LCD flat panel...

[Jace Tsunami]

LCD is way better than normal moniters, especialy since they're flat. Mines get pure digital feed. The right moniter with the right video card can make an amazing presentation.

Sure you can deal with out like you said, but if some one wants LCD I see plenty of good reason for them to want it. And people like my dad only upgrade once every 6 years.... He did so from a pentium 1 a couple months ago, if he didn't get an LCD imagine what shit he'd have 5 years from now.

to answer the question of the first post, the Samsung SyncMaster is a great buy. It's convertable so you can stand it or wall mount it, and there are a series of versions. One has built in speakers to the stand, some varey in display a bit. and something to keep in mind price wise is these are very popular moniters, so if you look around you could find one pretty cheap, but if you don't look around you might end up getting ripped off.

For one without speakers on it, and has a digital and analog feed, expect about 500 dollors. I got mine for 400, but comp U.S.A. wanted to sell me a lower model for 600. Just remember to shop around if you look into it.

[alternatefutures]

The idea that LCDs are way better than CRTs will be true two years from now, but for now low contrast ratios and slow response times as well as the high price tag make CRTs the better choice for video production and image editing provided you have the desk space. However, Samsung has the technology to create LCDs with 800:1 contrast ratios and Hitachi is reporting response times as low as 17ms. Both of these match CRTs but still have to come down the pipe to the consumer. As for the DVI input it's promise has yet to be fullfilled. Yes, you may get a sharper image (in many cases you won't) and more often than not you actually have to contend with lower resolutions. Right now LCDs are GREAT for any text-based applications (word processors, spreadsheets, etc) as they are very easy on the eyes, but there's still a lot of downside that keeps them from being a true replacement to the CRT.

In otherwords Jace, your father upgraded his monitor too soon. Hope he didn't spend too much.

[Jace Tsunami]

it was only 200 dollors, it was a NEC.

What I like about my moniter is the way it looks, even if you compare it spec wise and it's not good, I think it looks great. Like when you go to a T.V. store and all the T.V.s are on the same channel, you can see the diffrences. From seeing this moniter on display, the animated movies looked great, normal movies looked great, apps looked great, operation systems looked great. sure the SyncMaster specs say it's a good moniter, but even if they didn't if it loked the way it does, i'd be totaly happy. This was all analog too, I have it plugged in through the digital port.

[TaranT]

You might want to check the store's dead pixel policy before you buy; e.g. Newegg.com will only replace or refund if the LCD has more than 7 dead pixels.

[Jace Tsunami]

I've never had that problem, either there was a perfect picture or no pictre....

[TaranT]

Right now LCDs are GREAT for any text-based applications...as they are very easy on the eyes, ...

I use an LCD monitor (high-end 18" Sony) for video editing because of the eye-strain from using a normal CRT. I can live with the picture quality loss now that I no longer get headaches after hours of editing.

I've never had that problem, either there was a perfect picture or no picture....

The first LCD monitor I bought was a open-box Mag from Best Buy. I returned it the next day since it had seven busted pixels. Then drove up the street and got the Proview I described above.

[Jace Tsunami]

yeah, I've been lucky enough to get good hardware, but I've fried like 3 moniters, a 15 inch CRT, and 20 inch CRT and a 17 inch CRT

[Knowname]

Why? They suck!! Max resolution: 1024x768!

umm did you miss 15"??? have you seen 1280x768 on a 15"? headache inducing.

[Knowname]

Check out Eizo or Iiyama as well as Samsung. Don't go Sony. Not only are they overpriced but they also have some of the most lagging technology. What you are looking for:

Contrast Ratio >= 500:1
Response time <= 25ms TOTAL (some companies like to split this up into rise and fall time, add them up)

I would mention color fidelity but if you were to believe the specs there is no difference between any LCDs here. This you have to see for yourself. Tom's Hardware has a bunch of great comparisons that you should check out (www.tomshardware.com).

yeah I gotta late 80's model 16" Eizo (before Nanao) still running like a champ ;-p but not my main monitor anymore (2001)... anyway the Iiyama (though I think it's 17") is my fave, s-vid in and self powered!

[Pwolf]

I would buy a ctr but i don't have the room for an other one. And I don't care about the res, 1024x768 is good for me. i decided to wait on the LCD and get what i "need" for my computer. i just don't have the money to buy a good LCD. thanks for the replies!



Pwolf