LCD Monitor Recommendations

Pete,

Thanks, that gives me a lot to be going on with......

Sean

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Sean McCarney" wrote in message
...
Budget no problem (wife's approval obtained!) DVI input wanted,
resolution
1025x768 minimum (but all I have is a 15 inch CRT so maybe a higher res
would be better - advice accepted!).

IMHO, if budget is no problem, go for a high-end one. Of course, any
LCD monitor will be an improvement over your current CRT.

What I have been concerned about is
the refresh/update rate which according to the PC Mags is the decideing
factor in order to avoid blurring on games.

Lots of people have said LCD's are terrible for games because of the low
refresh rates and image latency. I guess that's subjective, but LCD's are
pretty good these days, and I think games look great on them. The VS2000
has a response time of 25 ms, which is a little longer than the 17 ms it
takes to show a frame at 60 Hz (the refresh rate of pretty much every LCD
monitor), but whatever blurring is present isn't noticeable to me.

If anything, the smearing is just enough to smooth out the image a bit,
which in MSFS makes the view look a little more realistic.

The VX2000 is 1600x1200 which is, IMHO, much nicer for games than
1024x768.
However, you'll need suitable hardware to get decent framerates at that
resolution. But the latest generation or so of PCs and video cards should
be able to handle that just fine.

Samsung also makes some nice high-res LCD monitors. Some are actually in
their "multi-function" line, which means they also have S-video and
composite inputs, among other things. Their SyncMaster 241MP has a 16:9
aspect ratio, with 1920x1200 resolution. I've always thought a
wide-screen
monitor would be good for games. Though, many games don't support
wide-screen formats anyway, so it's kind of hit-and-miss. If you want to
go
with the safer 4:3 aspect ratio, their SyncMaster 211MP is basically the
same, but with a 1600x1200 resolution instead. For just a straight
computer
monitor, the 240T is their 1920x1200 widescreen monitor, while their 210T
and 213T monitors are 1600x1200.

I haven't actually used the Samsungs, so I can only really recommend the
Viewsonic. Actually, the Viewsonic has slightly better contrast than the
Samsung monitors do, but I don't know how significant that is.

By the way, I did a quick Google search, and came across this article:
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...s/index.x?pg=1
It has a really great summary of the various pros and cons for LCD
monitors
that I think anyone who hasn't used one yet ought to read before buying
one.
In particular, they mention a couple of the big issues with LCD monitors:
running at any resolution other than the monitor's "native" resolution
won't
look very good (don't bother with an LCD monitor unless either a) you need
the desktop space, or b) you are prepared to run as much of your software
as
possible at just the one resolution; also, there are almost always a
handful
of "bad pixels" (monitor manufacturers and/or retailers usually have some
maximum number of bad pixels that they consider acceptable, and unless the
number exceeds that limit, you can't return the monitor simply because of
bad pixels).

Anyway, I hope that general information is useful. I bought the Viewsonic
because of its excellent performance specifications (low response time,
high
contrast) and relatively good price (it was the least-expensive 1600x1200
LCD I could find at the time). I'm extremely happy with it, and think
games
play great on it (I've played all sorts using it: MSFS of course, Combat
Flight Sim, Neverwinter Nights, Asheron's Call, Rise of Nations,
MechWarrior, Half Life, just to name a few). The only gotcha was that I
live in what might be considered a high-RF-interference area (a block away
from an AM radio station) and it interferes with the touch-sensitive
buttons
that control the monitor. But most people wouldn't have to worry about
that.

There are, of course, numerous other manufacturers selling LCD monitors.
Sony, NEC, Gateway, Dell, among others. I recommend 1600x1200 resolution,
but if you're willing to go with a 1280x1024 or 1024x768, those are still
significantly less expensive right now. But since budget's not a problem,
you'll probably want to go with one of the high-resolution displays.

Pete

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 06:21:49 +0000 (UTC), "Sean McCarney"
wrote:

Pete,

Thanks, that gives me a lot to be going on with......

I'm using an NEC MultiSync LCD1760v. The resolution is 1280 X 1024
and on a 17 inch screen I don't see any difference going to a higher
resolution. I also use it for photo editing.

I've only run MSFS 2004 a couple of times now, but after doing a short
hop flying the Beech Baron from the local airport (3BS) where I'm
based to the bigger airport next door (MBS) I saw no problems with the
refresh.

I have no problems with RF and this computer sets within 5 feet of a
1500 watt output HF amplifier (1.8 through 30 MHz), 3 feet from a pair
of 50 watt 144 and 440 MHz rigs, and 4 feet from a 100 watt 50 MHz rig
which gets used a lot.

"In my opinion" the 17" has almost as much useful area as my 19" CRTs
which are flat screens and I'd really like to set the thing up using 3
of these 17 inchers for a realistic view.

Currently there are a good number of 17s on the market that cost less
than what I paid for the 19" CRTs just a couple of years ago.

Of course if money is no object there are the 21 inch plasma displays.
Using three of those in a panoramic display would sure be realistic.
and cost about seven or eight grand.

Good Luck,

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)


Sean

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Sean McCarney" wrote in message
...
Budget no problem (wife's approval obtained!) DVI input wanted,
resolution
1025x768 minimum (but all I have is a 15 inch CRT so maybe a higher res
would be better - advice accepted!).

IMHO, if budget is no problem, go for a high-end one. Of course, any
LCD monitor will be an improvement over your current CRT.

What I have been concerned about is
the refresh/update rate which according to the PC Mags is the decideing
factor in order to avoid blurring on games.

