LCD flat panel feedback please?

[KJ]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I want to get a flat panel for the new system I'm building, but am a
little concerned about the whole "native resolution" issue.

I'm not a gamer -- I'm a researcher/writer so I spend 12/hr a day in
Word or surfing. I don't like the small menus and fonts of 1024x768 res
[on CRTs] and changing the Win setting to use "large fonts" makes many
programs display improperly. Therefore I use 800x600 to avoid eye strain
and get nice-sized menus and fonts.

The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's great for looking
at graphics, I'm not so sure it's great for my purposes. Can anyone
attest to how these monitors look at that res in terms of menus and
such? Are the tool bars and menus tiny? Or does anyone know what they
look like in a lower res than the native?

Thanks,
KJ

(just building now...)
MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum (socket 939)
1 GB PC 3200 Dual Channel Mushkin RAM
Athlon64 3000+
Chaintech 6200 PCIe nForce4
Maxtor 120GB HD
Plextor 716SA DVD/CD burner
Raidmax case and PSU, 420w

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <cthv01dgos0s9uq53v7dvdng9cirfa6jco@4ax.com>, KJ says...

>I'm not a gamer -- I'm a researcher/writer so I spend 12/hr a day in
>Word or surfing. I don't like the small menus and fonts of 1024x768 res
>[on CRTs] and changing the Win setting to use "large fonts" makes many
>programs display improperly. Therefore I use 800x600 to avoid eye strain
>and get nice-sized menus and fonts.


It would be informative to know what size CRT you now run at 800x600.
It would mean rather different things if 15 inch or 19 inch. 15 inch
might be considered normal at 800x600, but if 19 inch, you must have some
serious eye problems, certainly it would be a special case then. But as
the screen gets larger (inches), the screen size (pixels) can also get
larger, and the text may stay the same size.

You surely need to visit a store that sells LCD displays, and examine
them, see what they look like. They probably have a wall of them, all
turned on.

If you want the text larger, buy a larger monitor. Buy a 19 inch LCD
which is also 1280x1024, but if a LCD, it is actually a full 19 inches
diagonal, where a 19 inch CRT is only about 18 inches. So the screen is
bigger, and everything on it (the 1280 pixels) is slightly bigger than a
19 inch CRT. And substantially bigger than a 17 inch CRT, which is only
16 inches. Or a 15 inch CRT which is about 13.8 inches diagonal. That
13.8 inches is only 72% the size of a 19 inch LCD. 800 pixels is 62% of
1280 pixels, so this is ballpark same size, almost. Probably a little
smaller than you are used to, but my own opinion is that 1280x1024 seems
about the right size on a 19 LCD, much like 800x600 might seem right on a
15 inch CRT.

However, the thin LCD screen will likely be several inches farther behind
the keyboard, so you will likely be several inches farther from it. My 19
inch is nearly a foot farther than arms reach. Seems great to me.

But I do use Large Fonts. I've always used Large Fonts (on any 17 or 19
inch screen) and the only program that gives me any trouble is TaxCut.
Word and the browser are absolutely no problem. I simply never give it a
seconds thought (except to wonder why TaxCut cant get it right).

Operating my 19 inch LCD at other sizes than native (like 1024x768) is
somewhat fuzzy, somewhat worse than a CRT. No really good, but not
absolutely terrible, in that it is still very readable, just not crisp or
attractive. Certainly not like native, which is absolutely wonderful.
I'd say not recommended.

Be aware that for a LCD display, the XP Control Panel- Display -
Appearance - Effects has the CLEAR TYPE choice, which is for LCD.
Text is no bigger, but more bold and clear.

 

[KJ]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Wayne Fulton <nospam@invalid.com> wrote:

>In article <cthv01dgos0s9uq53v7dvdng9cirfa6jco@4ax.com>, KJ says...
>
>>I'm not a gamer -- I'm a researcher/writer so I spend 12/hr a day in
>>Word or surfing. I don't like the small menus and fonts of 1024x768 res
>>[on CRTs] and changing the Win setting to use "large fonts" makes many
>>programs display improperly. Therefore I use 800x600 to avoid eye strain
>>and get nice-sized menus and fonts.
>
>
>It would be informative to know what size CRT you now run at 800x600.

17" / 16" viewable

>You surely need to visit a store that sells LCD displays, and examine
>them, see what they look like. They probably have a wall of them, all
>turned on.

Yeah, I plan to, but wanted feedback from owners as well.

>If you want the text larger, buy a larger monitor.

Pocketbook says a 17" LCD ($250-$300) is all I can afford. I just spent
nearly $1000 buying the components for a new system I'm building, and my
CRT works fine, but I'd like a LCD for space and to utilize the DVI on
my new graphics card.

> [...] but my own opinion is that 1280x1024 seems
>about the right size on a 19 LCD, much like 800x600 might seem right on a
>15 inch CRT.

IKWYM, I used to have a 21" CRT years ago. But seeing that I have to
stick to a 17" LCD... I was wondering what Word processors are like in
the native res.

