What gaming monitor would you buy - $1000?

If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what model
would you get?

Here are the requirements -
Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many LCD
panels.

I would like BIG. I currently have an 8 year old 21" Viewsonic. The
Viewsonic p225f says 22" (I think that model is about 3 years old - I hate
buying old models) but it has the same viewable area as their G220FB (20")
unless I'm reading the specs wrong. I've had pretty good luck with the bang
for the buck from Viewsonic though.

I don't care how the case looks or if it has built in speakers or anything
else - what I care about is the quality of the picture and size of he
picture. I want bang for my buck.

I realize not everyone is going to agree but I do appreciate your
suggestions.

Leythos wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:57:50 -0800, boe wrote:

If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what
model would you get?

Here are the requirements -
Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many
LCD panels.

LCD's are never as clear or sharp as glass. No matter how good the LCD's
get they just are not as good as a similarly priced glass screen. Even a
cheap 19" Viewsonic 90 series, for about $240, is cleaner than the best
LCD I've ever seen in person.

If you have never seen an LCD that was "as clear or sharp as glass" then
you've never seen one running at its native resolution. No CRT comes even
close to matching the sharpness.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , says...
If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what model
would you get?

Here are the requirements -
Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many LCD
panels.

I would like BIG. I currently have an 8 year old 21" Viewsonic. The
Viewsonic p225f says 22" (I think that model is about 3 years old - I hate
buying old models) but it has the same viewable area as their G220FB (20")
unless I'm reading the specs wrong. I've had pretty good luck with the bang
for the buck from Viewsonic though.

I don't care how the case looks or if it has built in speakers or anything
else - what I care about is the quality of the picture and size of he
picture. I want bang for my buck.

I realize not everyone is going to agree but I do appreciate your
suggestions.




IBM_ThinkVision_C220p

Bill

For a 1000$ i would go for a 19" TFT Panel screen.
Response time of t'day models are as low as 12ms or even lower.
I am a gamer as well,and play my games on a 17" 16 ms screen.No ghosting
visible whatsoever.
Go for it...
Regards Boldy
"boe" wrote in message
...
If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what
model would you get?

Here are the requirements -
Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many
LCD panels.

I would like BIG. I currently have an 8 year old 21" Viewsonic. The
Viewsonic p225f says 22" (I think that model is about 3 years old - I
hate buying old models) but it has the same viewable area as their G220FB
(20") unless I'm reading the specs wrong. I've had pretty good luck with
the bang for the buck from Viewsonic though.

I don't care how the case looks or if it has built in speakers or anything
else - what I care about is the quality of the picture and size of he
picture. I want bang for my buck.

I realize not everyone is going to agree but I do appreciate your
suggestions.

Leythos wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:24:08 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

Leythos wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:57:50 -0800, boe wrote:

If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what
model would you get?

Here are the requirements -
Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many
LCD panels.

LCD's are never as clear or sharp as glass. No matter how good the
LCD's get they just are not as good as a similarly priced glass screen.
Even a cheap 19" Viewsonic 90 series, for about $240, is cleaner than
the best LCD I've ever seen in person.

If you have never seen an LCD that was "as clear or sharp as glass" then
you've never seen one running at its native resolution. No CRT comes
even close to matching the sharpness.

Yes, I have. I've seen some of the 20+ in wide screen ones, ones that cost
more than $900 and provide a contrast ration of 900:1, ones that are
anywhere from 15" to 19" under $1000 and the same thing holds true at
their native resolutions - they are not as clear or sharp as a traditional
non-LCD screen.

Sounds like what you call "clear or sharp" the rest of the world calls "dull
or fuzzy".

My my experience my be limited, I've only installed about
300 LCD screens since June of last year.

If none of them is as clear or sharp at its native resolution as a CRT is at
the same resolution then you've hosed up all 300 somehow.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

The Dell 2405 is 23" of goodness, for $900 or so.
However it's response time by some accounts is slower than smaller ones, so
you would get noticeable blurring in fast action. Also running at native
resolution places requirements on the rest of your system for speed.

rms

I went from a succession of top of the line Sony CRTs to a Samsung 213T LCD
and all I can say is WOW! There's no comparison. Everyone who sees the
Samsung has the same WOW! reaction. Of course I can's discern the
difference between 30 and 60 FPS so what do I know ;-)
--
Tally Ho!
Ed
"boe" wrote in message
...
If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what
model would you get?

Here are the requirements -
Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many
LCD panels.

I would like BIG. I currently have an 8 year old 21" Viewsonic. The
Viewsonic p225f says 22" (I think that model is about 3 years old - I
hate buying old models) but it has the same viewable area as their G220FB
(20") unless I'm reading the specs wrong. I've had pretty good luck with
the bang for the buck from Viewsonic though.

I don't care how the case looks or if it has built in speakers or anything
else - what I care about is the quality of the picture and size of he
picture. I want bang for my buck.

I realize not everyone is going to agree but I do appreciate your
suggestions.

Leythos wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:07:04 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

Leythos wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:24:08 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

Leythos wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:57:50 -0800, boe wrote:

If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel
what model would you get?

Here are the requirements -
Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in
many LCD panels.

LCD's are never as clear or sharp as glass. No matter how good the
LCD's get they just are not as good as a similarly priced glass
screen. Even a cheap 19" Viewsonic 90 series, for about $240, is
cleaner than the best LCD I've ever seen in person.

If you have never seen an LCD that was "as clear or sharp as glass"
then
you've never seen one running at its native resolution. No CRT comes
even close to matching the sharpness.

