fast update to approach a CRTs refresh rate. On the other hand, if you have too much desk space and need to put more watts through your UPS, CRTs are superior in that respect also. But, LCDs still don't have the brightness of a CRT.
In short, LCD and CRT tech are different and the value of each will depend on just what the user is looking for in a monitor.
Re:Why Bother (Score:2)
Be wary (Score:3, Informative)
LCD vs CRT (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:LCD vs CRT (Score:2)
I've seen DVD movies played back on a Samsung SyncMaster 152T 15" LCD with its 25 ms response time and it was able to play back a DVD movie with surprisingly good clarity.
I expect a number of new technologies arriving in the next 18 months that will lower the response time to the 10 ms range, which will make it possible to view DVD movies and high-end games with pretty much no perceptible motion blurring.
Re:LCD vs CRT (Score:5, Interesting)
1. LCD's are smaller, have less of a depth to them.
2. LCD's are silent, CRT's have a horrible whine.
3. LCD's don't have that annoying screen refresh that gives people (me, anyway) an awful headache.
4. LCD's use less power. It ads up in the long run.
5. LCS's are brighter, at least in my experience.
YMMV, of course, but those're all the reasons I switched to LCD.
Triv
Re:LCD vs CRT (Score:3, Informative)
Okay, I'll give you that one. CRT's are pretty huge if you're strapped for space
2. LCD's are silent, CRT's have a horrible whine.
If your CRT is making noise i have to wonder if perhaps something's wrong with it. Mine makes not a sound.
3. LCD's don't have that annoying screen refresh that gives people (me, anyway) an awful headache.
Buy a decent monitor. I had that problem too, until I ditched my 3-year old CRT and got a KDS flat CRT. Notched the refresh rate up to about 75Hz and no more headaches
4. LCD's use less power. It ads up in the long run.
Can't comment. I'm not terribly concerned about saving five bucks on my power bill if i payed and extra 200$ for the LCD though
5. LCS's are brighter, at least in my experience.
Most monitors do come with a controls that let you adjust that
Re:LCD vs CRT (Score:2)
Actually, I still hear it on televisions. In college, I can tell if one of the television screens was left on in the classroom (even though it has a black screen and no power indicator LEDs) by *hearing* the refresh. I usually turn them off. The sound doesn't really directly annoy me, but it seems like a sound that would annoy me if I had to hear it for a long time.
The OP also forgot to mention sharper text. At work, I have been using two 17" LCD screens which surround my central 21" CRT. I use my central CRT for coding, where I use a large, basic, bold-ish font (fixedsys), and my side screens are for finer text, web browsers, and terminal windows.
I'm not sure about other models of LCD, but these models (Samsung SyncMaster 770) have a very fine control that has allowed me to tune a 1:1 ratio on the pixels, even though it's over an analog signal. Of course this only works in the exact max resolution of the screen, and it took a bit of time to get right, but it has stayed there, and it's probably just as sharp as a digital connection.
Re:LCD vs CRT (Score:2)
So did mine.
Triv
Re:LCD vs CRT (Score:3, Informative)
Cool... (Score:4, Funny)
thanks!
Bonus Check? (Score:5, Funny)
What about Apple LCDs? (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides pushing the technology, they've actually got LCDs that are decently bright and easy to profile and calibrate. I wish they'd reviewed some of Apple's displays - I'd like to see if the dollar premium is really worth it. (The easel adjustment on the 17", 22" and 23" is pretty killer though!)
Re:What about Apple LCDs? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What about Apple LCDs? (Score:3, Funny)
What's that thing in the eMac? [apple.com]
A fifty-pound, vacuum-filled, beam-addressable LCD?
(I guess "CRT" is just an Apple trademark for Color Raster Technology).
Re:What about Apple LCDs? (Score:2)
I seem to recall that Apple was all-LCD for a few months between the introduction of the new iMac and the eMac, but I guess that's not accurate either, since they've been selling the $799 iMac all along.
