Monitors

[Steve]

I'm thinking about getting a new monitor for a Linux box.

I've noticed that many most computer monitors work fine if you are
looking straight at the monitor but if you veer off to the side or get
under them, the picture distorts.

Since I like using my computer to watch movies and other videos I am
interested in the kind of monitor that doesn't do this. I've seen a
few of those in computer stores.

Is that second type of monitor actually a television monitor? Does a
classification like that still make sense? Have computer monitor and
TV screen technology merged? Is the only difference between the two
is that one has more of something to allow a quality picture even if
the viewer isn't looking at the monitor straight on?

Has anyone used the higher quality/"TV"monitor for a computer? Has it
hurt your eyes or have you experienced any other problems?

Thanks

Steve

[David Brown]

I don't think I've seen monitors with poor viewing angles for many
years. There are possibly a few that give slightly distorted colours at
extreme angles, but any reasonable monitor will be fine at any sensible
viewing angle.

There are some differences between monitors. In particular, monitors
with very high pixel count and designed for accurate static views are
often IPS screens - they give the best picture for desktop use,
programming, graphics, etc., but they are poorer for games or other
fast-moving graphics. They are normally fine for TV/video, but opinions
vary.

The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try
them out and look at the pictures, and buy a screen that you are sure
does the best job for your use. A good monitor will outlast the
computer - it's worth making a good investment.

For my own use, I am very happy with the Dell IPS screen I have.

[notbob]

On 2012-05-20, David Brown <david...@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:



> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try

> them out and look at the pictures.......

Yep. Nothing like a plain ol' viewing test to see what's what.

I haven't been in some time, but I know plasma TVs were once
atrocious. Extremely limited viewing cone. This has probably
changed. I'd stick with LCD technology.

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

[TJ]

On 05/20/2012 11:29 AM, David Brown wrote:
>
> I don't think I've seen monitors with poor viewing angles for many
> years. There are possibly a few that give slightly distorted colours at
> extreme angles, but any reasonable monitor will be fine at any sensible
> viewing angle.
>
> There are some differences between monitors. In particular, monitors
> with very high pixel count and designed for accurate static views are
> often IPS screens - they give the best picture for desktop use,
> programming, graphics, etc., but they are poorer for games or other
> fast-moving graphics. They are normally fine for TV/video, but opinions
> vary.
>
> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try
> them out and look at the pictures, and buy a screen that you are sure
> does the best job for your use. A good monitor will outlast the computer
> - it's worth making a good investment.

+1 on the viewing test. But while looking, don't pass up refurbished
monitors, recent models that were returned for various reasons, checked
out, and put back up for sale at a much lower price. Best Buy wouldn't
be happy about this, but I looked at various monitors in their store,
mostly to choose what size I wanted, then came home and bought a
refurbished model from Overstock.com at nearly half the price.

>
> For my own use, I am very happy with the Dell IPS screen I have.

For my use, I've been happy with two separate Samsung monitors, both
widescreen, one 20" 1600x900, the other 23" 1920 x 1080. Both were
purchased as refurbished, and both work perfectly. I just sat here and
checked the view angle on the 23-incher by swinging my chair, and it was
fine even at what I would consider an extreme angle.

TJ

[David Brown]

On 24/05/12 17:10, TJ wrote:
> On 05/20/2012 11:29 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> I don't think I've seen monitors with poor viewing angles for many
>> years. There are possibly a few that give slightly distorted colours at
>> extreme angles, but any reasonable monitor will be fine at any sensible
>> viewing angle.
>>
>> There are some differences between monitors. In particular, monitors
>> with very high pixel count and designed for accurate static views are
>> often IPS screens - they give the best picture for desktop use,
>> programming, graphics, etc., but they are poorer for games or other
>> fast-moving graphics. They are normally fine for TV/video, but opinions
>> vary.
>>
>> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try
>> them out and look at the pictures, and buy a screen that you are sure
>> does the best job for your use. A good monitor will outlast the computer
>> - it's worth making a good investment.
>
> +1 on the viewing test. But while looking, don't pass up refurbished
> monitors, recent models that were returned for various reasons, checked
> out, and put back up for sale at a much lower price. Best Buy wouldn't
> be happy about this, but I looked at various monitors in their store,
> mostly to choose what size I wanted, then came home and bought a
> refurbished model from Overstock.com at nearly half the price.

