I haven't even had a chance to check for dead pixels yet, but just from my 4 hours of use so far the panel is super sweet. makes my old monitor look like garbage. I'm gonna do a little research and see exactly what to cover for a monitor review and what to test.
from what i could tell the backlight was pretty even.
This new LCD is pretty good. Still recovering from the sticker shock, though.
I've run it mostly on 800 by 600 and 1024 by 768 resolutions. A couple times, when closing internet explorer at higher resolutions, it made the computer go to the BSOD, then restart.
When playing World of Warcraft, I find it best to keep the computer resolution at 800 by 600, and in the game set it for 1024 by 768. Anything higher makes the screen jittery and jerky.
Time for a new video card now!
I found a link to a video card comparison in a hardware upgrade thread I made here recently, and I spent a couple hours last night comparing various video cards to each other and to my current Radeon 9200 SE. My 9200 SUCKS compared to anything else I looked at.
I was looking at a Radeon 9800 the most, until I compared it to the Radeon X700 Pro AGP 256 MB card. Under $100 and better performance in most categories.
So I went on tigerdirect and ordered an X700, along with a 250 GB Seagate Barracuda hard drive for my main computer and a copper CPU cooler for another computer I'm working on. It should be here by tuesday.
What's wrong with 800 by 600? I don't like having the text and icons be too small, and 800 by 600 is just what I've gotten used to.
I've been starting to use 1024 by 768 more with this LCD screen.
Besides, if I did a full conversion to the higher resolution, all my icons would be out of place and I'd have to rearrange them. And when I go into the C drive and look for certain folders, which may sometimes be several layers deep for personal security purposes, changing the resolution moves them around.
As soon as my new 250 GB Seagate Barracuda hard drive gets here, I'll be doing a full reformat / reload of everything on the computer, then I can set it up to have everything be right with a higher resolution screen.
I just purchased a computer with the new core duo and 8800gtx and all the bells and whistles, and the free upgrade to vista premium, anyways which monitor would you all suggest? the UXGA or the widescreen? i definetly want to get the most out of the card and play HD stuff. THanks in advance.
*edit* also is High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) capable monitor important if i just want to play games in HD etc...
When I was in CompUSA and Circuit City and Best Buy, I looked at several widescreen and 4:3 LCD monitors on computers that were connected to the internet. I tried different resolutions, looked at different sites, and the widescreen just doesn't do it for me. Everything was too different, and I REALLY didn't like having several inches of blank space on the right side of the screen when viewing most websites.
Most people say widescreen is better for watching movies. Great, but how many of us do nothing but watch movies?
I did my full system overhaul yesterday, and with my 204B and Radeon X700 Pro 256 MB video card, World of Warcraft looks really good! I can run the monitor at its full 1600 by 1200 resolution without skipping frames or things like that.
I don't know what websites you look at, but there's not one website I go to that has blank space. Besides, blank space is good, it means your computer is better than the internet (Which serves to the lowest common denominator).
Yeh, and look for most things to go widescreen before long, I'm fairly sure that almost everything has except for the internet. I love having all the extra room on my 20" widescreen. I don't think I could go back to 4:3 for my main monitor.
I have a Samsung 214(t?) at work and love it. Widescreen would have been nice but only for the ability to rotate the monitor 90 degrees and being able to have an even longer viewing field. I find that having the monitor having greater height than width makes things much easier to read, besides, 1200 pixels wide is normally wide enough for most things, if not, I can just flip it and go back to 1600 pixels wide.
seriously, I love my Dell 2005FPW, and highly recommend the new 2007WFP. That new Dell Thrax linked to, the E207WFP looks very nice/priced also...although I use my USB hub and composite frequently.
I agree, I have a 2405 widescreen, and have installed numerous 19" and 20.1" Dells at work.
Beautiful picture, great form factor, and you can usually find a deal on them from some of the bargin-searching websites ( BensBargins, SlickDeals, etc)
0
nonstop30151° 27' 24.87" N // 0° 11' 38.91" WMember
edited December 2006
This is an interesting thread with respect to sensible monitor selection.
I'm surprised no one has considered the quality of real flat screen CRTs (wide screens are available as well).
They are slightly more expensive but many would argue that colours and resolutions are superior than any LCD monitor.
Given the prevalence of 2, 5 and 8ms LCDs with true-32bit panels, the thing that truly flat CRTs have upon their LCD counterparts these days are truly rich blacks and deep grays.
Given the prevalence of 2, 5 and 8ms LCDs with true-32bit panels, the thing that truly flat CRTs have upon their LCD counterparts these days are truly rich blacks and deep grays.
QFT.
