LCD text quality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alex Mizrahi
  • Start date Start date
A

Alex Mizrahi

I've switched to 22" TFT monitor (Samsung SyncMaster 225bw) from an old 17"
CRT one, and I've got problems with text quality -- all lines are too
freaking thin and too crisp. antialiasing (ClearType smoothing) helps a
little, but it's still barely bearable. i've also adjusted "sharpness"
parameters in config to a quite low value, so it gets blurred, and it's
somewhat bearable for now, but it's still not match for an old CRT monitor
which had nice analogous smoothing rather than digital bluring.

it might seem i just have LCD allergia, but i'm pretty sure i do not -- i
also have HP/Compaq nx6110 notebook with 15" TFT, and it is just fine, i'm
using it even w/o antialiasing.

(that's why i didn't do testing to monitor i've bought, i thought they
cannot make it worse than old freaky TFT. they could..)

text displaying quality is extremely important for me because i work with
text all the day. but unfortunately i cannot find any information about text
quality for LCDs. i'd like to know why notebooks TFT is better and is it
possible to buy bigger one like that.

CNET reviews say that LCDs are much better than CRT for text displaying
because of better sharpness and contrast -- that's insanity! exactly
qualities i'm fighting with.

i had idea that differentce between 22" and 15" TFT is pixel size -- indeed
22" has smaller pixels, so lines are thinner. i've got 19" monitor for
testing -- it has pixels almost as big as 15", 5% bigger than of 22", and
indeed i see some difference. it's quite bearable even w/o tuning
smoothness, but still 15" is clearly better..

so if switching to 19" doesn't help much, i don't know what to do.. i also
have a wild idea that switching from VGA input to DVI might help, somehow..
actually they say that DVI is more crisp (no analog noise), but perhaps
monitor does some signal processing of VGA input making it more crisp
digitally, and that's why it sucks. currently i do not have DVI input
(freaking ASUS mobo with intnl card), but i'm considering buying videocard
so maybe it will change something, magically..

if that won't help, i don't know.. perhaps it's worth switching to other
techonology -- IPS instead of TN+film, or something.. but i haven't seen any
info how does technology affects text quality, and switching blindly is not
a good idea. sometimes i feel like i'm the only freak on the earth who
notices this -- as CNET reviewers advices getting monitor with smallest
pixels for best quality. *OMG*

i thought i could check text quality on different monitors in computer
shops, but unfortunately typically they display videos and not text, and i'm
too shy to ask assistant to switch to text if i'm not going to actually buy
product.. but sometimes they display text, and my findings so far are sad --
MacBook Pro (notebook) has just brilliant text quality, and Apple's largish
30" cinema display has shitty quality for text -- it's too freaking small,
again, but picture in photoshop looked very well.. so, where can i find TFT
as they use in notebooks in standalone format??
 
Alex said:
I've switched to 22" TFT monitor (Samsung SyncMaster 225bw) from an old 17"
CRT one, and I've got problems with text quality -- all lines are too
freaking thin and too crisp. antialiasing (ClearType smoothing) helps a
little, but it's still barely bearable. i've also adjusted "sharpness"
parameters in config to a quite low value, so it gets blurred, and it's
somewhat bearable for now, but it's still not match for an old CRT monitor
which had nice analogous smoothing rather than digital bluring.

it might seem i just have LCD allergia, but i'm pretty sure i do not -- i
also have HP/Compaq nx6110 notebook with 15" TFT, and it is just fine, i'm
using it even w/o antialiasing.

(that's why i didn't do testing to monitor i've bought, i thought they
cannot make it worse than old freaky TFT. they could..)

text displaying quality is extremely important for me because i work with
text all the day. but unfortunately i cannot find any information about text
quality for LCDs. i'd like to know why notebooks TFT is better and is it
possible to buy bigger one like that.

