The Cursed Dell E172FPb...

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

So my dad's girlfriend has a Dell Dimension 2400; pretty crappy machine; and the LCD that came with it broke.  I looked it up online and found that these monitors were prone to failure due to faulty components.  I did more research and found the specific components and replaced them all.  The monitor lasted about a week then it died again.  So I went through that process all over again to fix this monitor, and it worked for 10 minutes and then it died. AGAIN!  So I ask, if there is any possibility of fixing this problem, what may it be, and if not, what is the cheapest LCD I can buy that will work?

[HaaTa]

Cut your losses, get a cheap lcd.
Which one? Some cheapo no-name special.

[didjamatic]

I would check newegg for something cheap that's a best seller with lots of good reviews, buy it and don't look back.  Ebay the broken LCD, you'll get something for it.

[datamonger128]

Go to Wal-Mart, as evil as they are, and buy an Acer X163w.  I don't know how much they are now, but when I bought mine, they were $100.  I ended up getting two of them.  At the time, I was doing a dual display setup with the two Acers, but now I use one as the display on my old Gateway and the other on my Sony Vaio in my den.  For $100, they're alright.  Best of all, the LCD panels are not glossy.

[zwmalone]

I got one of those... same size as the one on my toshiba sattelite (resolution and physical size) so they dual monitor perfectly.

[EverythingIBM]

Get a nice monitor like this:
http://cgi.ebay.ca/IBM-ThinkVision-L190-19-inch-LCD-TFT-Monitor_W0QQitemZ150426762816QQcmdZViewItemQQptZComputer_Monitors?hash=item2306223e40

Mine has been working for years now, the controls are great too! The buttons aren't placed at the back, or, with a poor layout. It's all logical, concise, and the closet thing you'll ever get to perfection.

Our school is throwing out some 19" dell CRTs, I'm going to have some fun with them before they go to the dump. Some cathode ray tube fun to be exact (got to bring a screwdriver tomorrow and dissect them at lunch!)

[Arc'xer]

Check out Newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=20&Tpk=LCD%20monitor#

Advanced options has a price range.

[iMav]

I get used 15" and 17" IBM monitors for cheap from the university in town at their miscellaneous crap auctions all the time.  Work great for cheap display needs.

[ch_123]

Our school is throwing out some 19" dell CRTs, I'm going to have some fun with them before they go to the dump. Some cathode ray tube fun to be exact (got to bring a screwdriver tomorrow and dissect them at lunch!)

You might want to be careful about those things... I hear that getting shocked with 1500V isn't fun.

[kishy]

You might want to be careful about those things... I hear that getting shocked with 1500V isn't fun.

1500? I thought the potential discharge from a CRT was in the tens of thousands?

[datamonger128]

I would just hoard a bunch of free CRTs and then bask in their radiant glory.

[keyb_gr]

High voltages in CRTs can easily exceed 10 kV indeed.

As for the E172fp, one needs to fix the construction problem that causes the components to blow in the first place. I do remember reading about that somewhere, maybe I even posted it in MSWin's thread about the same monitor.

Before wasting any more effort on that POS (two repairs is enough, besides I never was very fond of the menu operation on their 19" relatives either), I'd look for a better-constructed used monitor, preferably one that wasn't bargain basement class in its day. Normally these inverters should last for many years, and on good monitors they do.

Much preferred would be: a monitor with actual adjustable backlight brightness (look out for complaints or mentions of hum or whine, that's typical). Otherwise contrast at low brightness will always be lousy.

Nice to have: PVA or IPS panel. Better colors and doesn't feel like looking into a tunnel.

[ch_123]

Dell's older monitors (the FP series) were great, I have one that's nearly 10 years old that's still chugging away.

[kishy]

FWIW, I've got an LG Flatron Wide L204WT 20" 5ms 2000:1 VGA/DVI LCD which I got for next to free...it's been working great since I did a capacitor replacement (2 or 3 of them in the power supply area of it had blown their lids).

Doesn't look like this series goes for cheap though, despite being a good few years old.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

There is one slight thing I forgot to mention; I have a budget of about $55.  So I may just end up sticking with the CRT's, they are better anyways.  I might also just buy a whole new inverter board for that LCD and hope like hell it isn't faulty.

[datamonger128]

Well then, since you are saying that you may just stick with CRTs, I guess a thrift shop visit would be in order.  Just bring a power cable and your laptop so you can test it.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

good idea, I should do that sometime

[HaaTa]

FWIW, I've got an LG Flatron Wide L204WT 20" 5ms 2000:1 VGA/DVI LCD which I got for next to free...it's been working great since I did a capacitor replacement (2 or 3 of them in the power supply area of it had blown their lids).

