Author Topic: Preferences for computer monitors (Read 9845 times)

EverythingIBM · « **on:** Fri, 28 May 2010, 00:47:14 »

I'm curious to what people think concerning the large variety of options for computer monitors. Whether they prefer LCD or CRT, and, if they prefer fullscreen or widescreen.

My preference is obviously fullscreen. I tend to like CRTs better, but LCDs last longer, don't make any noise, use less power, etc.

I guess they DO make widescreen CRTs, but I've never actually seen one in real life:

Dezeer · « **Reply #1 on:** Fri, 28 May 2010, 02:18:55 »

Quote from: EverythingIBM;187572

I'm curious to what people think concerning the large variety of options for computer monitors. Whether they prefer LCD or CRT, and, if they prefer fullscreen or widescreen.

My preference is obviously fullscreen. I tend to like CRTs better, but LCDs last longer, don't make any noise, use less power, etc.

I guess they DO make widescreen CRTs, but I've never actually seen one in real life:
Show Image

It was really really hard to make widescreen CRT as the tubes dimensions and how it really worked limited the ration, so 4:3s was the easiest to make.

Both of them has their own weaknesses and strengths. CRTs has got good colors and high refresh rate, but on the other side you may have flickering and it's hard to get image precisely fill whole screen, and then there is moires and fuzzy images.

On LCDs when having native resolution and digital input you don't have to worry about image filling whole screen. Both LCD and CRT have cases of possible electrical humming.

On LCD side there is s¤#tty TN panels that shows colors wrong and awful viewing angels, but they are relatively cheap and have good responsive rate.

Then there is IPS panels that show good colors, have good viewing angels, but have glow when watched too close and most cases have backlight bleeding. Also there is cheap models that aren't so good (still better than TNs) and really expensive models that are really good on showing colors and usually have no bleeding whatsoever and no glowing.

Then there is PVA, OLED and I have "lost" the info on that thin CRT flatscreen that some manufacturer was trying to make.

I have now a CRT but I am getting LCD ZR24W so 16:10 for me.

HaaTa · « **Reply #2 on:** Fri, 28 May 2010, 02:21:51 »

Actually I've seen quite a few widescreen CRT TVs in Japan. Definitely a bit old, but they're more common than you'd think.
Trying to buy one, I would have no clue where to look, minus second-hand shops.

audioave10 · « **Reply #3 on:** Fri, 28 May 2010, 02:36:00 »

Dezeer has got it right. My widescreen Samsung TN panels (27", 23") are just fine for my gaming & surfing. You would want better if you're into photo & art work.

Morning Song · « **Reply #4 on:** Fri, 28 May 2010, 02:43:01 »

I'm a bit of an artist, so I was an absolute die-hard CRT user for years. But then, i got an IPS panel (albeit a cheap one-- a Dell 2209WA), and now i'm an LCD believer. And my eyes love me again!

As far as screens go, I stand by my premature ill-tempered catlady ways, and say 4:3 forever! Widescreen irks me; 16:10 sorta-widescreen irks me even more. EVERYTHING letterboxes.

izzypizzy · « **Reply #5 on:** Fri, 28 May 2010, 03:51:45 »

The Dell 2209WA is a fantastic monitor, especially for the price. I got it to replace a broken NEC 20wmgx2, which is probably the best looking monitor I've ever seen, at an original retail price of $600 for only 20" of screen, it better be. I think IPS panels are definitely the way to go, I game a lot and have no issues with them for that, but the image quality for photowork is just tops.

The NEC 20wmgx2 is actually being sold refurb'd by NEC right now for only $139, which is mind blowing.. Peoples experiences with NEC refurbs seem to be really good as well

ch_123 · « **Reply #6 on:** Fri, 28 May 2010, 04:08:35 »

Widescreens are cheaper to make given the huge amount of production of TV screens relative to how many computer screens are made... 4:3 is going to become something of a speciality item whether people like it or not.

