Comments on monitor I am planning to buy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gofer Jones
  • Start date Start date
G

Gofer Jones

http://tinyurl.com/b7qzv

$229....Hyundai ImageQuest B70A Siver & Black 17" 8ms LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2
700:1 0.264mm Pixel Pitch

I am getting ready to buy an LCD, but I like to get feedback from the
newsgroups first before I do.
 
Compared to what others have achieved 8ms is already considered slow for
LCDs which have a problem when animated images move across the screen. I
would try to spend the extra money on a ViewSonic.
Click to expand...

8ms is fast enough and I have read that the Hyundai is one of the best
bang-for-buck LCD's there is.
 
Gofer Jones said:
http://tinyurl.com/b7qzv

$229....Hyundai ImageQuest B70A Siver & Black 17" 8ms LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2
700:1 0.264mm Pixel Pitch

I am getting ready to buy an LCD, but I like to get feedback from the
newsgroups first before I do.
Click to expand...
When my lovely NEC CRT finally does die, I won't bother with a 17" display
any longer. For not much more money than you are considering, you could
move up to 19". Keep in mind that most LCD displays look best at their
native resolution, which is usually 1280x1024. If you have to run that res,
why not do it on a 19" or 21"?
 
No, I was looking at 15", but they do not come with 8ms response or 700:1
contrast ratio. I sit very close to my monitor, and I need something thinner
than my crt so that I can push it back further from my face. The 17" is
pushing it for my little table that I use.

Thank you for telling me about the native resolution. I did not know that.
 
Compared to what others have achieved 8ms is already considered slow for
LCDs which have a problem when animated images move across the screen. I
would try to spend the extra money on a ViewSonic.

<%= Clinton Gallagher
METROmilwaukee (sm) "A Regional Information Service"
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://metromilwaukee.com/
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
Click to expand...


8 ms by the old standards is fast enough for gaming, getting
much lower than that one has to care about HOW they attained
the lower figure, it's either a compromise or the monitor is
significantly more expensive.

One cannot take ms values, at face value. There are several
ways the number is derived and they are no longer directly
comparable between different manufacturer measurement
methods or different panel technologies. It is more
important to consider other factors than response below 8ms.

A concise primer of some consumer grade LCD options,
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=1745344
 
When my lovely NEC CRT finally does die, I won't bother with a 17" display
any longer. For not much more money than you are considering, you could
move up to 19". Keep in mind that most LCD displays look best at their
native resolution, which is usually 1280x1024. If you have to run that res,
why not do it on a 19" or 21"?
Click to expand...

IMO, 1280x1024 on 21" looks too pixelated, some may prefer
either 19" or lower at that res. or higher res. for 21+"
 
8 ms by the old standards is fast enough for gaming, getting
much lower than that one has to care about HOW they attained
the lower figure, it's either a compromise or the monitor is
significantly more expensive.
Click to expand...

All fast response time LCD's use 6bits per pixel for color instead of
8bits.
 
Gofer Jones said:
http://tinyurl.com/b7qzv

$229....Hyundai ImageQuest B70A Siver & Black 17" 8ms LCD Monitor 300
cd/m2 700:1 0.264mm Pixel Pitch

I am getting ready to buy an LCD, but I like to get feedback from the
newsgroups first before I do.
Click to expand...

Unless you are concerned about desk space or power consumption, then save
your money and buy a bigger, better CRT based monitor.
 
Gofer Jones said:
No, I was looking at 15", but they do not come with 8ms response or 700:1
contrast ratio. I sit very close to my monitor, and I need something
thinner than my crt so that I can push it back further from my face. The
17" is pushing it for my little table that I use.

Thank you for telling me about the native resolution. I did not know that.
Click to expand...

You can get 'short' CRT monitors. Anything 17" or higher will do at least
1280x1024 and cost half the amount of an LCD and the picture will be far
better. You won't be able to take an LCD screen above 1024x768 or the larger
ones can do 1280x1024 (17", 19").
 
Compared to what others have achieved 8ms is already considered slow for
LCDs which have a problem when animated images move across the screen.
Click to expand...

Spot the ****wit who thinks the quoted reponse times are worth a piss.

Bet you believe 3000 Watt rated speakers that you find for $1 at the
local tat shop are actually capable of it.
 
kony said:
8 ms by the old standards is fast enough for gaming, getting
much lower than that one has to care about HOW they attained
the lower figure, it's either a compromise or the monitor is
significantly more expensive.

One cannot take ms values, at face value. There are several
ways the number is derived and they are no longer directly
comparable between different manufacturer measurement
methods or different panel technologies. It is more
important to consider other factors than response below 8ms.

