mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Looking for crisp text, good picture display and viewing angle, and a decent price. 4:3 or wide-screen immaterial. It's for someone in the family. Anybody got any favorites? Thanks.
Suggest a decent 19" LCD monitor
- Thread starter mubs
- Start date
ddrueding
Fixture
Bozo
Storage? I am Storage!
At work we have bought the Staples brand 19" LCD monitors. Very nice for less than $250.00.
Bozo :joker:
Bozo :joker:
good viewing angle and decent price are somewhat exclusive. TN film displays are the only option if price is a major consideration, but it has lousy viewing angles, as well as bogus "speed" and "refresh rates" displayed prominently in ads/reviews/in-store.
16.2 million colours isn't. It mean it is a 6-bit panel. It's only 262 144 colours, dithered.
16.7 million colours is an 8 bit panel. I hate marketers. Come the revolution, they'll be the first up against the wall.
Now having said that, for casual use, they can be fine. Uneven backlight/dead pixels would probably be more annoying. A lot of people seem to be having issues with LED backlit panels.
My hand goes up for Samsung panels as well. I had a 193T that had issues with the buttons on the front panel. The replacement process from Samsung Aus was painless, and quick. Kudos to them. They replaced it with the next model.
I've found http://www.xbitlabs.com/ to be a good resource.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
You can get proper Samsungs - 940Bs - for $225 off of Newegg.
Chewy509
Wotty wot wot.
Samsung gets my vote as well for a high-quality 19" panel...
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Thanks all. I'll keep you posted.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
We have been selling that exact model as our standard, everyday monitor for quite a while now, Tim. Very neat design, reasonably priced, happy with the picture quality given it's a mid-range TN film screen, you could do a lot worse.
The only low end Samsungs I've seen recently are a model without DVI which was on special from one of my suppliers the other day. Excellent value for money, no problems with the picture quality.
But in the end, I really only like true colour screens such as my superb Samsung 214Ts - and they are mega-expensive. You can't even get a 19 inch equivalent anymore.
The only low end Samsungs I've seen recently are a model without DVI which was on special from one of my suppliers the other day. Excellent value for money, no problems with the picture quality.
But in the end, I really only like true colour screens such as my superb Samsung 214Ts - and they are mega-expensive. You can't even get a 19 inch equivalent anymore.
Bozo
Storage? I am Storage!
Unfortunately, Newegg is not an authorized vender. And, we are paying $199.00 for the 19" Staples model.
Bozo :joker:
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
Thanks Tannin. I will hopefully be getting 2 of these at work to replace my aging CRTs, which give me terrible eye strain staring at them all day.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
True color panels seem to be as rare as hen's teeth at the smaller sizes. The Sammy 906BW seems to be the best of the bunch - seems to have it all.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
Looks nice. Too bad it's widescreen. I hate widescreen.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
The Samsung 904BW is one inch larger than yours, mubs,, and based on the one I was just looking looking at a minute ago, it's atrocious. I'm positive it's not a TFT panel; I've bought better monitors from fifth tier fly-by-nights (Sceptre, Hanns-G). I can't believe it says Samsung on it.
I spent a while last week arguing with someone who maintained that widescreen monitors are always better than 4x3. His contention is that Widescreen is always an upgrade in size from the 4x3 height. I maintained that it's always a downgrade in terms of real screen resolution, which I suspect is what most of us do when we hate on widescreens.
Still, apparently there are misguided people who don't see things that way.
That's why they're misguided.
I spent a while last week arguing with someone who maintained that widescreen monitors are always better than 4x3. His contention is that Widescreen is always an upgrade in size from the 4x3 height. I maintained that it's always a downgrade in terms of real screen resolution, which I suspect is what most of us do when we hate on widescreens.
Still, apparently there are misguided people who don't see things that way.
That's why they're misguided.
ddrueding
Fixture
I do feel that widescreens are less useful for most computer applications, but my real hate is for screens whose vertical resolution is less than 1024. This buries the OK button on dialogs, and breaks quite a few apps.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Well, the standard aspect monitors are also as rare as hen's teeth. The few that are available obviously use older tech; they have poor viewing angles and high refresh rates.
