Michael
S
|
|
4/3/2002 9:08:19 PM
|
Not rated
|
This morning (April 3 2002) my monitor died a firey death...and electrical explosive sound followed by billowing smoke and lots of sparks (no this is not an exageration).
I would like to buy a flat-screen monitor rather quickly so I could get back to my desktop machine. What is a good price to pay? Good brand?
I'm looking for a 15" flat screen with good quality and not so pricey.
BTW -- how do flat screens handle under FPS games? Is there lag or ghosting?
|
|
Reid
Jonasson
|
|
4/4/2002 3:23:52 PM
|
Not rated
|
Wow, so did you watch all of this happen? It would have been cool to see. As for which flat panel to buy, I dont have too many recommendations as of yet, but I would check out the following website. It was updated in feb so its not too old, and its tomshardware, so it should be a good review.
|
|
Ian
Mercer
|
|
4/4/2002 3:25:14 PM
|
Avg. Rating: 1 by 2 Users
|
I've seen a ViewSonic 17" LCD that was GOD, and I've seen KDS 15" screens that were just as impressive....
|
|
Michael
S
|
|
4/4/2002 5:16:42 PM
|
Not rated
|
Reid,
Here's how the drama unfolded:
I woke up in the morning and turned on my monitor (my computer is on 24/7) to check email. There was a persistant crackling sound and the monitor screen was black with some white flickering lines on it. At the time I thought the sound was speaker feedback.
A few seconds later the crackling sound grew to a large electrical popping sound followed by billowing smoke. The vent on the back of the monitor was flashing from sparks and several actually found their way out of the monitor. I quickly shut the power switch and everything went silent.
Now I'm shopping for a flat screen LCD.
|
|
Mark
Chen-Quee
|
|
4/5/2002 12:38:04 AM
|
Not rated
|
The KDS Rad-5 has gotten pretty good reviews... I saw one in a store briefly and it did look pretty good. I think it also has pretty good pixel-response times(can't remember the exact specs, but I'm sure you can search for them online), so there shouldn't be much ghosting on it.
|
|
Michael
S
|
|
4/5/2002 12:44:44 AM
|
Not rated
|
Mark,
From what I've been reading so far, the refresh times will be a dissapointment for hardcore gamers.
also the poor contrast results in only ~300,000 colors instead of 16 million because subtle changes in dark shades can't be resolved with the technology.
I'm still researching. . . but I'm kinda sitting on a fence between getting a 21" CRT and a 15" LCD.
|
|
Harrison
Gladden
|
|
4/5/2002 2:42:11 AM
|
Not rated
|
i've got a nice NEC flat screen i paid about $400 for it and i haven't had any problems with it at all, i think it's a damn good monitor compaired to some of the others my friends have
|
|
Rick
Burkhart
|
|
4/5/2002 10:05:36 AM
|
Not rated
|
Some of the flat screens I've seen used are a bit slow with graphically intense games, although from what I've heard there are also two different kinds of flat screens coming out (digital vs. analog or something) i don't know too much about that but it might be something to consider.
Anyway, back to the point . . . gaming is a bit tougher on flat screens and they seem to lag just a bit with quick changes in graphics, overall I think flat screens are great for home/dorm systems that aren't used primarily for gaming, but if it's image quality that your looking for, I think some of the better CRT monitors still hold an edge over the best flat screens (but times are changing . . . maybe in a year I'll be eating my words ?? :-)
|
|
Michael
S
|
|
4/5/2002 8:47:54 PM
|
Not rated
|
Harrison and Rick,
I'm glad I finally ran into some people with LCDs. So now it's time to ask some pointed questions for each of you:
- Does the color depth look much different from a CRT running at 16 million colors? I read reviews that said dark colors were difficult to resolve.
- How much lag is there for intense 3D gaming (FPS)? Could you describe the problems you've observed.
- Is viewing angle ever a problem?
- I normally run my monitor at 1600x1200 and all 15" LCDs run at ~1000x768. Is this constraint ever a problem?
- Besides price, what are the specs that I should be looking for when deciding to make my purchase. It's not like CRTs where I simply look at refresh, dot pitch, and max resolution.
|
|
K
K
|
|
4/6/2002 6:40:48 PM
|
Not rated
|
you can consider to get NEC fair price which less than $350 of course if you want to get better flat planel screen you should consider to get SONY.
|
|
Rick
Burkhart
|
|
4/6/2002 11:30:00 PM
|
Not rated
|
hey,
darker colors are def. difficult to resolve sometimes, in fact, at times the darker colors seem to "block" together making the screen seem unreal . . . but most of the time and for most colors this isn't a problem. It usually only happens with dark blues, browns, or "almost" blacks.
The lag is probably only fractions of a second in "intense" gaming . . . .just enough to make it noticeable, but not really enough to really affect the play . . .
viewing angle's never been a problem, but I always sit in one place in front of the monitor, it's on a home desk in a semi-small den . . . so I don't move around much on the desk while I'm working on the computer
I've never noticed the image quality constraints (i.e. 1000X768 vs. 1600X1200) to be much of a problem . . . I have a CRT on my other machine and I would say the static picture quality between the two are negligible under normal use . . .
As far as LCD's go . . . there are a lot of similar things to look for . . . the typical picture quality things like dot pitch and max resolution are still there, but I would encourage you to just be sure that you can handle a slightly smaller viewable area, one of my friends actually sold his LCD after purchasing it because he didn't like the change from a larger CRT . . .