It's not just "Best Buy" who would not be happy about that - it's an
attitude that is destroying shops around the western world. It's pure
theft of service, totally thoughtless, selfish, and self-destructive.

If you want to look at or buy re-furbished or second hand monitors,
that's absolutely great. But don't steal the time and resources of
other suppliers if you have no intention of buying from them.

[TJ]

On 05/24/2012 01:32 PM, David Brown wrote:
>
> It's not just "Best Buy" who would not be happy about that - it's an
> attitude that is destroying shops around the western world. It's pure
> theft of service, totally thoughtless, selfish, and self-destructive.
>
> If you want to look at or buy re-furbished or second hand monitors,
> that's absolutely great. But don't steal the time and resources of other
> suppliers if you have no intention of buying from them.
>

Got it. "Window shopping," something that's been going on for as long as
there's been stores, is theft. Browsing a store's merchandise, when you
don't know for sure if you will find something to buy, is thoughtless -
unless you actually buy something. Better you stay away from the store
altogether if you aren't sure you'll find something to buy.

I thank you for your input. All this time, when people browse through my
shop without buying anything, I didn't realize I was being "destroyed."
I thought it was just that they thought they could get a better deal
someplace else, that maybe another time they would want what I have. 50
years in retail, and I learn something new every day.

Next time somebody tries that at my place, I'll have to collar them,
explain the facts of business, and hold them until they buy something.
No doubt they'll appreciate the education and come back again and again.

TJ

[notbob]

On 2012-05-20, Steve <tink...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking about getting a new monitor for a Linux box.

I jes bought an Acer S230HL from Walmart ($170) fer my Slackware box. My
first non-CRT. Worth every cent and I'll never go back to CRT. 23"
extended width, VGA able, brilliant everything. If it will work on my
ancient P4 w/ nvidia TNT2, should work on yers.

[J G Miller]

On Friday, May 25th, 2012, at 20:09:53h -0400, TJ advised:

> Better you stay away from the store altogether if you aren't
> sure you'll find something to buy.

Most retail stores do *not* take this attitude.

A person is more likely to buy something in a store if they
vist the store than if they never visit the store.

FNAC even ran a TV commercial a number of years ago reinforcing
their policy that visitors to the store are under no obligation
to buy and that they may read the books in situ without buying
them.

The clincher of the commercial was when the young boy featured
finally made his first purchase of a book.

[TJ]

I know. Retail 101. Like I said, I have 50 years of retail experience.
And yes, I've been through times when I didn't know if I could keep
going, as well as times when it looked like I couldn't do anything
wrong. But in those times when I didn't do so well, I *never* thought it
was the customers' fault, for any reason. It was almost always mine.

Managers of stores that aren't doing so well come up with all kinds of
excuses for it - anything that they can blame on somebody else. But the
fact is, if your shop isn't doing well, it's because you *aren't*
providing something your potential customers want. It can be price,
value, quality, attitude, service, any or all of them - or something
else. But if the retailer doesn't provide it, it's not the potential
customer's fault if the retailer goes out of business.

TJ

[Allodoxaphobia]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:35:23 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:
> On Friday, May 25th, 2012, at 20:09:53h -0400, TJ advised:
>
>> Better you stay away from the store altogether if you aren't
>> sure you'll find something to buy.
>
> Most retail stores do *not* take this attitude.
>
> A person is more likely to buy something in a store if they
> vist the store than if they never visit the store.

A person is more likely to buy something in a store if they are
treated cordially, professionally, and sense competence in the staff.
Not likely to happen at the Best Buy in this town....

[David Brown]

You might have 50 years of retail experience, but you /do/ still have
something to learn. Far less than most people, of course, but if you
think you know it all, you have misunderstood a lot.

Your specific recommendation was to visit the shop to make use of their
time, resources, stock, staff time, etc., with /no/ intention of buying.
That's very different from window shopping, or just looking around for
something of interest, or on the chance of buying something.

If you have been working for 50 years in retail, you know it is a
percentage game. A certain percentage of people visiting the shop will
buy things, and a certain percentage of what they pay will end up as
profit at the end of the day. Your job as a shopkeeper is to match this
up so that the averaged profit justifies the cost of having the shop,
stock and staff. Sometimes it's fine with zero chance of buying, or
with zero (or even negative) profit - if it increases the chance of that
customer buying something else in the future, it's a win overall.

