Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LCD Round-up

CmdrTaco posted more than 11 years ago | from the screens-to-lust-over dept.

Graphics 346

TheKillerBee writes "The TechReport has posted a nice comparison of several different LCDs. A plethora of benches are present to help you decide how to spend that Christmas bonus check!" The screen update times still aren't fast enough for gamers, but they still are ever so delicious.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

YAY!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504737)

I declare a First Post!

It doesn't matter (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504747)

Comparing LCDs is like comparing girlfriends. Sure one is prettier than another, but what really counts is what kind of hardware is pushing the girl to the limit.

Bonus Check? (4, Funny) (213397) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504748) help you decide how to spend that Christmas bonus check!

You obviously don't work in the IT industry, I can see. Perhaps you're a superhero from another dimension who's crimefighting organization still gives bonuses?

Re:Bonus Check? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504779)

Maybe he works for VA Software.


Subject Line Troll (581198) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504845)

Re:Bonus Check? (5, Funny)

Telastyn (206146) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504843)

No, he's just a management goon who's getting the profit bonuses from laying off 50% of his staff. Very dislike superheroes, except for the spandex of course...

Re:Bonus Check? (1)

PantyChewer (557598) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504903)

Maybe he works in Japan, where employees typically get nice fat bonuses (equal to about 3 months salary) twice a year.

What Bonus Check? (-1, Offtopic)

snuh (10197) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504751)

No bonus checks here, no raises either. Ta Daa! (And I work for a major equipment hosting company)

Hello ignorance! (2, Flamebait)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504767)

The screen update times still aren't fast enough for gamers, but they still are ever so delicious.

What??? I've been gaming for years on an LCD monitor... what the hell is wrong with the update times? 60Hz is ample for 3d gaming, especially when on an lcd you can't actually see 60Hz flicker... Obviously you don't have an LCD, and you are just spinning the same crap that every other uninformed CRT user is.

Re:Hello ignorance! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504806)

I believe the author was talking about ghosting caused by slow LCD updates, which is still an issue. Sure, you may not be able to see the flicker you get with CRTs, but you can see after-images when you've got a lot of motion going on.

Re:Hello ignorance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504984)

I find the intrinsic motion-blur effect actually improves my experience of gaming on LCD monitors compared to CRTs.

Re:Hello ignorance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4505001)

Translation: I spent a lot of money on this, so I am going to live with the flaws.

Re:Hello ignorance! (2, Interesting)

JebusIsLord (566856) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505140)

This is true, however my NEC LCD 1850E looks perfectly acceptible even in games such as Quake3. Yes it blurs a bit, but once you get used to it, its no problem. I would never switch back even for games.

Re:Hello ignorance! (1)

incripshin (580256) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504864)

After using LCDs at school, I would have to say that I would never get one. They really have to make a big transformation for me to even consider using one. Even in IE, when I scroll down, it's like all the text just smears for a second. They're new, too. Gateway FPD1520 ... new this year.


Re:Hello ignorance! (5, Informative)

jerrytcow (66962) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504869)

The display control panel may say 60 Hz, but that's not how fast the LCD updates. LCD updates are dependent on how fast the diode can turn on and off, usually called response time. It's generally in the range of 30 or 40 ms (about 25-30 Hz), though they are getting faster - I think I've seen some as fast as 20 ms (50 Hz) recently.

Re:Hello ignorance! (3, Informative)

slcdb (317433) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504991)

I've been using an LCD panel for everything, including gaming, for a little over a year now. At first, the "ghosting" from the slow diodes is a bit annoying when playing certain games, particularly FPS games and the like.

However, it's nothing you can't get used to, and in some games it is hardly noticeable at all. It's certainly no disadvantage to the player -- at our most recent LAN party I was kickin' a** in Unreal Tournament on my LCD panel. Everyone else had CRTs.

There are lots of pluses that you get with an LCD panel, such as: virtually non-existent refresh flicker, clarity and crispness, light weight (a huge plus if you need to tote your monitor to your LAN parties), small footprint, no glare, and less eyestrain.

I'd never give up all those benefits just because of the small amount of ghosting that I get.

Re:Hello ignorance! (2, Interesting)

Telastyn (206146) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504911)

For most everyone 60hz is sufficient for 3d gaming. For people that can actually distinguish refresh above 60hz there is a noticable difference in play (or rather results of play) as resolutions rise.

Unfortunately this sort of thing has caught on with the masses like refresh rates on video cards. 70% of the people will get the ubercard-9000 even though only 10% of people can benefit from the better refresh.