Doesn't look like this series goes for cheap though, despite being a good few years old.

I have one of those monitors as well. Picked it up around Feb. 2007, and yeah the power supply went wonky on the first one, so I just did an RMA on it. Didn't even cost me anything for shipping.

[Arc'xer]

Our school is throwing out some 19" dell CRTs, I'm going to have some fun with them before they go to the dump. Some cathode ray tube fun to be exact (got to bring a screwdriver tomorrow and dissect them at lunch!)

Make sure to find out which CRT they are before destroying them. There's still a lot of people who still look out for high-quality CRTs. Those who are sensitive to the LCD refresh rate and or gamers who want CRTs for the higher refresh rates; amount of images shown per second(85hz-200hz(or a new image every 11.8ms-5ms) and pixel response times(microsecond-nanosecond range).

Especially if it's a quality flat-screen either a high quality shadow mask or aperture grille(trinitron rebrands that IBM used). Watch out for the aperture grille they are usually more prized for having a better image quality. IBM used to sell a lot of re-branded monitors so you never know.

If they still work.

[ch_123]

Of course real geeks just use a screwdriver and risk blowing up the place.

>

[EverythingIBM]

Make sure to find out which CRT they are before destroying them. There's still a lot of people who still look out for high-quality CRTs. Those who are sensitive to the LCD refresh rate and or gamers who want CRTs for the higher refresh rates; amount of images shown per second(85hz-200hz(or a new image every 11.8ms-5ms) and pixel response times(microsecond-nanosecond range).

Especially if it's a quality flat-screen either a high quality shadow mask or aperture grille(trinitron rebrands that IBM used). Watch out for the aperture grille they are usually more prized for having a better image quality. IBM used to sell a lot of re-branded monitors so you never know.

If they still work.

Yeah, it was a 19" flat screen (could have been trinitron). I think they dumped it, or moved it to the basement dump. And, I really don't like dell things, even a dell-branded model M is creepy.

The two IBM ones I got have shadow masking:
http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/MIGR-51074.html
They can go up to 1280x1024, and have SUPERB colour! Not to mention are very sharp. One has a problem with the vertical moire, and the other horizontal (only really noticeable if you have autism and peer at the corners of the tube). However, bumping up the moire to 100 solves it.

[Arc'xer]

Yeah, it was a 19" flat screen (could have been trinitron). I think they dumped it, or moved it to the basement dump.

Damn that sucks there's a lot of people out there that kill for high-end CRTs, you never know if you got a good one. At least until OLED establishes itself and proves to be a worthwhile replacement.

They can go up to 1280x1024, and have SUPERB colour! Not to mention are very sharp. One has a problem with the vertical moire, and the other horizontal (only really noticeable if you have autism and peer at the corners of the tube). However, bumping up the moire to 100 solves it.

Something along the lines of this? http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1035506707&postcount=4

[EverythingIBM]

Damn that sucks there's a lot of people out there that kill for high-end CRTs, you never know if you got a good one. At least until OLED establishes itself and proves to be a worthwhile replacement.

Something along the lines of this? http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1035506707&postcount=4

High-end CRTs will just get cheaper and cheaper: until it becomes a sought after item, right now LCDs are washing away peoples' perceptions about CRTs. So I'd say they are pretty cheap.

I could have got a good 19" IBM CRT for $15, I'm kind of kicking myself about it.
EDIT: nevermind, I can still get it: and free delivery too! I might just buy it. Can't really lose anything. What's $15 for a giant 19" *IBM* CRT.

And no! The moire is extremely minor (all CRTs have it a tiny bit on the edges of the tube -- as the tube nears the edges, it gets less focus, and older CRTs will show this more), I'm just very picky.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

High-end CRTs will just get cheaper and cheaper: until it becomes a sought after item, right now LCDs are washing away peoples' perceptions about CRTs. So I'd say they are pretty cheap.

I could have got a good 19" IBM CRT for $15, I'm kind of kicking myself about it.

And no! The moire is extremely minor (all CRTs have it a tiny bit on the edges of the tube -- as the tube nears the edges, it gets less focus, and older CRTs will show this more), I'm just very picky.

Good stuff to know.  It just makes me like CRTs more.