CNET reviews say that LCDs are much better than CRT for text displaying
because of better sharpness and contrast -- that's insanity! exactly
qualities i'm fighting with.

i had idea that differentce between 22" and 15" TFT is pixel size -- indeed
22" has smaller pixels, so lines are thinner. i've got 19" monitor for
testing -- it has pixels almost as big as 15", 5% bigger than of 22", and
indeed i see some difference. it's quite bearable even w/o tuning
smoothness, but still 15" is clearly better..

so if switching to 19" doesn't help much, i don't know what to do.. i also
have a wild idea that switching from VGA input to DVI might help, somehow..
actually they say that DVI is more crisp (no analog noise), but perhaps
monitor does some signal processing of VGA input making it more crisp
digitally, and that's why it sucks. currently i do not have DVI input
(freaking ASUS mobo with intnl card), but i'm considering buying videocard
so maybe it will change something, magically..

if that won't help, i don't know.. perhaps it's worth switching to other
techonology -- IPS instead of TN+film, or something.. but i haven't seen any
info how does technology affects text quality, and switching blindly is not
a good idea. sometimes i feel like i'm the only freak on the earth who
notices this -- as CNET reviewers advices getting monitor with smallest
pixels for best quality. *OMG*

i thought i could check text quality on different monitors in computer
shops, but unfortunately typically they display videos and not text, and i'm
too shy to ask assistant to switch to text if i'm not going to actually buy
product.. but sometimes they display text, and my findings so far are sad --
MacBook Pro (notebook) has just brilliant text quality, and Apple's largish
30" cinema display has shitty quality for text -- it's too freaking small,
again, but picture in photoshop looked very well.. so, where can i find TFT
as they use in notebooks in standalone format??
Click to expand...

You might want to try a bit of fine tuning before setting out to
re-invent the wheel. First off, make sure that you have the video set to
the native resolution of the monitor, 1680 x 1050 in your case. Setting
it to any other resolution will degrade the quality.

Which sort of text are you having problems with -- the system text or
text within applications? If it is a generalized problem with _all_text
you may simply need to change the systemwide DPI setting from the
default. Check Display Properties -> Settings -> Advanced and then try
increasing the DPI to a slightly higher value, say 10% over the default.
I have found that tuning this value has a greater influence over text
readability than anything else I've tried -- before I finally settled
upon a 150% value the 1080P display on my 42" Sharp HDTV from the HTPC I
had built meant I needed to be virtually on top of it to read the fine
print. The text always was of outstanding quality -- it just was not
using enough pixels to be readable from a sane distance.
 
JM> You might want to try a bit of fine tuning before setting out to
JM> re-invent the wheel.

it seems i've tried all available tuning..

JM> First off, make sure that you have the video set to the native
JM> resolution of the monitor, 1680 x 1050 in your case. Setting it to any
JM> other resolution will degrade the quality.

ha! if i set it to lower resolution, picture gets blurred -- and it's
actually looks better from "too sharp" aspect.
however it's to distorted to work with such resolution (but i've considered
even this!)

JM> Which sort of text are you having problems with -- the system text or
JM> text within applications? If it is a generalized problem with _all_text
JM> you may simply need to change the systemwide DPI setting from the
JM> default.

yes, _all_ text. DPI affects font size, but it doesn't change line width --
and still most applications have 1-pixel line width. it looks larger, but it
doesn't look better.

fonts with larger line width are better on first sight, but still they have
too crisp (jagged) edge and it doesn't look good..
recently i've found some PDF with font that didn't got antialiasing
(typically Acrobat does very heavy AA and it outweights monitor's
defficiencies) -- and it was quite painful to read it even with very large
font.

i'm using the beast for two months already, and i've got used to it, so i've
read lots of text with it.
however i still feel i have worse quality than i had before with old crappy
monitors and i worry about that -- have i got downgrade or upgrade after
all?