Yes, I have. I've seen some of the 20+ in wide screen ones, ones that
cost more than $900 and provide a contrast ration of 900:1, ones that
are anywhere from 15" to 19" under $1000 and the same thing holds true
at their native resolutions - they are not as clear or sharp as a
traditional non-LCD screen.

Sounds like what you call "clear or sharp" the rest of the world calls
"dull or fuzzy".

My my experience my be limited, I've only installed about
300 LCD screens since June of last year.

If none of them is as clear or sharp at its native resolution as a CRT is
at the same resolution then you've hosed up all 300 somehow.

Look, I've bought $7,000 LCD gray-scale LCD's that had very crisp
images/text in their native res, in fact in all resolutions, for MRI and
CAT stations,

Now let's see, for $7000 or so you get a 2048x1536 grayscale LCD. Now what
would make that sharper than a color LCD with greater resolution such as
the IBM T221? And how does their being grayscale eliminate the spanning of
pixels at resolutions other than native that is the great weakness of LCDs?

but there isn't a single non-special use LCD on the market
(talking about what you can buy at Circuit City, BestBuy, CompUSA, or
other major vendors) that is as clear or sharp as a quality glass screen
monitor.

You keep claiming this. Please be kind enough to define "clear or sharp" as
whatever definition you are using does not appear to have much relation to
the definition that is used by the rest of the world. I think this word
does not mean what you think it means.

You might actually be correct about Circuit City, BestBuy, and CompUSA--I
don't usually shop there so have no idea what they are stocking at the
moment. But I don't consider them to define the market either.

We work with hundreds of clients that have all different models
of LCD panels and also glass screen monitors, and as a person that edits
code/images all day long, I'm going to stick with glass over LCD since I
can see the difference.

Uh, why are you sitting at hundreds of clients' monitors instead of your
own?

I don't care if you believe it,

Nobody else believes it either.

or if you're just
spreading that stuff to justify the amount you spent on a nice LCD screen,
but they just are not as clear/crips as glass.

I see. You edit code/images all day long and you set up hardware. Now I
understand the problem. Stick to code and hire someone who knows what he
is doing to set up monitors in the future.

The simple fact is that there are many valid criticisms of LCDs when
compared to CRTs, but lack of sharpness is not one of them. At least not
unless you're using some new language in which "sharp" equals "blurry".
For example the black level on LCDs tends to be higher, the contrast range
tends to be less, the color gamut tends to be smaller. But no system that
relies on the focus of three electron beams being swept across a dot-triad
phosphor which requires that at least three adjacent dots be illuminated in
order to show a single white pixel is _ever_ going to give the same
sharpness as direct viewing of three superimposed transistors having a
direct 1:1 positional correspondence between physical and logical pixels.
If you want to criticize LCDs for the things that they don't do well, be my
guest, but if you are going to claim that they lack sharpness at their
native resolution then you're making yourself look like a damned fool,
because the first reaction that nearly everybody has to an LCD at its
native resolution is "that's _sharp_", even when they have a multi thousand
dollar CRT sitting right next to it.

Now, if you can't figure out how to adjust your video drivers to achieve
that direct 1:1 correspondence and if you are going to continue to adjust
monitors other than the one that sits on your desk then you need to learn
how before you go hosing up any _more_ of your customers' monitors.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Ed Forsythe wrote:

I went from a succession of top of the line Sony CRTs to a Samsung 213T
LCD
and all I can say is WOW! There's no comparison. Everyone who sees the
Samsung has the same WOW! reaction. Of course I can's discern the
difference between 30 and 60 FPS so what do I know ;-)

Personally I like the 213T but I've never managed see this "ghosting" that
the hardcore gamers are on about on _any_ monitor so either it's something
that takes a trained eye or there's some trick to configuration that
eliminates it that I do without thinking about it.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Leythos wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:51:25 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

Now let's see, for $7000 or so you get a 2048x1536 grayscale LCD. Now
what would make that sharper than a color LCD with greater resolution
such as the IBM T221?

Let's see - gray means one crystal per pixel, where color means three per
pixel - so, you tell me which is sharper. Like color guns on a video
monitor, B&W monitors can be sharper by design.

Nope. If you were working with triads that would be the case, but LCD
displays don't work with triads.

I've used $1500 17" and 19" LCD's for doctors desktops, for office
managers, for all sorts of reasons. I also bought the top of the line
Viewsonic 17" about 1.5 years ago for my wife - and sure, in native res
it's very clear and sharp, but when I sit a glass monitor next to it there
is a BIG difference.

Yes, there is. The LCD is much sharper.

Even my 17" display on my laptop, the one I'm using
now, is not as clear as a cheap 17" glass screen, and the laptop LCD is
about as good a unit as I've used anywhere else.

"Clear" in what way? Define "clear".

You don't have to take my word for it, here's an simple online technical
article about what I've already said:

Color depth in LCD displays:
http://compreviews.about.com/od/mult...a/LCDColor.htm

What does color depth have to do with sharpness? I'm sorry, but you are
confusing two separate issues.

CRT vs LCD:
http://compreviews.about.com/od/mult...a/CRTvsLCD.htm

Which, even if you grant that "about.com" is authoritative which I do not,
does not address sharpness at all except to say that LCDs can be less sharp
at resolutions other than native, which I believe that I have already
stipulated.

It seems to me that there is some characteristic of monitors that is
important to you that you are calling "sharpness" while the rest of the
world calls it by something else.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)