[sethstorm]

High-end CRTs will just get cheaper and cheaper: until it becomes a sought after item, right now LCDs are washing away peoples' perceptions about CRTs. So I'd say they are pretty cheap.

Let me guess that the IPS/MVA/PVA-panel LCD's & 4:3 form factor panels are already at that "sought after" point.

[ch_123]

I like screens that don't burn my eyes out.

[EverythingIBM]

I like screens that don't burn my eyes out.

I find CRTs easier on the eyes than LCDs. The backlight on LCDs makes my eyes lose focus a slight bit (strain).

[Arc'xer]

I like screens that don't burn my eyes out.

Most likely people who set their CRT incorrectly. General consensus was a CRT of 13-15" or below a refresh rate of 72-75hz is recommended to eliminate flicker with 85hz being best. 60hz is just horrible aside from the 16.67ms draw time(1/X (X being refresh rate = new image draw time) it just not enough frame rate, now THAT burns your eyes and it makes me nauseous along with an instant headache. As someone put it on another forum "Like someone placed a burning sheet over your eyes" or something along those lines.

Past 15-16" mark 75-85hz, mostly 85hz being fine some people who are more sensitive might require a bit more 100-100+. Some with better monitors like to get 90Hz with a slightly higher resolution so videos that are running at 24-30FPS divide around 3 times into the 90hz.

Unless you have one of the new 120hz LCD monitors or a high-end CRT and able to get 120hz with a higher resolution than most CRTs around to divide video around 4 times into the refresh rate.

I find CRTs easier on the eyes than LCDs. The backlight on LCDs makes my eyes lose focus a slight bit (strain).

I'll admit I've found it okay I don't feel like my eyes are strained or anything for that matter. I think it's mostly a matter of having an uncalibrated LCD most people don't really mess around with brightness and contrast, colors, saturation(Digital vibrance Nvidia and ATI Avivo color saturation) etc.etc. Yeah I've read on the back light problem earlier LCD ran their back lighting near the range of visible flicker and it would cause problems.

But I do miss the larger resolutions, sharpness of both text and images and the pixel density while gaming. 640x480 120hz is nice; much smoother and huge advantage over 60-85hz(especially against LCD) but it's just not enough for long distances. If people are far enough they melt into the background like the T-1000 in Terminator 2.

Unfortunately Nvidia removed sharpness from their drivers and with the 8XXX series and the CRT I use has a button/manual OSD(flashing lights from the bezel with icons below them) and not a real OSD. So can't really set the sharpness or enhance image quality as much as other.

[microsoft windows]

I've found that just about any monitor can be tuned to be easy on the eyes, even if it refreshes at 60Hz. The rule I usually go by is the lower the refresh rate, the lower you should tune the contrast.

[microsoft windows]

Ah rednecks...

Check the IBM wiki, it's in there somewhere. After Friday night partying/alcohol consumption my memory of which IBM terminal of many it was designed to be connected to isn't great.

Guess the Irish drunkard's calling us rednecks.

[EverythingIBM]

Most likely people who set their CRT incorrectly. General consensus was a CRT of 13-15" or below a refresh rate of 72-75hz is recommended to eliminate flicker with 85hz being best. 60hz is just horrible aside from the 16.67ms draw time(1/X (X being refresh rate = new image draw time) it just not enough frame rate, now THAT burns your eyes and it makes me nauseous along with an instant headache. As someone put it on another forum "Like someone placed a burning sheet over your eyes" or something along those lines.

Past 15-16" mark 75-85hz, mostly 85hz being fine some people who are more sensitive might require a bit more 100-100+. Some with better monitors like to get 90Hz with a slightly higher resolution so videos that are running at 24-30FPS divide around 3 times into the 90hz.

Unless you have one of the new 120hz LCD monitors or a high-end CRT and able to get 120hz with a higher resolution than most CRTs around to divide video around 4 times into the refresh rate.

I'll admit I've found it okay I don't feel like my eyes are strained or anything for that matter. I think it's mostly a matter of having an uncalibrated LCD most people don't really mess around with brightness and contrast, colors, saturation(Digital vibrance Nvidia and ATI Avivo color saturation) etc.etc. Yeah I've read on the back light problem earlier LCD ran their back lighting near the range of visible flicker and it would cause problems.

But I do miss the larger resolutions, sharpness of both text and images and the pixel density while gaming. 640x480 120hz is nice; much smoother and huge advantage over 60-85hz(especially against LCD) but it's just not enough for long distances. If people are far enough they melt into the background like the T-1000 in Terminator 2.