JM> over text readability than anything else I've tried -- before I finally
JM> settled upon a 150% value the 1080P display on my 42" Sharp HDTV from
JM> the HTPC I had built meant I needed to be virtually on top of it to
JM> read the fine print. The text always was of outstanding quality -- it
JM> just was not using enough pixels to be readable from a sane distance.

if you look on that large monitor from distance probably you get natural
smoothing -- pixels would be relatively small. (also it might have different
of technology than mine).
 
Alex Mizrahi said:
I've switched to 22" TFT monitor (Samsung SyncMaster 225bw) from an old
17" CRT one, and I've got problems with text quality -- all lines are too
freaking thin and too crisp. antialiasing (ClearType smoothing) helps a
little, but it's still barely bearable. i've also adjusted "sharpness"
parameters in config to a quite low value, so it gets blurred, and it's
somewhat bearable for now, but it's still not match for an old CRT monitor
which had nice analogous smoothing rather than digital bluring.

it might seem i just have LCD allergia, but i'm pretty sure i do not -- i
also have HP/Compaq nx6110 notebook with 15" TFT, and it is just fine, i'm
using it even w/o antialiasing.

(that's why i didn't do testing to monitor i've bought, i thought they
cannot make it worse than old freaky TFT. they could..)

text displaying quality is extremely important for me because i work with
text all the day. but unfortunately i cannot find any information about
text quality for LCDs. i'd like to know why notebooks TFT is better and is
it possible to buy bigger one like that.

CNET reviews say that LCDs are much better than CRT for text displaying
because of better sharpness and contrast -- that's insanity! exactly
qualities i'm fighting with.

i had idea that differentce between 22" and 15" TFT is pixel size --
indeed 22" has smaller pixels, so lines are thinner. i've got 19" monitor
for testing -- it has pixels almost as big as 15", 5% bigger than of 22",
and indeed i see some difference. it's quite bearable even w/o tuning
smoothness, but still 15" is clearly better..

so if switching to 19" doesn't help much, i don't know what to do.. i also
have a wild idea that switching from VGA input to DVI might help,
somehow.. actually they say that DVI is more crisp (no analog noise), but
perhaps monitor does some signal processing of VGA input making it more
crisp digitally, and that's why it sucks. currently i do not have DVI
input (freaking ASUS mobo with intnl card), but i'm considering buying
videocard so maybe it will change something, magically..

if that won't help, i don't know.. perhaps it's worth switching to other
techonology -- IPS instead of TN+film, or something.. but i haven't seen
any info how does technology affects text quality, and switching blindly
is not a good idea. sometimes i feel like i'm the only freak on the earth
who notices this -- as CNET reviewers advices getting monitor with
smallest pixels for best quality. *OMG*

i thought i could check text quality on different monitors in computer
shops, but unfortunately typically they display videos and not text, and
i'm too shy to ask assistant to switch to text if i'm not going to
actually buy product.. but sometimes they display text, and my findings so
far are sad -- MacBook Pro (notebook) has just brilliant text quality,
and Apple's largish 30" cinema display has shitty quality for text -- it's
too freaking small, again, but picture in photoshop looked very well.. so,
where can i find TFT as they use in notebooks in standalone format??
Click to expand...

it just could be a faulty unit..............

use the 3 warranty and have it replaced.
 
I've switched to 22" TFT monitor (Samsung SyncMaster 225bw) from an old 17"
CRT one, and I've got problems with text quality -- all lines are too
freaking thin and too crisp.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "line"? A font size can be changed, while
a one pixel line in an application is supposed to be one
pixel wide, not blurred like it's antialiased.


antialiasing (ClearType smoothing) helps a
little, but it's still barely bearable. i've also adjusted "sharpness"
parameters in config to a quite low value, so it gets blurred, and it's
somewhat bearable for now, but it's still not match for an old CRT monitor
which had nice analogous smoothing rather than digital bluring.
Click to expand...