But if someone that has a zero chance of buying, and is specifically
aiming at finding information in order to buy from a competitor,
especially an on-line shop, you lose out. If it is a "normal" customer
looking for a monitor, who doesn't find out they want, that's okay -
they'll see other things of interest, and maybe they'll buy at the time,
maybe they'll come back in the future. (Or, as you say, maybe the
service, price, etc., mean the shop doesn't deserve the custom.) But
for a customer planning on doing their purchase from the cheapest
internet site they can find, all the ideas they get from /your/ shop go
to the competitor.


This effect is a huge problem for some types of shop, especially for
small and independent retailers. /Real/ bookshops are disappearing
fast, as are record, CD and DVD shops. Stand-alone computer shops
(rather than combined service/sale shops) also suffer from this problem
- the result is that to cut costs to compete, they often cut quality and
service.

You can say this is changing society, rather than the fault of the
customers. And you can say that resisting it - by buying in the shops
you look in, and paying more for better service - will just be a drop in
the ocean. But society is made up as the sum of such drops - and it is
in the long-term interest of everyone to protect real-world shops.

[Stan Bischof]

notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>
>> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try
>> them out and look at the pictures.......
>
> Yep. Nothing like a plain ol' viewing test to see what's what.
>
> I haven't been in some time, but I know plasma TVs were once
> atrocious. Extremely limited viewing cone. This has probably
> changed. I'd stick with LCD technology.
>

for the moment perhaps, but if you really want good
viewing angles you want an LED screen - and I don't
mean the so-called "led" screens that are really just
an led backlight for an LCD.

LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more
than plasma or LCD

Stan

[Patrick]

I think the next screen I buy I'll look for a higher refresh rate.
Perhaps 80hz or even 100hz instead of the normal 60hz.
Hard to find but I'm sure they exist.

[Stan Bischof]

Patrick <Pat...@none.com> wrote:
> I think the next screen I buy I'll look for a higher refresh rate.
> Perhaps 80hz or even 100hz instead of the normal 60hz.
> Hard to find but I'm sure they exist.

hard to find anything as slow as 60Hz these days, so you
will have no issues. 240 Hz is common for 3D monitors.
However you'll find that for LCD's the flicker at 60 Hz is
nowhere near the problem it was back in the old days of CRT's.

This is another area where LED's excel-- they respond
in usec ( or faster ) rather than the msec to 10's of msec
needed for LCD.

Stan

[Dan Espen]

I strongly recommend staying away from CRTs.
For computer work an LCD beats a CRT to death.

As far as "refresh rate" on an LCD:

The closest equivalent to a refresh rate on an LCD monitor is its
frame rate, which is often locked at 60 frame/s. But this is rarely a
problem, because the only part of an LCD monitor that could produce
CRT-like flicker—its backlight—typically operates at around 200
Hz. Different operating systems set the default refresh rate
differently. Microsoft Windows 95 and Windows 98 (First and Second
Editions) set the refresh rate to the highest rate that they believe
the display supports. Windows NT-based operating systems, such as
Windows 2000 and its descendants Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows
7, set the default refresh rate to a "conservative" rate, usually 60
Hz. The many variations of Linux usually set a refresh rate chosen by
the user during setup of the display manager (although a default
option is usually included with xfree86). Some full-screen
applications, including some games, allow the user to reconfigure the
refresh rate before entering full-screen mode, but most default to a
"conservative" resolution and refresh rate and let you increase the
settings in the options.

For an LCD you shop for resolution and size.
I'm currently at 20.5 inches and 1600x1200.
(DELL).

I wouldn't mind 24 inches or even 30 but anything less than
the vertical 1200 is out of the question.


--
Dan Espen

[Patrick]

thanks for the response.

If we want our refresh rate equal to our frames per second
we can get the best picture. If we're talking 240hz that's great.
I've run across a Linux program called driconf which can vary
that but it only works for OpenGL in Linux. I remember when
glxgears was used and people thought their monitors were
super based on FPS over what their refresh rate could handle.