Besides the fact that CRTs aren't made anymore (and thus almost impossible to find new), the majority of those being sold used are at an age where the CRT tubes themselves are reacing end of life, and are losing a lot in the way of true color representation and clarity. The remaining CRTs in my house reflect this fact.
I had a 21" Sony Trinitron E500 Flat Screen CRT for 3 years, I can honestly say that I enjoy the picture from my 2405 LCD more than the Sony. The 70lbs and extra desk top space I gained was well worth it...
This is an interesting thread with respect to sensible monitor selection.
I'm surprised no one has considered the quality of real flat screen CRTs (wide screens are available as well).
They are slightly more expensive but many would argue that colours and resolutions are superior than any LCD monitor.
0
nonstop30151° 27' 24.87" N // 0° 11' 38.91" WMember
edited December 2006
I purchased a new flat Philips CRT in February and the bigger companies (Viewsonic, Samsung etc.) still produce them if you really want to get one.
I don't believe there's any doubt over the superior longevity and durability of CRT monitors as opposed to that of LCDs or any other flat panels.
With respect to colour quality, again the new true flat CRT monitors offer a clarity and detailed definition that is as good as, if not better than that of some of their LCD counterparts.
I had a 21" Sony Trinitron E500 Flat Screen CRT for 3 years, I can honestly say that I enjoy the picture from my 2405 LCD more than the Sony. The 70lbs and extra desk top space I gained was well worth it...
We'll see what you think 2 years from now RADA about the picture from your LCD. You are comparing a 3 year old flat CRT with a new LCD there and your CRT is still performing well. If you had a new flat CRT and a 3 year old LCD you probably wouldn't bother comparing because the picture on the LCD wouldn't stand a chance.
Look. You have your opinion, we clearly have ours. Let's not have a pointless back and forth. Everyone is satisfied with their purchase, and that's what counts.
We'll see what you think 2 years from now RADA about the picture from your LCD. You are comparing a 3 year old flat CRT with a new LCD there and your CRT is still performing well. If you had a new flat CRT and a 3 year old LCD you probably wouldn't bother comparing because the picture on the LCD wouldn't stand a chance.
Truthfully, I was rather disappointed by the picture quality of the Sony. I had owned nothing but Sony Trinitron TVs in the past and loved all of them.
The E series CRTs were supposed to be the pinacle of CRT development, but I found it slow to "fill" the screen. The left side of the screen would have to "stretch" itself to fill in every time I turned it on. I even had it replaced under warranty because of this, and the 2nd CRT did the same thing. Also, Trinitrons have 2 thin wires running horzontally across the screen, cutting it into thirds. They were on my 32" Trinitron TV too. The big difference is the TV was far enough away that these filaments were invisible. As for the monitor, I could see them all the time. They were especially annoying when I was in Word, typing up a paper for school. My eye was drawn to them constantly.
As for my 2405, it's almost 2 years old, and just as clean and crisp as it was when I took it out of the box. No shadows, no dead pixels, nothing but a great picture. Between my fiance and I, its on over 5 hours a day, and we have yet to find a single issue with it.
As Thrax so smartly put, we can go back and forth for days and never agree. To each, their own. I personally, will happily stick with my LCD and never look back..
0
nonstop30151° 27' 24.87" N // 0° 11' 38.91" WMember
edited December 2006
Yes, with respect to Thrax and RADA's comments, I agree that each person is entitled to have their own views and vehemently defend the choices they have made.
My statements aren't intended to stimulate an argument about the monitor selections or criticise a purchase as a negative investment.
The thread here just focused totally on LCDs as if the flat CRTs are totally out of the picture, so I just added a small reminder.
LCD, Plasma or even the newer DLP technologies are undoubtedly the way forward, but I feel that their current standards haven't decisively wiped out the performance of modern flat CRTs as most retailers want their customers to believe.
but I feel that their current standards haven't decisively wiped out the performance of modern flat CRTs as most retailers want their customers to believe.
I don't think its the retailers that have driven this...its customers. I also don't get the attraction to wide screens (I scroll down 100 times a day, I scroll to the right once or twice a week) but for some reason consumers are going that way...and sellers are following along.
Comments
from what i could tell the backlight was pretty even.
I've run it mostly on 800 by 600 and 1024 by 768 resolutions. A couple times, when closing internet explorer at higher resolutions, it made the computer go to the BSOD, then restart.
When playing World of Warcraft, I find it best to keep the computer resolution at 800 by 600, and in the game set it for 1024 by 768. Anything higher makes the screen jittery and jerky.
Time for a new video card now!