I was reading an article in PC World that was comparing CRT vs LCD and
they made the point that with CRT (as we all know) when you increase the
res the fonts and so forth shrink, but they didn't say the same about
LCD so I was wondering too if that still holds.

>But I do use Large Fonts. I've always used Large Fonts (on any 17 or 19
>inch screen) and the only program that gives me any trouble is TaxCut.
>Word and the browser are absolutely no problem. I simply never give it a
>seconds thought (except to wonder why TaxCut cant get it right).

It's been awhile since I used it. Maybe I'll try it again.

>Operating my 19 inch LCD at other sizes than native (like 1024x768) is
>somewhat fuzzy, somewhat worse than a CRT. No really good, but not
>absolutely terrible, in that it is still very readable, just not crisp or
>attractive. Certainly not like native, which is absolutely wonderful.
>I'd say not recommended.

Thanks for that. That's what I wondered and is what I was hearing. How
long have you had your LCD? (I'm thinking they must be working on
improving that single drawback to LCD technology.)

>Be aware that for a LCD display, the XP Control Panel- Display -
>Appearance - Effects has the CLEAR TYPE choice, which is for LCD.
>Text is no bigger, but more bold and clear.

Thanks for the tip and input.

KJ

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

KJ (KJ@nospam.com) wrote:

> I want to get a flat panel for the new system I'm building, but am a
> little concerned about the whole "native resolution" issue.
>
> I'm not a gamer -- I'm a researcher/writer so I spend 12/hr a day in
> Word or surfing. I don't like the small menus and fonts of 1024x768 res
> [on CRTs] and changing the Win setting to use "large fonts" makes many
> programs display improperly. Therefore I use 800x600 to avoid eye strain
> and get nice-sized menus and fonts.
>
> The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's great for looking
> at graphics, I'm not so sure it's great for my purposes. Can anyone
> attest to how these monitors look at that res in terms of menus and
> such? Are the tool bars and menus tiny? Or does anyone know what they
> look like in a lower res than the native?

17" and 19" monitors have a 1280x1024 native resolution. A 19" would display
that resolution much larger, probably @ WYSIWYG resolution. The 17" would,
IMO, be rather small for such a resolution.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

 

[KJ]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote:

>KJ (KJ@nospam.com) wrote:

> The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's great for looking
>> at graphics, I'm not so sure it's great for my purposes. Can anyone
>> attest to how these monitors look at that res in terms of menus and
>> such? Are the tool bars and menus tiny? Or does anyone know what they
>> look like in a lower res than the native?
>
>17" and 19" monitors have a 1280x1024 native resolution. A 19" would display
>that resolution much larger, probably @ WYSIWYG resolution. The 17" would,
>IMO, be rather small for such a resolution.

I'm in agreement with you.

KJ

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <e9vv01dbi5rd3lnotb6pe6n9lj9s7r9g4l@4ax.com>, KJ says...
>
>17" / 16" viewable

That's pretty large for 800x600. It would seem very unnatural to me. A 17
LCD is only an inch larger diagonally than the 17 CRT, so you'd see a big
reduction at 1280x1024, but Large Fonts will put a lot back. Large fonts
wont change icon or image size, but it will also increase menu and toolbar
text sizes. I would suggest your testing now by just changing your current
CRT screen to 1280x1024 for a few minutes. Maybe Large Fonts too. It should
be a close comparison except for the one inch, which will help the LCD about
6%. And I would bet on the LCD showing sharper more clear text. But I think
this size comparison is going to be the same ballpark, and it may end the
question if you like the 800x600 size.


>but I'd like a LCD for space and to utilize the DVI on
>my new graphics card.

I didnt see the slightest difference in DVI as opposed to VGA. I'm using a
19 inch Viewsonic VX910 on a Matrox G550 video, both have both capabilities
with two cables. I'm not a gamer either, and I consider the Matrox card to
be great for sharp text. Theoretically I suppose there is a lot to be said
for DVI, but practically, I noticed no difference at all. DVI is no big
deal.

>IKWYM, I used to have a 21" CRT years ago. But seeing that I have to
>stick to a 17" LCD... I was wondering what Word processors are like in
>the native res.

In my case, Word 2003 is extremely normal and fine here... 12 pt Garamond
font at 100% zoom, on 19 inch LCD 1280x1024 native, with Large Fonts 120
dpi. On the screen, a 12 inch ruler measures it as four lines per inch
(prints a bit over 5 lines per inch). The screen text is larger than it
prints, due to the Large Fonts. All other programs are perfectly fine too.
17 inches would of course be smaller, 11% I think. That's why I bought 19
inches.

I've used only Large Fonts for at least 9 or 10 years (probably much longer,
I just cant remember that far back), and it is extremely rare to see any
little ignorable issue. There were more issues years ago, but not today.
For me, only TaxCut is a nuisance with Large Fonts, and it's bearable.
Large Font is essential here.

I am often sitting back about 36 inches from the LCD, feet up, can barely
reach the mouse on the edge of the desk, and the monitor is about 20 inches
back from edge. It's great, extremely readable to me (I use the top part of
trifocals then). But to me, the 1280x1024 is important to see most of a
full page in Word (maybe 3/4 page), and to have more desktop space
generally, for access to other programs. Your 17 inch 800x600 situation is
surely quite different than this.