It scares me that Samsung can put out such great stuff and at the same time such awful shit. How do you trust the brand then? It's getting harder and harder to see everything for oneself in person. Most stores display just a few brands/models on the shop floor.
This is kinda remote advice I'm giving, and the more I think about it, the more I'm shitting bricks. They're totally computer unsavvy, and I have no idea what kind of video card their PC has. If I tell them to get a widescreen (and that looks inevitable at this point, given the other requirements) and their video card can't support it, I'm screwed. I should probably tell them to hang on to their CRT and replace it when they replace their PC in a year or two.
It scares me that Samsung can put out such great stuff and at the same time such awful shit. How do you trust the brand then? It's getting harder and harder to see everything for oneself in person. Most stores display just a few brands/models on the shop floor.
This is kinda remote advice I'm giving, and the more I think about it, the more I'm shitting bricks. They're totally computer unsavvy, and I have no idea what kind of video card their PC has. If I tell them to get a widescreen (and that looks inevitable at this point, given the other requirements) and their video card can't support it, I'm screwed. I should probably tell them to hang on to their CRT and replace it when they replace their PC in a year or two.
ddrueding
Fixture
To add to your paranoia, don't trust the refresh rates! The crappier screens will actually advertise faster G-G speeds. I also wouldn't put much stock in the viewing angles. Just pay the extra ~$20 and get a known good one.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
I'd pay a great deal more money for a large LCD that was NOT super-high resolution. I spent 90 minutes today trying to make a crazy old lady happy with that Samsung 904 I wrote about.
120dpi, extra-large fonts at 800x600 (on a widescreen, naturally) was the only thing that made her stop bitching.
120dpi, extra-large fonts at 800x600 (on a widescreen, naturally) was the only thing that made her stop bitching.
ddrueding
Fixture
I get my clients what I got for myself; an LCD HDTV. Even 1920x1080, spread over 42", is quite readable. The start bar is 1.25" tall.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
I want 19" 1024x768 screens.
ddrueding
Fixture
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
I run 1280x1024 on a 17" LCD and it's fine. Tell your older customers to invest in some $5 reading glasses from Walgreens.
ddrueding
Fixture
~60% of my customers complain about 1280x1024 on a 19" screen. This isn't an unusual thing. Hell, I didn't like 1600x1200 on a 22" myself.
Some people don't mind squinting at small text or putting on glasses, but I do. I like sitting back at my desk without my glasses and browsing the forums.
Some people don't mind squinting at small text or putting on glasses, but I do. I like sitting back at my desk without my glasses and browsing the forums.
~60% of my customers complain about 1280x1024 on a 19" screen. This isn't an unusual thing. Hell, I didn't like 1600x1200 on a 22" myself.
Some people don't mind squinting at small text or putting on glasses, but I do. I like sitting back at my desk without my glasses and browsing the forums.
As you get older, you too will need computer/reading glasses. Everyone does, because starting around 40, the lenses, in your eyes, start crystallizing and becoming rigid. Closeup vision slowly becomes non-existent without assistance (Squinting is not sufficient).
I'm 50 and just got glasses for the first time this week and the difference is like night and day. I may not wish to wear glasses, but I do wish to be able to read.
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
I wish my 19" could do 2048x1536. The screen door effect of seeing the individual pixels annoys me. I'd probably still notice them even at 2048x1536, but that's as high as most video cards go.
Where are the superresolution displays? What I would really like would be about 4000x3000 in a 21" size. Because my closeup vision seems to be as good as it ever was, the pixels would probably need to be under 0.1 mm before I wouldn't notice them. In fact, I can just barely see the sub-pixels on my 19" if I try.
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
All you need to do jtr, is marry (and stay married...oh the horror, oh the humanity of it all
) Pam Anderson for as long as her other husbands , and you might just get enough out of the divorce settlment to pay for one of these (umm, maybe enough to also pay for the doctor bills/medical treatments of diseases contracted by the usual method ) Honestly, if you're going to take such a high risk, might as well save some money and your sanity, and take a low cost air flight to Asia, lol.http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/11/02/toshiba.wquxga.lcd/
ddrueding
Fixture
3840x2400 22-inch LCD for $18k? Heh, amazing.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
And I thought I was a lone voice crying in the wilderness on the shallow-screen madness engulfing the computer world at present. It turns out that practically everyone here agrees. I'm surprised.
