phlat panels?

iroc409 · 02-24-2003, 11:09 AM

ok, anybody out there had some good experiences with late-model flat panels? i'm kinda thinking about getting one, but i have some concerns.

basically, i got a deal with a guy that he's going to be ordering a $2000 computer of my choice, and i'm considering throwing in a flat panel. due to the financial constraints of sorts, i'm looking primarily at mistubishi and samsung, 18" viewable.

my concerns are i'll really miss my CRT. i do a lot of graphics stuff, and i also heard they suck for games. i think they look cool, and the space savings is definitely a plus, but if the image isn't going to be accurate, and fairly similar in its res and such to my crt, then i guess there's really no reason to switch.

i realize there may be some degradation, but by how much?

anyway, thanks for the info ahead. i'm trying to stay under $600 with this thing, so no crazy-ass viewsonic 24".

airspirit · 02-24-2003, 12:51 PM

Most flat screens under $1000 have shitty refresh rates and low resolution. If you can live with 1280X768 and a crap refresh rate go for it. If you want a flat screen that gets nice resolution and a faster refresh (but still not as good as a CRT), you'll be spending around $1800 or more.

By bad refresh rates I mean that if you have a lot of stuff going on, you can actually watch the windows draw. If you're planning on doing 3D modeling or any gaming whatsoever, you'll be extremely disappointed in how they work.

bigben2k · 02-24-2003, 01:18 PM

Airspirit's right: you'll loose about a third of the refresh rate with a flat panel.

The refresh rate is important if you're going to be spending a long time on that PC (i.e. a few hours at a time), because a lower refresh rate will strain your eyes much faster.

It's also important for action games, because I'm sure that you don't care to see shadows of things floating over the screen, although that shouldn't be much of an issue, nowadays.

Of course I'm assuming that you do take the time to set the refresh rate to its maximum value; a lot of people leave it to the default 60 Hz...

iroc409 · 02-24-2003, 04:11 PM

hrm.. interesting to know. yeah, i spend around 5-18 hours a day on my computer. i do play quite a bit of games, and although i don't do much 3d rendering, i do use photoshop and such a lot.

dammit. well, i guess i'll check out more detailed specs first. i have a samsung 955df, maybe i'll get myself a g-series 19" veiwsonic.

oh yeah, 1600+ is pretty much a requirement.

Raccoon · 02-24-2003, 05:23 PM

Well... I just got one, I ordered a 17" Hitachi, with 16ms response time(the 16ms was very key in my choice). In games, I think the monitor is just fine, and I can not notice anything really. In windows, it lights up the room more, but does not seem like it strains my eyes or anything. Was it worth the cost? For me, probably, hopefully. I will find that out later I guess. But carrying it into a lan is Very simple, and was one of my reasons. and it was not super expensive.

Checkout monitorsdirect.com really nice way of comparing the monitors, and they have a good selection of them, as well as good prices. That is where I ordered mine from.
[
Hope this helps ya out some.

iroc409 · 02-24-2003, 11:46 PM

hrm... well, seems like a good site. they're wanting at least 600 bones for probably the cheapest one i'd consider, a viewsonic 18". but alas, only 1280x1024, what's up with that? that's it's "native resolution", as well - does that mean it would function fairly well at 1600? hrm. maybe i'd be better off spending $450 on a CRT of death...

well, off to do more research.

my reason for the res, is because i'm pretty much spoiled with being able to fit a lot of crap on one screen. and, i have a really nice monitor, so, i guess i'm spoiled there, too. i dunno. read read read. but, thanks very much for everyone's help. as cool as those panels are, it sounds like i'm gonna stay in the 90's.

airspirit · 02-25-2003, 10:43 AM

No, that means that it will only do up to that. Anything smaller looks funny, and it won't display anything bigger.

To get 1600x, you are looking at spending over $2000 on around a 22". The good part is on units that expensive, they also have a pretty good refresh rate. The bad part is that those types are prone to burn in images, so if you use IE (for example) a lot, eventually you'll have a ghost image of the IE toolbars BURNT into your monitor PERMANENTLY.

There is no good solution with LCDs yet, unless there is no other way to make a monitor fit on your desk. A CRT is better almost every time.

Look at it this way: of the dozens of computers I've built for people, I've only recommended ONE LCD monitor, and that was because the computer required a laptop sized footprint on the desk (LCD, keyboard, mouse).

Joe · 02-25-2003, 12:16 PM

I somewhat doubt you can really tell the difference in some of the cheaper 17"'s now. I have seen some 300$ (after rebate) 17"'s at LAN's and they seem to play just fine. for 90% of all users, flat panels are more than ok currently while still a bit out of the price range.