>I was reading an article in PC World that was comparing CRT vs LCD and
>they made the point that with CRT (as we all know) when you increase the
>res the fonts and so forth shrink, but they didn't say the same about
>LCD so I was wondering too if that still holds.

Yes, it is exactly the same for LCD, pixels are pixels. If for example
(easy numbers), you change the screen from 800x600 to 1600x1200 pixels,
everyhing on the screen will become half size, but the screen area will be
four times more desktop area. Same for either CRT or LCD.

>Thanks for that. That's what I wondered and is what I was hearing. How
>long have you had your LCD? (I'm thinking they must be working on
>improving that single drawback to LCD technology.)

About two months. This one is $449 at CompUSA now (after $50 rebate). I'm
getting very used to it now and really like it. It was a huge shock at
first, LCD color isnt very accurate for critically creating images. It can
be tweaked some, but it just aint the same as a CRT. However, this simply
doesnt matter at all for anything else but critical images. The LCD is
fantastic for text and reading and such, any kind of general work, and web
images are plenty good enough.

 

[KJ]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Wayne Fulton <nospam@invalid.com> wrote:

>In article <e9vv01dbi5rd3lnotb6pe6n9lj9s7r9g4l@4ax.com>, KJ says...
>>
>>17" / 16" viewable
>
>That's pretty large for 800x600. It would seem very unnatural to me.

I don't sit right up close to it. Since I sit here all day I often kick
back with the keyboard on my lap and my feet up on the keyboard tray.
I also don't like to have to stick my face in something that's emitting
radiation. But as the night wears on and my eyes get tired, that's
when the 800x600 really helps.

>A 17
>LCD is only an inch larger diagonally than the 17 CRT, so you'd see a big
>reduction at 1280x1024, but Large Fonts will put a lot back. Large fonts
>wont change icon or image size, but it will also increase menu and toolbar
>text sizes. I would suggest your testing now by just changing your current
>CRT screen to 1280x1024 for a few minutes.

Good idea except it doesn't support that res.

>>but I'd like a LCD for space and to utilize the DVI on
>>my new graphics card.
>
>I didnt see the slightest difference in DVI as opposed to VGA. I'm using a
>19 inch Viewsonic VX910 on a Matrox G550 video, both have both capabilities
>with two cables. I'm not a gamer either, and I consider the Matrox card to
>be great for sharp text. Theoretically I suppose there is a lot to be said
>for DVI, but practically, I noticed no difference at all. DVI is no big
>deal.

I just read that from someone else in a review at NewEgg. Said he hooked
up two monitors (both LCD same model he got together) to a card that
supports two monitors; one connected analog and the other DVI. Said he
was disappointed that there was such a slight diff in picture quality
even with them sitting side by side. But I still want DVI b/c it will
become the new standard and I don't change my equipment that often.
However that's what's tacking cost on. If I didn't want the DVI I could
get a decent 17" for a lot less. Oh well... it pushed me up to the
cheap-end of the 19" bracket. (As stated in another post after I did
more shopping....)

>>IKWYM, I used to have a 21" CRT years ago. But seeing that I have to
>>stick to a 17" LCD... I was wondering what Word processors are like in
>>the native res.
>
>In my case, Word 2003 is extremely normal and fine here... 12 pt Garamond
>font at 100% zoom, on 19 inch LCD 1280x1024 native, with Large Fonts 120
>dpi. On the screen, a 12 inch ruler measures it as four lines per inch

Yeah, that sounds good.

>(prints a bit over 5 lines per inch). The screen text is larger than it
>prints, due to the Large Fonts. All other programs are perfectly fine too.
>17 inches would of course be smaller, 11% I think. That's why I bought 19
>inches.

Yeap. Think I'll have to go that route too... maybe hunt for rebate
deals.

>I've used only Large Fonts for at least 9 or 10 years (probably much longer,
>I just cant remember that far back), and it is extremely rare to see any
>little ignorable issue. There were more issues years ago, but not today.
>For me, only TaxCut is a nuisance with Large Fonts, and it's bearable.
>Large Font is essential here.

You know what's funny, I used Large Fonts too with high res for years,
then suddenly they were causing me problems and I can't remember now
what program it was, but something I used all the time. It became a
critical issue that I had to stop using them. (This was like... maybe 5
years back that I stopped.) But also I'm switching to XP with my new
system (finally lettin' old 98 retire). So I'm sure Large Fonts will be
fine with the high res, now that I think about it... it was probably a
98 incompatibility glitch with whatever I was using.

>I am often sitting back about 36 inches from the LCD, feet up, can barely
>reach the mouse on the edge of the desk, and the monitor is about 20 inches
>back from edge. It's great, extremely readable to me (I use the top part of
>trifocals then). But to me, the 1280x1024 is important to see most of a
>full page in Word (maybe 3/4 page), and to have more desktop space
>generally, for access to other programs. Your 17 inch 800x600 situation is
>surely quite different than this.