We sell about 7 to 1 standard screen vs shallow screen. I show people both, then let them make up their own minds. same price, same screen area (if you compare 19" standard vs 20" shallow), picture quality is much of a muchness. Only about 1 person in 7 actually prefers the shallow screen.
What the hell are the manufacturers smoking?
We sell about 7 to 1 standard screen vs shallow screen. I show people both, then let them make up their own minds. same price, same screen area (if you compare 19" standard vs 20" shallow), picture quality is much of a muchness. Only about 1 person in 7 actually prefers the shallow screen.
What the hell are the manufacturers smoking?
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
And another thing: the number of customers I have who need a decent print size, as oposed to the runny glass size you get with current LCD screens, is significant. We would sell ... oh ... around 30% of our screens to people who would buy a 1024 x 768 19 or 20 inch monitor in a heartbeat. We used to sell them 19 inch CRTs, but you can't get those anymore, so they buy 19 inch TFT and bitch and moan - and I cannot blame them for one instant.
Truly, our monitor manufacturers are stupid. A 30% market share is there waiting for you, Samsung, LG, Phillips, Viewsonic - whichever of you is the first to make a TFT screen with larger native print size will get 100% of that market. And older people (let's say the 40+ age group, and especially the 50+ group) - are you listning monitor manufacturers? - older people have got more money. House is paid for, kids (if any) are off their hands, they are often filling fairly senior positions and well-paid, and although they tend not to waste money on trinkets the way the 20-something ones do, if they see something they like, they will pay whatever the asking price is.
Stupid manufacturers. Don't they have any understanding of the customers that buy their products? Isn't that marketing 101, know thy customer?
Idiots. They deserve to go bankrupt. And one day, when one of them finally gets a clue, some of them will.
Truly, our monitor manufacturers are stupid. A 30% market share is there waiting for you, Samsung, LG, Phillips, Viewsonic - whichever of you is the first to make a TFT screen with larger native print size will get 100% of that market. And older people (let's say the 40+ age group, and especially the 50+ group) - are you listning monitor manufacturers? - older people have got more money. House is paid for, kids (if any) are off their hands, they are often filling fairly senior positions and well-paid, and although they tend not to waste money on trinkets the way the 20-something ones do, if they see something they like, they will pay whatever the asking price is.
Stupid manufacturers. Don't they have any understanding of the customers that buy their products? Isn't that marketing 101, know thy customer?
Idiots. They deserve to go bankrupt. And one day, when one of them finally gets a clue, some of them will.
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
Rather than making an intentionally crippled monitor (low resolution), wouldn't a better solution be to make software that isn't dependent on resolution?
This reminds me of the old days when apps, mainly games, were MHz dependent. PC manufacturers had to put turbo buttons on PCs for compatibility.
This reminds me of the old days when apps, mainly games, were MHz dependent. PC manufacturers had to put turbo buttons on PCs for compatibility.
ddrueding
Fixture
I agree that this is a software problem and not a hardware problem. A higher number of pixels and lower dot pitch should be a good thing, provided you can still get text and buttons the size you want them.
I suppose this will not change until we get a truly vector-based desktop, which won't happen until the resolution madness gets worse and the graphics cards get more powerful.
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
That would require intelligence on the part of Microsoft. We are more likely to see a lower-res monitor, or indeed, rains of frogs, first.
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
Higher resolution with a software solution really makes the most sense here. Part of the reason older people can't read small text on a screen is the pixelization. Lowering the screen resolution to make the test larger won't fix that. Rather, it makes it worse. In fact, with higher resolution they could probably read smaller text since it wouldn't have the pixelization. On my display, text becomes annoying to read once it's less than about 7 pixels high, yet I can easily read printed text half that size.