Its also something you get used to very fast. One thing I noticed after working on some cheaper 18" LCD's was how blurry CRT's were. you go from something So crisp and exact like a n LCD, its sort of shocking how blurred the lines are on a CRT.

I say if you have the money a 18" TFT is fine. EVen the 800$ Mitsubishi is real nice.

airspirit · 02-25-2003, 12:59 PM

Some CRTs are blurry. My wife uses one that makes me want to tear my eyes out. Some CRTs are crisper than my dress uniform was back in the Navy days. I have one of those on my main machine, and I've never encountered an LCD of any form under $1800 that can compare to it. The professional line of Viewsonic CRTs tend to have a clarity that is ungodly.

Raccoon · 02-25-2003, 01:12 PM

Monitors direct has some 1000 dollar monitors that do 1600x1200 that are not bad at all, but dont have the refresh rate. Airspirit, you need to take a look at LCD's again, most of your prices and information are old. When you get a larger screen the refresh rates generally go down, because they take more time to run across it all. There are some 18 and 19's that do 1600x1200 Princeton Graphics is one company that has one, but the response time is about 45ms on them usually. At that response you probably would see some blurring and such. And at about 1000 dollars is probably above what he is wanting to spend though. Just know that it is available in 1600x1200 if that is what you want, my requirement was better response time, so that is what i decided to go with, and in doing go, I went with a smaller screen.

Iroc, with your price constraints, and wants, more than likely a good crt is your better choice, it seems it outweighs the benefits of an LCD in your case, and the "cool" factor is not enough to justify how much you would have to take out of spending on your machine.

Hope this helps you out.

iroc409 · 02-25-2003, 11:43 PM

well everyone, i appreciate the input. as far as my current monitor is, i'm expecting similar if not better performance. i paid i think around $450 for this bad boy when it came out, and all the reviewers (including z-d) touted it as better than most of the sonys and viewsonics, for a much cheaper price. the clarity is awesome, i have yet to actually witness better.

i think i'm going to check out some pro series viewsonics. thinking about keeping this one, and getting me a 21-22", and ditching my kds flat tube (although my dad won't like that... they bought it for me for christmas a few years back

).

are the pro series view sonics better than the graphics series? it seems that the g-series has a smaller dot pitch, which used to generally mean a better picture. i guess it depends on price, i haven't checked the vs prices lately.

i guess now it's down to samsung or viewsonic crt's. although the samsung has a better aperture grille (smaller) than vs... argh!

iroc409 · 02-25-2003, 11:45 PM

oh yeah, i believe the g-series vs have a slightly lower refresh... but it's not by much.

and, some of the 19" series in both vs and samsung are available to 19xx res!

Alchemy · 02-26-2003, 12:30 AM

I use a Viewsonic VA520. It's decent. I really went mostly for the small size, since I don't do much gaming.

It looks very nice, matching my speakers, case, and Logitech cordless freedom keyboard and optical mouse. Its refresh tops at 75Hz. All I know is that for the crappy video card I use, it's more than enough.

I think it cost close to $500 when I got it last summer. When I get a good video card I'll set it up as a second monitor and use a decent CRT for games.

Anyone who wants to buy me these things would be quite welcome.

Alchemy

MeltMan · 02-26-2003, 05:12 PM

My personal favorite late model LCD is the Samsung Syncmaster 172T. Its only 1" smaller than a 19" CRT and has an excellent contrast ratio. Add that to its sweet viewing angle and low distortion in games. Plus, you wont find a dual input (DVI and SVGA) for less. I have another 17" panel at work and compared to my syncmaster, it sucks. Its a gateway FPD1730. Completely worthless in viewing angle and contrast.

02-24-2003, 11:09 AM	#1
iroc409 Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: midwest side, yo Posts: 596	phlat panels? ok, anybody out there had some good experiences with late-model flat panels? i'm kinda thinking about getting one, but i have some concerns. basically, i got a deal with a guy that he's going to be ordering a $2000 computer of my choice, and i'm considering throwing in a flat panel. due to the financial constraints of sorts, i'm looking primarily at mistubishi and samsung, 18" viewable. my concerns are i'll really miss my CRT. i do a lot of graphics stuff, and i also heard they suck for games. i think they look cool, and the space savings is definitely a plus, but if the image isn't going to be accurate, and fairly similar in its res and such to my crt, then i guess there's really no reason to switch. i realize there may be some degradation, but by how much? anyway, thanks for the info ahead. i'm trying to stay under $600 with this thing, so no crazy-ass viewsonic 24". __________________ :shrug:

02-24-2003, 12:51 PM	#2
airspirit Been /.'d... have you? Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Moscow, ID Posts: 1,986	Most flat screens under $1000 have shitty refresh rates and low resolution. If you can live with 1280X768 and a crap refresh rate go for it. If you want a flat screen that gets nice resolution and a faster refresh (but still not as good as a CRT), you'll be spending around $1800 or more. By bad refresh rates I mean that if you have a lot of stuff going on, you can actually watch the windows draw. If you're planning on doing 3D modeling or any gaming whatsoever, you'll be extremely disappointed in how they work. __________________ #!/bin/sh {who;} {last;} {pause;} {grep;} {touch;} {unzip;} mount /dev/girl -t {wet;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} echo yes yes yes {yes;} umount {/dev/girl;zip;} rm -rf {wet.spot;} {sleep;} finger: permission denied

02-24-2003, 01:18 PM	#3
bigben2k Responsible for 2% of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas, U.S.A. Posts: 8,302	Airspirit's right: you'll loose about a third of the refresh rate with a flat panel. The refresh rate is important if you're going to be spending a long time on that PC (i.e. a few hours at a time), because a lower refresh rate will strain your eyes much faster. It's also important for action games, because I'm sure that you don't care to see shadows of things floating over the screen, although that shouldn't be much of an issue, nowadays. Of course I'm assuming that you do take the time to set the refresh rate to its maximum value; a lot of people leave it to the default 60 Hz... __________________ WBTA (Water Block Testing Alliance) Nordic Hardware WC 101

02-24-2003, 04:11 PM	#4
iroc409 Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: midwest side, yo Posts: 596	hrm.. interesting to know. yeah, i spend around 5-18 hours a day on my computer. i do play quite a bit of games, and although i don't do much 3d rendering, i do use photoshop and such a lot. dammit. well, i guess i'll check out more detailed specs first. i have a samsung 955df, maybe i'll get myself a g-series 19" veiwsonic. oh yeah, 1600+ is pretty much a requirement. __________________ :shrug:

02-24-2003, 11:46 PM	#6
iroc409 Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: midwest side, yo Posts: 596	hrm... well, seems like a good site. they're wanting at least 600 bones for probably the cheapest one i'd consider, a viewsonic 18". but alas, only 1280x1024, what's up with that? that's it's "native resolution", as well - does that mean it would function fairly well at 1600? hrm. maybe i'd be better off spending $450 on a CRT of death... well, off to do more research. my reason for the res, is because i'm pretty much spoiled with being able to fit a lot of crap on one screen. and, i have a really nice monitor, so, i guess i'm spoiled there, too. i dunno. read read read. but, thanks very much for everyone's help. as cool as those panels are, it sounds like i'm gonna stay in the 90's. __________________ :shrug:

02-24-2003, 05:23 PM	#5
Raccoon Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 37	Well... I just got one, I ordered a 17" Hitachi, with 16ms response time(the 16ms was very key in my choice). In games, I think the monitor is just fine, and I can not notice anything really. In windows, it lights up the room more, but does not seem like it strains my eyes or anything. Was it worth the cost? For me, probably, hopefully. I will find that out later I guess. But carrying it into a lan is Very simple, and was one of my reasons. and it was not super expensive. Checkout monitorsdirect.com really nice way of comparing the monitors, and they have a good selection of them, as well as good prices. That is where I ordered mine from. [ Hope this helps ya out some.

02-25-2003, 10:43 AM	#7
airspirit Been /.'d... have you? Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Moscow, ID Posts: 1,986	No, that means that it will only do up to that. Anything smaller looks funny, and it won't display anything bigger. To get 1600x, you are looking at spending over $2000 on around a 22". The good part is on units that expensive, they also have a pretty good refresh rate. The bad part is that those types are prone to burn in images, so if you use IE (for example) a lot, eventually you'll have a ghost image of the IE toolbars BURNT into your monitor PERMANENTLY. There is no good solution with LCDs yet, unless there is no other way to make a monitor fit on your desk. A CRT is better almost every time. Look at it this way: of the dozens of computers I've built for people, I've only recommended ONE LCD monitor, and that was because the computer required a laptop sized footprint on the desk (LCD, keyboard, mouse). __________________ #!/bin/sh {who;} {last;} {pause;} {grep;} {touch;} {unzip;} mount /dev/girl -t {wet;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} echo yes yes yes {yes;} umount {/dev/girl;zip;} rm -rf {wet.spot;} {sleep;} finger: permission denied

02-25-2003, 12:16 PM	#8
Joe The Pro/Life Support System Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 4,041	I somewhat doubt you can really tell the difference in some of the cheaper 17"'s now. I have seen some 300$ (after rebate) 17"'s at LAN's and they seem to play just fine. for 90% of all users, flat panels are more than ok currently while still a bit out of the price range. Its also something you get used to very fast. One thing I noticed after working on some cheaper 18" LCD's was how blurry CRT's were. you go from something So crisp and exact like a n LCD, its sort of shocking how blurred the lines are on a CRT. I say if you have the money a 18" TFT is fine. EVen the 800$ Mitsubishi is real nice. __________________ Joe - I only take this hat off for one thing... ProCooling archive curator and dusty skeleton.