So you don't really mean it isn't bearable, you mean you
don't like it but that it's actually more usable than ever
before, because now the text has extremely high contrast
which in fact makes it easier to read. Regardless, if you
don't like that then just increase the font size and realize
that what you are now seeing is how it was supposed to look,
while your old CRT severely degraded it. I'm suggesting you
just need time to get used to it and once you have you'll
realize the plusses outweigh the minuses, that often it is
best to have one pixel show up the way it is supposed to.


it might seem i just have LCD allergia, but i'm pretty sure i do not -- i
also have HP/Compaq nx6110 notebook with 15" TFT, and it is just fine, i'm
using it even w/o antialiasing.
(that's why i didn't do testing to monitor i've bought, i thought they
cannot make it worse than old freaky TFT. they could..)
Click to expand...

.... but it's not actually worse, you just have a subjective
opinion. Many people do want exactly what you dislike in
your monitor, per-pixel precision.

text displaying quality is extremely important for me because i work with
text all the day. but unfortunately i cannot find any information about text
quality for LCDs. i'd like to know why notebooks TFT is better and is it
possible to buy bigger one like that.
Click to expand...

Then I disagree that you need something different. Text is
better read when it is not blurred the way you're trying to
do it, and is far worse to read on a CRT.

CNET reviews say that LCDs are much better than CRT for text displaying
because of better sharpness and contrast -- that's insanity! exactly
qualities i'm fighting with.
Click to expand...

They are correct, LCDs are much much better for text. What
you have now is so much better than it's taking you a while
to get used to how much better it is!

i had idea that differentce between 22" and 15" TFT is pixel size -- indeed
22" has smaller pixels, so lines are thinner. i've got 19" monitor for
testing -- it has pixels almost as big as 15", 5% bigger than of 22", and
indeed i see some difference. it's quite bearable even w/o tuning
smoothness, but still 15" is clearly better..

so if switching to 19" doesn't help much, i don't know what to do.. i also
have a wild idea that switching from VGA input to DVI might help, somehow..
Click to expand...

Oh, you're using VGA. Yes you should definitely use DVI
with a 22" LCD, it won't make the text more blurry but what
it will do is get rid of the artificial sharpening filter
the LCD uses which makes text less shimmery. Maybe that was
the whole problem you faced, that it is such a high
resolution over analog then sharpened (even when sharpness
is down to a minimal level).

If you still have a change to return the monitor under
warranty I suggest that you quickly get a DVI capable video
card to see if it makes enough of a difference before your
chance to return the monitor has expired.


actually they say that DVI is more crisp (no analog noise), but perhaps
monitor does some signal processing of VGA input making it more crisp
digitally, and that's why it sucks.
Click to expand...

Yes DVI is more crisp and yes analog does processing, making
it artificially crisp again. Always use DVI when reasonably
possible, especially above about 1280x1024 resolution.
Further, integrated video may look even worse with an analog
connection, and using a poor quality analog cable will also
make things worse (Including the cable that came with the
monitor if one did, we can't assume they sent an especially
high quality cable rather than whatever was cheaper to
provide).

currently i do not have DVI input
(freaking ASUS mobo with intnl card), but i'm considering buying videocard
so maybe it will change something, magically..

if that won't help, i don't know.. perhaps it's worth switching to other
techonology -- IPS instead of TN+film, or something.. but i haven't seen any
info how does technology affects text quality, and switching blindly is not
a good idea. sometimes i feel like i'm the only freak on the earth who
notices this -- as CNET reviewers advices getting monitor with smallest
pixels for best quality. *OMG*
Click to expand...

Smallest pixels may or may not be an improvement depending
on the use. I suggest you go to a local store and look at a
few different sizes since your tastes and requirement seen
quite different than some other people's requirements. This
would not only allow seeing different sizes and dot pitch
but also TN versus *VA and IPS panels.


i thought i could check text quality on different monitors in computer
shops, but unfortunately typically they display videos and not text, and i'm
too shy to ask assistant to switch to text if i'm not going to actually buy
product..
Click to expand...