Unfortunately Nvidia removed sharpness from their drivers and with the 8XXX series and the CRT I use has a button/manual OSD(flashing lights from the bezel with icons below them) and not a real OSD. So can't really set the sharpness or enhance image quality as much as other.

Good CRTs running at 60Hz don't bother me at all; I find it perfectly fine (although I've set mine to 85Hz due to reccomendation and better gaming experience). Yeah, I love the flexibility of CRTs and crispness even when going into lower resolutions: hence the reason I use CRTs for my games. 320x240 & 640x480!

ALL LCD backlights do something funny to my eyes (acer and apple ones are the worst, samsung and IBM/lenovo is better), I get a lot of those patterns burned into my eyes: but I always set the LCD brightness to low.
The apple ones make my eyes go insanely crazy due to the uneven bleeding on most macbooks and intense contrast, along with a poor yellowing viewing angle.
EDIT: here's a photo of a "typical apple backlight:"

The acer LCDs often have "colour bleeding" problems, I can see the cleartype real easily, and, they're often too bright.

Maybe I'm just used to CRTs more since I've only been on an LCD for 2 years now.

[keyb_gr]

Good CRTs running at 60Hz don't bother me at all; I find it perfectly fine (although I've set mine to 85Hz due to reccomendation and better gaming experience).

Yours truly, by contrast, will typically get eye strain even at 85 Hz (very flicker sensitive, it's the darn nystagmus I guess), and the CRT I used to have back in the day would become noticeably blurrier at 100. I don't really know how I survived with CRTs back in the day, frequently with burning eyes I guess. My first LCD was a relief - I could finally use the PC for hours without any significant problems. Incidentally, I still use that one, 7 years with one panel swap in warranty and still going strong.
Back then I waited until the price had dropped noticeably below 1000€ - nowadays you can get a decent monitor for like one third that.

The acer LCDs often have "colour bleeding" problems, I can see the cleartype real easily, and, they're often too bright.

Maybe I'm just used to CRTs more since I've only been on an LCD for 2 years now.

Nah, I think you just don't have any decent LCD monitors there. Ever seen a nice Eizo or NEC, or a PVA panel Samsung? (Even Dell has some really good ones in the Ultrasharp line, like the 2209WA. No need to bother with the "economy" E...fp cheapies.)

[ch_123]

Nonsense, if it wasn't made in the 90s and it isn't beiege, it's automatically bad. Any attempts to intellectualize such things are entirely pointless.

[microsoft windows]

Now you're talking...

[EverythingIBM]

Yours truly, by contrast, will typically get eye strain even at 85 Hz (very flicker sensitive, it's the darn nystagmus I guess), and the CRT I used to have back in the day would become noticeably blurrier at 100. I don't really know how I survived with CRTs back in the day, frequently with burning eyes I guess. My first LCD was a relief - I could finally use the PC for hours without any significant problems. Incidentally, I still use that one, 7 years with one panel swap in warranty and still going strong.
Back then I waited until the price had dropped noticeably below 1000€ - nowadays you can get a decent monitor for like one third that.

Nah, I think you just don't have any decent LCD monitors there. Ever seen a nice Eizo or NEC, or a PVA panel Samsung? (Even Dell has some really good ones in the Ultrasharp line, like the 2209WA. No need to bother with the "economy" E...fp cheapies.)

I disdain dell LCDs, horrible response rate, when I first used one years back, I laughed so hard at how the colours all mushed together and was unreadable when scrolling.

NEC ones are *okay* but cheaply built (I have one that has the VGA and power cable built in, lol). I find their pixels are too big: doesn't bother me, but some people go crazy over it (I know of two such individuals).

Samsung ones are nice, no complaints.

I think it really all depends on the individual; and I think I figured out why LCD backlights hurt my eyes: the fluorescent lights! I have to use tungsten lightbulbs in my room, I can't stand fluorescent lighting.

[datamonger128]

Samsung monitors in general, be it CRT or LCD, seem to be some of the best.  A couple of years ago, I found a perfectly good Samsung 19" CRT next to the dumpster in front of my apartment.  Extremely good picture quality and the monitor is still going strong today, though with a different owner.  Also, just recently, I picked up a 17" Samsung CRT from a local computer shop for $5.00.  Maximum resolution may only be 1280x1024, but that's more than adequate for me.  Certainly better than the 1366x768 15.6" monitor I was using before.