Yeah, see you sit back too.

>>[...] How
>>long have you had your LCD? (I'm thinking they must be working on
>>improving that single drawback to LCD technology.)
>
>About two months. This one is $449 at CompUSA now (after $50 rebate). I'm
>getting very used to it now and really like it. It was a huge shock at
>first, LCD color isnt very accurate for critically creating images.

So I've read. Luckily that isn't a relevant issue for me.

>It can
>be tweaked some, but it just aint the same as a CRT. However, this simply
>doesnt matter at all for anything else but critical images. The LCD is
>fantastic for text and reading and such, any kind of general work, and web
>images are plenty good enough.

Sounds great. I think I know what I have to do now... look for a good
deal!

Thanks again.
KJ

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"KJ" <KJ@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cthv01dgos0s9uq53v7dvdng9cirfa6jco@4ax.com...
>I want to get a flat panel for the new system I'm building, but am a
> little concerned about the whole "native resolution" issue.
>
> I'm not a gamer -- I'm a researcher/writer so I spend 12/hr a day in
> Word or surfing. I don't like the small menus and fonts of 1024x768 res
> [on CRTs] and changing the Win setting to use "large fonts" makes many
> programs display improperly. Therefore I use 800x600 to avoid eye strain
> and get nice-sized menus and fonts.
>
> The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's great for looking
> at graphics, I'm not so sure it's great for my purposes. Can anyone
> attest to how these monitors look at that res in terms of menus and
> such? Are the tool bars and menus tiny? Or does anyone know what they
> look like in a lower res than the native?

Best to buy a LCD with DVI input: crisp and steady display.
In Word just zoom in to suite your need!
In Windows choose a Theme you like best.

Gr. Jan

 

[KJ]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"OldBoy" <boel069@noplanet.nl> wrote:

>"KJ" <KJ@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:cthv01dgos0s9uq53v7dvdng9cirfa6jco@4ax.com...
>>I want to get a flat panel for the new system I'm building, but am a
>> little concerned about the whole "native resolution" issue.
>>
>> I'm not a gamer -- I'm a researcher/writer so I spend 12/hr a day in
>> Word or surfing. I don't like the small menus and fonts of 1024x768 res
>> [on CRTs] and changing the Win setting to use "large fonts" makes many
>> programs display improperly. Therefore I use 800x600 to avoid eye strain
>> and get nice-sized menus and fonts.
>>
>> The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's great for looking
>> at graphics, I'm not so sure it's great for my purposes. Can anyone
>> attest to how these monitors look at that res in terms of menus and
>> such? Are the tool bars and menus tiny? Or does anyone know what they
>> look like in a lower res than the native?
>
>Best to buy a LCD with DVI input: crisp and steady display.

Yeah, was planning on that. Thanks.

>In Word just zoom in to suite your need!

I do that already. That doesn't address toolbars, menus, etc., in
Word or while surfing. When you spend 12hrs a day looking at a screen
eye strain needs to be minimized. Tiny-assed menus = A Bad Thing. I
have to access menus nearly continuously while writing/researching.

Again, using the "Large Fonts" setting in high res helps in this regard
but causes programs to display improperly, especially config menus and
so forth.

KJ

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

KJ (KJ@nospam.com) wrote:
>"OldBoy" <boel069@noplanet.nl> wrote:
>> "KJ" <KJ@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>> I want to get a flat panel for the new system I'm building, but
>>> am a little concerned about the whole "native resolution" issue.
>>> I'm not a gamer -- I'm a researcher/writer so I spend 12/hr a
>>> day in Word or surfing. I don't like the small menus and fonts
>>> of 1024x768 res [on CRTs] and changing the Win setting to use
>>> "large fonts" makes many programs display improperly. Therefore
>>> I use 800x600 to avoid eye strain and get nice-sized menus and
>>> fonts. The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's
>>> great for looking at graphics, I'm not so sure it's great for my
>>> purposes. Can anyone attest to how these monitors look at that
>>> res in terms of menus and such? Are the tool bars and menus
>>> tiny? Or does anyone know what they look like in a lower res
>>> than the native?
>>
>> Best to buy a LCD with DVI input: crisp and steady display.
>
>Yeah, was planning on that. Thanks.
>
>> In Word just zoom in to suite your need!
>
>I do that already. That doesn't address toolbars, menus, etc.,
>in Word or while surfing. When you spend 12hrs a day looking at a
>screen eye strain needs to be minimized. Tiny-assed menus = A Bad
>Thing. I have to access menus nearly continuously while
>writing/researching. Again, using the "Large Fonts" setting in high
>res helps in this regard but causes programs to display improperly,
>especially config menus and so forth.

Windows display settings are very adjustable, not just large fonts.
If your monitor (current or future) can handle 1024x768 at an eye
pleasing refresh rate, you should IMO use that for browsing and
adjust display settings to suit.

Assuming Internet Explorer.
Try adding the fonts setting button to your browser toolbar. Using
1024x768 and increasing font size will produce bold fonts in smaller
font sizes. Try experimenting with Accessibility settings
(Tools-Internet Options-Accessibility).

