Not the most appropriate news group, but certainly the most well
informed bunch of people.

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I
should be buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat
tube CRTs.

Am I alone in this? Am I the only one who finds that the finer
dot pitch, the higer light output and the faster screen response
of a good CRT ****es all over that of a TFT (which may have cost
twice as much)? Am I the only one who doesn't care that a 19"
CRT takes up a large amount of room, and consumes 50W more than
a 17" TFT??

Rant over. Thanks for reading.

--
Grunff

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Not the most appropriate news group, but certainly the most well
informed bunch of people.

*/warm glow\*

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I
should be buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat
tube CRTs.

My guvnor has a huge TFT and it's soooo slim & lurverly

Am I alone in this? Am I the only one who finds that the finer
dot pitch, the higer light output and the faster screen response
of a good CRT ****es all over that of a TFT (which may have cost
twice as much)?

if I didn't play games I'd get one tomorrow

Am I the only one who doesn't care that a 19"
CRT takes up a large amount of room, and consumes 50W more than
a 17" TFT??

but I do play games & I don't wan't smearing nor do I
wan't to play only in the native resolution of the TFT
I rather like call of duty in 1600x1200 on my 19"er
which on TFT would cost more than ...er...loads

Grunff wrote:

Not the most appropriate news group, but certainly the most well
informed bunch of people.

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I should be
buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat tube CRTs.

Am I alone in this? Am I the only one who finds that the finer dot
pitch, the higer light output and the faster screen response of a good
CRT ****es all over that of a TFT (which may have cost twice as much)?
Am I the only one who doesn't care that a 19" CRT takes up a large
amount of room, and consumes 50W more than a 17" TFT??



I'm waiting for the electroluminescent stuff. Liquid Xtal is just too
muh like a triumph of development over design idea.

Bit like a porsche.

In both cases, if I wanted to get to there, I would have started
somewhere else...


Rant over. Thanks for reading.

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Not the most appropriate news group, but certainly the most well
informed bunch of people.

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I
should be buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat
tube CRTs.

Am I alone in this? Am I the only one who finds that the finer
dot pitch, the higer light output and the faster screen response
of a good CRT ****es all over that of a TFT (which may have cost
twice as much)? Am I the only one who doesn't care that a 19"
CRT takes up a large amount of room, and consumes 50W more than
a 17" TFT??

Rant over. Thanks for reading.


Grunff


I hate using the new machines in the office because they all have new TFT
screens. I'm also about to take the one in my office and throw it out the
window because I can't move around and view the screen in all its glory
because the damn thing changes colours and can't be viewed properly from all
other angles.

I'm with you on this one Mr Grunff. :-))

Grunff wrote:

Not the most appropriate news group, but certainly the most well
informed bunch of people.

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I should be
buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat tube CRTs.

Am I alone in this? Am I the only one who finds that the finer dot
pitch, the higer light output and the faster screen response of a good
CRT ****es all over that of a TFT (which may have cost twice as much)?
Am I the only one who doesn't care that a 19" CRT takes up a large
amount of room, and consumes 50W more than a 17" TFT??

TFTs have been getting better - but I think there are still plenty of
applications for which a CRT is better.

Colour accuracy tends to be better on a CRT (and also is not affected by
change of viewing angle). As you say brightness is also better. Response
times are less of an issue these days, but still can be slow on some of
the poorer TFTs. CRTs are still cheaper, especially if, like me, you
like 21" CRTs

The ultimate would be perhaps a decent 21" CRT in the centre with a pair
of 19" TFTs set up either side with a virtual desktop spread over the
three of them! ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

I hate using the new machines in the office because they all have new TFT
screens. I'm also about to take the one in my office and throw it out the
window because I can't move around and view the screen in all its glory
because the damn thing changes colours and can't be viewed properly from
all
other angles.

They must be cheap crappy panels then!

If you compare a high quality CRT to a cheap nasty TFT, then of course there
will be a huge difference

If you compare a high quality CRT to a high quality TFT, then the difference
will be a lot less

Not saying TFT's are better, you just have to compare like with like here.

And as it has been suggested, what you are doing on the screen has a lot in
deciding the thing to buy!
(...and the available space on you desk!)

Sparks...

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I=20
should be buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat=20
tube CRTs.
Am I alone in this?

I`m quite happy with my "refurbished" Sony 17" that I picked up for=20
=A399+VAT from www.digiuk.com a few months ago (although it looks like=20
they`re not normally doing refurbed CRTs now, but they do have a=20
selection of TFTs)

--=20
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
* old email address "btiruseless" abandoned due to worm-generated spam *
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Not the most appropriate news group, but certainly the most well
informed bunch of people.