Ask them to switch it to text, you will never know until you
see it. Remember you are not required to buy it right that
minute, but they might have something closer to what you
want and you might end up buying.

but sometimes they display text, and my findings so far are sad --
MacBook Pro (notebook) has just brilliant text quality, and Apple's largish
30" cinema display has shitty quality for text -- it's too freaking small,
again, but picture in photoshop looked very well.. so, where can i find TFT
as they use in notebooks in standalone format??
Click to expand...

They have smaller dot pitch and a reflective hard coating,
IIRC. Some of the more expensive 24" and 20-21" inch are
also like this, you need to try them in a store.
 
??>> I've switched to 22" TFT monitor (Samsung SyncMaster 225bw) from an
??>> old 17" CRT one, and I've got problems with text quality -- all lines
??>> are too freaking thin and too crisp.

k> What do you mean "line"? A font size can be changed,

most fonts used normally have lines with one pixel width.
i can set much larger font that has much wider lines -- it it's too
contrast/crisp/jaggy.

k> So you don't really mean it isn't bearable, you mean you
k> don't like it but that it's actually more usable than ever
k> before, because now the text has extremely high contrast
k> which in fact makes it easier to read.

yes, too much contrast. i don't see why it's easier to read -- why do we
have antialiasing then (ClearType is recommended for LCDs, you know)? why
does Adobe use very heavy antialiasing in their PDF viewer? they want to
make it harder to read?

k> Regardless, if you don't like that then just increase the font size
k> and realize that what you are now seeing is how it was supposed to look,

no, it's not how it's supposed to look. natural pictures are not jaggy.
CRT has nice built-in smoothing, while LCD needs artificial digital
algorithms, which suck..

??>> it might seem i just have LCD allergia, but i'm pretty sure i do not
??>> -- i also have HP/Compaq nx6110 notebook with 15" TFT, and it is just
??>> fine, i'm using it even w/o antialiasing. (that's why i didn't do
??>> testing to monitor i've bought, i thought they cannot make it worse
??>> than old freaky TFT. they could..)

k> ... but it's not actually worse, you just have a subjective
k> opinion. Many people do want exactly what you dislike in
k> your monitor, per-pixel precision.

well, my notebooks monitor has exactly same per pixel precision, but somehow
it looks much better (i've it and 22" and 19" side to side and compared).
the visible difference is pretty big, so i wonder what is technological
difference. (i've tried to take a closeup photo of pixels, but that didn't
show why notebooks TFT is better..)

??>> actually they say that DVI is more crisp (no analog noise), but
??>> perhaps monitor does some signal processing of VGA input making it
??>> more crisp digitally, and that's why it sucks.

k> Yes DVI is more crisp and yes analog does processing, making
k> it artificially crisp again.

aha, so it's a known fact that analog gets processed? i've heard rumors
about this, but they are were not convincing (Samsung monitors have
sharpness settings even with DVI, so i thought maybe it gets same processing
anyway). picking another monitor would be a lot of hassle since i'll need to
get rid of current one, so i'll try to get a video card as my only hope :),
and it should also be better for gaming in any case..
 
??>> I've switched to 22" TFT monitor (Samsung SyncMaster 225bw) from an
??>> old 17" CRT one, and I've got problems with text quality -- all lines
??>> are too freaking thin and too crisp.

k> What do you mean "line"? A font size can be changed,

most fonts used normally have lines with one pixel width.
i can set much larger font that has much wider lines -- it it's too
contrast/crisp/jaggy.
Click to expand...