Christmas Bonus?! (Score:5, Funny)
Thats what I get for a Chistmas bonus!
LCDs are fine for gamers (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to set the record straight, many people, myself included, have found that update times less than 30 ms are plenty good for even the fastest games (UT2003 springs to mind). My 15" KDS is excellent for gaming -- I can't imagine ever going back to a CRT.
The resolution still isn't up to par... (Score:5, Insightful)
One big problem (literally) with CRT's (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember a few years ago Viewsonic addressed this with the A75s model, a 17" CRT monitor that had a physical depth substantially less than other 17" CRT monitors. I'm very disappointed that Viewsonic (let alone the CRT monitor industry) has not adapted the short-depth CRT concept to all their 17", 19" and 21" monitors.
CRT's fast response makes them excellent for viewing fast motion graphics (e.g., high-end games and DVD playback), but monitor manufacturers should be working on shortening the depth of the tube so the monitor can fit onto desks easier.
Re:One big problem (literally) with CRT's (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:One big problem (literally) with CRT's (Score:3, Insightful)
AND to top it all off, "short depth" wrt tubes means 17 inches deep instead of 18.5 inches. Ooooh, so much more compact.
Would 3840x2400 be enough? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The resolution still isn't up to par... (Score:2)
Re:The resolution still isn't up to par... (Score:2)
Re:The resolution still isn't up to par... (Score:2)
Unlike LCDs, which are all easily upgradable to larger sizes, higher resolutions, and new display technologies!
If you're worried about "investing in obsolete technology", LCDs are the worse option. The industry is far more likely to dump and orphan the existing DVI spec than they are VGA, and that's about the only "investment" risk there is.
Re:The resolution still isn't up to par... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The resolution still isn't up to par... (Score:3, Interesting)
audience? (Score:3, Interesting)
LCDs are capable of being just short of blinding if you crank the brightness. (Finally, a less embarrassing excuse for your computer-induced blindness!)
The masturbation humor tends to work well with the slashdot crowd, but probably would fall flat for most of the general population. Which is fine, I can deal with a review targetted at geeks. But then they have this informative paragraph:
Take a look at how much of your desk is currently taken up by your monitor. Seems like a lot, doesn't it? CRT monitors are notoriously big, bulky, and deep. LCDs are the exact opposite; many are just inches thick, if that, and some even come with wall-mounting hardware. Because of their size, LCDs are also much lighter than CRTs, which makes lugging them around a lot easier.
I mean, if ever there was a paragraph deserving of a "no fucking shit," this has gotta be it.
This is a perfect example of the poor quality of writing on the web. When Internet "journalism" fails in the next couple of years, you'll need only look at this poor editting to understand why anyone with any intelligence is sticking to dead-tree periodicals.
Don't bitch about lack of Apple LCDs (Score:4, Informative)
They are comparing these displays for the "PC" market - in order to use an Apple display on a non-Apple computer you have to get an expensive adaptor in addition to the already over-priced display. The ones reviewed are relatively inexpensive displays.
Cut them some slack, journalists have the right to review whatever the hell they damn well please - if you want a review comparing the Apple displays to other people's displays, do it yourself.
Re:Don't bitch about lack of Apple LCDs (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Don't bitch about lack of Apple LCDs (Score:2)
Who in the hell is going to pay $3,500 for 23" when they can get 22" for $1,000 less? That's $1,000 an INCH! Nothing else in the world costs that much money.
Screen updates (Score:3, Informative)
I forget the exact tech, but the basic idea was using a set of 'high-tensile' coupled LCDs instead of the regular LCD cells. Usually their nature means that they can only be cast to minute sizes, far too small for useful work (a 15" screen would require a minimum of 4096*4096 cells, and even then the display would be grainy due to the cell-pitch.
Philips tried to work around this by using flared-end fibre optics, but it'll come as no surprise that this produced an exceptionally blurry and dull image. Sony, however, have found a set of lab conditions under which HT-coupled LCD can be crystallised at sensible sizes.