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I
should be buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat
tube CRTs.

Am I alone in this? Am I the only one who finds that the finer
dot pitch, the higer light output and the faster screen response
of a good CRT ****es all over that of a TFT (which may have cost
twice as much)? Am I the only one who doesn't care that a 19"
CRT takes up a large amount of room, and consumes 50W more than
a 17" TFT??

Rant over. Thanks for reading.


Tend to agree with you. The angle/colour thing drives me mad. Doing some
work in a large corporate at the moment and they use TFTs everywhere - I
just can't get along with them for desktop use, don't know if these are bad
ones or something, but there's something just not quite "right" about the
image.

Having said that, I use the screen and keyboard on my laptop for 90-odd % of
the time 'cos I've got used to it now - suspect I just find it more
comfortable now.

When I need to see how something really looks though it's straight back to
the CRT...

Sun 21" cherry-picked Sony monitors come up on ebay fairly frequently. I
have used the older model for a while and it was quite a stunning monitor -
the resellers that I have spoken to reckon that the newer one is even
better.

That's what I'm going to replace my current CRT with when other
money-sapping projects have been satisfied...



--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

"Sparks" wrote in message .. .
| I hate using the new machines in the office because they all have new TFT
| screens. I'm also about to take the one in my office and throw it out the
| window because I can't move around and view the screen in all its glory
| because the damn thing changes colours and can't be viewed properly from
| all
| other angles.
|
| They must be cheap crappy panels then!
|
| If you compare a high quality CRT to a cheap nasty TFT, then of course there
| will be a huge difference
|
| If you compare a high quality CRT to a high quality TFT, then the difference
| will be a lot less
|
| Not saying TFT's are better, you just have to compare like with like here.
|
| And as it has been suggested, what you are doing on the screen has a lot in
| deciding the thing to buy!
| (...and the available space on you desk!)
|
| Sparks...
|
|

As I told the rep' that sold us them, " They are the highest spec' of crap I've ever seen ". He wasn't to
pleased to hear I didn't like mine. They cost a wapping £499.99 each incl' VAT, and you can't look at
them at any other angle than straight on, or they either change colours or look as if they've gone blank.

I'm personally going for a Cathode Tube Monitor again. The TFT thing I've got now drives me crazy,
especially when I turn it round for other people to look at, and then they tell me they can't see it
properly.

Definitely the highest specification crap I've come across. :-))

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Not the most appropriate news group, but certainly the most well
informed bunch of people.

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I
should be buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat
tube CRTs.

Am I alone in this? Am I the only one who finds that the finer
dot pitch, the higer light output and the faster screen response
of a good CRT ****es all over that of a TFT (which may have cost
twice as much)? Am I the only one who doesn't care that a 19"
CRT takes up a large amount of room, and consumes 50W more than
a 17" TFT??

Rant over. Thanks for reading.

Well, I use a laptop at work (nice 1400x1050 Dell jobbie) and I really like
the screen. However, because you can never have enough desktop (virtual!)
I've got a separate 19" Iiyama monitor to extend the desktop onto. At home
I have a nice Samsung 19" (much better than the Iiyama Pro 451(I think) at
work!) and will happily do 2048x1536!.

Few comments:

Remember - a 19" screen has roughly a 17" viewable area, so a 17" TFT is the
size you need to replace a 19" CRT (give or take a small amount). 15" TFT
replaces a 17" CRT.

Sadly almost all the TFT's you see in the 'reasonable' price range (ie. £200
or so) are 15" and 1024x768 resolution only. When you're used to 1400x1050
(laptop at work) or 1600x1200 (desktop at home) then 1024x768 just isn't
going to work for you.

The next popular size is 1280x1024 and is, I think, more reasonable
compromise on resolution - but still not great. For just under £300 there
are a few 17" TFT displays that can do this resolution.

My Dell laptop (2-3 years old) has a nice 1400x1050 display - but the angle
has to be correct and the contrast between colours is poor I find. However,
3 year olf TFTs are like that. What I'm seeing now is that things are very
different with new ones. Brightness is much higher than before and contrast
is hugely improved. As for delays in updating - these have also improved
signficantly. An old 15" TFT at work is pants really - slow updates, dark
screen, no contrast. However my laptop screen (which has its faults) is
fast enough to play Counter Strike or other games on it without any
noticable blurring or slow updates. As people have said - you get what you
pay for.

I've been considering getting a TFT for a while to replace my 19" beast
which does 2048x1536 (though I only use 1600x1200) with a 17" TFT doing
1280x1024. I think finances will be my biggest restriction at present - but
I think given a year or so, I'll probably go TFT. The biggest thing for me
is that I'm losing a huge amount of desk space, and sometime in the next few
years I'm going to need to reduce it significantly (when the spare bedroom
becomes used) - but I think my CRT is too nice to get rid of presently. For
now, I'd miss the high resolution - but when space becomes more important -
I'm sure that'll become less important.

