I Want New Monitors

[ricercar]

(Last checked 2004, so this may have changed)

Dell Computer and Apple are the only two tier-1 OEM LCD customers. This means every top-bin (highest quality) LCD made by Samsung and Sharp went to Apple or Dell displays (or Samsung or Sharp labeled displays). Everyone else gets bin 2 or worse. And in 2004, there weren't many other companies making OEM LCDs. I can't think of one.

I'm almost convinced Hanns G (from Germany) has secured a tier-2 position in record time. Their displays are surprisingly high quality for a 'new' company, from what I've seen personally.

[itlnstln]

I am fortunate.  I have never had a stuck or dead pixel on any LCD monitor I have used.  I used my mom's PC, and she had a stuck pixel, but it massaged out pretty easily.

[microsoft windows]

I poked around there at Dell and found a 20.1" IPS with 3x4 ratio: http://www1.euro.dell.com/il/en/home/monitor/monitor_2007fp/pd.aspx?refid=monitor_2007fp&s=dhs&cs=ildhs1

Only drawback is that it's more than the 22"! Go figure. Perhaps less demand for 3x4...

Don't get a Dell monitor. Some of the computers at my workplace use Dell LCD's and they're failing left and right.

[ch_123]

I've had experience with pretty much all of Dell's flatpanel monitor lines, and they're some of the best monitors around. They also tend to win a lot of awards and recommendations for their screens. Where do you work? Are they in an environment where they are subjected to a lot of abuse?

[microsoft windows]

As a Geekhack service I will begin posting Monitor Checking tools.

First up.  A stuck pixel test.

Show Image

See any?

I use CRT's so I don't have to worry about any of that!

[microsoft windows]

It's just that my workplace bought many fleets of Dell computers a few years ago. On over 100 machines, the motherboards failed soon after the warrantee expired. The laptops were poorly designed and overheated. And the LCD's gotten from Dell are failing now, just about 3 1/2 years after we bought them. They look great at first, but Dell will knowingly sell you faulty hardware. I've found that companies like Samsung, Toshiba, and Hewlett-Packard are much better.

With the Dell keyboards, they are some of the lowest quality rubber domes on the market. After a year or two, the keys stick and they feel horribly. I wouldn't recommend using one.

I have and use Dell computers, but only the ones that survived the test of time and didn't have faulty motherboards or poor fan systems. They did design some very high quality laptops. But make sure that when you buy something from them, make sure it's been out for a few years and has good reviews.

[ch_123]

Again, where are these machines used? I have Dell monitors that have been in constant regular use since 2002 and 2003. Their 24, 27 and 30 inch screens are probably the best value for money on the market at the moment. If they die after 3 or 4 years, that's fair enough as far as Im concerned. I'm not going to spend more money for a worse product so that it can last an extra year or two... I'm not that miserly.

When people say 'x' makes bad things, I'm always cynical. Dell doesn't even make the monitors. Pretty much all the monitors around come from two or three factories, irrespective of what brand ends up on them in the end. It's like when people lambasted Dell over the exploding battery thing, but failed to note that Sony, Apple and many others had the same issue because the batteries came form one source.

Laptops are more at the mercy of the whims of manufacturers because they are all proprietary designs, but the odds are the dead screens probably showed up in other laptops made by other companies. Welcome to Globalization.

[keyb_gr]

I would guess the monitors affected are cheap BenQ OEMs like these. Don't they also have those vertically arranged menus? Totally unintuitive.

There also were some problems with dead mo/bo electrolytics on Optiplex GX270 (I think) Pentium 4 systems.

[microsoft windows]

We had a whole fleet of the 270's at work, and about 40 280's, which also had faulty motherboards. We had to spend lots of money on replacing motherboards Dell knew were faulty and didn't cover.

Google the Dell Inspiron 1100 too. We had some of those at work and they're some of the lowest-quality laptops ever. They overheat and fall apart.

[itlnstln]

Oooh... That's nice.  Heading to PE to check that out now.

[itlnstln]

Ripster, have you made anything using Dayton drivers?  I have always been tempted to try one of their DIY projects, but I really haven't seen much on Dayton's products.