Good luck.





>
>
>
>Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news.glorb.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!tethys.csu.net!nntp.csufresno.edu!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
>From: KJ (KJ @nospam.com)
>Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
>Subject: Re: LCD flat panel feedback please?
>Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:14:48 -0800
>Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
>Message-ID: <ffnv011hc9v0vtp2mb1sk6otnc3oal934f @4ax.com>
>References: <cthv01dgos0s9uq53v7dvdng9cirfa6jco@4ax.com> <cuojj9$nmn$1@reader10.wxs.nl>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.640
>X-No-Archive: yes
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
>Lines: 38
>Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:429371
>

 

[KJ]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing.com> wrote:

>Windows display settings are very adjustable, not just large fonts.
>If your monitor (current or future) can handle 1024x768 at an eye
>pleasing refresh rate, you should IMO use that for browsing and
>adjust display settings to suit.

The 17" LCDs native res is 1280x1024.

As for my CRT I already have it adjusted the way I like it.

KJ

 

[Hackworth]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"KJ" <KJ@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:0qvv015c9li473fnsa8orvoqsp6shdllh3@4ax.com...
> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing.com> wrote:
>
>>Windows display settings are very adjustable, not just large fonts.
>>If your monitor (current or future) can handle 1024x768 at an eye
>>pleasing refresh rate, you should IMO use that for browsing and
>>adjust display settings to suit.
>
> The 17" LCDs native res is 1280x1024.

Which for me was too small for prolonged use and tough on my eyeballs. So, I
sold that one and bought a Sony 18" LCD... that extra size made the default
1280x1024 just right for me. Prices are lower now for LCDs compared to when
I bought mine, so you may want to spring for a 19" model instead... the
native resolution is still 1280x1024, so it will be even easier on the eyes.



>
> As for my CRT I already have it adjusted the way I like it.
>
> KJ
>
>

 

[KJ]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Hackworth" <NoSpam4Me@spamless.net> wrote:

>
>"KJ" <KJ@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:0qvv015c9li473fnsa8orvoqsp6shdllh3@4ax.com...
>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Windows display settings are very adjustable, not just large fonts.
>>>If your monitor (current or future) can handle 1024x768 at an eye
>>>pleasing refresh rate, you should IMO use that for browsing and
>>>adjust display settings to suit.
>>
>> The 17" LCDs native res is 1280x1024.
>
>Which for me was too small for prolonged use and tough on my eyeballs.

This is what I think will be the case for me. Let's face it, after 10-12
hours your eyeballs get tired even when the res is perfect! ;-D ...
Straining is no fun. Thanks for speaking up.

> So, I
>sold that one and bought a Sony 18" LCD... that extra size made the default
>1280x1024 just right for me. Prices are lower now for LCDs compared to when
>I bought mine, so you may want to spring for a 19" model instead... the
>native resolution is still 1280x1024, so it will be even easier on the eyes.

I just spent quite a few hours looking and I can get a 'cheap' 19" for
about the same price as the 17" I would get, with the only real diff
being the 17" has a faster response time (12ms vs the 21ms of the 19").
Since I'm not a gamer this isn't really a concern.

Tomorrow I'll go to BestBuy or Frys or somewhere to look at some first
hand bearing in mind what all you good people have said. (Though I'll
be buying online unless I see a killer deal somewhere.)

Thanks for helping.
KJ

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <lhe011lgar3d380catbquac0jtnqshg0t7@4ax.com>, KJ says...

Speaking of my screen size and 4 lines per inch of 12 pt Garamond in Word.
I said all other programs were fine too, but maybe should note that not all
programs use 12 point font, at least by default, so some do appear smaller of
course. But still very readable. I see a few of them measure about 4.5
lines/inch, 10 pt I assume. Many programs offer some type of font size or
zoom, but I simply never bother, it is unnecessary. But Large Fonts seems
necessary on larger screens.

> But I still want DVI b/c it will
>become the new standard and I don't change my equipment that often.
>However that's what's tacking cost on.

I was a bit the opposite. Before I realized it doesnt matter, I assumed DVI
was better, and I am using DVI on the new system. But I specifically wanted a
card also with VGA. Sometimes things happen requiring swapping gear to get
going again, and I had a couple of CRT sitting around, but no second LCD.

DVI is fine, but VGA is excellent too. It is obvious that the LCD doesnt heat
the room as much as the old 19 CRT. Easier on the UPS too, more minutes.

>Sounds great. I think I know what I have to do now... look for a good
>deal!

Dollars will easily solve almost any computer problem.

A monitor is what we see, our perception of the computer, and seems more
important than something like a disk or memory that we dont perceive. If we
sit in front of the monitor for 12 hours/day, man, that is an overwhelming
reason to indulge ourselves.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

KJ (KJ@nospam.com) wrote:
>John Doe <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing.com> wrote:

>> Windows display settings are very adjustable, not just large
>> fonts. If your monitor (current or future) can handle 1024x768 at
>> an eye pleasing refresh rate, you should IMO use that for
>> browsing and adjust display settings to suit.
>
>The 17" LCDs native res is 1280x1024.