But that is the ideal with black text, to have a maximum
possible contrast since it is black and the background is
(presumably) white. It will look smoother to use a monitor
with smaller pixel pitch, use the monitor further away from
you, use Cleartype, or a combination of all of these.
However, it is an esthetic thing not actually a problem or
readability issue. Remember, you are now seeing what you
computer is outputting while you weren't before. This is
accurate text.

k> So you don't really mean it isn't bearable, you mean you
k> don't like it but that it's actually more usable than ever
k> before, because now the text has extremely high contrast
k> which in fact makes it easier to read.

yes, too much contrast. i don't see why it's easier to read -- why do we
have antialiasing then (ClearType is recommended for LCDs, you know)?
Click to expand...

We have cleartype because MS wants to make their OS seem
feature-rich. There is no such thing as too much contrast,
it is an ideal goal. That is also what is desired for paper
print, a sheet as white as possible (note that the brighter
white the paper the more it costs), and a pure black ink or
toner for maximum readability. With this in mind and that
the difference in paper and LCD (for one) is the LCD is
brighter, I wonder if you just have your monitor's
brightness set too high.


why
does Adobe use very heavy antialiasing in their PDF viewer? they want to
make it harder to read?
Click to expand...

Because there are two types of people reading things, those
that think smooth is good, and those who realize the eye
focuses better on things that have distinct forms, it tries
to refocus to make what will never be sharp, sharper than it
is.

Essentially, Cleartype is a shortcut towards trying to fix
an inherant limitation in our tech (pixel pitch is still
fairly large in any LCD monitor), and a problem with the OS
using point fonts instead of vectors (but it can't
effectively because the monitor pixel pitch isn't high
enough yet).

Basically, you are acting as though very smooth text is
important when it is not, when it is actually worse to have
smooth text if it requires reduction in contrast instead of
much smaller pixels but retaining the same maximum contrast.

What you got used to with a CRT doesn't make smooth fonts
better, it just means you are now needing to get used to
something else just as you once had to get used to a CRT.


k> Regardless, if you don't like that then just increase the font size
k> and realize that what you are now seeing is how it was supposed to look,

no, it's not how it's supposed to look.
Click to expand...

False, it is exactly how it's supposed to look. The OS uses
fonts that are defined pixels, point sizes made up of
(usually) black pixels on a white background. You are for
the first time seeing what is really there instead of a
blur. What is really there is indeed more pixelated than
real life, but it is an accurate representation of
_computer_output, it was never supposed to be an accurate
representation of real life at this pixel pitch.

natural pictures are not jaggy.
Click to expand...

This isn't a "natural picture", this is a computer output at
1680x1050. The most optimal thing for a monitor to do when
the computer says one pixel is pure black and the adjacent
is pure white, is to display them as such.
CRT has nice built-in smoothing, while LCD needs artificial digital
algorithms, which suck..
Click to expand...

I completely disagree, the worst thing about a CRT is that
it blurs everything, which is what you are calling "nice
built-in smoothing. That smoothing degrades the picture,
causes loss of detail. LCD does not need artificial
algorithms, it is better than CRT right now at anything
except dark black contrast levels (when there are no
adjacent light pixels) and minimizing ghosting.

All LCDs need to achieve what you want is smaller pixel
pitch and better vector font scaling. What they should
never do is degrade like a CRT instead.

??>> it might seem i just have LCD allergia, but i'm pretty sure i do not
??>> -- i also have HP/Compaq nx6110 notebook with 15" TFT, and it is just
??>> fine, i'm using it even w/o antialiasing. (that's why i didn't do
??>> testing to monitor i've bought, i thought they cannot make it worse
??>> than old freaky TFT. they could..)

k> ... but it's not actually worse, you just have a subjective
k> opinion. Many people do want exactly what you dislike in
k> your monitor, per-pixel precision.

well, my notebooks monitor has exactly same per pixel precision, but somehow
it looks much better (i've it and 22" and 19" side to side and compared).
the visible difference is pretty big, so i wonder what is technological
difference. (i've tried to take a closeup photo of pixels, but that didn't
show why notebooks TFT is better..)
Click to expand...