Re:Hello ignorance! (2)

rot26 (240034) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505010)

60hz on an LCD may be tolerable. 60hz on a CRT is unviewable, especially in an office with flourescent lighting, which also strobes at 60hz

Flourescent Lighting... (3, Informative)

ShavenYak (252902) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505101)

... doesn't flicker at 60Hz, it flickers at 120Hz. Your electricity is a 60Hz sine wave, so current flows one way, stops, flows the other way, and stops again 60 times per second. The light goes off momentarily at both of the stops.

A good flourescent system using an electronic ballast, however, increases the frequency to the kHz range and produces no visible flicker.

Re:Hello ignorance! [NICE TROLL!] (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504914)

hehehe nice one.

No, seriously if you play any other thing that Solitaire, it wont be satisfying.

Do you really consider yourself a GAMER because you play SOLITAIRE?

Re:Hello ignorance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504915)

I agree, it's bullshit - but you don't actually know why it's bullshit. The 60Hz refresh rate is nothing to do with the update or persistence of the LCD monitor.

However, I finished RTCW single player and did a lot of online play with my Apple Cinema Display - no problems with slow update. In fact it was no different to a CRT.

Re:Hello ignorance! (4, Interesting)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504993)

> 60Hz is ample for 3d gaming, especially when on an lcd you can't actually see 60Hz flicker...

I concur. I have a 17" AOC LM-700 (1280x1024). First thing I did when I bought it was:

- Play Diablo 2 at 640x480 & 800x600.
- Play Quake 3.
- Watched some DVDs with high action. (Jackie Chan & James Bond.)

I was concerned about potential ghosting and other artifacts (namely aliasing at fractional multiplicative resolutions: 800 does not evenly divide into 1280), but everything looked good. (The LCD applied bi-linear filtering to 800x600 resolutions)

Where LCD's *really* shine (pardon the pun :) is for coding. Text is crystal clear !

Sure a pure green gradient (white to pure green) on my LCD has banding (I figure the LCD only has ~ 7 bits for green), but pictures look great on it whethere they are still or moving ones.

I just wish this review, and Tom's would do a *comprehensive* LCD review.


Re:Hello ignorance! (2)

Tom7 (102298) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505046)

I notice some ghosting when I play Quake 3 on my LCD (Viewsonic VP191 or something), but it's still a generally much nicer experience than my CRT was. I would say another big problem with gaming is that you usually need to use an LCD at its native resolution in order for it to look good, and that can be a problem if you want to run at a lower resolution to handle fancier games.

Hmph. (3, Interesting)

drhairston (611491) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504769)

Why are the Macintosh LCD monitors not represented? They work quite well not just with Macintosh computers but with PCs as well, as my desktop can easily demonstrate. Additionally, Apple's patented display has none of the viewing angle problems the author complains of. Hardly representative.

Re:Hmph. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504794)

You can't buy a Mac LCD without buying the rest of the crappy Apple hardware. It's attached to the computer, after all.

Wrong! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504801)

Yes, you can.

Who are you? John MacLaughlin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504826)

Saying so doesn't make it so.

Wrong! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504862)

No, but facts do [] . What, do you live in a cave? Apple makes LCDs that aren't attached to powerbooks and iMacs.

Issue 2! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504872)

I think your facts put lie to the claim that Apple products are affordable and in line with the prices of similar PC products.

Re:Hmph. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4505066)

Stupid troll.

Re:Hmph. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504818)

Because other than Steve Jobs, nobody gets a Christmas bonus large enough to afford the clear plastic and Apple logo.

Re:Hmph. (5, Insightful)

red_dragon (1761) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505085)

Because they believe that:

  • Apple hardware is completely incompatible with PC hardware;
  • ADC only works with Apple hardware;
  • There are no ADC-to-DVI converters.

Ignorance is bliss, some people say.

Christmas Bonus (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504770)

Funny, he says Christmas bonus check... maybe he also gets a Easter bonus check, too....

How about you spend your Christmas bonus check on a new monitor for me, moneybags?

Hot Damn! (3, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504771)

And I'm about 2 weeks from getting a 17" monitor. I've looked at Sony, NEC and Viewsonic in person and so far the NEC 1700+ series look great, but still $650 is enough to give pause. There are cheaper, but you get what you pay for, and a 17" for $550 may be one sorry investment.

Re:Hot Damn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504934)

I have no idea where you are shopping but for that price I bought a 21" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2060u. Maybe you should kick yourself in the head.