I'd say that when OLED becomes viable for mass production, we'll start to see wrap around screens.

itlnstln · « **Reply #7 on:** Fri, 28 May 2010, 07:49:46 »

I don't really care about widescreen vs. 4:3. I have a widescreen at home and 3 4:3s at work. I thing that I prefer having multiple monitors (regardless of AR) as it "segments" my tasks, windows, etc. At home, I don't really care as much as I don't have as many windows open, and I am not doing stuff like copying data from a SQL editor to Excel. I don't do graphic work or play games, so as long as the image is sharp and the color, contrast, etc. is decent, I will use just about any LCD monitor out there. Since I work mainly in text, CRTs are obsolete in my book.

TVs, on the other hand, I am much more picky about.

Megaweapon · « **Reply #8 on:** Fri, 28 May 2010, 12:26:57 »

At work I use three 17" 4:3 TN Dell displays at 1280x1024.

At home I use two 22" 16:10 displays at 1920x1200: S-PVA Lenovo L220x and CRT Sony FW900. The Sony is for games and movies while the Lenovo is for web browsing, other text-heavy activities and travel.

Mostly I just like all the monitors on my computer to match in screen size and resolution. I don't care so much about 4:3 vs. wide screen, however I do think that the industry switching computer panels from 16:10 to 16:9 so they can save a few pennies is an outrage.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #9 on:** Fri, 28 May 2010, 14:13:47 »

Quote from: Morning Song;187586

I'm a bit of an artist, so I was an absolute die-hard CRT user for years. But then, i got an IPS panel (albeit a cheap one-- a Dell 2209WA), and now i'm an LCD believer. And my eyes love me again!

As far as screens go, I stand by my premature ill-tempered catlady ways, and say 4:3 forever! Widescreen irks me; 16:10 sorta-widescreen irks me even more. EVERYTHING letterboxes.

Widescreen just makes me mad. I can't explain it, something about it just bothers me. Seeing a monitor stretched really wide just looks funny to me. It also plays havoc on my games and everything else.

Even though I use a vast amount of LCDs, CRTs still have their uses, like doing low resolution work, or my favourite: DOS games. Games require a lot of resolution switching, running LCDs in their non-native resolution looks like puke on a platter, seriously, it's disgusting and smudgy. That's why I really like my L190, 19" with a fairly lower 1280x1024 resolution. Nice big pixels, fullscreen, excellent colour (best on an LCD I've seen so far, thinkpad LCDs actually have a deliberate dull colour), and usually I don't have to go any lower in terms of resolutions for MODERN applications.

Quote from: ch_123;187593

Widescreens are cheaper to make given the huge amount of production of TV screens relative to how many computer screens are made... 4:3 is going to become something of a speciality item whether people like it or not.

I'd say that when OLED becomes viable for mass production, we'll start to see wrap around screens.

Yep you're right. An employee at bestbuy told me that after I expressed my rage and complained that all of the screens there were widescreen. Yeah, I often get mad at computer stores and either shout or complain to the employees.

Midget! Ripster is a midget! I knew it... so that's where the DOS games I lost go... Ripster sneaks through the cracks of your house and snatches them up to play on his 300PL.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #10 on:** Fri, 28 May 2010, 14:29:32 »

Quote from: ripster;187700

What's DOS?

What's IBM?

Morning Song · « **Reply #11 on:** Fri, 28 May 2010, 18:13:01 »

DOS is a disk system that used to operate computers.

Morning Song · « **Reply #12 on:** Fri, 28 May 2010, 18:36:11 »

Yes! But they're often fatally boring, so very few people survive to catalog them properly.

(P.S. be carefuly saying that if there are any linux users nearby. They have been known to charge if angered.)

Mith · « **Reply #13 on:** Fri, 28 May 2010, 23:29:30 »

Currently using 4:3 CRT most. Don't know how many days it got left

I need 4:3 in 800x600 because that's best for my gaming. 75Hz+ is also a must because of my red eye problem. If I use LCD @ 60Hz for 8+ hours or so my eyes will become red.. In 75Hz it's 12h+ and in my CRT I've never experienced it.

I don't know enough about LCD's yet, but sooner or later I will have to buy one. I will propably buy 3x24" and turn them all 90 degrees.

ch_123 · « **Reply #14 on:** Sat, 29 May 2010, 06:39:34 »

Quote from: ripster;187700

What's DOS?