[keyb_gr]

I disdain dell LCDs, horrible response rate, when I first used one years back, I laughed so hard at how the colours all mushed together and was unreadable when scrolling.

That doesn't have anything to do with the manufacturer, really. Panels used to be slower in general back in the day, and the pecking order in terms of speed was quite clearly defined:
PVA (MVA) < IPS < TN
If you wanted good viewing angles and color and decently fast response for games at the expense of some contrast vs. PVA, you'd get something with IPS, usually NEC (though Dell also sold some IPS 18 inchers at the time, this was 2002). The contrast thing was later fixed with S-IPS (I think that was one of the selling points of the NEC 1880SX vs. 1860NX... been a long time). It wasn't until the advent of Overdrive functionality that PVA panel monitors became attractive to serious gamers as well, though I guess some still preferred TNs at this point.

Chances are that what you saw had an old PVA panel without Overdrive, much like my 2003 Samsung 191T here. The effect you mentioned did take a bit getting used to, but after all these years I just don't notice it any more. Besides, the TN panel in my '99 vintage notebook was even slower (b/w response was given as 50 ms, IIRC, where Samsung PVAs were spec'd at 25 ms and might achieve like 35..40 ms) - and don't even mention the old passive matrix junk.

NEC ones are *okay* but cheaply built (I have one that has the VGA and power cable built in, lol).

That may not be the kind I was thinking of, which would be somewhat $pendy models with (whatever-)IPS and PVA panels. 2090UXi, 1990SX, the pro office league competing with Eizos basically.

I find their pixels are too big: doesn't bother me, but some people go crazy over it (I know of two such individuals).

Couldn't happen to me, 19" SXGA and less than 1' viewing distance... And yes, large fonts. (OK, I don't count.)

I think it really all depends on the individual; and I think I figured out why LCD backlights hurt my eyes: the fluorescent lights! I have to use tungsten lightbulbs in my room, I can't stand fluorescent lighting.

Flawed logic IMO - I still think it's the brightness. Maybe the TN "tunnel effect", too.

Fluorescents with passive starters are known to be problematic simply due to their flickering, especially in combination with CRTs (mains frequency + refresh rate --> beating, potentially very annoying). I used to have a desk lamp like that, and it would give me a headache even on its own (but like I said earlier, I'm quite sensitive to flicker). Besides, the common "warm white" 2700K light sucks IMHO.

All of the above is nothing that a modern electronic starter or energy-saving lamp with a higher color temperature couldn't fix though. I'm on 6500K here (no special CRI, the usual 80-something for energy-saving lamps), Philips 23W turbo start. I guess more people could agree on something in the 4500..5500K range than this, but 6500K does have the advantage of matching cameras' "daylight" presets rather well.

I hope I've been able to shed some light on the matter...

Samsung monitors in general, be it CRT or LCD, seem to be some of the best.

We didn't have much luck with a 2001 flat-screen 19" CRT here (900IFT or somesuch), which grew rather dim over just a few years, and when subjected to rather humid conditions after moving, started to lose its coating on the front. I think their older curved ones were better.

My 191T had its panel (and possibly more) swapped when still in warranty, I think that was a production problem that affected quite a number of 18" but also 19" models. My inofficial theory is that it was heat from the power supply that eventually damaged the panel (things used to be quite warm in the affected area, not any more after it came back repaired). Since then it's been running like a champ though, even if it still likes to lose the DVI picture when things get too hectic there.
I never was too fond of the backlight handling, which always turns it off immediately upon loss of signal and mode switches, with a few seconds needed for it to come back (it's not that good for the CCFLs either). Eizo style would be much better.

[EverythingIBM]

Samsung monitors in general, be it CRT or LCD, seem to be some of the best.  A couple of years ago, I found a perfectly good Samsung 19" CRT next to the dumpster in front of my apartment.  Extremely good picture quality and the monitor is still going strong today, though with a different owner.  Also, just recently, I picked up a 17" Samsung CRT from a local computer shop for $5.00.  Maximum resolution may only be 1280x1024, but that's more than adequate for me.  Certainly better than the 1366x768 15.6" monitor I was using before.

I know of a 12" ADI CRT that can go up to 1280x1024 (MS windows is drooling over it already). But it was made in 1995, so, picture "ain't that great".

CRTs are still perfectly good, I'd rather use them over LCD if I had to choose between one. Read up about fluorescent lights: they emit strange colours which aren't "natural" like CRT colours.

Plus, I like changing resolutions often (no artifacts ftw).