Re:Hot Damn! (3, Informative)

Kaypro (35263) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504980)

Being a very satisfied owner of an NEC LCD (1500 series (1550M), same specs as the one mentioned in the parent besides being only 15") I can say without hesitation that it's well worth the extra $$$. Great display, no problems at all with games (running at the native resolution) and an absolute pleasure on the eyes, no strain at all and sitting in front of it for 8 hours straight if you have to is not a problem either. If you're not a heavy gamer I recommend getting the ones with the built in speakers, they sound great and save valuable desk space.

Why Bother (3, Insightful)

TheEnglishPatient (173496) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504774)

From the article:-
"The good will have to really outweigh the bad and the ugly if you want to justify an opulent LCD purchase to your boss, to yourself, or worse, to your significant other."

Obviously LCD still hasn't bettered CRT so keep you old monitor and spend the dosh on something else instead.

Re:Why Bother (5, Insightful)

KFury (19522) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504891)

It's funny how a 1280x1024 LCD at $799 is considered opulent. It wasn't so long ago that an 800x600 15" CRT cost more than that.

Most places I've worked have sprung for Trinitron tubes back when they cost a premium. Why is it unreasonable to think they'll go LCD? Do you have any idea how much these things save in desk space? and frankly, they make users happy, which also helps the bottom line. The up-front cost is a small price to pay for the continuing dividends.

Re:Why Bother (5, Insightful)

tuffy (10202) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504975)

Obviously LCD still hasn't bettered CRT so keep you old monitor and spend the dosh on something else instead.

If you want to stare at text all day long, you'll need a CRT with a fast refresh rate to approach LCD's "no refresh" approach, so in that respect LCDs are far superior. But, if you want to play action games, you'll need an LCD with a fast update to approach a CRTs refresh rate. On the other hand, if you have too much desk space and need to put more watts through your UPS, CRTs are superior in that respect also. But, LCDs still don't have the brightness of a CRT.

In short, LCD and CRT tech are different and the value of each will depend on just what the user is looking for in a monitor.

Be wary (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504777)

The pixel response time of LCDs has improved dramatically over the years, but CRTs still have the edge. What's most worrying about pixel response times, however, is that LCDs with similar pixel response time specs don't always show the same performance in the real world. It's really something you have to check for yourself. Slow pixel response time = ghosting and streaking.

LCD vs CRT (4, Insightful)

theeds (300421) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504780)

Despite the years that lcd's have been around I still don't get why people buy them over crt. Yes they take up less space and if you poke them you can make cool designs, but past that they suck. I just hate it when I'm scrolling and the page gets all blurry, it's like a bad cam version of a movie.

Re:LCD vs CRT (2)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505009)

The motion blurring issue is not as bad as it used to be. Many of the newest LCD's sport 25 ms reponse times, which pretty much eliminate screen blurring except for the fastest motion.

I've seen DVD movies played back on a Samsung SyncMaster 152T 15" LCD with its 25 ms response time and it was able to play back a DVD movie with surprisingly good clarity.

I expect a number of new technologies arriving in the next 18 months that will lower the response time to the 10 ms range, which will make it possible to view DVD movies and high-end games with pretty much no perceptible motion blurring.

Re:LCD vs CRT (5, Interesting)

Triv (181010) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505124)

here's a few reasons:

1. LCD's are smaller, have less of a depth to them.
2. LCD's are silent, CRT's have a horrible whine.
3. LCD's don't have that annoying screen refresh that gives people (me, anyway) an awful headache.
4. LCD's use less power. It ads up in the long run.
5. LCS's are brighter, at least in my experience.

YMMV, of course, but those're all the reasons I switched to LCD.


Re:LCD vs CRT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4505133)

if you buy crap, you get crap

if you buy a quality LCD like I did, its better than any other CRT and good for the eyes...

I have been playing UT all the time n the LCD and never saw any sign of ghosting

Re:LCD vs CRT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4505141)

I have one because the text is SO much clearer on an LCD. Staring at a CRT all day is tough on my eyes -- and I'm uncomfortable running 1600x1200 on a 21" monitor. So I was running it at 1280x1024 (thanks Windows for having no 1400x1100 like Linux does which is fine).

Well I have an 18" LCD running 1280x1024 and it is EXTREMEMLY clear, and doesn't hurt my eyes at all after hours.