It'll be expensive to start with, but this may well spell the end of the power hungry CRT.
Other reviews (Score:5, Informative)
Sexy LCD 17" Monitors - Part I [tomshardware.com]
Comparison of 17" LCDs: The Heavyweights Enter The Ring - Part II [tomshardware.com]
Cheers
Belnea 10 15 37 (Score:2)
Recently got a Belnea (Euro only I think?) 10 15 37 for my parents new workstation (for behind the Bar, when it gets quiet the computer comes in handy), and it is great... especially with the limited surface space we have. The original version of this monitor was reviewed [tomshardware.com] on Toms Hardware, but the casing was cheap and nasty. Fortunately they heeded the reviews and there have been two revisions of the monitor, for a great price of £255 ex vat,
I did try the monitor with Unreal 2003, but the ghosting started making me feel sick after 10 minutes of play... but I'm not the primary user, and the only games played on it by my parents usually involve cards (as well as internet and e-mails)!
17" 1600 x 1200 (Score:4, Interesting)
Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
I want a monitor with high DPI, not high physical size. I'd pay good money for a 1600x1200 desktop display that was basically a laptop screen in a different case.
Depends on the game (Score:4, Interesting)
The only games where this could possibly matter are the fastest paced shooter games, and even then it is a marginal problem. Certainly isn't a big enough problem for me to want to take up 300 square miles of desktop space with a glorified vaccuum tube.
Besides there are games besides Quake out there you know. Some of us even play them.
Cornea brand / bathing in EMF (Score:2)
Anyway, one justification for me for getting an LCD was the idea of not bathing myself in EMF all the live long day...is there any rational reasoning behind that, or am I just being paranoid? (Or just enjoying all the extra deskspace...)
My notebook. (Score:2)
Re:My notebook. (Score:2)
Those aren't LCDs people buy (Score:4, Informative)
Personally, I would only consider the Dell 1702FP (a beaufiful 17" DVI panel) or the Dell 2000FP (a huge 20" panel that can be had for $1300 if you apply some Dell discounts). Samsungs are OK but I don't like their panels' piss poor black reproduction. If you want your computer to look hip go get a Samsung, but if you want a screen that delivers beautiful images then Dell is the better vendor even if their case styling isn't as nice.
Re: Those aren't LCDs people buy (Score:3, Informative)
The Dell 1702FP is manufactured by Samsung. So is the 1900fp which I've been lusting for. Go figure.
[2000fp is by Acer.]
Re:Those aren't LCDs people buy (Score:2)
Re:Those aren't LCDs people buy (Score:3, Interesting)
Eastwood style? (Score:2)
It's not Eastwood style at all. He (Eastwood) was just "The Good". The "style" he's talking about should either be attributed to Sergio Leone (director) or Agenore Incrocci (writer) though Leone also wrote the story with Agenore.
Ahh, journalism in the world of the Blog.
Flat panel CRTs (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll get "used to it"? (Score:2, Insightful)
ViewSonic's the way to go if gaming (Score:5, Informative)
Oh and some of the other PRO's of LCD that make it totally worth it if you have the extra cash and have found one with a quick pixel disposal rate that you are comfortable playing games on:
1) one touch auto sync / setup. Match the res and contrast with a click of a button. No black boxes around your viewing area. BTW 17.4 means 17.4 VIEWABLE.. unlike in the CRT world.
2) no more areas of the screen that you just have to deal with distortion on... Cant count how many monitors are just slighly curved or crooked in the corners or discolored in a fashion that even a degaus coil won't fix.
3) LIGHT and small. This one is under rated. I had a 21 inch monitor at work that was soo big, I couldn't get it all the way in the corner section of the cube where the computer should go and still have a keyboard on the desk. What a joke.. I don't need a big set top TV thank you. LCD's pivot, twist.. all that... turn the screen show a friend. Move the screen to a new location, don't break your back.