[itlnstln]

That's what I would have figured, but the overall design has plenty to do eith the sound, so it's kinda hard to tell sometimes if it's the drivers or the enclosure.  How is that sub?

[ricercar]

Monitors are lizards.



Displays and speakers are equipment.

[keyb_gr]

When I see the post title I keep thinking I need to build this.

Show Image

Passive loudspeakers are so yesterday. All those pesky big coils and electrolytics and other highly non-ideal stuff.

Google the Dell Inspiron 1100 too. We had some of those at work and they're some of the lowest-quality laptops ever. They overheat and fall apart.

I would never buy a low-end Inspiron for work, quite honestly. Latitudes exist for a reason. At least I'd stick to the Inspirons related to them.

I had a 1999 Latitude CPt C years ago and was fairly happy with it. All I had to do was tighten a screw or two once in a while. Sadly it went up in smoke (whoever wrote the instructions claiming to first apply power to the docking station and then insert the notebook clearly FAILed).

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

I want new monitors too.  But, I survive with the good old CTR's.  CRT's can be better than LCD's.  If space is no issue and you have the proper hardware/software configuration, CRT's are the best kind of monitor in my opinion.

[ch_123]

Any reasons, other than the fact that they are plentiful in skips?

[AndrewZorn]

wow, lots of posts.

color patents are still stupid to me, just now in different ways.

i think a lot of people who say LCD sucks have not used high-end LCDs, or high-end LCDs produced recently.  LCD, unlike CRT, is still changing a lot.  not talking about here specifically, but usually when i have this discussion, the LCD haters are talking about the newest offering from Acer or the screen on their laptops.

likewise i am sure the CRT haters might be the same way, including myself.

my personal story is going from a $250ish Samsung CRT that did 1600x1200 at 75 or 85hz to a $800 (super deal at the time) dell ultrasharp 2405fpw.  better overall to me, by far.  thanks to HDCP and the PS3, i had to sell it, and its replacement is NOT as good other than modern amenities like scaling options and auto brightness (not dynamic contrast) (i know it still isnt preferred by the elitists, im sure, but maybe it should be.  it looks better when the sun is shining in the room.  when it gets dark, it dims back down to a normal level.  DUH).

i feel like even if someone could prove to me that CRT still reigns supreme in image quality, i just dont know if i could ever give up thin, low-power, quiet (no buzz, ever), and low eye-strain (no matter how high your refresh rate is)... especially if only advantage is better colors that only a calibration device can detect and a refresh rate and input speed that only a pro gaymer can claim to detect.

and then theres the whole production and cost effectiveness thing.
i plan on my next monitor being a new, 30", 2560x1600 IPS panel for around $1200.  i would think that is kind of hard for CRT to beat.

[ch_123]

i think a lot of people who say LCD sucks have not used high-end LCDs, or high-end LCDs produced recently.  LCD, unlike CRT, is still changing a lot.  not talking about here specifically, but usually when i have this discussion, the LCD haters are talking about the newest offering from Acer or the screen on their laptops.

QFT. If memory serves me correct, a lot of the colour accuracy issues where due to poor backlighting on early monitors. Of course, as LED backlighting, and soon OLED screens become more common, the gap will narrow.

There are other issues of course, but hey, LCDs don't weight a tonne, take up a desk, and most importantly, don't burn my eyes out like CRTs do.

[AndrewZorn]

What is this nonsense about low power? It's been proven flat panel monitors and TVs are more power-hungry than their CRT equivalents, inch-for-inch.

Google it.

LCDs are superior in many ways but I have yet to see one, in TV or monitor form, reputable brand or not which can match the colour accuracy (speaking from first impression looking at the screen, not with any sophisticated measuring tools) and warmth of a CRT.

i tried googling, couldnt find what you were talking about.
unless by flat panel you mean plasma
i even started looking up individual product power consumption rating before i wondered why.  pretty sure it generally goes like LCD < CRT <= Plasma, with some exceptions and omissions at certain sizes (namely, where are all the 60" HD CRTs)

color warmth is a preference and settings
but if you prefer the color i wont say you cannot
looking at something like a 27" new imac display (only because it has a higher pixel density than the normal 30" 2560x____ IPS panels) should be hard to hate
but maybe it is just me

and everyone keeps saying that but i highly doubt 3d will catch on until it can be done without glasses
but if it were as good and widespread as they made it sound i would for sure wear the dumb glasses

EDIT one more thing i forgot to mention
geometry
i must have spent over 100hrs trying to get the geometry on my TVs and monitors absolutely perfect.  never happened.  lcd pretty much has that covered, and no worrying about unshielded speakers or frequency of degaussing.