Lots of people have said LCD's are terrible for games because of the low
refresh rates and image latency. I guess that's subjective, but LCD's are
pretty good these days, and I think games look great on them. The VS2000
has a response time of 25 ms, which is a little longer than the 17 ms it
takes to show a frame at 60 Hz (the refresh rate of pretty much every LCD
monitor), but whatever blurring is present isn't noticeable to me.

If anything, the smearing is just enough to smooth out the image a bit,
which in MSFS makes the view look a little more realistic.

The VX2000 is 1600x1200 which is, IMHO, much nicer for games than
1024x768.
However, you'll need suitable hardware to get decent framerates at that
resolution. But the latest generation or so of PCs and video cards should
be able to handle that just fine.

Samsung also makes some nice high-res LCD monitors. Some are actually in
their "multi-function" line, which means they also have S-video and
composite inputs, among other things. Their SyncMaster 241MP has a 16:9
aspect ratio, with 1920x1200 resolution. I've always thought a
wide-screen
monitor would be good for games. Though, many games don't support
wide-screen formats anyway, so it's kind of hit-and-miss. If you want to
go
with the safer 4:3 aspect ratio, their SyncMaster 211MP is basically the
same, but with a 1600x1200 resolution instead. For just a straight
computer
monitor, the 240T is their 1920x1200 widescreen monitor, while their 210T
and 213T monitors are 1600x1200.

I haven't actually used the Samsungs, so I can only really recommend the
Viewsonic. Actually, the Viewsonic has slightly better contrast than the
Samsung monitors do, but I don't know how significant that is.

By the way, I did a quick Google search, and came across this article:
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...s/index.x?pg=1
It has a really great summary of the various pros and cons for LCD
monitors
that I think anyone who hasn't used one yet ought to read before buying
one.
In particular, they mention a couple of the big issues with LCD monitors:
running at any resolution other than the monitor's "native" resolution
won't
look very good (don't bother with an LCD monitor unless either a) you need
the desktop space, or b) you are prepared to run as much of your software
as
possible at just the one resolution; also, there are almost always a
handful
of "bad pixels" (monitor manufacturers and/or retailers usually have some
maximum number of bad pixels that they consider acceptable, and unless the
number exceeds that limit, you can't return the monitor simply because of
bad pixels).

Anyway, I hope that general information is useful. I bought the Viewsonic
because of its excellent performance specifications (low response time,
high
contrast) and relatively good price (it was the least-expensive 1600x1200
LCD I could find at the time). I'm extremely happy with it, and think
games
play great on it (I've played all sorts using it: MSFS of course, Combat
Flight Sim, Neverwinter Nights, Asheron's Call, Rise of Nations,
MechWarrior, Half Life, just to name a few). The only gotcha was that I
live in what might be considered a high-RF-interference area (a block away
from an AM radio station) and it interferes with the touch-sensitive
buttons
that control the monitor. But most people wouldn't have to worry about
that.

There are, of course, numerous other manufacturers selling LCD monitors.
Sony, NEC, Gateway, Dell, among others. I recommend 1600x1200 resolution,
but if you're willing to go with a 1280x1024 or 1024x768, those are still
significantly less expensive right now. But since budget's not a problem,
you'll probably want to go with one of the high-resolution displays.

Pete

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
I'm using an NEC MultiSync LCD1760v. The resolution is 1280 X 1024
and on a 17 inch screen I don't see any difference going to a higher
resolution.

What does that mean? "Going to a higher resolution", that is. Higher than
1280x1024? No, since the LCD monitor can only display the number of pixels
it has, higher than that would make no difference (and should not be
possible in any case). 1280x1024 is "higher" than some other resolution?
Well, what was the other resolution? The difference between 1024x768 and
1280x1024 is minimal. The difference between 640x480 and 1280x1024 is
significant.

Please add some meaning to that paragraph.

I have no problems with RF and this computer sets within 5 feet of a
1500 watt output HF amplifier (1.8 through 30 MHz), 3 feet from a pair
of 50 watt 144 and 440 MHz rigs, and 4 feet from a 100 watt 50 MHz rig
which gets used a lot.

I presume this is in response to my comments about the interference from the
AM radio station. For one, your wattage is FAR below what I'm dealing with.
The difference in distance doesn't change that (even ignoring the fact that
you probably have exterior antennas, so the output isn't actually 3, 4, and
5 feet away).

Also, at least with the DVI inputs, there is NO visual interference. I only
have problems with the touch-sensitive buttons on the front panel of the
monitor. Unless you also have touch-sensitive buttons on your monitor AND
have tried to use them at the exact same time one of your radios is
transmitting, your experience isn't relevant to my comments at all (even
assuming the wattage was similar, which it's not).

"In my opinion" the 17" has almost as much useful area as my 19" CRTs
which are flat screens and I'd really like to set the thing up using 3
of these 17 inchers for a realistic view.

This is one the biggest advantages to the LCD monitors. All of the screen
real estate is actually usable. The CRT measurements include a bit of
overscan area that you don't actually get to see, and so for the same size
LCD and CRT, the LCD has more viewable area. Or conversely, you get the
same viewable area with a smaller specified measurement with the LCD, than
with the CRT.

Of course if money is no object there are the 21 inch plasma displays.
Using three of those in a panoramic display would sure be realistic.
and cost about seven or eight grand.

Why bother? IMHO, plasma displays are only superior to LCD in one key
respect: they are available in larger sizes at "reasonable" prices. In the
21-inch wide-screen format, you'd be much better off with LCD. Less
expensive, and much lower power requirements (and heat output). They are
lighter too.

Pete