4) low power consumtion... quit dimming the lights when you power on your RAY GUN.
5) multiple input and or tuners built in. Some of the lcds have multiple inputs (svideo, multiple analogs..), some even have tv and radio turners with PIP built in (I had a samsung that did that.. TITS!). I can have my ultra 60 and my game PC plugged into mine and hit the 'switch input' button and boom.. there's the other machine. And with all that space i saved for having an LCD, I can have 2 keyboard and mice! JOY!
Thats's about it. I like mine overall... it was 1600 bucks back in the day, now it's like 700 retail. I'm very happy with it... the moral is 'try em all' cause loads of them just do plain suck for disposal rates. I made the guy at the computer store play a DVD on all of them before I considered purchasing one
Re:ViewSonic's the way to go if gaming (Score:2)
I don't for the life of me understand the screen measurements of LCDs vs. CRTs - they aren't even remotely comparable. The VA800 17.4" LCD has almost an identical amount of screen real estate to my Dell Trinitron 19" CRT monitor sitting by desk (on the floor until I get a dual head card). I measured the diagonal, and the Dell is about
Those complaining about ghosting - I don't really see it, even in high speed 3D games (CounterStrike, etc.). My only quibble (and it may just be me) is that ClearType seems to not look that good on this monitor under Win XP. Honestly, the text looks great at native 1280x1024 resolution with standard anti-aliasing (i.e. no anti-aliasing for normal 10-12point fonts), and it doesn't give me a headache like ClearType does after a long day of screen-staring. Is this a feature of the LCD or a feature of my brain?
Projectors. (Score:2)
Cheap (Score:2)
Is is God's gift to monitors? No. But it's big, it's crisp, and comfortable to work with; I ditched a decent Sony 17" CRT in favor of this thing, and I'm happy with it. FWIW, CompUSA also sells a 14" LCD from the same manufacturer for $199.
Why not included the best of breed (Score:4, Informative)
I've been using an AG Neovo 17.4" monitor for about eight months and it is absolutely fantastic (IMHO better than the mac 17's). The text is crisp and the color reproduction is oustanding. Yes, it's expensive (~$899US), but if I have to look at something for 10+ hours a day I'm going to spend the extra cash. Besides, how many slashdotters are there that don't seem to have a problem buying $400+ video cards twice a year to make sure they get the extra 200fps out of quake3?
As for gaming, I play UT2003 on it all the time without a single bit of ghosting. One thing from the article that the author should have made manditory was the use of DVI. Why anyone would buy a DVI-only lcd is beyond me. Having both inputs is great for using my laptop (analog output only), but the picture is noticebly better through the DVI connector.
Take this review with a grain of salt (Score:2)
Reading between the grammatical lines, I'd say they have to go back and think about exponents some more. The rest of the review is just as hinky.
-B
No Sony? No NEC? (Score:5, Interesting)
LCDs still aren't quite there yet. (Score:4, Informative)
LCDs do not refresh at a certain rate per second like CRTs. In fact, once a pixel is set on an LCD, that pixel remains set to that color until it is changed.
THERE ARE NO UPDATES ON AN LCD. Each pixel is wired, and stays the same color until it's signal changes.
This is why there is noticable blur on an LCD. On a CRT, we would just see the whole screen getting updated at an incredibly low rate and call it insane flicker. But LCDs simply have a certain delay between when you change the pixel's color signal, and when the pixel gets updated. It looks blurry because it's not uniform rederawing of the screen like a CRT refresh.
There are three problems presently with LCDs that manufacturers will have to address before they overthrow CRTs:
*Even highend LCDs do not have the response time to even deliver 60fps video without blurring, and by far games are the worst thing to view on an LCD with a slow response time. As you look around and maneuver, the whole scene is blurred. The best LCDs on the market right now have around 25-30ms response rate, which is barely above 30fps. I believe we had this debate years ago ( 60 vs 30 ), and if the horsepower in today's video cards is anything to judge by, I'd say 60fps minimum won. I know personally I can't live with anything less. Sure, not everyone needs this kind of response time, but making it avaliable for the performance player is still a necessity.