[ch_123]

I tried calibrating my monitor with the software that came with it... Usually doing so caused the monitor to show everything in an exaggerated shade of blue... Went back to defaults. Funny you should mention it, I thought that the contrast was too high when I got it first, I got used to it though.

[AndrewZorn]

i do the contrast and brightness to suggested levels, get it set to 6500k or whatever is right, and pretty much leave it alone.
if the calibration process was cheaper, id be all over it.
because trying to do it myself with my CRT didnt end well.  like i said above, i kind of gave up after geometry and service menus and circuit city repairmen telling me "well it looks like a circle to me..."

[Shuki]

Of course there ALWAYS will be some CRT holdouts.  My brother in law's Sony Trinitron TV 150lb (or whatever) monster does have a nice picture and I couldn't convince him to get a new TV.

But either way, CRT or LCD, TV or PC monitor, if it is not calibrated you have no idea what you are missing.  Looking at other people's TV setups usually drives me nuts because they leave it on factory showroom settings - super high brightness, cartoon contrast, and off tint.

Well he's a smart man, I have a 32" Sony CRT downstairs and the quality is superb. It's so much sharper than any high def LCD I have seen and I know people who have spent 1000's of pounds on these things. Plus it would take 5 hench burglars to steal it.

My asus LCD is so bright with factory settings it gives me eye cancer. First thing I did was calibrate it. Default was 90 brightness 80 contrast, I lowered it to 70 brightness and 60 contrast. They don't take much care over default settings.

[AndrewZorn]

if a 32" crt (TV? non-HD!?) is sharper than "any high def LCD [you've] ever seen" you must have not seen the good stuff... or maybe it was the classic broadcast-480p-stretched-to-full.
LCD is fixed, discrete pixels.  it is hard to get sharper than that by beaming electrons through glass.

[itlnstln]

if a 32" crt (TV? non-HD!?) is sharper than "any high def LCD [you've] ever seen" you must have not seen the good stuff... or maybe it was the classic broadcast-480p-stretched-to-full.
LCD is fixed, discrete pixels. it is hard to get sharper than that by beaming electrons through glass.

CRT, IMO, is still the best way to watch TV (HD, of course). There is no scaling in the digital sense (as long as the tube supports the resolution), better contrast, and even illumination (although this is almost not a plus anymore with LED backlights).
 
The problem with LCD, Plasma, DLP, etc. for TV viewing is the fixed pixels. Unless you are watching in the native resolution of the TV, the picture has to be scaled, thus introducing artifacts into the picture. That's one problem with 1080p TVs. Other than Blu-Ray and video rips, there is hardly any content for it, so just about everything has to be scaled. CRTs, in general, don't have this problem. As long as the convergence is set properly, it will be just as sharp as any digital technology. The problem with CRTs is that it's hard to get a large format. CRT RPTVs are ginormous and heavy, and FPs are hard to come by and expensive. If I ever hit the lottery, though, my future home theater will have a CRT FP.

[itlnstln]

CRTs are dead.

Pretty much.  FPs are still available for the high end crowd.  The digital technologies are so much cheaper these days, and scaling, contrast, backlighting, etc. are getting so much better, that the gaps are closing quickly.  Digital will always win in the WAF and power consumption (for the most part) departments, too.  I am thinking about a new PJ for the theater.  The GF keeps begging me to put a TV in the main living room, so this might be the way to get me to do it by moving the TV in the theater to the living room.  We'll see.

[Mental Hobbit]

Smell-O-Vision...

Would kill all TV crime series in an instant. Not going to happen.

[itlnstln]

The only thing Smell-O-Vision would be good for is the Food Network.
 
 
 
... and maybe pr0n.
 
 
 
... maybe.