Patrick

[Patrick]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:09:13 +0000, Stan Bischof wrote:

[Robert Riches]

That could be true if the "LED" monitors were _TRULY_ LED
monitors. Last time I asked at Frys, the "LED" monitors are
simply LCD monitors with an LED backlight instead of fluorescent.

HTH

--
Robert Riches
spamt...@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[unruh]

On 2012-06-02, Robert Riches <spamt...@jacob21819.net> wrote:
> On 2012-06-01, Stan Bischof <st...@worldbadminton.com> wrote:
>> notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try
>>>> them out and look at the pictures.......
>>>
>>> Yep. Nothing like a plain ol' viewing test to see what's what.
>>>
>>> I haven't been in some time, but I know plasma TVs were once
>>> atrocious. Extremely limited viewing cone. This has probably
>>> changed. I'd stick with LCD technology.
>>>
>>
>> for the moment perhaps, but if you really want good
>> viewing angles you want an LED screen - and I don't
>> mean the so-called "led" screens that are really just
>> an led backlight for an LCD.
>>
>> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more
>> than plasma or LCD

My TV has a 180 degree viewing angle horizontally and vertically (LCD)
my laptop has 180 deg horiz. and about 20 deg vertically before the
colour start changing.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Indeed. OLED three color screens are beginning to make an appearance,
but they are a rarity and very expensive.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[notbob]

On 2012-06-01, Stan Bischof <st...@worldbadminton.com> wrote:

> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more
> than plasma or LCD

I jes bought my first LCD monitor from Walmart, an 23"W Acer cheapo
(S230HL). Still playing with drivers, but happy as a clam, so far.
Factory specs say viewing range is:

160° horz
170° vert

How much more does a body need? I didn't buy it to view from dead
astern. ;)

[TJ]

On 06/02/2012 08:36 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-06-01, Stan Bischof<st...@worldbadminton.com> wrote:
>
>> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more
>> than plasma or LCD
>
> I jes bought my first LCD monitor from Walmart, an 23"W Acer cheapo
> (S230HL). Still playing with drivers, but happy as a clam, so far.
> Factory specs say viewing range is:
>
> 160° horz
> 170° vert
>
> How much more does a body need? I didn't buy it to view from dead
> astern. ;)
>
> nb
>
>

Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed - 170
horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using Mageia 1 and
more recently, Mageia 2.

TJ

[notbob]

On 2012-06-02, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:

> Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed - 170
> horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using Mageia 1 and
> more recently, Mageia 2.

My problem is my ancient hardware, specifially on old VGA TNT vid
card. The Acer does VGA, and will give me 1920x1080, but it loses
functionality at that res w/o DVI.

I may take a look at Mageia, it already having zoneminder installed.

[TJ]

On 06/02/2012 01:34 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-06-02, TJ<T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>
>> Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed - 170
>> horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using Mageia 1 and
>> more recently, Mageia 2.
>
> My problem is my ancient hardware, specifially on old VGA TNT vid
> card. The Acer does VGA, and will give me 1920x1080, but it loses
> functionality at that res w/o DVI.
>
> I may take a look at Mageia, it already having zoneminder installed.
>
> nb
>

Mine's not quite that old, I guess - but it's old enough. I have an AGP
8x Geforce 6200 card, with both VGA and DVI outputs. It does the job...

TJ

[The Natural Philosopher]

notbob wrote:
> On 2012-06-02, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>
>> Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed - 170
>> horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using Mageia 1 and
>> more recently, Mageia 2.
>
> My problem is my ancient hardware, specifially on old VGA TNT vid
> card. The Acer does VGA, and will give me 1920x1080, but it loses
> functionality at that res w/o DVI.
>
> I may take a look at Mageia, it already having zoneminder installed.
>
> nb
>

video cards are cheaper than monitors

[Peter Köhlmann]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> notbob wrote:
>> On 2012-06-02, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed - 170
>>> horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using Mageia 1 and
>>> more recently, Mageia 2.
>>
>> My problem is my ancient hardware, specifially on old VGA TNT vid
>> card. The Acer does VGA, and will give me 1920x1080, but it loses
>> functionality at that res w/o DVI.
>>
>> I may take a look at Mageia, it already having zoneminder installed.
>>
>> nb
>>
> video cards are cheaper than monitors
>
>

Not always.

[The Natural Philosopher]

The cheapest video car which will certainly drive that scale of monitor
is certainly cheaper than a monitor of that resolution.