Like I said, we really need reasonable-cost displays on the order of 4000x3000 resolution plus the video cards to drive them. If mass-produced, such a panel wouldn't be much more money than current displays. It's screen area, not pixels, which drive the cost of LCD displays. It's a chicken-or-egg thing. Until ultra-high resolution displays are cheap enough few will want them, but they won't become cheap unless they're mass produced.
Like I said, we really need reasonable-cost displays on the order of 4000x3000 resolution plus the video cards to drive them. If mass-produced, such a panel wouldn't be much more money than current displays. It's screen area, not pixels, which drive the cost of LCD displays. It's a chicken-or-egg thing. Until ultra-high resolution displays are cheap enough few will want them, but they won't become cheap unless they're mass produced.
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
I'm hoping the tech/manufacturing from some of these ultra high res, ultra small notebook screens will start to bleed over to desktop monitors...
There are WXGA laptop screens roughly half the area of my 19" LCD that have roughly the same number of pixels.
I would think the necessary scaling would be natively available in the latest PC operating systems (Vista, X11, OSX).
There are WXGA laptop screens roughly half the area of my 19" LCD that have roughly the same number of pixels.
I would think the necessary scaling would be natively available in the latest PC operating systems (Vista, X11, OSX).
ddrueding
Fixture
Nope. Vista scaling is better than XP, but still breaks lots of things.
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
Now that we're well under way of a hijacking....
That sucks. I don't use Vista, just played w/ the pre-release versions. So I don't have practical knowledge there.
Rather than trying to put the support into the application layer, maybe it would be better to put it into the video subsystem... the monitor, vid card, and associated drivers.
That would allow Apps and the OS to stay the same, but those with high res displays (who will need a competent vid card anyway) can use video cards that have the capability built in to do high resolution scaling.
To some degree this is already built into current panels/vid cards, but I only encounter it when running lowly resolutions in DOS. The result in those instances is visual crap, but perhaps when pushing clear typed 1280x1024 to a decent upconverter (like those used in HDTV's) outputting to 4 times that resolution (seems to be a sensible start) we could get some decent results.
As long as you stick to a multiple of the native display resolution the resulting image should be acceptable, if not pretty decent. I imagine any softness from the upconversion would diminish as resolution increased.
Though I guess this is all a temporary band-aid that doesn't really solve the problem, and that is software designed for specific resolutions. Anything defined in pixels, really. Ideally everything displayed on screen should be defined in a unit that is not specific to any one display... perhaps percentage of screen width/height or relative to the font size...
This makes me wonder what web pages designed circa 1995 (~640x480) or 2000 (~800x600) look like today and what their usability is.... time for the WayBackMachine....
That sucks. I don't use Vista, just played w/ the pre-release versions. So I don't have practical knowledge there.
Rather than trying to put the support into the application layer, maybe it would be better to put it into the video subsystem... the monitor, vid card, and associated drivers.
That would allow Apps and the OS to stay the same, but those with high res displays (who will need a competent vid card anyway) can use video cards that have the capability built in to do high resolution scaling.
To some degree this is already built into current panels/vid cards, but I only encounter it when running lowly resolutions in DOS. The result in those instances is visual crap, but perhaps when pushing clear typed 1280x1024 to a decent upconverter (like those used in HDTV's) outputting to 4 times that resolution (seems to be a sensible start) we could get some decent results.
As long as you stick to a multiple of the native display resolution the resulting image should be acceptable, if not pretty decent. I imagine any softness from the upconversion would diminish as resolution increased.
Though I guess this is all a temporary band-aid that doesn't really solve the problem, and that is software designed for specific resolutions. Anything defined in pixels, really. Ideally everything displayed on screen should be defined in a unit that is not specific to any one display... perhaps percentage of screen width/height or relative to the font size...
This makes me wonder what web pages designed circa 1995 (~640x480) or 2000 (~800x600) look like today and what their usability is.... time for the WayBackMachine....
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
A lot of sites are still designed for 800x600. There are also an amazing number of people that still use 800x600. According to the site I have analytics for it is about 12%.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Naw, go ahead. I'm just amazed at how much this thread has grown. Typical SF characteristic!