[keyb_gr]

What's this thing about power consumption? My 19" PVA LCD draws 35 W max, and at my normal brightness it's about 20. (Another hint that the backlight is adjustable.) The old 19" CRT clunker I had before (with a smaller viewing area and worse picture) took like 100 W. CRTs scale very badly when it comes to higher resolutions and refresh rates, as coil losses increase in a nonlinear (square law, IIRC) fashion.

Even a typical 24" won't need more than maybe 50 W, 80 max, and you can't even buy such a monitor as a CRT.

My parents have a 42" Panasonic plasma. The picture is great, power consumption middle of the road (averaging like 200-something W), but the RF radiation levels aren't funny. Several meters away I still hear more of it on the MW and lower shortwave ranges than I like. Our neighbors must have something that's yet worse though, a nice wideband QRM source.

[ch_123]

Dell's current 30" monitor, which is considered one of the best 30" ones around consumes something like 150-200W, which is almost as much as a PC I had some years ago with Pentium 4 and a GeForce 4.

[Shuki]

if a 32" crt (TV? non-HD!?) is sharper than "any high def LCD [you've] ever seen" you must have not seen the good stuff... or maybe it was the classic broadcast-480p-stretched-to-full.
LCD is fixed, discrete pixels.  it is hard to get sharper than that by beaming electrons through glass.

I don't know why I said sharper actually, what I meant it just looked better and of course did look sharper when 480p was scaled to it's native res.

[itlnstln]

Dell is about to release a new "pro" monitor.  It looks pretty intteresting; it's 16:10, though.  Check it.

[timw4mail]

Dell is about to release a new "pro" monitor.  It looks pretty intteresting; it's 16:10, though.  Check it.

Wow... I don't think I've ever had the urge to spend that much on a monitor before, but 110% color gamut... If the response time is low, that would make one insane gaming monitor.

[itlnstln]

I like the resolution, too.  I could use only one of those and still have more real estate than my 2 1280x1024 monitors.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

What is this nonsense about low power? It's been proven flat panel monitors and TVs are more power-hungry than their CRT equivalents, inch-for-inch.

Google it.

LCDs are superior in many ways but I have yet to see one, in TV or monitor form, reputable brand or not which can match the colour accuracy (speaking from first impression looking at the screen, not with any sophisticated measuring tools) and warmth of a CRT.

I very much agree with this statement.  That pretty much sums up my opinion.

[ch_123]

Can someone give me some proper sources for this claim that LCD is less power efficient than CRT?

[itlnstln]

Can someone give me some proper sources for this claim that LCD is less power efficient than CRT?

Kishy made a mistake. This only applies to Plasmas and probably not new ones. Plasma is pretty much a dead technology, too. Pretty much all manufacturers are focusing on LCDs. With LED backlights, they pretty much beat Plasmas in all categories with much less power consumption. LED backlighting might even make OLED a nonstarter (if it even started to begin with). Some of the LED backlit TVs at the CES this year are about as thin as the OLEDs. The may not have the color depth, refresh rate, etc., but consumers just want thin.

[ch_123]

I found a similar claim to Kishy's in Wikipedia with a "Citation Needed" stamp beside it. Even if it was true, it sounds like a marketing play on numbers... I have an upper-midrange 20" 4:3 Samsung monitor whose manufacturer spec for power consumption is 36W. I looked up some top of the line 20" CRT monitors made a year or two before my monitor was made, and they all consumed upwards of 110-120W. Maybe it was true a long time ago, but I really doubt it's applicable nowadays, especially with the LED backlighting we have.

[itlnstln]

Plasma needed quite a bit of power to activate the plasma, similar to CRT.  The upside, though, was a little better reponse time, better contrast, and even lighting.  Those have all been pretty much matched, or eclipsed, by LCDs.  Looking at all these articles on CES lately has me pinin' for a new TV.

[ch_123]

Using TV as a source of info? Uh oh...

[AndrewZorn]

plasma is awesome, a shame it is dying.  it is only dying because of popularity.  if you dont mind being worried about burn-in, which still exists but is rare, plasma beats LCD in so many ways... i would get a plasma if burn in didnt scare me so much.

and the dell monitor... GREAT!  the same res as on the 30"ers i was looking at, in 27" (which i feel like i might PREFER... now that im getting a dedicated TV, i dont need a monitor that is THAT big up close, might be too hard to see the "big picture" per se...)

and the price sounds good too.  hopefully it applies to the typical dell standard of always being on 'sale'.

