What about LCD monitors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Doe
  • Start date Start date
J

John Doe

Any hands-on experienced opinions with LCD monitors? They are both
lighter and more energy efficient?

I have a 19 inch ViewSonic PF790 (middle to high end) old monitor that
still looks great. It is big and heavy, but that is not an issue. What
LCD monitor would match the picture and size of that monitor?

How much better is 24 over 22 inch? What are the usable screen
dimensions, width times height?

Thanks.
 
John Doe said:
Any hands-on experienced opinions with LCD monitors? They are both
lighter and more energy efficient?

I have a 19 inch ViewSonic PF790 (middle to high end) old monitor that
still looks great. It is big and heavy, but that is not an issue. What
LCD monitor would match the picture and size of that monitor?

How much better is 24 over 22 inch? What are the usable screen
dimensions, width times height?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I love my LCD's. The picture is sharp and clear, response is v-fast, and
absolutely no distortion on the outer edges.
Any 19" LCD standard monitor will meet or exceed the screen size of a
standard 19" CRT. I have a 20" Dell LCD monitor (by Samsung) that is 16"
wide by 12" tall viewable. I have a 19" Dell LCD that is 15" wide x 12"
tall. Most of the larger monitors I've looked at are "letterbox" shaped or
"widescreen". Most of these are also right around 12" tall. I opted not for
the widescreen because my most common tasks involve documents,
spreadsheets, and webpages, so more height is preferred than width. But
people who play games and watch TV & movies love the 16:9 aspect ratio. Nice
thing is that you can physically rotate an LCD to be tall and thin. But I'm
too lazy to do the manual switching required. So I go with square(ish).
 
John Doe said:
Any hands-on experienced opinions with LCD monitors? They are both
lighter and more energy efficient?

I have a 19 inch ViewSonic PF790 (middle to high end) old monitor that
still looks great. It is big and heavy, but that is not an issue. What
LCD monitor would match the picture and size of that monitor?
Click to expand...
17" although probably not as high resolution.
How much better is 24 over 22 inch? What are the usable screen
dimensions, width times height?
Click to expand...
On a LCD, the size quoted is the usable screen size.
 
John Doe said:
Any hands-on experienced opinions with LCD monitors? They are both
lighter and more energy efficient?

I have a 19 inch ViewSonic PF790 (middle to high end) old monitor that
still looks great. It is big and heavy, but that is not an issue. What
LCD monitor would match the picture and size of that monitor?

How much better is 24 over 22 inch? What are the usable screen
dimensions, width times height?
Click to expand...

There are MANY levels of LCD monitors, just as there were many levels of CRT
monitors...

The higher-end Samsungs have been excellent performers and reasonable
values, though their lower-end line has had less than stellar performance.
I have 2 higher-end Samsungs, of 2 distinctly different generations (3 years
different), and they are both VERY nice, even compared to my old Trinitrons.

Read individual specs for individual screen dimensions. If you value screen
height, the "wide screen" sizes may not impress you as much as the diagonal
measurement may suggest.
 
Any hands-on experienced opinions with LCD monitors? They are both
lighter and more energy efficient?

I have a 19 inch ViewSonic PF790 (middle to high end) old monitor that
still looks great. It is big and heavy, but that is not an issue. What
LCD monitor would match the picture and size of that monitor?

How much better is 24 over 22 inch? What are the usable screen
dimensions, width times height?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

LCD Monitors come in three basic flavors: TN - lower end inexpensive
monitors with fast response times and typically narrow viewing angles,
although some have better viewing angles than others. PA - mid range
monitors with better color display and viewing angles. The trade off
is slower response times, althought some are close to the TN panels.
IPS - high end monitors with the best viewing angle and fair response
times and are the best for high end graphics work. The trade off is
that they are much more expensive than the other types.

I currently have two NEC 24" TN monitors for CADD work and the screen
real estate is phenominal. There is however a noticable fade in the
vibrance at the outer limits of the viewing angle. A co-worker has a
NEC 21" PA monitor that is sharp as a tack and is what I would have
chosen had they been available to me. We currently run the gamut from
cheap Dell 17" (I wouldn't touch these) to 22" NEC and Dell monitors
(fair).

I strongly suggest that you research a little to find the type of
monitor that will suit your needs. If you are into gaming, a sharp
monitor with slow response times probably won't suit your needs.
Finally, with that knowledge in hand, take a look for yourself.

HTH
Bill
 
LCD Monitors come in three basic flavors: TN - lower end inexpensive
monitors with fast response times and typically narrow viewing angles,
although some have better viewing angles than others. PA - mid range
monitors with better color display and viewing angles. The trade off
is slower response times, althought some are close to the TN panels.
IPS - high end monitors with the best viewing angle and fair response
times and are the best for high end graphics work. The trade off is
that they are much more expensive than the other types.
Click to expand...