*Most lowend mass-market LCDs have even worse response times (~45ms), and end up looking terrible when you view a video, or even when you're just scrolling through Explorer. People have come to expect a certain responsiveness and capability after paying for a multigigahertz toaster.
*Very few LCD screens have addressed the fact that their contrast ratios are terrible, even compared to cheap CRTs. I know a lot of you are proponents of LCDs because of their lack of flicker, but the truth is low contrast can cause just as much strain on the eyes, especially when reading.
LCDs work fine, with some small issues... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't notice any blurring, or have any problem playing the game. There may be some, but it's not substantial enough to be an issue.
Contrast is an issue in games. Whenever I start up the game, I have to go in and manually adjust the contrast settings. Once I do that, then I can see in all the dark corners, etc.
I'd have to say your comments are based on the LCD screens that we had available 4-5 years ago, or even on some of the cheaper laptops today. Either that or you are exagerrating the issues.
Planar Systems (Score:2)
A couple of years ago I bought a 17" 1280x1024 analog-interface LCD from Planar Systems - either the CT1744Z [planar.com] or a direct predecessor, I don't quite remember. It came with built-in speakers (I don't care that much about sound so that was a plus; YMMV) and a built-in four-port USB hub that hadn't even been mentioned in the literature. It was under $1000 then, and is now down to $650 (at Insight [insight.com].
I just have to say, this is a great monitor, and I wish more people knew about the brand. It never seems to be included in these types of roundups, which is a shame because I think it would do very well. Compared to other LCD monitors I've looked at the Planar is bright, it has good contrast (400:1) and pixel response time (15ms rise, 10ms fall), etc. The interpolation actually works rather well, though I still prefer to get dot-for-dot accuracy on a smaller display area in most cases; unlike some LCD monitors, this one gives you the choice. IMO Planar's combination of performance, features and price spanks any of the monitors that were in this review.
And no, I don't have any relationship with Planar other than that of a very satisfied customer. I just like to acknowledge when people work hard to create good products.
Standalone LCDs have low res (Score:4, Interesting)
Oooh! (Score:2)
Apple LCDs are Samsung under the hood (Score:3, Informative)
Environmental Impact (Score:3, Interesting)
TCo, it's not just for megacorporations! (Score:2, Insightful)
One thing that really upsets me about thes LCD reviews is that the authors are totally lazy. They say "LCD's are more expensive up-front, but they're smaller and save desk space." Fine, but that statement is useless without numbers.
1) Real estate
Save desk space? Whatever, LCDs let you save floor space by getting a smaller desk. So, how's this pay? Well, the initial cost of the LCD should probably go up a bit, since most folks don't have a narrow desk. So, tack on $50 as a base cost for a new desk. (If you shop at IKEA, you can get a new top and re-use your existing legs, driving the cost down towards like $25. If you're seriously rich, maybe you'll drop $500 on a new desk, but you probably already own the LCD.)
So, now the repeating costs. A 2' desk that's 6 feet wide will save you 6 aq'. In Manhattan, a 1000 sq' apartment is $2000/mo. or $2/sq'/mo. In Pittsburgh, it's more like $.10/sq'/mo. Obviously, where you live makes a difference. So, annually, we have:
LCD Savings
Cheap cities: $7/yr
Expensive cities: $144/yr (no wonder that every business in Manhattan buys LCDs as a matter of course)
Note that the payoff period for the desk is more than 9 years in Pittsburgh, so there is about 0 space savings.
2) Power
Unless you live in California, I think electricity's about $.07/kW/h. Let's assume you use power saving reasonably and stuff. If you work at home, or multiple people use your computer throughout the day, the monitor's probably going to be on like 12 hrs/day. If you're a more causal user, it's probably more like 4. If you use your computer to read email once a week, you don't read slashdot.