According to your other replies, apparently your problems have
changed. You don't necessarily want easier to see, you just want to
use your DVI output. You don't have a problem with large fonts at
higher resolutions. And now you are on a budget.

I have a big beautiful 19 inch perfectly flat Trinitron monitor and
a secondary 17 inch monitor. I had read that text wasn't crisp on
Trinitrons, but mine is very crisp. From time to time, I catch a
glimpse of those two infamous horizontal lines. It's no worse than
amusing.

If you want lots of screen space, if you really want easier to see
text and less eyestrain, use dual monitors. If I were using my PC
for work, there's no way I would do without multiple monitors.

>As for my CRT I already have it adjusted the way I like it.

 

[KJ]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Wayne Fulton <nospam@invalid.com> wrote:

>In article <lhe011lgar3d380catbquac0jtnqshg0t7@4ax.com>, KJ says...
>
>Speaking of my screen size and 4 lines per inch of 12 pt Garamond in Word.
>I said all other programs were fine too, but maybe should note that not all
>programs use 12 point font, at least by default, so some do appear smaller of
>course. But still very readable. I see a few of them measure about 4.5
>lines/inch, 10 pt I assume. Many programs offer some type of font size or
>zoom, but I simply never bother, it is unnecessary. But Large Fonts seems
>necessary on larger screens.

Agreed and thanks for the line measurements.

>> But I still want DVI b/c it will
>>become the new standard and I don't change my equipment that often.
>>However that's what's tacking cost on.
>
>I was a bit the opposite. Before I realized it doesnt matter, I assumed DVI
>was better, and I am using DVI on the new system. But I specifically wanted a
>card also with VGA. Sometimes things happen requiring swapping gear to get
>going again, and I had a couple of CRT sitting around, but no second LCD.

Definitely and my card has both. And I'll hang on to the CRT for the
same reason. Emergency or if the LCD ever needs to go in for fixin'.

Thinking of the Polyview at NewEgg. It's $299. MAN! It just went up $10
overnight! (Went to get the link.) I hate it when that happens!
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-024-502&depa=0

What's the dot pitch on yours?

>DVI is fine, but VGA is excellent too. It is obvious that the LCD doesnt heat
>the room as much as the old 19 CRT. Easier on the UPS too, more minutes.
>
>>Sounds great. I think I know what I have to do now... look for a good
>>deal!
>
>Dollars will easily solve almost any computer problem.

Ain't it the truth!

>A monitor is what we see, our perception of the computer, and seems more
>important than something like a disk or memory that we dont perceive. If we
>sit in front of the monitor for 12 hours/day, man, that is an overwhelming
>reason to indulge ourselves.

That's a most excellent point!

Thanks again,
KJ

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <spj111t19148pn78dsb58acfd6up8npfta@4ax.com>, KJ says...
>Thinking of the Polyview at NewEgg.

NewEgg is a great place, lots of selection, and prices are generally good.
My complaint is that their shipping is both expensive and slow (relative to
others), so I always try to shop around first. But, I did buy much of my last
computer from them, for the convenience.

>What's the dot pitch on yours?

Not stated, but dot pitch is only a CRT specification, about the spacing of
phosphor dots. This sensor (phosphor dot) is not aligned with the video
pixels of the signal. Even if by miracle, the spacing were exactly the same
(it's not), the phosphor is still likely half a pixel low or to the right of
the video pixel, so the pixel is straddling phosphor dots. The CRT screen
resolution 1280x1024 pixel signal is not related to the phosphor dot pitch
which attempts to reproduce it. So you do want dot pitch to be small on CRT,
that being your best shot at it.

On a LCD, the only meaningful number is the native resolution. That is also
the exact definition and location of the LCD transistor photo sensors. A
sensor is exactly a video pixel, by definition. The so-called dot pitch
(spacing between these pixels?) simply has no alternative but to be in perfect
alignment with the native resolution, the 1280x1024 pixels. This perfect
alignment is why LCD is so sharp for text (at native resolution). 1280x1024
pixels is all we need to know.

At non-native resolutions, then LCD starts acting more like CRT, with video
pixels straddling photo sensors, and sharpness degrades substantially, more so
than for CRT.

We could easily compute the LCD dot pitch, and some ads do. We know the
1280x1024 pixels, and we know the 19 inch diagonal, thus the geometry. This
would show a 17 1280x1024 LCD has a 11% smaller dot pitch than the 19
1280x1024 LCD, but we already knew that (if same resolution) by just comparing
the 17 and 19 inch sizes. Same number of pixels in a smaller area is always
higher resolution, but a smaller picture.

We cannot compute the CRT dot pitch, as it depends only on how the phosphor
dots were built. So its value is stated. Simply different concepts.

Even if the LCD dot pitch computation were larger than the CRT (possibly is,
the LCD spacing will obviously be whatever the 1280x1024 pixels define it to
be), the LCD has the overwhelming advantage of being perfectly aligned, which
is better even than a smaller dot pitch on the CRT trying to show 1280x1024
pixels in random manner. Perfect alignment has much to be said for it.
Perfect is all we need, and the most we can hope for. Now, if they could just
get the color right.