I may have mentioned this before . . . but find out some info on "digital" vs. "analog" . . . I've heard that the newer LCD's run differently from the older ones ( I assume they call them "digital" ), and the lag and resolution is improved over the older style ones. I don't know much about that specifically though, I don't know if anyone else does?
Hope this helps :-)
Rick
|
|
Michael
S
|
|
4/6/2002 11:49:11 PM
|
Not rated
|
Rick,
I went looking at LCDs at CompUSA and BestBuy today. Ugh! They all look almost identical. The only real differences I can detect are brightness and viewing angle. Fortunately, they had a large set of flat-screens that were all playing the Matrix DVD so I could make an unbiased comparison.
What brand/model do you have? I don't recall seeing it in this thread.
One other question. Do you have a good video card driving your LCD? I'd hate to think that my GeForce3 Ti would be wasted because it's feeding an LCD.
|
|
Rick
Burkhart
|
|
4/7/2002 12:49:39 AM
|
Not rated
|
I have a KDS radius 15' ... and that's how I bought it really, I did a little research, and then went to the store and just kinda stood there and choose between the two or three that I'd narrowed it down to.
I have a decent video card . . . it's a legacy (i'm not sure of the exact model) that's about a year and a half old, so it's definitely not a great card by today's standards. I would expect that a better card might improve some of the problems with the lag and perhaps even color contrast controls.
|
|
Michael
S
|
|
4/7/2002 12:58:10 AM
|
Not rated
|
Rick,
From my research, the problems with the color contrast and lag times are inherent in the LCD technology. An LCD advertised as having 16 million colors actually only has ~300,000 because the darker shades of every color in the visible spectrum can't be resolved by the screen technology. The lag time is also an issue that is held up by technology. I've read that in a year or so the lag time should be greatly diminished or even eliminated altogether.
This is really a tough choice. I could live with a LCD with 1280 x 1024 resolution. Unfortunately the price differential in LCDs from 1028x768 to 1280x1024 is roughly $200 more money. I don't care about screen size, just the resolution. The amount of real estate on the screen is my concern. The only way to get that extra resolution is to go from 15" up to 17". But that's alot of money.
|
|
Rick
Burkhart
|
|
4/7/2002 1:12:47 AM
|
Not rated
|
Yeah . . . I know what you mean . . . I'm not sure that buying one right now would be the best thing for you then. The technology looks to be radically changing in the past 1/2 year, and hopefully it will continue until they're equal to the CRT's. Additionally, hopefully someone can come up with a less expensive way to build those things. Perhaps in a little time an LCD will be a bit more affordable, and the differences between an LCD and a CRT will become truly negligible.
Perhaps an intermediate for you would be a nice "flatscreen" CRT monitor (like the Sony Trinitron or a comparible model) . . . and then in a year's time the option to switch to an LCD will become black and white?
|
|
Michael
S
|
|
4/7/2002 3:35:45 PM
|
Not rated
|
Rick,
I just went back to the store (again) to look at LCDs. Sharp makes a very good LCD that supposedly has no lag for 3D gaming (Sharp LL-T1512W). The Sharp monitor also comes in a 17" version. A new monitor by Viewsonic is also available with an improved refresh rate. Prices are coming down. I've noticed a significant decrease in price just over the past two weeks.
|
|
Mark
Chen-Quee
|
|
4/7/2002 8:37:13 PM
|
Not rated
|
Michael,
If you're looking for a screen with minimum 1280x1024 resolution, you're looking at a 17" LCD which is somewhat pricier than a 15" LCD. The cheapest 17" LCD's run for $500, with quality ones running from $700-$900. I read somewhere that ECost has a Sony 18" LCD for $699 after rebate, which seems like a good price.
Personally, I own a Samsung 170T 17" LCD and am very pleased with it. I'm not much of a gamer so I can't comment on graphics-intensive games.
If price is your main concern then buy a good 19" CRT... but if you can spring for a good 17" LCD, go for it.
|
|
Michael
S
|
|
4/7/2002 8:44:19 PM
|
Not rated
|
Mark,
I read that the Samsung 170T is a good monitor for the price, but not the best for intense moving graphics. The monitor is great for general use, but doesn't resolve dark colors very well and has some blurring with fast moving graphics.
I concur with your quality range of $700-$900. The 17" monitors that work well with gaming as well as general use fall around $750-$850. Sharp recently came out with a really good LCD, but it's not currently sold in the US.
|
|
Michael
S
|
|
4/9/2002 11:21:47 PM
|
Not rated
|
I finally completed my research and selected the LCD monitor I want:
: : : Drum-roll please : : :
The ViewSonic VA800. It's 17", 1200x1024, 400:1, and has technology designed to reduce lag for multimedia and gaming. It happens to be on sale in BestBuy for $850 - $100 rebate = $750.
I'm going to buy it first thing in the morning. I give everyone an update then. . .
|
|
Sol
Chea
|
|
4/10/2002 1:38:23 AM
|
Not rated
|
My favorite right now is a Dell brand LCD, it's 20 in with 1600x1200 resolution, had digital, analog, component and s-video inputs, really good refresh and brightness. Unforunately it's about $1700, but mind you, it's 20 inches of screen, not like CRT that are 20 in monitors with 19 in viewable. Well, that's my dream... yeah, I'm a sorry site.
|
|