[Peter Köhlmann]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> notbob wrote:
>>>> On 2012-06-02, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed -
>>>>> 170 horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using Mageia
>>>>> 1 and more recently, Mageia 2.
>>>> My problem is my ancient hardware, specifially on old VGA TNT vid
>>>> card. The Acer does VGA, and will give me 1920x1080, but it loses
>>>> functionality at that res w/o DVI.
>>>>
>>>> I may take a look at Mageia, it already having zoneminder installed.
>>>>
>>>> nb
>>>>
>>> video cards are cheaper than monitors
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not always.
> The cheapest video car which will certainly drive that scale of monitor
> is certainly cheaper than a monitor of that resolution.
>

Thats right.
On the other hand, there are video cards out there (mostly for gamers) which
cost more than the rest of the computer

[The Natural Philosopher]

Hardly relevant in the context of

"My problem is my ancient hardware"

[notbob]

On 2012-06-02, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Hardly relevant in the context of
> "My problem is my ancient hardware"

Even less relevant in the context of my financial resources.

The old card still works. The old monitor doesn't.

[Peter Köhlmann]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> notbob wrote:
>>>>>> On 2012-06-02, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed -
>>>>>>> 170 horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using
>>>>>>> Mageia 1 and more recently, Mageia 2.
>>>>>> My problem is my ancient hardware, specifially on old VGA TNT vid
>>>>>> card. The Acer does VGA, and will give me 1920x1080, but it loses
>>>>>> functionality at that res w/o DVI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I may take a look at Mageia, it already having zoneminder installed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nb
>>>>>>
>>>>> video cards are cheaper than monitors
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Not always.
>>> The cheapest video car which will certainly drive that scale of monitor
>>> is certainly cheaper than a monitor of that resolution.
>>>
>>
>> Thats right.
>> On the other hand, there are video cards out there (mostly for gamers)
>> which cost more than the rest of the computer
> Hardly relevant in the context of
> "My problem is my ancient hardware"
>

It is relevant to the claim of "video cards are cheaper than monitors"

While this is mostly true, it is still wrong. Because it isn't always true

[TJ]

All generalizations are false, even this one.

TJ

[The Natural Philosopher]

notbob wrote:
> On 2012-06-02, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Hardly relevant in the context of
>> "My problem is my ancient hardware"
>
> Even less relevant in the context of my financial resources.
>

you vatn even afor $30?

> The old card still works. The old monitor doesn't.
>
> nb
>


--

[notbob]

On 2012-06-03, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> you vatn even afor $30?

Ummm... until next month, yes, I am. Is that a problem for you?

[Michael Black]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, notbob wrote:

> On 2012-06-03, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> you vatn even afor $30?
>
> Ummm... until next month, yes, I am. Is that a problem for you?
>

You're not seeing any scrap computers lying around? I actually have a
fair collection of somewhat exotic video cards because I have pulled them
out of computers I've seen lying on the sidewalk (along with the RAM and
drives). SOme of them are recent enough to have DVI connectors on them,
and at least one of them seems to be one of those gamer video cards
(albeit an older generation) since it even has its own fan.

The sad part is, the stores that sell donated used items are much less
likely to take this sort of thing, and people are now being more careful
about what they throw out, so last week when they had a collection of
unwanted electronic devices, organized by the city, likely all kinds of
neat stuff was handed in, and chances are good it will just get stripped
down for gold and such.

Michael

[notbob]

On 2012-06-03, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> You're not seeing any scrap computers lying around?

No. I'm not.

I now live in a pretty rural area, the high CO Rockies. Nothing at
all like the SFBA from which I moved. Here, ppl try and sell old junk
fer outlandish prices, thinking they are still worth something. By
time they realize they're gonna hafta PAY to dispose of this refuse,
it's no longer in the little rural paper want-ads. Fergit curbs! Far
and few between. Besides, I'm not in the mkt fer taking on a whole
box or system fer a sgl card. I already have about $50 in disposal
fees rusting under my deck. Again, not like SFBA, where one place
took in anything with a resistor in it, for free.