[kishy]

Decent modern LCDs will have an auto adjust button which instead of just fitting the image to the screen size will also fix clarity issues after a resolution change, assuming the monitor can handle non-native resolutions decently (and many can't).

I've got a Viewsonic Optiquest Q71 17" CRT. It was my main monitor for ages. I could swear I briefly ran it at 2048x1536 but it refuses to go to that resolution now...strange. Can a monitor lose possible resolutions with age?

[EverythingIBM]

Decent modern LCDs will have an auto adjust button which instead of just fitting the image to the screen size will also fix clarity issues after a resolution change, assuming the monitor can handle non-native resolutions decently (and many can't).

I've got a Viewsonic Optiquest Q71 17" CRT. It was my main monitor for ages. I could swear I briefly ran it at 2048x1536 but it refuses to go to that resolution now...strange. Can a monitor lose possible resolutions with age?

Never happened to me. It could be a hardware issue with your computer though (if you're not using it on the same computer: the CRT may have required some old legacy stuff?).

I had a CRT that only went up to 800x600, and it would periodically turn to a yellowish colour. But if you hit it really hard a few times, it would turn back to normal briefly.

[ch_123]

Had that problem too with an old 20" SGI monitor. It would run at 1600x1200, but it flickered excessively. We replaced it's VGA cable and it stopped flickering, but it somehow limited the resolution we could use it with too... It made no sense, but we got rid of it soonafter after we got more flatpanels.

[itlnstln]

Had that problem too with an old 20" SGI monitor. It would run at 1600x1200, but it flickered excessively. We replaced it's VGA cable and it stopped flickering, but it somehow limited the resolution we could use it with too... It made no sense, but we got rid of it soonafter after we got more flatpanels.

This has to do with the quality of the cable.  Some cheaply-made cables can't pass the amount of data needed to display higher resolutions.  This is most evident in KVM switches.  The better KVM cable sets use coaxial VGA cables that can carry more data farther than standard cables.  Data loss doesn't happen as much with analog cables as it does with digital cables, ironically enough, but this is due to the engineering of the cable design more than signal strength.  The RG/59 or RG/6 coaxial cable used in quality component video cables can transmit signals much farther and with less loss than even the best HDMI cables.  This is 100% due to the fact that coax cable is much superior in design to the cluster **** of little wires in the HDMI spec.  The funny/ironic thing is that some HDMI baluns use coax for the long runs (others use cat5/6).

[EverythingIBM]

This has to do with the quality of the cable.  Some cheaply-made cables can't pass the amount of data needed to display higher resolutions.  This is most evident in KVM switches.  The better KVM cable sets use coaxial VGA cables that can carry more data farther than standard cables.  Data loss doesn't happen as much with analog cables as it does with digital cables, ironically enough, but this is due to the engineering of the cable design more than signal strength.  The RG/59 or RG/6 coaxial cable used in quality component video cables can transmit signals much farther and with less loss than even the best HDMI cables.  This is 100% due to the fact that coax cable is much superior in design to the cluster **** of little wires in the HDMI spec.  The funny/ironic thing is that some HDMI baluns use coax for the long runs (others use cat5/6).

Interesting you mention that, one of my VGA cables (gold plated) allows my LCD to go into 72 Hz, the one I'm using now (quirky DVI to VGA) only allows 60 Hz; so, I guess it's because of the cable quality.

[ch_123]

I think it may be the case that DVI is limited to 60Hz... a lot of flatpanel monitors are limited to 60Hz refresh anyway.

Either way, on just about every monitor I've tried, using DVI over VGA produces a noticably sharper picture, particularly in regards to text. Maybe it's simply the case that DVI does not need to be refreshed as often as a VGA interface.

[HaaTa]

The VGA needs to be converted to a digital signal before you see it on the LCD. Whereas the DVI not really (there is some processing, but very minimal) as the signal is already digital.

[EverythingIBM]

I think it may be the case that DVI is limited to 60Hz... a lot of flatpanel monitors are limited to 60Hz refresh anyway.

Either way, on just about every monitor I've tried, using DVI over VGA produces a noticably sharper picture, particularly in regards to text. Maybe it's simply the case that DVI does not need to be refreshed as often as a VGA interface.

I should have noted that I don't have any VGA ports, so, was using an adaptor for my VGA cord. But the DVI to VGA cord eliminates a big adapter sitcking out; which is why I use it instead. And it's longer.

And, the 19" dell CRT is just sitting in my school's basement, its future is uncertain at this point. Although, I don't want to really take it home.