DVI is where it's at for clarity -- there is NO way I'd buy an LCD and use VGA... what a waste. With DVI there is a marked difference in clarity between an LCD and CRT.

Cool... (4, Funny)

bucklesl (73547) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504784)

A plethora of benches are present's so hard to find comparisons of benches. I am needing a new one.


Bonus Check? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504788)

Don't you mean that Christmas Severence Check? Or even more likely that Christmas Unemployment Check?

No bonuses are valuable without a snack (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504790)

The TechReport can post nice comparisons all they want. No benchmarks are worth it without handing out free sandwiches.

What about Apple LCDs? (4, Interesting)

vought (160908) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504793)

The first manufacturer to go to an all-LCD lineup doesn't get it's products reviewed?

Besides pushing the technology, they've actually got LCDs that are decently bright and easy to profile and calibrate. I wish they'd reviewed some of Apple's displays - I'd like to see if the dollar premium is really worth it. (The easel adjustment on the 17", 22" and 23" is pretty killer though!)

Re:What about Apple LCDs? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504879)

Can an Apple LCD clearly show that video of you shoving five apples up your ass because of they can't then that proves that APPLE SUCK! If they do then APPLE STILL SUCK!

Re:What about Apple LCDs? (5, Funny)

tswinzig (210999) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504888)

They probably couldn't afford the test monitors...

Re:What about Apple LCDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4505003)

Now isn't this typical...

Because the word "Apple" appears in the post, it gets modded +5 Interesting when it is OBVIOUSLY REDUNDANT, considering there is an identical +5 Interesting post a few posts up. Whatever.

Re:What about Apple LCDs? (3, Funny)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505024)

"The first manufacturer to go to an all-LCD lineup?"

What's that thing in the eMac? []

A fifty-pound, vacuum-filled, beam-addressable LCD?

(I guess "CRT" is just an Apple trademark for Color Raster Technology).

Re:What about Apple LCDs? (2)

vought (160908) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505100)

You got me there. But Apple still seems to be pushing LCD technolgy further and faster than other top-tier manufacturers. Apple no longer makes standalone CRT displays. All but the very lowest cost products are equipped with LCDs.

I seem to recall that Apple was all-LCD for a few months between the introduction of the new iMac and the eMac, but I guess that's not accurate either, since they've been selling the $799 iMac all along.

I'd hold off (0, Troll)

Jack Wagner (444727) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504814)

We should see some major improvements in LCD screens mid part of next year as the new USBII.v video I/O bus comes out. It' not commonly known but the LCD monitors are actually limited by the throughput coming off the video card bus as the speeds are limited by the half-duplex nature of the connection into the monitor. They use a pretty sophisitaced full-duplex emulation which works pretty good, but you can see the colors are not quite as sharp and the vertial scan rates are limited which makes the whole LCD experience look a little washed out.

This will change next summer when the new spec gets implemented and we see a true full-duplex communication between the monitor and your video card. Of course the monitor people are advertising this as they won't sell any monitors until it's released but I can assure you Aug. at the latest you'll be seeing the big press releases start to come out.

Warmest regards,

Re:I'd hold off (3, Interesting)

cybermace5 (446439) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504949)

One question:

Do you actually know what you're talking about?

Full duplex? Half duplex? Why does my LCD need to transmit to my video card, instead of the other way around?

I'm an electrical engineer and have no idea what you mean by "full duplex" as related to displays. I can see a few sync signals being helpful, maybe, but still: what does the LCD have to say to my computer?

Re:I'd hold off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4505030)

Full duplex is your original brain size. Half duplex is your brain size after reading slashdot. Your brain size is getting near null duplex if you are reading *this* post.

Re:I'd hold off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4505064)

Please moderators, mod this one up. I can't believe the bullshit post about the need for a "full duplex USBII" connection to an LCD got modded up to 5...

Re:I'd hold off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504989)

Thank you for your concerns! Your butt cheeks feels warm around my penis.

Re:I'd hold off (1)

cybermace5 (446439) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505126)

Sorry to spoil all your fun, but BS like that deserves to be smacked down. I'll continue to watch your posts from this point on.

Re:I'd hold off (4, Informative)

cybermace5 (446439) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505051)

Moderators: Check this guy's history for yourself, a known troll. He throws as many buzzwords together as possible. Look into it yourself, there is no USBII.v bus in development. And "full-duplex" communication has nothing to do with LCD screens.

This is not informative, this is pure BS.

Christmas Bonus?! (5, Funny)

mesach (191869) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504829)

Do these retailers take Ralphs(California Grocery Chain) Gift certificates.