First, use DVI. Once you have this you can more accurately
judge the intended pixel accuracy. Maybe this new LCD is
not what you wanted, maybe some other model of LCD, even a
different size would suit your tastes better. It seems to
be true since you don't feel the notebook display is as bad,
but actually I think the notebook display is just less
accurate. Does it have a glossy screen? This will account
for part of the difference.

??>> actually they say that DVI is more crisp (no analog noise), but
??>> perhaps monitor does some signal processing of VGA input making it
??>> more crisp digitally, and that's why it sucks.

k> Yes DVI is more crisp and yes analog does processing, making
k> it artificially crisp again.

aha, so it's a known fact that analog gets processed?
Click to expand...

It has to be processed to convert back into digital to be
displayed on an LCD matrix. The sharpness setting on your
monitor is further realtime processing of this.

i've heard rumors
about this, but they are were not convincing (Samsung monitors have
sharpness settings even with DVI, so i thought maybe it gets same processing
anyway).
Click to expand...

Are you certain the sharpness setting actually works when
it's in DVI mode? I've seen quite a few that have sharpness
setting but it didn't do anything in DVI mode, only in
analog. There should be no need for sharpness in DVI mode
anyway since it is exactly what the video card output.
picking another monitor would be a lot of hassle since i'll need to
get rid of current one, so i'll try to get a video card as my only hope :),
and it should also be better for gaming in any case..
Click to expand...

Well if you felt this way the first day you saw the monitor
I don't understand why you kept it then, instead of
returning it... surely you bought it from someplace with a
reasonably return policy? If not, I recommend this next
time.

Whether it is a hassle or not, only you can decide whether
it's worth the hassle... from one you wrote it seems like
you insist on a different monitor and won't be happy till
you go through the hassle to do that. I suggest you get a
24" with a glossy screen, and use DVI, to get a little
closer to your goal of a laptop-like display... but if
you're going to be picky about it you may still have to try
a few before being sure it's the right one for you.
 
Two things you could do
1: change to a 17 inch screen which in my view is a better size for text
display
2: change graphics card and use dvi cable
your on board graphics card can't handle the size of the monitor.

I have taken a look at larger monitors and found the resolution they were
set at and the text was to small to read.

or with what you have got play around with the resolution and text size
until you find what suits you best.

or change to linux text is displayed is better the xp or change to vista
text in vista is better than xp.
 
D> simple question what do you use your pc for?

mostly i read texts,like in internets or newsgroups, and do programming.

sometimes i play games and watch movies -- but i've found 22" TFT is very
good for these activities :).

in your other posting you said that it can be better if i switch to Linux.
i've checked how it looks on Linux and i don't find it that better..
and, moreover, i have most problems with text editor called XEmacs on
Linux -- it doesn't have font antialiasing in stable version yet, and
non-antialised fonts look terrible for me.
so i had to turn down sharpness on monitor -- it gets more smooth, but also
blurry :(.

what's interesting, i've noticed that best font rendering for this monitor
i've seen is in CS game: they have bright (e.g. yellow) color, 2-pixel-wide
lines, sometimes with 1-pixel shadow, and it looks great..

unfortunately i was not able to reproduce it in other programs -- i tried
different fonts, sizes and color schemes, but it sucks..

uh, it was much less complicated with CRT monitor..
 
Alex said:
D> simple question what do you use your pc for?

mostly i read texts,like in internets or newsgroups, and do programming.

sometimes i play games and watch movies -- but i've found 22" TFT is very
good for these activities :).

in your other posting you said that it can be better if i switch to Linux.
i've checked how it looks on Linux and i don't find it that better..
and, moreover, i have most problems with text editor called XEmacs on
Linux --
Click to expand...

have a look at kate or kwrite i just took a look at XEmacs and yes it was
shit kate is very good for programming different languages. To do that go
to settings and take a look around
 
Back
Top