A mainframe OS.

ch_123 · « **Reply #15 on:** Sat, 29 May 2010, 06:40:52 »

Quote from: Morning Song;187837

Yes! But they're often fatally boring, so very few people survive to catalog them properly.

(P.S. be carefuly saying that if there are any linux users nearby. They have been known to charge if angered.)

Mac ones too. But really Windows fanboys know that they can't justify their position, so they react by saying that OSes are irrelevant.

J888www · « **Reply #16 on:** Sat, 29 May 2010, 07:04:16 »

A DOSSER is a person who get mad at computer stores and either shout or complain to the innocent employees who are merely there to help.

Is this correct ?................my fading memory escapes little old me.

ch_123 · « **Reply #17 on:** Sat, 29 May 2010, 07:22:06 »

Around here if you started shouting at computer store employees about widescreen monitors, they'd lock you up...

...in a straight-jacket.

SpatiallyAware · « **Reply #18 on:** Sat, 29 May 2010, 07:43:58 »

The 'problem' is that the current LCD market is pollution with piece of **** TN panels.. I prefer and use IPS, and have no ghosting issues or whatever.

Anything you buy at a 'big box' store is going be a crappy TN panel. Dell ultrasharps are 'usually' IPS but everytime I buy an LCD I spend hours reading specs and etc beforehand

J888www · « **Reply #19 on:** Sat, 29 May 2010, 08:19:12 »

It is the competition which determine the quality of these products. The retail price drops lower and lower and the cost of mass production for quality monitors is just not profitable enough for the manufacturers to produce.

Example: Over drinks and diner, the Head of Taxan UK (at that time) based in Bracknell confided that every CRT monitor they sold is 1p NET profit. Not long after, TAXAN UK (monitor division) was liquidated by its' parent company.

lmnop · « **Reply #20 on:** Sat, 29 May 2010, 11:33:51 »

I like CRT. Trinitron or Diamondtron Tube. AccurateIT sells them with good shipping options.

I have a Dell 19" P992. if you can't afford a IPS Panel a Sony/HP/SGI GDM-FW900 24" is a good choice

lmnop · « **Reply #21 on:** Sat, 29 May 2010, 11:39:38 »

I like CRT. I have a Dell 19" P992. Trinitron Tube first choice, Diamondtron Tube second choice. AccurateIT sells them with good shipping options.

if you can't afford a IPS Panel buy a Sony/HP/SGI GDM-FW900 24"

nanu · « **Reply #22 on:** Sat, 29 May 2010, 13:19:37 »

I dislike the term fullscreen for 4:3 or 5:4. Once accustomed to widescreen you'll learn to call those narrow or square.

Morning Song · « **Reply #23 on:** Sat, 29 May 2010, 13:23:51 »

I dunno, i prefer to think of 4:3 or less as fullscreen, and anything higher as shortscreen.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #24 on:** Sat, 29 May 2010, 15:56:09 »

Quote from: SpatiallyAware;187954

The 'problem' is that the current LCD market is pollution with piece of **** TN panels.. I prefer and use IPS, and have no ghosting issues or whatever.

Anything you buy at a 'big box' store is going be a crappy TN panel. Dell ultrasharps are 'usually' IPS but everytime I buy an LCD I spend hours reading specs and etc beforehand

Yeah, I should look into IPS. A lot of manufacturers just want to roll out cheap stuff though.

Quote from: J888www;187945

A DOSSER is a person who get mad at computer stores and either shout or complain to the innocent employees who are merely there to help.

Is this correct ?................my fading memory escapes little old me.

Sometimes I shout to bystanders as well... it all depends

Quote from: Mith;187901

Currently using 4:3 CRT most. Don't know how many days it got left

I need 4:3 in 800x600 because that's best for my gaming. 75Hz+ is also a must because of my red eye problem. If I use LCD @ 60Hz for 8+ hours or so my eyes will become red.. In 75Hz it's 12h+ and in my CRT I've never experienced it.

I don't know enough about LCD's yet, but sooner or later I will have to buy one. I will propably buy 3x24" and turn them all 90 degrees.

There are PLENTY of 800x600 75Hz CRTs. In fact, mine go up to 85Hz. I usually run them on 60Hz though, just because my eyes are used to it.