Thats what I get for a Chistmas bonus!

Re:Christmas Bonus?! (1, Offtopic)

The Dobber (576407) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504936)

(Clark W. Griswold) Hey! If any of you are looking for any last-minute gift ideas for me, I have one. I'd like Frank Shirley, my boss, right here tonight. I want him brought from his happy holiday slumber over there on Melody Lane with all the other rich people and I want him brought right here, with a big ribbon on his head, and I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey shit he is! Hallelujah!

LCDs are fine for gamers (5, Insightful)

Getzen (549982) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504831)

"The screen update times still aren't fast enough for gamers, but they still are ever so delicious."

Just to set the record straight, many people, myself included, have found that update times less than 30 ms are plenty good for even the fastest games (UT2003 springs to mind). My 15" KDS is excellent for gaming -- I can't imagine ever going back to a CRT.

The resolution still isn't up to par... (5, Insightful) (579491) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504844)

I'm a real estate whore... I'm currently running 2 19" monitors at 1600x1200 (3200x1200) and I'm seriously considering getting a third. I've looked at LCD's every once in a while and I've never been pleased with what I've found, I can get a very decent 19" for under $200, Viewsonic PF790's are what I'm using now. Lower cost, higher res, I could even get three of these and be right in the middle of the pack pricewise. Apart from the Apple Cinema HD [] (which I wouldn't mind getting four of) I can't think of an LCD that cuts it.

One big problem (literally) with CRT's (5, Interesting)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504964)

I think the biggest downside with CRT computer monitors is the fact that monitor manufacturers still haven't addressed the biggest downside of these monitors, namely the large depth of the monitor due to the way CRT's are manufactured.

I remember a few years ago Viewsonic addressed this with the A75s model, a 17" CRT monitor that had a physical depth substantially less than other 17" CRT monitors. I'm very disappointed that Viewsonic (let alone the CRT monitor industry) has not adapted the short-depth CRT concept to all their 17", 19" and 21" monitors. :-(

CRT's fast response makes them excellent for viewing fast motion graphics (e.g., high-end games and DVD playback), but monitor manufacturers should be working on shortening the depth of the tube so the monitor can fit onto desks easier.

Would 3840x2400 be enough? (2, Interesting)

luiss (217284) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505043)

I know, it's 10 grand, but check out the IBM T221 [] .

Re:The resolution still isn't up to par... (2)

MSBob (307239) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505097)

Text will never look as sharp on your 19" CRT as it will on a DVI equipped LCD. You get what you pay for. Deal with it.

audience? (3, Interesting)

tps12 (105590) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504870)

For what audience is this article written? At some points it looks like they're going for the geeks:

LCDs are capable of being just short of blinding if you crank the brightness. (Finally, a less embarrassing excuse for your computer-induced blindness!)

The masturbation humor tends to work well with the slashdot crowd, but probably would fall flat for most of the general population. Which is fine, I can deal with a review targetted at geeks. But then they have this informative paragraph:

Take a look at how much of your desk is currently taken up by your monitor. Seems like a lot, doesn't it? CRT monitors are notoriously big, bulky, and deep. LCDs are the exact opposite; many are just inches thick, if that, and some even come with wall-mounting hardware. Because of their size, LCDs are also much lighter than CRTs, which makes lugging them around a lot easier.

I mean, if ever there was a paragraph deserving of a "no fucking shit," this has gotta be it.

This is a perfect example of the poor quality of writing on the web. When Internet "journalism" fails in the next couple of years, you'll need only look at this poor editting to understand why anyone with any intelligence is sticking to dead-tree periodicals.

Don't bitch about lack of Apple LCDs (4, Informative)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504883)

If you look a the ones they're comparing, they are all 15" and 17" displays. Apple has one 17".

They are comparing these displays for the "PC" market - in order to use an Apple display on a non-Apple computer you have to get an expensive adaptor in addition to the already over-priced display. The ones reviewed are relatively inexpensive displays.

Cut them some slack, journalists have the right to review whatever the hell they damn well please - if you want a review comparing the Apple displays to other people's displays, do it yourself.

Re:Don't bitch about lack of Apple LCDs (4, Informative)

iomud (241310) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505070)

Actually apple has a 15", 17", 22" and 23" lcd all of which are exceptional, except the 15" it's far too small. The 23" is jaw droppingly nice.