A concise primer of some consumer grade LCD options,
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=1745344
Click to expand...

amen brother, some rate the display as when the pixel goes from gray to gray
and others from black to black which takes longer. kinda shady marketing.
 
<No, I was looking at 15", but they do not come with 8ms response or
700:1
<contrast ratio. I sit very close to my monitor, and I need something
thinner
<than my crt so that I can push it back further from my face. The 17"
is
<pushing it for my little table that I use.

Consider another table.


<Thank you for telling me about the native resolution. I did not know
that.
<
<<>
<> <>> http://tinyurl.com/b7qzv
<>>
<>> $229....Hyundai ImageQuest B70A Siver & Black 17" 8ms LCD Monitor
300
<> cd/m2
<>> 700:1 0.264mm Pixel Pitch
<>>
<>> I am getting ready to buy an LCD, but I like to get feedback from
the
<>> newsgroups first before I do.
<>>
<> When my lovely NEC CRT finally does die, I won't bother with a 17"
display
<> any longer. For not much more money than you are considering, you
could
<> move up to 19". Keep in mind that most LCD displays look best at
their
<> native resolution, which is usually 1280x1024. If you have to run
that
<> res,
<> why not do it on a 19" or 21"?
<>
<>
<

--

-nos1eep

-Scaling up the heights of folly.
-non est ponenda pluritas sine necessitate
 
You can get 'short' CRT monitors. Anything 17" or higher will do at least
1280x1024 and cost half the amount of an LCD and the picture will be far
better. You won't be able to take an LCD screen above 1024x768 or the larger
ones can do 1280x1024 (17", 19").
Click to expand...

Have you looked closely at 1280x1024 on an "anything 17" "
CRT? Most mid-grade or lower 17" monitors get a bit blurry
at this high (relatively so) resolution and many don't
support very good refresh rates either, especially on the
lower-end 17" you might find it won't even do above 85Hz if
that.

A good CRT is still a reasonable choice, IMO, especially for
those more concerned about image quality and color accuracy,
but any mid-grade or lower CRT now seems to have enough
drawbacks that it's best reserved as only a necessity when
the budget won't stretch for anything better.... and IMO,
the monitor is such an important input device I'd rather
have a 3 year old system with a great monitor than a new
system with a poor monitor.
 
nos1eep said:
Consider another table.
Click to expand...

Then I would have to consider another room. You are on the outside looking
in, so you don't understand how limited I am on space.
 
<>
<> Consider another table.
<>
<
<Then I would have to consider another room. You are on the outside
looking
<in, so you don't understand how limited I am on space.

Consider another hovel.

--

-nos1eep

-Scaling up the heights of folly.
-non est ponenda pluritas sine necessitate
 
<top posting corrected>
<<> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 12:56:53 -0600, "Gofer Jones"
<> <[email protected]> spewed the following drivel:
<>
<> <>
<> <> Consider another table.
<> <>
<> <
<> <Then I would have to consider another room. You are on the outside
<> looking
<> <in, so you don't understand how limited I am on space.
<>
<> Consider another hovel.
<>
<Consider my foot in your ass.

Ah, so, well, consider this link.
http://www.footfetishdirectory.com/

--

-nos1eep

-Scaling up the heights of folly.
-non est ponenda pluritas sine necessitate
 
Have you looked closely at 1280x1024 on an "anything 17" "
CRT? Most mid-grade or lower 17" monitors get a bit blurry
at this high (relatively so) resolution and many don't
support very good refresh rates either, especially on the
lower-end 17" you might find it won't even do above 85Hz if
that.

A good CRT is still a reasonable choice, IMO, especially for
those more concerned about image quality and color accuracy,
but any mid-grade or lower CRT now seems to have enough
drawbacks that it's best reserved as only a necessity when
the budget won't stretch for anything better.... and IMO,
the monitor is such an important input device I'd rather
have a 3 year old system with a great monitor than a new
system with a poor monitor.
Click to expand...

Did he say a crap CRT? You can get refurbished top end 21/22" CRT's
for real cheap. I have LCD and CRT and my gaming computer uses the
CRT. For good reason too.
 
Gofer said:
http://tinyurl.com/b7qzv

$229....Hyundai ImageQuest B70A Siver & Black 17" 8ms LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2
700:1 0.264mm Pixel Pitch

I am getting ready to buy an LCD, but I like to get feedback from the
newsgroups first before I do.
Click to expand...

I hope Hyundai makes better monitors than cars....


OD
 
Back
Top