My LCD is able to go up to 72Hz.

Mith · « **Reply #25 on:** Sun, 30 May 2010, 01:39:01 »

Quote from: EverythingIBM;188046

There are PLENTY of 800x600 75Hz CRTs. In fact, mine go up to 85Hz. I usually run them on 60Hz though, just because my eyes are used to it.

My LCD is able to go up to 72Hz.

Mine is 85Hz too, no problems with it

My LCD's go up to 75Hz, which still isn't enough, but the eye strain I get from 75Hz LCD is still minimal compared to 60Hz Laptop LCD...

I can't figure anything out of those monitor reviews, if things like Apple Cinema display get rated up it means those monitor reviews have no value for me.

When other people appreciate high resolutions, I appreciate low ones or at least low PPI. Other people appreciate bright colors and glass-like surface, I seek for a display that is similar to read as newspaper. Other people appreciate big screens when I find it easier to focus on small 4:3 screens.

Ok, I need to stop crying now..

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #26 on:** Sun, 30 May 2010, 02:19:29 »

Quote from: Mith;188150

Mine is 85Hz too, no problems with it
My LCD's go up to 75Hz, which still isn't enough, but the eye strain I get from 75Hz LCD is still minimal compared to 60Hz Laptop LCD...

I can't figure anything out of those monitor reviews, if things like Apple Cinema display get rated up it means those monitor reviews have no value for me.

When other people appreciate high resolutions, I appreciate low ones or at least low PPI. Other people appreciate bright colors and glass-like surface, I seek for a display that is similar to read as newspaper. Other people appreciate big screens when I find it easier to focus on small 4:3 screens.

Ok, I need to stop crying now..

Actually I lied, my LCD can also go up to 75Hz (I got out my gold-plated VGA cable which can support a better signal).

Mine is a highly matte surface, so, you'd like that (same as thinkpad LCDs). I got it specifically for that reason, I can't stand glossy. The colours are also very nice and can be toned to a reasonable way. I usually prefer the contrast low and the brightness high (yeah makes the screen sort of milky, but I like that).

CRTs are still very good, I love the lower resolutions on those suckers as well. 640x480 is one of the best resolutions in my opinion.

keyb_gr · « **Reply #27 on:** Sun, 30 May 2010, 05:04:14 »

Quote from: Mith;188150

My LCD's go up to 75Hz, which still isn't enough, but the eye strain I get from 75Hz LCD is still minimal compared to 60Hz Laptop LCD...

Actually you could crank it down to near zero Hz and there still wouldn't be any flickering (provided regukar CCFL backlighting). That's the point of an active matrix LCD.

I couldn't stand working with CRTs any more, typically even 85 Hz won't cut it for me in the long run. Been on LCD for 7 years now... PVA panel, I don't appreciate TN tunnel view.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #28 on:** Sun, 30 May 2010, 15:12:05 »

Quote from: keyb_gr;188163

Actually you could crank it down to near zero Hz and there still wouldn't be any flickering (provided regukar CCFL backlighting). That's the point of an active matrix LCD.

I couldn't stand working with CRTs any more, typically even 85 Hz won't cut it for me in the long run. Been on LCD for 7 years now... PVA panel, I don't appreciate TN tunnel view.

I don't understand why everyone complains about CRTs. I used them at 60Hz no problem. LCDs (most of them) have really strong backlights which gives me those images on your eyes when they've been over-stimulated (like staring at the sun for example; I hope no one does that intentionally).

JBert · « **Reply #29 on:** Sun, 30 May 2010, 15:41:37 »

You do know you can adjust the brightness on an LCD right?

ch_123 · « **Reply #30 on:** Sun, 30 May 2010, 15:43:17 »

It's possible that it was people's experience with cheap CRTs that's responsible for their reputation of being hard on the eyes and that higher quality monitors mitigate this problem.

That said, you don't always have the luxury of using a computer with a good quality screen, so maybe it's just as well that they're everywhere these days.

kishy · « **Reply #31 on:** Sun, 30 May 2010, 16:14:48 »

In my experience it's always been LCDs (the higher quality ones, specifically) that hurt my eyes not because of how bright the backlight is. It's hard to describe. Even on low brightness levels, the screen image is so strong and intense that it's nothing short of painful to look at.