So, according to the article, monitors use 100w, LCDs use 50. Assume you use your computer 260 days per year (5 weeks/year not using). For the heavy user, CRT is 100*12*260*.07/1000 = $21/yr. The causal user is $7/yr. LCDs are half that, for a cost savings of $10 and $4.
So, how expensive are LCDs? Well, 4 years seems a reasonable length of time to own a monitor. So here's a comparison for a 17" LCD and 19" CRT (which have about the same viewable area). Assumes the initial cost of the LCD is $650(+50 in Manhattan), CRT is $250. Lists the cost difference of an LCD:
Manhattan (heavy use): $152 less
Manhattan (light use): $144 less
Pittsburgh (heavy use): $260 more
Pittsburgh (light use): $384 more
Hopefully this ads a touch of rigor to your buying decision. I suspect that if you live outside the energy-subsidized US, the energy costs will become more significant. If you live in a hot climate, you might want to factor in A/C costs (see below). Also not factored in is the reduced eyestrain with LCDs. For those of you who work long hours, this is probably worth the LCD price on its own.
For another take on TCO, which is more detailed WRT power & cooling, but seems less useful to me, check out this page [viewsonic.com].
Eizo monitors kick ass, too... (Score:2, Informative)
Excellent brightness and contrast. Black is excellent. Eizo also has image smoothing built-in, but I never use it.
Great for gaming. Unreal Tournament and Castle Wolfenstein are totally smooth. No ghosts. No slowness.
If you're in the market for an LCD panel, make sure you audition an Eizo, as well. Fantastic monitors (CRT and LCD panel both).
Samsung 181T (Score:2, Interesting)
In my home office in the summer, it produces a fraction of the heat of my 19" CRTs. It has also allowed me to push the monitor farther back on the desk to increase the distance to my eyes and give me more workspace to clutter up.
Not being able to use lower resolutions doesn't bother me. I bought a decent GEforce3Ti200 video card and run everything at 1280x1024 (Ghost Recon at 1280x1024x32 bit colour looks pretty amazing on this one compared to my 19" LG and 19" Viewsonic CRTs!... also when I compare the colours on my LCD to the colours on the CRTs, the TFT wins hands down especially whites). I've done plenty of photo editing and everything always looks crisp, bright and colourful. The 181T is also very good even when you're looking at angles.
It was expensive, but I stare at the monitor for hours on end and work in text most of the time so it's reduced eye strain and there's no glare, just a gorgeous matte finish.
loss of brightness issue (Score:3, Informative)
unfortunately, these tubes are not end-user replaceable.
so, you spend multiple times what you'd spend on a CRT, only to have the thing lose half of it's brightness a few years later. the simple solution would be to replace the tubes, but you can't because the LCD unit is designed to be disposable.
until it is possible to easily replace the fluorescent tubes in an LCD panel, i won't be investing in this technology.
Re:I'd hold off (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you actually know what you're talking about?
Full duplex? Half duplex? Why does my LCD need to transmit to my video card, instead of the other way around?
I'm an electrical engineer and have no idea what you mean by "full duplex" as related to displays. I can see a few sync signals being helpful, maybe, but still: what does the LCD have to say to my computer?
Re:I'd hold off (Score:3, Funny)
"Hello, I'll be your primary display today. I am a Brand X LCD display and can do 1280x1024@60Hz natively. I can do 32bpp, 24bpp, or even 16bpp if you really want, via my digital interface. My black-to-white response time is 20ms, so you can take advantage of that if you like. I have dead pixels at 334,125; 4,85; and 942,223. Hope you can compensate for this. Incidentally, I am DRM-enabled, and you're not registered, so don't even try sending me any copyrighted content. Have a nice day."
Re:I'd hold off (Score:4, Informative)
This is not informative, this is pure BS.
Plasma Screens. (Score:3, Informative)
With that said, the DVD watching and console gaming experience is pretty much second to none. I prefer the screen over LCD projectors.