Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 52816	2004-12-30 22:53:00	LCD Monitors	eddie1 (3003)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
309025	2005-01-02 00:39:00	I'd have to say I agree with E|im and Metla - CRT is the go - LCD is way too expensive and cumbersome for this type of situation and I think the desktop space issue can be overlooked purely because of the $$$ difference!!	HadO (796)
309026	2005-01-02 00:54:00	To Metla- well, I had a 19" CRT and wasn't keen on having an even bigger 21" CRT sitting on my desk... back against the wall with nose pressed to the screen. Maybe money is an issue for the original posters friend and sure, a decent 19" CRT would cost far less than a 19" LCD. All I can say is for me the money is not an issue and the LCD is a hell of lot easier on my eyes (possibly an issue to consider for sight impaired people?) I don't know why people get so hung up on thinking you have to run an LCD at it's recommended resolution. My Samsung appears to me to be just as clear at 800x600 as 1024x768 and virtually as good as my 19" CRT was... so what's the problem? I'd much prefer it if Metla and EIim backed up their comments with some actual facts or thought, it would help the original poster a lot more.	Shortcircuit (1666)
309027	2005-01-02 01:02:00	You should be able to clearly distinguish the difference when not using the native resolution - it looks pixelated and ugly - especially with static environments - not too bad for games/movies etc. Obviously LCDs are a little better on tired eyes but most people just have CRTs set up wrong! On a 19" CRT you could run 800x600 @ 120Hz or 1024x768 @ 100Hz - this produces a beautiful picture and you can stare at it all day long without a headache. The old problem with CRTs giving you eyestrain etc is now only a problem if you don't have it set up right or its a sub standard model - a CRT flashing out 85Hz or higher is very delicious - people run their CRTs at 60Hz and wonder why they have issues!?	HadO (796)
309028	2005-01-02 01:11:00	I spent a hour last night setting the res on mine to 1024x 768 (the next up from 800x600), went through every adjustment that I could find... fonts, font sizes, DPI in display props, also I have Firefox so changed the font appearance settings in there. I'm sure I said to run it at the monitors native resolution, which for a Samsung 193P is 1280x1024, then do the adjustments.	E|im (87)
309029	2005-01-02 01:12:00	Well really, the very idea of buying a $800+ LCD to run it at 800x600 is ridiculous, sight issues or not. :lol: :lol: I'll sell you a 17" for half your price or 19" for $600. People can buy and use anything whatever they like. Not everybody is financially handicapped -people will spend the money to save space if they need to. Btw, do you even have an LCD?	~sy~ (95)
309030	2005-01-02 01:17:00	:eek:	Metla (12)
309031	2005-01-02 01:18:00	Thanks for a sensible response Hado :) The thing with my Samsung 19" LCD is that at 800x600 res text is pretty crisp (even without clear type set), it is 'almost' as crisp as my 19" CRT . This is also backed up by a few reviews that mentioned running the Samsung at non native res . From what I understand (and yes I could be wrong) some newer LCDs have a better ASt display that provide among other things better contrast and viewing angles . As I have said before, pay the extra for a 'better' LCD and you will notice the difference . Higher contrast, brightness and viewing angles can only be a good thing for sight impaired people, whatever resolution they run it at . I totally agree about refresh rates with CRTs as I also had an older 17" that ran at 65hz . . . not great, but I still would not swap the 'desk real estate' that an equivalent CRT would take up .	Shortcircuit (1666)
309032	2005-01-02 01:23:00	There is no way that you can alter things in web pages. On PF1 the log in boxes and all related text become approximately 1/3 the size at 1024x768 res. Even if you've got decent eyesight it would be a strain to read them! Have you tried holding ctrl and hitting the + key a few times? Or ctrl + mousewheel does the same thing. Increases text box size, everything. I've just done this on my 19" LCD and increased the DPI to 200%, everything is huge and seeing I'm running it in 1280x1024, everything is crisp and sharp, whereas if I was running in 800x600 everything would be blocky as. Agreed some things are smaller, but you can increase the size of them no trouble. There are adjustment controls are all over the place, so there is absolutely no need to run it at 800x600. Some people just don't want to listen to reason I guess.	E|im (87)
309033	2005-01-02 01:27:00	Its been described in this thread already what happens when you run an LCD at lower then native res,You efectivly lose all the detail you paid the big money for. Perhaps you would be better off asking yourself if you know diddly squat before damanding "facts" that are not only well known but already well covered in this thread and many threads prior to this one. As harsh as it may seem to you,advising some one to spend up large and then run it at less then designed res is pure rubbish,and thats irrilvent to wether they can afford it or not. Well, all I can say Metla is that I am sitting in front of one... even looking at it while I type this, so I guess I know diddly squat because it is just fine. Even if it was 'slightly' better running at a higher resolution the drawback of everything looking smaller would not compensate. (remember this thread was about helping the sight impaired!) Perhaps you should try out a few 'high end' LCDs so you can advise your clients knowledgeably	Shortcircuit (1666)
309034	2005-01-02 01:28:00	Well the Samsung LCDs are the best :) I would only consider getting an LCD if it was a top of the line superfast big boy one (as I'm a gamer) and of course if I had the $ to throw around . The desktop space is the only determining factor and I for one could not justify the cost - I think they are purchased purely for aesthetic value to be honest .	HadO (796)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7