EDIT and you guys are crazy.  2560x1440 is 16:9, just like the apple.  this is probably pretty similar to the apple (as in, same panel).  but you dont have to waste an extra $600 to get a subpar computer on the back.

nice to read Dell still includes color calibration reports in the box...
this might very well be something i order this month! EDIT well it isnt even out yet
but i will probably be a first-week buyer

HOLY CRAP, AND it has composite/component!?  just like my late 2405!

[timw4mail]

plasma is awesome, a shame it is dying.  it is only dying because of popularity.  if you dont mind being worried about burn-in, which still exists but is rare, plasma beats LCD in so many ways... i would get a plasma if burn in didnt scare me so much.

and the dell monitor... GREAT!  the same res as on the 30"ers i was looking at, in 27" (which i feel like i might PREFER... now that im getting a dedicated TV, i dont need a monitor that is THAT big up close, might be too hard to see the "big picture" per se...)

and the price sounds good too.  hopefully it applies to the typical dell standard of always being on 'sale'.

EDIT and you guys are crazy.  2560x1440 is 16:9, just like the apple.  this is probably pretty similar to the apple (as in, same panel).  but you dont have to waste an extra $600 to get a subpar computer on the back.

nice to read Dell still includes color calibration reports in the box...
this might very well be something i order this month! EDIT well it isnt even out yet
but i will probably be a first-week buyer

HOLY CRAP, AND it has composite/component!?  just like my late 2405!

Umm...plasma burn-in is basically the same thing as color CRT burn-in...possible, but usually requires a huge amount of hours of the same image on screen.

[itlnstln]

Got the three monitor setup working.  There was another PC like mine not being used, so I took the video card, and added it to my rig.  I plugged in a monitor, and I was ready to go.  I can still add a fourth, too, but I am not sure what I would do with it.  I'll probably end up connecting one anyway.  I'm thinking of putting one above my main monitor for displaying server status, stock prices, CNN, etc.

[AndrewZorn]

Umm...plasma burn-in is basically the same thing as color CRT burn-in...possible, but usually requires a huge amount of hours of the same image on screen.

tell that to the guys at AVSforum, who have spent thousands on high end plasmas, to get burn in just from watching 4:3 content for a day.
id like to believe it doesnt exist, but long-time and knowledgeable owners saying it DID happen (despite what they wanted to believe too) is a problem.

[microsoft windows]

I have multiple monitors dedicated to a variety of purposes. However, they all have computers with them.

[D-EJ915]

Dell is about to release a new "pro" monitor.  It looks pretty intteresting; it's 16:10, though.  Check it.

looks like the same panel as in the new imac.

[williamjoseph]

i use 2x of these.  $320ish will get you two of these.  i love referbished and recertified equipment.  i myself went from a vintage 1996 19"crt to these and my eyes were pleased.    aaaahhhhh     20,000:1 contrast and 2 ms responce.    mmmmm, tasty.

[D-EJ915]

FWIW you can get a ton of 4:3 and 5:4 screens on geeks.com...not sure why I didn't mention this before but they have a huge variety of refurb monitors that go through them

[timw4mail]

i use 2x of these.  $320ish will get you two of these.  i love referbished and recertified equipment.  i myself went from a vintage 1996 19"crt to these and my eyes were pleased.    aaaahhhhh     20,000:1 contrast and 2 ms responce.    mmmmm, tasty.

Those are TN panels. Perhaps decent for TN panels, but TN panels nonetheless.

[AndrewZorn]

CNET (oh well) has reviewed the U2711
http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/dell-ultrasharp-u2711/4505-3174_7-33913833.html

man do i hate when review sites dock the score because of high price
you are supposed to compare price to the score when trying to decide
instead they try to manage your money for you
so without reading the full review, one might apply the price a second time when trying to decide whether or not it is worth it...

[ch_123]

It also has a poor energy rating. Remember kids - every time you watch porno on one of these screens, a polar bear dies.