Re:Don't bitch about lack of Apple LCDs (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4505096)

Unfortunately you are an idiot. DVI Apple monitors are easily found. DVI is common on many GeForce 1/2/3/4 cards. You plug it in and it works.

Screen updates (3, Informative)

gazbo (517111) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504886)

Well, you may not think that they are fast enough right now, but that is set to change. On of the manufacturers (Sony perhaps? I have a terrible memory) has had a patent for some time that they were expecting to come to fruition around Q2 of 2002 that has obviously gone over schedule, but is likely to allow refreshes up to 70Hz in the first generation, but they believe it may even extend to ~150Hz in the future - put monitors to shame in every which way!

I forget the exact tech, but the basic idea was using a set of 'high-tensile' coupled LCDs instead of the regular LCD cells. Usually their nature means that they can only be cast to minute sizes, far too small for useful work (a 15" screen would require a minimum of 4096*4096 cells, and even then the display would be grainy due to the cell-pitch.

Philips tried to work around this by using flared-end fibre optics, but it'll come as no surprise that this produced an exceptionally blurry and dull image. Sony, however, have found a set of lab conditions under which HT-coupled LCD can be crystallised at sensible sizes.

It'll be expensive to start with, but this may well spell the end of the power hungry CRT.

Belnea 10 15 37 (2)

T-Kir (597145) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504898)

Recently got a Belnea (Euro only I think?) 10 15 37 for my parents new workstation (for behind the Bar, when it gets quiet the computer comes in handy), and it is great... especially with the limited surface space we have. The original version of this monitor was reviewed [] on Toms Hardware, but the casing was cheap and nasty. Fortunately they heeded the reviews and there have been two revisions of the monitor, for a great price of £255 ex vat,

I did try the monitor with Unreal 2003, but the ghosting started making me feel sick after 10 minutes of play... but I'm not the primary user, and the only games played on it by my parents usually involve cards (as well as internet and e-mails)!

LCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504904)

I work with gfx and there's simply no way I'd switch my CRT for an LCD. LCD is the natural and great choice for small devices but not suited for workstations.

17" 1600 x 1200 (4, Interesting)

DOsinga (134115) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504917)

One thing I have been wondering for a while, why are there no 17" 1600x1200 lcd monitors? There are laptops that support that resolution with smaller screens, but no monitors, as far as I know.

LSD Round Up (-1, Offtopic)

Dr Kool, PhD (173800) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504919)

Why spend your christmas bonus check on an LCD when you can have some REAL FUN?? Here's my LSD round up:

Weed - This is a kind of a ho-hum boring drug that everyone does at least a couple times in their life. Smoking weed basically makes you tired and hungry and makes you laugh at everything, even things that aren't funny. I recommend you stay away from this if you are looking for a big party. Weed is cheap though, you can get an ounce of good stuff for around $300(on the west coast anyway).

Ecstasy - I've never done this, but my homies tell me that popping a pill is like having a two hour orgasm. Sounds like fun. Also, if you give these to chicks, they tend to get really freaky with you. Best experienced with loud repetitive electronic music. The cost is generally $10-$20 per pill.

Speed - This drug is a trip. Does saying awake for four straight days sound fun to you?? And when you're done you'll sleep for three more. I bet you'll have to take a piss really bad when you wake up. I'm not too sure about the price, maybe $50 for a hit.

Cocaine - The drug of choice for rich white people. I personally think that coke is for wusses, both heroin and crack will get you way more wasted. Prices are around $75-$200 for a gram, depending on quality and who you know.

Crack - This is probably the most fucked up drug ever made. The price is cheap, maybe $20-$30 for a good sized rock. I guarantee you that smoking crack will give you the greatest high of your life. Problem is, that high only lasts five minutes. And so you're going to want more. And more. Stay away from this unless you have tons of money.

Heroin - Heroin and coke are closely related, both come from opium. Heroin is much stronger than coke though, it's for people who don't fuck around with that sissy stuff. You can snort this stuff like coke, but it's usually not as good. The best way to do H is to melt it and inject it. Be careful not to OD though. Prices are around $50 to $125 per gram.

LSD - If you can only use one drug during the holiday season then LSD should be the one!! This stuff will make you trip out and see spiders and scorpions all over the walls. All those hippies in the 60's did LSD, so you should too. Prices are pretty reasonable, around $3 to $10 for a hit. Be sure to buy more than one.

Well that's it, I don't have time to cover shrooms or cat tranquilizer, maybe next time. Be sure to have a safe holiday season, and remember: WINNERS DON'T DO DRUGS.