I happen to like the "bleeding" you get with older CRT TVs...so maybe I'm a weird minority.

I'm pretty happy with the non-head-hurting lower end LCDs and any CRT which is still showing colours the way they're supposed to look (they definitely get bad as they age though).

ch_123 · « **Reply #32 on:** Sun, 30 May 2010, 16:23:42 »

I attribute my still-good eyesight to the fact that I got a new PC with a good flat panel when I was 13... The CRT I had with the machine before it did my eyes in...

And it was an IBM with lavender buttons an' all...

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #33 on:** Sun, 30 May 2010, 19:27:13 »

Quote from: kishy;188308

In my experience it's always been LCDs (the higher quality ones, specifically) that hurt my eyes not because of how bright the backlight is. It's hard to describe. Even on low brightness levels, the screen image is so strong and intense that it's nothing short of painful to look at.

I happen to like the "bleeding" you get with older CRT TVs...so maybe I'm a weird minority.

I'm pretty happy with the non-head-hurting lower end LCDs and any CRT which is still showing colours the way they're supposed to look (they definitely get bad as they age though).

Yeah, brightness usually doesn't help: but JBert seems criticizing of that.

Quote from: ch_123;188311

I attribute my still-good eyesight to the fact that I got a new PC with a good flat panel when I was 13... The CRT I had with the machine before it did my eyes in...

And it was an IBM with lavender buttons an' all...

As far as I know, there's only one lavender button on some IBM CRTs (to denote bringing up the menu). And it's your tough luck that you got rid of it, not mine. Two CRTs is enough... I even let the school throw out other ones. Although, I really wish I would have carved out the huge "IBM" off of the one that had a bad tube.

I can't say my eyesight is the best, but I don't wear glasses and I used CRTs for the most of my life (60 Hz ftw). I thought LCDs were going to be some great and grand revolution... but then I found out they can't dynamically switch resolutions WITHOUT artifacts, and that they have bad ghosting.

In all honesty, people who complain and say CRTs hurt their eyes and then dumbly go to use some blaring super-contrast LCD have a psychological problem. No, the REAL reason they don't like CRTs is because they're "too big" and not glossy and made of silver plastic.

Oqsy · « **Reply #34 on:** Sun, 30 May 2010, 19:43:55 »

I'm personally fine with 4:3 *and* 16:9 as long as the image being displayed is appropriate for that ratio. My strongest pet peeve is seeing a TV or monitor displaying distorted images because the aspect ratio of the hardware is not matched to the media being displayed. Makes my unix beard flare out of control! It's that reason alone that I wish there was only one available aspect ratio for any purpose, and that all media were forced to stick to it as well. When that aspect ratio is replaced by a new one, the old is wiped from history so that I don't ever have to see stretched images on a neighbor's HDTV and listen to him ramble about how clear the picture is... wow, I need to find my beard trimmer quick.

I prefer CRTs due to refresh rates and more natural color representation. LCDs are great for movies and games because the brights pop and the darks are DARK, but anything that requires subtlety, like diagnostic ultrasound images (a clue to what I do for a living) is reduced to brights and darks with ****ty ****ty ****ty mids.

Oqsy · « **Reply #35 on:** Sun, 30 May 2010, 20:18:57 »

Unless its a pine box.

Oqsy · « **Reply #36 on:** Mon, 31 May 2010, 00:11:38 »

I was actually cross-referencing the thread where you compared me to Jeffery Dahmer, but that pic is very, very good.

firestorm · « **Reply #37 on:** Tue, 01 June 2010, 08:38:20 »

I loved my Samsung 900IFT. It could do 1280x1024 @ 85Hz all day long. I believe it could do 1024x768 @ 100Hz. It even had a rudimentary calibration kit (i.e. calibrate by eye.)

I finally gave in and replaced it with an NEC EA231WMi 23" 16:9 LCD in January. I originally aimed at getting a Dell 2209WA, but both screens are e-IPS panels with favorable reviews. The Dell would've been a safe choice, since I use one daily at work, but the NEC appeared to be slightly better, included speakers and was actually cheaper after finding free shipping. My only regret is that the speakers are horrible (down firing and sound like ear bud headphones in a coffee can.) I also find that I somewhat prefer the 16:10 layout of the Dell, but the NEC has nearly the same vertical space anyway.