02-25-2003, 12:59 PM	#9
airspirit Been /.'d... have you? Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Moscow, ID Posts: 1,986	Some CRTs are blurry. My wife uses one that makes me want to tear my eyes out. Some CRTs are crisper than my dress uniform was back in the Navy days. I have one of those on my main machine, and I've never encountered an LCD of any form under $1800 that can compare to it. The professional line of Viewsonic CRTs tend to have a clarity that is ungodly. __________________ #!/bin/sh {who;} {last;} {pause;} {grep;} {touch;} {unzip;} mount /dev/girl -t {wet;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} echo yes yes yes {yes;} umount {/dev/girl;zip;} rm -rf {wet.spot;} {sleep;} finger: permission denied

02-25-2003, 01:12 PM	#10
Raccoon Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 37	Monitors direct has some 1000 dollar monitors that do 1600x1200 that are not bad at all, but dont have the refresh rate. Airspirit, you need to take a look at LCD's again, most of your prices and information are old. When you get a larger screen the refresh rates generally go down, because they take more time to run across it all. There are some 18 and 19's that do 1600x1200 Princeton Graphics is one company that has one, but the response time is about 45ms on them usually. At that response you probably would see some blurring and such. And at about 1000 dollars is probably above what he is wanting to spend though. Just know that it is available in 1600x1200 if that is what you want, my requirement was better response time, so that is what i decided to go with, and in doing go, I went with a smaller screen. Iroc, with your price constraints, and wants, more than likely a good crt is your better choice, it seems it outweighs the benefits of an LCD in your case, and the "cool" factor is not enough to justify how much you would have to take out of spending on your machine. Hope this helps you out.

02-25-2003, 11:43 PM	#11
iroc409 Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: midwest side, yo Posts: 596	well everyone, i appreciate the input. as far as my current monitor is, i'm expecting similar if not better performance. i paid i think around $450 for this bad boy when it came out, and all the reviewers (including z-d) touted it as better than most of the sonys and viewsonics, for a much cheaper price. the clarity is awesome, i have yet to actually witness better. i think i'm going to check out some pro series viewsonics. thinking about keeping this one, and getting me a 21-22", and ditching my kds flat tube (although my dad won't like that... they bought it for me for christmas a few years back ). are the pro series view sonics better than the graphics series? it seems that the g-series has a smaller dot pitch, which used to generally mean a better picture. i guess it depends on price, i haven't checked the vs prices lately. i guess now it's down to samsung or viewsonic crt's. although the samsung has a better aperture grille (smaller) than vs... argh! __________________ :shrug:

02-25-2003, 11:45 PM	#12
iroc409 Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: midwest side, yo Posts: 596	oh yeah, i believe the g-series vs have a slightly lower refresh... but it's not by much. and, some of the 19" series in both vs and samsung are available to 19xx res! __________________ :shrug:

02-26-2003, 12:30 AM	#13
Alchemy Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 238	I use a Viewsonic VA520. It's decent. I really went mostly for the small size, since I don't do much gaming. It looks very nice, matching my speakers, case, and Logitech cordless freedom keyboard and optical mouse. Its refresh tops at 75Hz. All I know is that for the crappy video card I use, it's more than enough. I think it cost close to $500 when I got it last summer. When I get a good video card I'll set it up as a second monitor and use a decent CRT for games. Anyone who wants to buy me these things would be quite welcome. Alchemy

02-26-2003, 05:12 PM	#14
MeltMan Cooling Savant Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: KS Posts: 374	My personal favorite late model LCD is the Samsung Syncmaster 172T. Its only 1" smaller than a 19" CRT and has an excellent contrast ratio. Add that to its sweet viewing angle and low distortion in games. Plus, you wont find a dual input (DVI and SVGA) for less. I have another 17" panel at work and compared to my syncmaster, it sucks. Its a gateway FPD1730. Completely worthless in viewing angle and contrast. __________________ MeltMan Lurker Supreme!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)