Re:LSD Round Up (-1, Offtopic)

DOsinga (134115) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504958)

>Heroin and coke are closely related, both come from opium

This is not true. I thought most people would know that coke comes from cocaine leaves, while opium is derived from poppies.

Re:LSD Round Up (1, Offtopic)

idfrsr (560314) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505076)

Not to mention that herion is a depressant(like booze and pain killers) and cocaine a stimulant (like nicotine and amphetamines(sp?)).

Grinch (1, Offtopic)

mustangdavis (583344) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504945)

"... to help you decide how to spend that Christmas bonus check!"



... still laughing ...


(*hem ... hem*)

In case you haven't heard, we're kinda in a recession!!! The only bank accounts that MIGHT get a X-mas bonus are those with EIN numbers associated with them ... not a SSN!!!

There are MANY companies that are not just cancelling X-mas bonuses, but that are taking salray and benifits away from people right now to cover their loses .... and don't even think about asking when the company X-mas party is this year (you'll just get laughed at)

BTW: Are they still accepting resumes where you work? If not, please forward my contact information to your boss. I WANT YOUR JOB!

Until then, I'm stuck with my CRT. Screw you for making me jellous! :)

Re:Grinch (1)

orange7 (237458) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505031)

My friend, meet the game "industry". Game industry: meet my friend.


P.S. for those also unfamiliar with the U.S. business environment, google reveals EIN to be "employer identification number."

Why? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4504954)

Why is it I can get a laptop capable of 1600x1200 on a 15" screen no bother, but the only 1600x1200 capable LCD displays for the desktop are huge monsters?

I want a monitor with high DPI, not high physical size. I'd pay good money for a 1600x1200 desktop display that was basically a laptop screen in a different case.

Depends on the game (4, Interesting)

sjbe (173966) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504956)

The screen update times still aren't fast enough for gamers, but they still are ever so delicious.

The only games where this could possibly matter are the fastest paced shooter games, and even then it is a marginal problem. Certainly isn't a big enough problem for me to want to take up 300 square miles of desktop space with a glorified vaccuum tube.

Besides there are games besides Quake out there you know. Some of us even play them.

Re:Depends on the game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4505079)

No this affects ALL games. Even the little kiddy games with fixed backgrounds and slow moving sprites. Now it's not so bad as to be unplayable or anything. It's just annoying to look at. ANYTHING that's moving is slightly blurry and darkens slightly (The LCDs can't open all the way in time so the entire moving area is darker than when it is at rest)

Some people just don't give a shit. Other people find such things intensely annoying.

Cornea brand / bathing in EMF (2)

kisrael (134664) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504963)

They didn't have my favorite "Cornea" brand monitor...ugly brandname, but a very decent monitor generally priced one size lower than what you get.

Anyway, one justification for me for getting an LCD was the idea of not bathing myself in EMF all the live long there any rational reasoning behind that, or am I just being paranoid? (Or just enjoying all the extra deskspace...)

Re:Cornea brand / bathing in EMF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4505099)

I am very happy with my Cornea CT1702, it has DVI, S-Video, Composite, TV-Tuner.
I am playing games ( Diablo, etc ), watch TV/DVD and prefer it over my 21" CRT during work.
I paid $599, and you can find deals of $569 now.

My notebook. (2)

papasui (567265) | more than 11 years ago | (#4504977)

My Toshiba Satellite with its 1600x1200 is bar-none the most gorgeous display I have ever seen. Granted I don't work in the graphics industry and I don't spend $600 on monitors. Everyone I work with always mentions how beautiful my display is and even our web designers and graphics guys always mention how much they like it. The only thing I wish it had was the ability to input from another video source. (You hear that Toshiba? Add a digital input!)

Re:My notebook. (2)

be-fan (61476) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505037)

Heh heh. I have the same sort of LCD (those new wide-angle UXGAs, IBM calls them "FlexView") in my Dell laptop, and the thing is a beauty. Since I can't find any 133 DPI desktop LCDs, and the damn thing lacks a DVI input, I'm thinking my next system will be a nice, headless dual Hammer with the laptop acting as a X terminal.

Those aren't LCDs people buy (4, Informative)

MSBob (307239) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505011)

This roundup is not representative of what most people tend to buy. There is a huge thread [] on arstechnica that covers most LCDs that are good value today.