I found a link to a video card comparison in a hardware upgrade thread I made here recently, and I spent a couple hours last night comparing various video cards to each other and to my current Radeon 9200 SE. My 9200 SUCKS compared to anything else I looked at.
I was looking at a Radeon 9800 the most, until I compared it to the Radeon X700 Pro AGP 256 MB card. Under $100 and better performance in most categories.
So I went on tigerdirect and ordered an X700, along with a 250 GB Seagate Barracuda hard drive for my main computer and a copper CPU cooler for another computer I'm working on. It should be here by tuesday.
I've been starting to use 1024 by 768 more with this LCD screen.
Besides, if I did a full conversion to the higher resolution, all my icons would be out of place and I'd have to rearrange them. And when I go into the C drive and look for certain folders, which may sometimes be several layers deep for personal security purposes, changing the resolution moves them around.
As soon as my new 250 GB Seagate Barracuda hard drive gets here, I'll be doing a full reformat / reload of everything on the computer, then I can set it up to have everything be right with a higher resolution screen.
I just purchased a computer with the new core duo and 8800gtx and all the bells and whistles, and the free upgrade to vista premium, anyways which monitor would you all suggest? the UXGA or the widescreen? i definetly want to get the most out of the card and play HD stuff. THanks in advance.
*edit* also is High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) capable monitor important if i just want to play games in HD etc...
Most people say widescreen is better for watching movies. Great, but how many of us do nothing but watch movies?
I did my full system overhaul yesterday, and with my 204B and Radeon X700 Pro 256 MB video card, World of Warcraft looks really good! I can run the monitor at its full 1600 by 1200 resolution without skipping frames or things like that.
BTW Tim, why don't you just increase the size of the icons/fonts and use a higher resolution? I
'm suprised anything looks right at 800x600. Even Windows defaults to 1024x768.
I agree, I have a 2405 widescreen, and have installed numerous 19" and 20.1" Dells at work.
Beautiful picture, great form factor, and you can usually find a deal on them from some of the bargin-searching websites ( BensBargins, SlickDeals, etc)
I'm surprised no one has considered the quality of real flat screen CRTs (wide screens are available as well).
They are slightly more expensive but many would argue that colours and resolutions are superior than any LCD monitor.
QFT.
Besides the fact that CRTs aren't made anymore (and thus almost impossible to find new), the majority of those being sold used are at an age where the CRT tubes themselves are reacing end of life, and are losing a lot in the way of true color representation and clarity. The remaining CRTs in my house reflect this fact.
I don't believe there's any doubt over the superior longevity and durability of CRT monitors as opposed to that of LCDs or any other flat panels.
With respect to colour quality, again the new true flat CRT monitors offer a clarity and detailed definition that is as good as, if not better than that of some of their LCD counterparts.
We'll see what you think 2 years from now RADA about the picture from your LCD. You are comparing a 3 year old flat CRT with a new LCD there and your CRT is still performing well. If you had a new flat CRT and a 3 year old LCD you probably wouldn't bother comparing because the picture on the LCD wouldn't stand a chance.
Truthfully, I was rather disappointed by the picture quality of the Sony. I had owned nothing but Sony Trinitron TVs in the past and loved all of them.
The E series CRTs were supposed to be the pinacle of CRT development, but I found it slow to "fill" the screen. The left side of the screen would have to "stretch" itself to fill in every time I turned it on. I even had it replaced under warranty because of this, and the 2nd CRT did the same thing. Also, Trinitrons have 2 thin wires running horzontally across the screen, cutting it into thirds. They were on my 32" Trinitron TV too. The big difference is the TV was far enough away that these filaments were invisible. As for the monitor, I could see them all the time. They were especially annoying when I was in Word, typing up a paper for school. My eye was drawn to them constantly.
As for my 2405, it's almost 2 years old, and just as clean and crisp as it was when I took it out of the box. No shadows, no dead pixels, nothing but a great picture. Between my fiance and I, its on over 5 hours a day, and we have yet to find a single issue with it.
As Thrax so smartly put, we can go back and forth for days and never agree. To each, their own. I personally, will happily stick with my LCD and never look back..
My statements aren't intended to stimulate an argument about the monitor selections or criticise a purchase as a negative investment.
The thread here just focused totally on LCDs as if the flat CRTs are totally out of the picture, so I just added a small reminder.
LCD, Plasma or even the newer DLP technologies are undoubtedly the way forward, but I feel that their current standards haven't decisively wiped out the performance of modern flat CRTs as most retailers want their customers to believe.
I don't think its the retailers that have driven this...its customers. I also don't get the attraction to wide screens (I scroll down 100 times a day, I scroll to the right once or twice a week) but for some reason consumers are going that way...and sellers are following along.