I was shocked to see the price of 19" CRTs recently. Similar spec 19"
monitor (ie. not your budget, cheapest 19" tube available) is about £110 -
£120 now. This was £300 only 2 years ago. But surprisingly, 15" TFT's
haven't gone much below the £200 mark yet, with 17" TFT's only just coming
down to £275. Sadly there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of market for
2nd hand CRTs - at least, not with any value. I'd not sell my monitor for
£75 or whatever the market seems to think its worth - its far too good to
sell for that price!!!

D

"BigWallop" wrote in message
...
....
As I told the rep' that sold us them, " They are the highest spec' of crap
I've ever seen ". He wasn't to
pleased to hear I didn't like mine. They cost a wapping £499.99 each
incl' VAT, and you can't look at
them at any other angle than straight on, or they either change colours or
look as if they've gone blank.

Some screens are designed that way. They are ideal for use in places like
banks, where you don't want people seeing the screen except from straight
ahead. The ones I use have a viewing angle of 160 degrees and three people
sitting side by side can easily see what is on the screen.

Colin Bignell

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Not the most appropriate news group, but certainly the most well
informed bunch of people.

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I
should be buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat
tube CRTs.

Am I alone in this? Am I the only one who finds that the finer
dot pitch, the higer light output and the faster screen response
of a good CRT ****es all over that of a TFT (which may have cost
twice as much)? Am I the only one who doesn't care that a 19"
CRT takes up a large amount of room, and consumes 50W more than
a 17" TFT??

I started using TFT monitors almost as soon as they became available. I had
one user who could see flicker on even the highest spec CRT I could buy at
the time and, at a cost of £2k, the TFT cured the problem. When the prices
came down to affordable levels*, I converted all my office screens and my
home machine to flat screen and I wouldn't go back. I like the small
footprint and the fact that I can adjust height, tilt and swivel without
mounting it on a piece of heavy engineering.

I doubt my eyesight could cope with the size of text I would get with a
finer than 1280 x 1024 resolution and I don't have any problems running the
latest games, using a Video Blaster5 FX 5900 card, on my home machine. I
don't need more than three people to look at the screen at one time, so the
160 degree vieiwng angle I have is fine. The only time I've found problems
with the level of light output has been deep within a dark dungeon, where I
have found it necessary to reduce the background light to be able to see
some of the detail, but I suspect it is the game designer's intent that not
everything is readily visible in those cases.

* I didn't actually know that they had. I had planned to spend another £2k
on one screen, but found that, by that time, I could buy two of the same
make and type for the same amount, so I converted everything.

Colin Bignell

Chris Oates none wrote:
CRT takes up a large amount of room, and consumes 50W more than
a 17" TFT??

but I do play games & I don't wan't smearing nor do I
wan't to play only in the native resolution of the TFT
I rather like call of duty in 1600x1200 on my 19"er
which on TFT would cost more than ...er...loads

Yes, I have a 19", flat, CRT display too. A TFT of the same size that
will do 1600x1200 (which I do run it at) would still cost a very great
deal more than the CRT one.

--
Chris Green )

Sparks wrote:
I hate using the new machines in the office because they all have new TFT
screens. I'm also about to take the one in my office and throw it out the
window because I can't move around and view the screen in all its glory
because the damn thing changes colours and can't be viewed properly from
all
other angles.

They must be cheap crappy panels then!

If you compare a high quality CRT to a cheap nasty TFT, then of course there
will be a huge difference

If you compare a high quality CRT to a high quality TFT, then the difference
will be a lot less

.... but not if you compare price for price still, the TFT will be much
more expensive.


Not saying TFT's are better, you just have to compare like with like here.

What sort of like with like, same price or same 'quality' whatever
that is?


And as it has been suggested, what you are doing on the screen has a lot in
deciding the thing to buy!
(...and the available space on you desk!)

Space would be the main reason for me buying a TFT screen.

--
Chris Green )

In article , Grunff
writes
Not the most appropriate news group, but certainly the most well
informed bunch of people.

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I should be
buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat tube CRTs.

Am I alone in this? Am I the only one who finds that the finer dot
pitch, the higer light output and the faster screen response of a good
CRT ****es all over that of a TFT (which may have cost twice as much)?
Am I the only one who doesn't care that a 19" CRT takes up a large
amount of room, and consumes 50W more than a 17" TFT??

Rant over. Thanks for reading.