Personally, I would only consider the Dell 1702FP (a beaufiful 17" DVI panel) or the Dell 2000FP (a huge 20" panel that can be had for $1300 if you apply some Dell discounts). Samsungs are OK but I don't like their panels' piss poor black reproduction. If you want your computer to look hip go get a Samsung, but if you want a screen that delivers beautiful images then Dell is the better vendor even if their case styling isn't as nice.

Re:Those aren't LCDs people buy (1)

Big_Breaker (190457) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505045)

I am using a DELL 1702FP right now and I agree. It is a FANTASTIC monitor. I was using the Dell side by side with an analog NEC 1830 for a while and there was no comparison. 1702 by a landslide.

Eastwood style? (2)

yack0 (2832) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505039)

The reviewer indicates "Here, I've broken things down Eastwood style" and the procedes to give us the 'Good Bad and Ugly' results of the review.

It's not Eastwood style at all. He (Eastwood) was just "The Good". The "style" he's talking about should either be attributed to Sergio Leone (director) or Agenore Incrocci (writer) though Leone also wrote the story with Agenore.

Ahh, journalism in the world of the Blog.

Re:Eastwood style? (1)

mary_will_grow (466638) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505117)

Yeah!! And while we are on the subject, aren't we supposed to call it GNU/Eastwood Style?

Flat panel CRTs (2, Insightful)

regne (619612) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505048)

Does anyone know what happened with flat CRTs [] ?. I'm still waiting for a 36" Magnetic Matrix Display to replace my old 4:3 TV set. Should I start breathing again?.

Transflective Screens? (1)

utexaspunk (527541) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505067)

Why don't we see more transflective screens, particularly on laptops? I've only been able to find one decent laptop [] with a transflective screen. LCD's are great, but now that we have wi-fi, I want to compute outside!

Question (1)

mary_will_grow (466638) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505087)

How can a 30ms update time cause "Ghosting" ?

If there is some sort of anomaly that disappears from my view less than 1/33rd of a second, I have a hard time believing I'll notice it. If some Koopa Kid is zipping back and forth from one end of my screen to another in 1/33rd of a second, I think I'll see a trail anyways, given that the human vision takes 1/10th of a second to have a light impulse fade completely out of sight. Or mind. Whereever the slowdown is.
Anyways who doesnt like seeing trails?

Not like I can afford one anyways.

dpi (1)

misterhaan (613272) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505090)

i'd love to get an lcd even just for the coolness, but i won't give up my dpi! i run my 17" crt at 1600x1200, and at work i have viewsonic vg150b which is a 15" that only goes to 1024x768. how am i to get work done when i can only fit 786,432 pixels on the screen?

of course there's also the cost issue, but still what makes the biggest difference to me is dpi.
another advantage you have with a crt is that a range of resolutions can be supported equally well, but an lcd is stuck with a native resolution and has to fake lower resolutions. of course if i had my 1600x1200 lcd, it would be able to fake 800x600 very well (use 4 native pixels per pixel).

doing 640x480 stretched to 800x600 on my compaq lte5380 with its crazy 256 colors looks HORRIBLE! you can't even read anything on it and i wish there was a way i could default the thing NOT to stretch. of course this isn't as much of a problem if you have more colors, but i don't need more than a pentium 133 for a laptop right now.

Not just bad for gamers... (1)

CathedralRulz (566696) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505092)

They are also inferior for DVD viewing compared to CRTs.

It's too bad that so many people see these as a "replacement" for CRTs rather than an alternative (maybe better for work environments or cramped environments).

I'll get "used to it"? (2, Insightful)

realmolo (574068) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505104)

So many people with LCDs that they use for games are saying "Yeah, it ghosts sometimes, but you'll get used to it". Screw that. LCDs cost more than *bigger*, better CRTs. So I'm paying more to have a crappier picture in essentially every way (color, speed, viewing angle, brightness are all superiour on a CRT)? Give me a break. Oh, and the "saves valuable desktop space" argument is bullshit, too. What, exactly, are you going to be putting behind your LCD display, now that the space isn't taken up by the CRTs tube? LCDs are cool because they are thin, don't use much power, and have a sharper (though not necessarily better)picture. That's it. Otherwise, they suck.

Do "thin" monitors that are good for gaming exist? (1)

Ride-My-Rocket (96935) | more than 11 years ago | (#4505139)

Somebody in this topic already mentioned that LCDs are prone to ghosting when playing games -- this is the main thing that's keeping me from buying a new monitor. And so, my question is: are there any flat-panel monitors that ARE good for gaming? Will OLED-based monitors remedy this problem?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?