Also, I'm in a weird place, right now. Fixed income, IRS breathing
down my neck fer some missed filing, and paying way too much of my own
income to care for my alzheimer mom. Notta lotta spare change at this
moment. Things will eventually change for the better, but for now I'm
jes happy I have a new monitor, old card or not. ;)

[David Brown]

On 01/06/12 21:11, Dan Espen wrote:
> Patrick<Pat...@none.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:17:57 +0000, Stan Bischof wrote:
>>
>>> notbob<not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try
>>>>> them out and look at the pictures.......
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Nothing like a plain ol' viewing test to see what's what.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't been in some time, but I know plasma TVs were once atrocious.
>>>> Extremely limited viewing cone. This has probably changed. I'd stick
>>>> with LCD technology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> for the moment perhaps, but if you really want good viewing angles you
>>> want an LED screen - and I don't mean the so-called "led" screens that
>>> are really just an led backlight for an LCD.
>>>
>>> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more than plasma or
>>> LCD
>>>
>>> Stan
>>
>> I think the next screen I buy I'll look for a higher refresh rate.
>> Perhaps 80hz or even 100hz instead of the normal 60hz.
>> Hard to find but I'm sure they exist.
>
> I strongly recommend staying away from CRTs.
> For computer work an LCD beats a CRT to death.
>

It's hard to get at all CRTs now - they are not even common for
second-hand, as they have so low re-sale value, and are so big and
heavy. Baring a very few niche areas, no one would buy a CRT now. The
majority are LCD screens, with a few plasma, OLED, etc.

> As far as "refresh rate" on an LCD:
>
> The closest equivalent to a refresh rate on an LCD monitor is its
> frame rate, which is often locked at 60 frame/s.

There are only two frame rates realistically available for LCD monitors.
The huge majority at 60 frames per second, while there are a few at
120 frames per second aimed specifically at 3D, so that each eye gets 60
frames per second.

As you say, there is /no/ flicker on LCDs (or other flatscreen
technologies). It doesn't matter what the frame rate is, because they
are not being turned on and off at that rate, merely updated at that
rate. And since 60 frames per second is much faster than the eye can
see movement, there is no point in going any faster.

What /does/ vary between screens is the response time - how fast a pixel
can change from fully on to fully off. Any modern screen is going to be
good enough for most uses, including video, but some that are designed
for the highest quality static pictures (such as IPS screens) are poor
at very fast video games.

>
> For an LCD you shop for resolution and size.
> I'm currently at 20.5 inches and 1600x1200.
> (DELL).
>
> I wouldn't mind 24 inches or even 30 but anything less than
> the vertical 1200 is out of the question.
>

1600x1200 are getting rare and expensive. The majority of screens use
full HD resolution - 1920 x 1080. I agree that having 1200 pixels
vertically is much nicer than 1080 for a computer - but on my brief
check of prices, the cheapest 1600 x 1200 I found is almost 50% more
expensive than the cheapest 1920 x 1200 - and over three times the price
of the cheapest 1920 x 1080.

If you've got the money, there is a lot to be said for 2560x1440 - you
get a nice big monitor, and the price is getting quite reasonable.
Remember that a good monitor will last longer than your computer, and
make a bigger difference to your working environment than the speed of
the processor or graphics card.

[Dan Espen]

Yes I agree with everything you've said.

Maybe because I've had CRTs and now LCDs with 1200 vertical pixels so long
I'm slightly prejudiced. But I would not trade my 20.5 1600x1200 for
30 inches of 1920x1080. I'd consider that a loss of 120 pixels with
the horizontal gain being no real advantage.

You're right that the prices really start to go up at the higher
resolutions but for me, the monitor is the most important part of
the whole machine.

--
Dan Espen

[unruh]

On 2012-06-03, Peter K??hlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>

Would you apply the same reasoning to the statement that "cars are
cheaper than Penthouse apartments in New York" even if I could find you
a 4 million dollar car and a 2 million dollar penthouse apparement? A
statement that is mostly true, is mostly true, not wrong ( he never
said "all video cards are always cheaper than any monitor").

[David Brown]

Once you've got used to 1920 width, the horizontal gain /is/ a real
advantage. But I'd hate to lose the 120 vertical pixels - at my office,
1920 x 1200 is the standard size. I do have one 1920 x 1080, and it's
missing vertical resolution bugs me.

At home I have a Dell U2711, with 2560 x 1440, which is /very/ nice.