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <lhe011lgar3d380catbquac0jtnqshg0t7@4ax.com>, KJ
(KJ@nospam.com) says...
> Wayne Fulton <nospam@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <e9vv01dbi5rd3lnotb6pe6n9lj9s7r9g4l@4ax.com>, KJ says...
> >>
> >>17" / 16" viewable
> >
> >That's pretty large for 800x600. It would seem very unnatural to me.
>
> I don't sit right up close to it. Since I sit here all day I often kick
> back with the keyboard on my lap and my feet up on the keyboard tray.
> I also don't like to have to stick my face in something that's emitting
> radiation. But as the night wears on and my eyes get tired, that's
> when the 800x600 really helps.
>

I use a computer quite a lot. Not as long as 12 hours a day, but can
easily sit at mine for 3 or 4 hour stretches and only 2 feet from the
monitor without any eye tiredness. The only time I've noticed problems
such as those has been when the monitor refresh rate has been set
incorrectly. Have you tried playing around with the refresh rate
settings at all?

Just a thought.

<snip>
--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

You would NOT like the looks or level of detail on the screen in other than
Native Mode.

--
DaveW



"KJ" <KJ@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cthv01dgos0s9uq53v7dvdng9cirfa6jco@4ax.com...
>I want to get a flat panel for the new system I'm building, but am a
> little concerned about the whole "native resolution" issue.
>
> I'm not a gamer -- I'm a researcher/writer so I spend 12/hr a day in
> Word or surfing. I don't like the small menus and fonts of 1024x768 res
> [on CRTs] and changing the Win setting to use "large fonts" makes many
> programs display improperly. Therefore I use 800x600 to avoid eye strain
> and get nice-sized menus and fonts.
>
> The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's great for looking
> at graphics, I'm not so sure it's great for my purposes. Can anyone
> attest to how these monitors look at that res in terms of menus and
> such? Are the tool bars and menus tiny? Or does anyone know what they
> look like in a lower res than the native?
>
> Thanks,
> KJ
>
> (just building now...)
> MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum (socket 939)
> 1 GB PC 3200 Dual Channel Mushkin RAM
> Athlon64 3000+
> Chaintech 6200 PCIe nForce4
> Maxtor 120GB HD
> Plextor 716SA DVD/CD burner
> Raidmax case and PSU, 420w

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:25:29 -0800, KJ (KJ@nospam.com) wrote:

| Thinking of the Polyview at NewEgg. It's $299. MAN! It just went up $10
| overnight! (Went to get the link.) I hate it when that happens!

Newegg's prices are often up and down like a yo-yo. If you don't like
the price today, check back tomorrow! ;-)

They tend to play with shipping charges, so price changes can
sometimes be misleading unless shipping is taken into account. A
recent Newegg purchase I made actually netted out to less when the
base price increased because the shipping charge was reduced by a
greater amount than the increase.

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

 

[KJ]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Wayne Fulton <nospam@invalid.com> wrote:

>In article <spj111t19148pn78dsb58acfd6up8npfta@4ax.com>, KJ says...
>>Thinking of the Polyview at NewEgg.
>
>NewEgg is a great place, lots of selection, and prices are generally good.
>My complaint is that their shipping is both expensive and slow (relative to
>others), so I always try to shop around first. But, I did buy much of my last
>computer from them, for the convenience.

I shoptoo. I get charged tax from NewEgg b/c they are local so I try to
buy elsewhere if the price is better. In this last system I put together
about half the stuff was still cheaper from NewEgg. The processor and
mobo came from GA and NY however.

>>What's the dot pitch on yours?
>
>Not stated, but dot pitch is only a CRT specification, about the spacing of
>phosphor dots. This sensor (phosphor dot) is not aligned with the video
>pixels of the signal. Even if by miracle, the spacing were exactly the same
>(it's not), the phosphor is still likely half a pixel low or to the right of
>the video pixel, so the pixel is straddling phosphor dots. The CRT screen
>resolution 1280x1024 pixel signal is not related to the phosphor dot pitch
>which attempts to reproduce it. So you do want dot pitch to be small on CRT,
>that being your best shot at it.

Yeah and I was wondering b/c I heard it doesn't apply to LCD yet they
had DP specs. The 17"'ers are .26 but the 19" (as with CRT when you get
into 21"'ers etc) is .29. I don't know why they give a dp spec if it
isn't releveant except maybe they know people look for it from buying
CRT all these years.

>On a LCD, the only meaningful number is the native resolution. That is also
>the exact definition and location of the LCD transistor photo sensors. A
>sensor is exactly a video pixel, by definition. The so-called dot pitch
>(spacing between these pixels?) simply has no alternative but to be in perfect
>alignment with the native resolution, the 1280x1024 pixels. This perfect
>alignment is why LCD is so sharp for text (at native resolution). 1280x1024
>pixels is all we need to know.

I see. Thanks for explaining.

The other relevant specs would be contrast ratio and of course viewing
angles. Brightness is fine if it's 250 or over from what I understand
from a PC World article. (And for gamers, response time.)