FWIW, the EA231WMi is compatible with the NEC Spectraview calibration kit. As a growing amateur photographer, I like having that option available to me.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #38 on:** Tue, 01 June 2010, 17:56:39 »

Quote from: EverythingIBM;187572

I'm curious to what people think concerning the large variety of options for computer monitors. Whether they prefer LCD or CRT, and, if they prefer fullscreen or widescreen.

My preference is obviously fullscreen. I tend to like CRTs better, but LCDs last longer, don't make any noise, use less power, etc.

I guess they DO make widescreen CRTs, but I've never actually seen one in real life:
Show Image

LCD's don't last nearly as long as CRT's. Most CRT's can last over 35 years and still work fine if taken care of. LCD's, however, can get dead pixels and bad segments. And their backlights tend to die after about 8-15 years.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #39 on:** Tue, 01 June 2010, 18:02:58 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;188767

LCD's don't last nearly as long as CRT's. Most CRT's can last over 35 years and still work fine if taken care of. LCD's, however, can get dead pixels and bad segments. And their backlights tend to die after about 8-15 years.

Well the backlight in my L190 hasn't died and it's 5 years old. It DOES have one stuck green pixel at the top left corner, but it's not really in view. There are no bad segments. 100% good. Okay, 99.999999%

I've gotten a few dead pixels on CRTs (non-IBM ones!), I find CRTs only to be good with low resolutions; whereas LCDs are much shaper if in their native resolution.

ch_123 · « **Reply #40 on:** Tue, 01 June 2010, 18:42:39 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;188767

LCD's don't last nearly as long as CRT's. Most CRT's can last over 35 years and still work fine if taken care of. LCD's, however, can get dead pixels and bad segments. And their backlights tend to die after about 8-15 years.

The odds are that if you're using the same screen for more than 8 years, you're doing it wrong.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #41 on:** Tue, 01 June 2010, 19:49:30 »

Let's just say that most LCD's that are going on 20 years old don't work as good as my CRT of that same age.

firestorm · « **Reply #42 on:** Wed, 02 June 2010, 08:46:36 »

You mean, "Yippie kai yay MF"

ch_123 · « **Reply #43 on:** Wed, 02 June 2010, 09:13:55 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;188777

Let's just say that most LCD's that are going on 20 years old don't work as good as my CRT of that same age.

I have a computer with a 20 year old LCD screen and it works just fine. Won't burn a hole in my eyes like some old beige-box CRT will either...

kishy · « **Reply #44 on:** Wed, 02 June 2010, 09:24:24 »

20 year old CRTs suck.
20 year old LCDs suck.

There, easy.

Modern, decent CRTs are great monitors.
Modern, decent LCDs are great monitors.

My preference tends to be towards lower end LCDs because of their flaws...to me, they are practically ergonomic features rather than flaws...but to suggest a 20 year old monitor of any kind is superior to a current monitor of any kind is a bit ridiculous.

ch_123 · « **Reply #45 on:** Wed, 02 June 2010, 16:06:07 »

Nonsense, I define myself on the internet by the useless beige boxes I use.

All jokes aside, I think the monitor is arguably the most important part of the PC... You owe yourself a new one after a few years.

ricercar · « **Reply #46 on:** Fri, 04 June 2010, 12:53:32 »

I like Hanns G. Also Alan "Hans" Rickman.

isp · « **Reply #47 on:** Sat, 05 June 2010, 05:39:31 »

hmm well...I prefer glossy IPS panels...highest res I can find

currently using a 27" imac flanked by two NEC 20wmgx2 in portrait

when I play games (FPS mostly) I move over to the other desk that has a completely separate CRT , KB , and mouse hooked up for gaming.... The CRT is a "FE2111SB". 22"

Really hoping Apple comes out with some glossy 27" cinema displays. Would like to just have the displays...I barely use the machine inside....it's hooked up to my windows 7 box most of the time :/

News:

Author Topic: Preferences for computer monitors (Read 9845 times)