> You're right that the prices really start to go up at the higher
> resolutions but for me, the monitor is the most important part of
> the whole machine.
>

You've misread me a little. Prices are going /up/ for 1600 x 1200 - but
they are going /down/ for 1920 x 1200 (and 1920 x 1080 are very cheap)
and 2560 x 1440.

In other words, for computing use (rather than just watching TV on your
computer), 1920 x 1200 is the spot to aim for, unless you lack the
physical space for the width. You get more horizontal pixels, the same
vertical resolution, and a lower price. But if you can afford it,
2560x1440 is a worthwhile investment for serious use.

[Dan Espen]

I remember. I bought the DELL 2100FP at the same price point the
U2711 is currently at.

Probably what I'll buy if this thing ever dies or they get
a lot cheaper.

>> You're right that the prices really start to go up at the higher
>> resolutions but for me, the monitor is the most important part of
>> the whole machine.
>>
>
> You've misread me a little. Prices are going /up/ for 1600 x 1200 -
> but they are going /down/ for 1920 x 1200 (and 1920 x 1080 are very
> cheap) and 2560 x 1440.
>
> In other words, for computing use (rather than just watching TV on
> your computer), 1920 x 1200 is the spot to aim for, unless you lack
> the physical space for the width. You get more horizontal pixels, the
> same vertical resolution, and a lower price. But if you can afford
> it, 2560x1440 is a worthwhile investment for serious use.

Serious user here.
Plus, you only live once.

--
Dan Espen

[Stan Bischof]

Robert Riches <spamt...@jacob21819.net> wrote:
>>
>> for the moment perhaps, but if you really want good
>> viewing angles you want an LED screen - and I don't
>> mean the so-called "led" screens that are really just
>> an led backlight for an LCD.
>>
>> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more
>> than plasma or LCD
>>
>> Stan
>
> That could be true if the "LED" monitors were _TRULY_ LED
> monitors. Last time I asked at Frys, the "LED" monitors are
> simply LCD monitors with an LED backlight instead of fluorescent.
>

Read back earlier in the thread-- when I refer to LED monitors
I'm specifically referring to real LED, not LED-backlit LCD.

Stan

[Peter Köhlmann]

Can you name a single "real LED" monitor?

[Stan Bischof]

Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>
> Can you name a single "real LED" monitor?

Sure- there's quite a few. All are still expensive. For instance
see the Sony Trimaster series. Most major manufacturers are
getting into the LED game so that they won't be left high-and-dry
when LCD's become passe.

Stan

[J G Miller]

On Monday, June 4th, 2012, at 17:23:58h +0200, Peter Köhlmann asked:

> Can you name a single "real LED" monitor?

But you will not like the price.

<http://www.engadget.COM/2011/04/12/sony-keeps-oled-hope-alive-with-budget-monitor-line-video/>

[Peter Köhlmann]

Well, it is a Sony. Not interested.
That company will never again sell anything to me. At any price

[notbob]

On 2012-06-04, Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:

> That company will never again sell anything to me. At any price

heh heh....

I can sympathize, their low end stuff worse than Walmart junk. OTOH,
some of their products are quite good. Their old Trinitron CRTs, when
good, were awesome. I say "when good" cuz their 17" trini mons had a
failure rate of one in three!

My mom has a whole wall of Sony junk. VCRs, cassette decks, CD
players, equalizers, amps, DVD, etc. All dead!! Only the 30" trini
TV and the vaio desktop computer (17" trini mon) still work like they
are brand new. Both at least a decade old. This computer is a Sony
Vaio. Of course it's all Asus mobo and other components, the lone
installed Sony DVD player having died. Still have a Sony digital vid
camera that works. And a 20 yr old steel cased D15 Sony CD player.
All the rest is junk.

Overall, I wouldn't buy Sony anything, either. Then again, most
Japanese electronics is no better. It's a crap shoot. By the turn of
the century, I had a garage full of expired Japanese electronics junk
from stereo systems to cameras to TVs, etc. Most barely made the
warrantee period. Anymore, I buy the cheapest piece of junk from
Walmart that will do the job. So I hafta replace it in two yrs.
Cheaper than replacing high priced junk. ;)

[Dan Espen]

Their XBR TVs are pretty much top of the line.
I bought one that started to fade AFTER the warranty period.
They became aware of the defect and extended the warranty to
cover it.