>At non-native resolutions, then LCD starts acting more like CRT, with video
>pixels straddling photo sensors, and sharpness degrades substantially, more so
>than for CRT.
>
>We could easily compute the LCD dot pitch, and some ads do. We know the
>1280x1024 pixels, and we know the 19 inch diagonal, thus the geometry. This
>would show a 17 1280x1024 LCD has a 11% smaller dot pitch than the 19
>1280x1024 LCD, but we already knew that (if same resolution) by just comparing
>the 17 and 19 inch sizes. Same number of pixels in a smaller area is always
>higher resolution, but a smaller picture.

Ah-ha! Got it! Great explanation.

>Even if the LCD dot pitch computation were larger than the CRT (possibly is,
>the LCD spacing will obviously be whatever the 1280x1024 pixels define it to
>be), the LCD has the overwhelming advantage of being perfectly aligned, which
>is better even than a smaller dot pitch on the CRT trying to show 1280x1024
>pixels in random manner. Perfect alignment has much to be said for it.
>Perfect is all we need, and the most we can hope for. Now, if they could just
>get the color right.

Yeah it washes out and changes hues from different angles. The PC
WOrld article says getting a high contrast ratio minimizes that (min
400:1 and 600:1 is better) but they also said (in so many words) if you
render images for a living or find it very important you'll want a CRT
instead.

So I looked at Best Buy today b/c it's closer than Frys. A whole line of
LCD's in a row on a useless loop of images that look breathtaking and
have absolutely nothing to do with how text will display. Finally a
page of text flits by but I don't think it was a real page. I think it
was an image [of an open spreadsheet] b/c the text looked fuzzy on ALL
of them.

I finally found a Sony hooked up to a system. Opened a Word processor.
Looked great in native res. Plenty big. But no sales card to say what
the model was or how much. I looked on the back of the panel but I
didn't have a pen handy. Eh. I'll go to Frys sometime this week.

I hate shopping in real stores.

KJ

 

[KJ]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Peter <ivingtonAll_stRESS@fast24.co.uk> wrote:

>I use a computer quite a lot. Not as long as 12 hours a day, but can
>easily sit at mine for 3 or 4 hour stretches and only 2 feet from the
>monitor without any eye tiredness. The only time I've noticed problems
>such as those has been when the monitor refresh rate has been set
>incorrectly. Have you tried playing around with the refresh rate
>settings at all?
>
>Just a thought.

Yeah refresh rates make a big diff. It isn't my CRT I'm concerned about
-- it's quite doable how it's set. I was just concerned about being
stuck at a very high res on a LCD. But I think it'll be fine as long as
the screen is large enough, and I can use Large Fonts.

Thanks for your suggestion,
KJ

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Wayne Fulton <nospam@invalid.com> wrote:

....

>NewEgg is a great place, lots of selection, and prices are
>generally good. My complaint is that their shipping is both
>expensive and slow (relative to others), so I always try to shop
>around first.

Me too. Doesn't matter how wonderful a particular store is.





--
Writing the first dynamically timed systemwide macro recorder for
Windows XP. Please see (comp.windows.open-look). Coding help is
needed, using VC++ 7.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

KJ writes:

> The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's great for looking
> at graphics, I'm not so sure it's great for my purposes. Can anyone
> attest to how these monitors look at that res in terms of menus and
> such? Are the tool bars and menus tiny? Or does anyone know what they
> look like in a lower res than the native?

Some LCD monitors do an excellent job of displaying lower than native
resolutions. The monitor itself does the interpolation and the images
displayed are very smooth and readable. My Eizo does this, and I'm sure
there are others that work the same way.

However, if you buy a monitor that _does not_ do this, then you'll need
to run either at native resolution or at some near multiple of native
resolution. For example, 800x600 looks fine on a monitor with 1600x1200
resolution, because it's exactly half the linear dimensions.

It gets more complicated if you choose to use ClearType. In that case,
you really need to run at native resolution.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[KJ]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>KJ writes:
>
>> The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's great for looking
>> at graphics, I'm not so sure it's great for my purposes. Can anyone
>> attest to how these monitors look at that res in terms of menus and
>> such? Are the tool bars and menus tiny? Or does anyone know what they
>> look like in a lower res than the native?
>
>Some LCD monitors do an excellent job of displaying lower than native
>resolutions. The monitor itself does the interpolation and the images
>displayed are very smooth and readable. My Eizo does this, and I'm sure
>there are others that work the same way.

Can you give me the model? I'be be curious to look at the specs.

>However, if you buy a monitor that _does not_ do this, then you'll need
>to run either at native resolution or at some near multiple of native
>resolution. For example, 800x600 looks fine on a monitor with 1600x1200
>resolution, because it's exactly half the linear dimensions.

Ah, yeah. I see how that would work...

(But I think only very large screens have a native res of 1600x1200 in
which case I wouldn't need 800x600. But I see the point you're making.)

>It gets more complicated if you choose to use ClearType. In that case,
>you really need to run at native resolution.

That makes sense...


KJ