Where is the VA panels in this three groups ?
 
I love my LCD's. The picture is sharp and clear, response is v-fast, and
absolutely no distortion on the outer edges.
Any 19" LCD standard monitor will meet or exceed the screen size of a
standard 19" CRT. I have a 20" Dell LCD monitor (by Samsung) that is 16"
wide by 12" tall viewable. I have a 19" Dell LCD that is 15" wide x 12"
tall. Most of the larger monitors I've looked at are "letterbox" shaped or
"widescreen". Most of these are also right around 12" tall. I opted not for
the widescreen because my most common tasks involve documents,
spreadsheets, and webpages, so more height is preferred than width. But
people who play games and watch TV & movies love the 16:9 aspect ratio. Nice
thing is that you can physically rotate an LCD to be tall and thin. But I'm
too lazy to do the manual switching required. So I go with square(ish).
Click to expand...
My 24" Acer monitor can side by side display 2 full sized 8x11 documents
perfectly.
 
Not to hijack this thread, but, what is the consensus on leaving an
LCD on after shutting down the 'puter. Should you turn the monitor off
or just let it sit there in sleep mode? Which is best for the monitor?
 
Where is the VA panels in this three groups ?
Click to expand...

Oops! meant VA (mid range) instead of PA, either PVA (Patterned
Vertical Alignment) or MVA (Multi-domain Vertical Alignment) I once
read about the technology, but have since forgotten the difference.

Bill
 
The Seabat said:
Not to hijack this thread, but, what is the consensus on leaving an
LCD on after shutting down the 'puter. Should you turn the monitor off
or just let it sit there in sleep mode? Which is best for the monitor?
Click to expand...

I let the computer shut it off, same as with my last CRT monitor.

Jon
 
Any hands-on experienced opinions with LCD monitors? They are both
lighter and more energy efficient?

I have a 19 inch ViewSonic PF790 (middle to high end) old monitor that
still looks great. It is big and heavy, but that is not an issue. What
LCD monitor would match the picture and size of that monitor?

How much better is 24 over 22 inch? What are the usable screen
dimensions, width times height?
Click to expand...

I've a 32" and use all of it. It's about three years old now. Set up
a hotkey to make it go 1W dormant with

Executor 0.9.7 (Build 0) Freeware

It's going to use more power than a 19" but I haven't hooked it up to
my Kill-A-Watt.
 
John said:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16824001311

New technology 120 hertz refresh rate LCD monitor.

The reviews are flattering, but whenever there are glowing reviews
about a new product technology, seems to me that they are effectively
saying "the old technology sucked" or "they solved one of the worst
problems about the old technology... more to come".
Click to expand...

There is a review here. This page comments about the 120Hz.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/samsung-sm2233rz_5.html#sect0

Paul
 
Any hands-on experienced opinions with LCD monitors? They are both
lighter and more energy efficient?

I have a 19 inch ViewSonic PF790 (middle to high end) old monitor that
still looks great. It is big and heavy, but that is not an issue. What
LCD monitor would match the picture and size of that monitor?

How much better is 24 over 22 inch? What are the usable screen
dimensions, width times height?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

TN, IPS, MVA, PVA, PSV - each of which has its own strengths and
weaknesses - Read about them here - Thin film transistor liquid
crystal display -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD

Eric,
PC Buyer Beware!
http://www.pcbuyerbeware.co.uk/
 
Then again... Maybe I just haven't looked at LCD monitors in too long.
Saw a low-end Samsung "N" type today, the viewing angle for that TN
type panel was not bad as I would have guessed.
 
John said:
Then again... Maybe I just haven't looked at LCD monitors in too long.
Saw a low-end Samsung "N" type today, the viewing angle for that TN
type panel was not bad as I would have guessed.
Click to expand...

My cheap Hanns-G shows a bright clear image to the side at a considerable
angle.
 
Eric said:
John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
Click to expand...
TN, IPS, MVA, PVA, PSV - each of which has its own strengths and
weaknesses - Read about them here - Thin film transistor liquid
crystal display -
Click to expand...

Looks like spam to me. That wiki stuff comes up too often when
searching for information on the Internet. Obviously they are very
good at indexing their web sites, but they contain too much
mis-information.

The problem with wiki is easy enough to understand IMO. The content
must be controlled/moderated by someone. Wiki is like a single group
of moderators trying to contain all information known to man (and
woman). But there is no point. I can find better information in
other places on the Internet. If Wiki were unmoderated and allowed
differing points of view like USENET, it might be worth
something to me.
 
Back
Top