Sent a repairman to our home and repaired it.

They're still on my good side.

--
Dan Espen

[unruh]

On 2012-06-04, Peter K??hlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> J G Miller wrote:
>

>> On Monday, June 4th, 2012, at 17:23:58h +0200, Peter K??hlmann asked:

>>
>>> Can you name a single "real LED" monitor?
>>
>> But you will not like the price.
>>
>> <http://www.engadget.COM/2011/04/12/sony-keeps-oled-hope-alive-with-
> budget-monitor-line-video/>
>
> Well, it is a Sony. Not interested.
> That company will never again sell anything to me. At any price

?? I did not know you were looking to buy one in the first place. Plus,
the led monitors were advertised in this group as being the monitors
that had a far wider viewing angle than LCD monitors. My LCD monitor has
a viewing angle of about 180 degrees. (It is hard to test around 180
degrees). This led monitor has a viewing angle of 89 degrees (89??? how
the hell do they get single digit accuracy in the viewing angle?) which
is far far less than that of a good LCD monitor. Why exactly would
anyone buy a monitor that cost 10-20 times as much and has half the
viewing angle? And how is this monitor an advertisement of the fact that
LED monitors have a larger viewing angle than LCD monitors?

[notbob]

On 2012-06-04, unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:

> the hell do they get single digit accuracy in the viewing angle?) which
> is far far less than that of a good LCD monitor. Why exactly would
> anyone buy a monitor that cost 10-20 times as much and has half the
> viewing angle? And how is this monitor an advertisement of the fact that
> LED monitors have a larger viewing angle than LCD monitors?

Damn, unruh. There you go using that dang unassailable logic again.
Not fair! ;)

[Dan Espen]

I was scratching my head at 89 too.
But you mentioning, turned on the light.

They're using a scale from zero to 90.

--
Dan Espen

[Stan Bischof]

unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:
> is far far less than that of a good LCD monitor. Why exactly would
> anyone buy a monitor that cost 10-20 times as much and has half the
> viewing angle? >

You obviously aren't an early adopter...

When young LCD picture quality was horrible and very expensive
compared to CRT.

Same with Plasma.

CRT is dead, Plasma is still kicking, LCD is at its height.

LED will supplant LCD in time since it is much thinner/lighter,
far more energy efficient, much better color rendition,
much faster response time, much much higher contrast ratio.
Cost will come down in time.

I'd bet that in 5 years LCD will no longer dominate.

Stan

[unruh]

Except of course the article goes on to talk about Film people must
liking to cozy together to look at the rushes on that monitor, implying
that the angle is much less than on the more expense one. And it is hard
to have greater than 90+90
Also this monitor is much cheaper than their other offering and the
reason according to the article, is the restricted viewing angle. And I
would hope that they would not regard 89 degrees a sizable restriction
from 90 degrees.
>

[David Brown]

On 04/06/2012 17:31, Stan Bischof wrote:

It will be at least a few years before OLED monitors become common even
at the high end - they are just too expensive at the moment (ten times
the price of an LCD), and the benefits (brighter and sharper picture,
and greater colour consistency over all angles) don't outweigh the other
disadvantages (size, thickness, weight and power) for most users.

Maybe they will become a realistic choice, but don't bet too much on it
- if LCD gets better faster than OLED gets cheaper, then there will be
no point in OLED displays. And perhaps other technologies such as
electronic ink will take over instead.

[unruh]

On 2012-06-05, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2012 17:31, Stan Bischof wrote:

>> Peter K?hlmann<peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you name a single "real LED" monitor?
>>
>> Sure- there's quite a few. All are still expensive. For instance
>> see the Sony Trimaster series. Most major manufacturers are
>> getting into the LED game so that they won't be left high-and-dry
>> when LCD's become passe.
>>
>> Stan
>
> It will be at least a few years before OLED monitors become common even
> at the high end - they are just too expensive at the moment (ten times
> the price of an LCD), and the benefits (brighter and sharper picture,
> and greater colour consistency over all angles) don't outweigh the other

LCD already have greater colour consistency over all angles. My TV for
example does not change colour over the 180 degree viewing angle.

Probably their biggest disadvantage for computers is their behaviour in
bright light (unreadable) but for laptops, the power is a far bigger
issue.