I read recently in an electronics manufacturing magazine that the CRT
manufacturers are no longer making CRT's for computer monitors, and that
once the global stock is used up, you won't be able to buy CRT based
computer monitors any more. (though I imagine there will be a healthy
2nd hand market for them!)
--
Tim Mitchell

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I
should be buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat
tube CRTs.

No. I love LCDs. The only problem is that I work at 1600x1200 and can't
afford one.

Christian.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:01:14 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Not the most appropriate news group, but certainly the most well
informed bunch of people.

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I
should be buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat
tube CRTs.

Am I alone in this? Am I the only one who finds that the finer
dot pitch, the higer light output and the faster screen response
of a good CRT ****es all over that of a TFT (which may have cost
twice as much)? Am I the only one who doesn't care that a 19"
CRT takes up a large amount of room, and consumes 50W more than
a 17" TFT??

Like others are saying it all depends on cost and application. A
couple of years ago before the technology was cheap enough for the
great unwashed I was lucky to be given a 19" Compaq TFT screen that at
the time cost £1600! It maxed out at 1280x1024@75hz and I decided it
was the best screen I'd ever used. Then the company went bust and I
never saw it again :-/

These days the components etc used in TFT screens must be ****-ola
'cos every one I've seen at 'consumer' level has been blurry and had
shockingly bad picture quality - the 17" one the Missus uses at work
is so bad it gives me headaches after 5 minutes. The 15" ones on her
Compaq desktops are OK however, but only 15".

No good for me 'cos I'm using 1600x1200 at home, but I'd love to see
the screen on the 17" titanium Mac Powerbook

CRTs rule! For now.
--
cheers,

witchy/binarydinosaurs

"Colin Wilson" wrote in message
t...

I`m quite happy with my "refurbished" Sony 17" that I picked up for
£99+VAT from www.digiuk.com a few months ago (although it looks like
they`re not normally doing refurbed CRTs now, but they do have a
selection of TFTs)

I'm very happy with my slightly used IBM 19" that I picked up off ebay for
£50.

--
/Slugsie

Witchy wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:01:14 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Not the most appropriate news group, but certainly the most well
informed bunch of people.

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I
should be buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat
tube CRTs.

Am I alone in this? Am I the only one who finds that the finer
dot pitch, the higer light output and the faster screen response
of a good CRT ****es all over that of a TFT (which may have cost
twice as much)? Am I the only one who doesn't care that a 19"
CRT takes up a large amount of room, and consumes 50W more than
a 17" TFT??

Like others are saying it all depends on cost and application. A
couple of years ago before the technology was cheap enough for the
great unwashed I was lucky to be given a 19" Compaq TFT screen that at
the time cost £1600! It maxed out at 1280x1024@75hz and I decided it
was the best screen I'd ever used. Then the company went bust and I
never saw it again :-/

These days the components etc used in TFT screens must be ****-ola
'cos every one I've seen at 'consumer' level has been blurry and had
shockingly bad picture quality - the 17" one the Missus uses at work
is so bad it gives me headaches after 5 minutes. The 15" ones on her
Compaq desktops are OK however, but only 15".

No good for me 'cos I'm using 1600x1200 at home, but I'd love to see
the screen on the 17" titanium Mac Powerbook

But remember - the 17" powerbook only does 1440x900. 900 pixels high is
pretty poor, and the 1440 wide is poor for a widescreen display when you
consider they need to add horizontal pixels to make up the extra width.
Compared to a 4:3 aspect display, its worse than 1280x1024 (but better than
1024x768).

For comparison my 3 year old Dell (non-widescreen) does better with
1440x1050 in 15" (4:3)! The new Dell Inspirons (widescreen - hence weird
horiz res) are doing 1280x800 standard, 1680x1050 for extra £30 and
1920x1200 for extra £80 (currently discounted to +£60).

I can't believe that the 'new spec' iBooks only come with 1024x768
regardless of physical display size.

D

Not the most appropriate news group, but certainly the most well
informed bunch of people.

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I
should be buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat
tube CRTs.

Am I alone in this? Am I the only one who finds that the finer
dot pitch, the higer light output and the faster screen response
of a good CRT ****es all over that of a TFT (which may have cost
twice as much)?

There are a few things to remember, apart from the more obvious criteria,
when buying/using a TFT screens. Buying on price is a big mistake so go and
look at reviews by a magazine you trust. The best quality does not come with
the highest price tag. Depending on the application wide viewing angle may
be an advantage or not. Secondly running a flat screen at anything but its
native resolution is bound to degrade the image quality. I am amazed at the
number that are set to something else even though the image is degraded.

Peter Crosland wrote:
Not the most appropriate news group, but certainly the most well
informed bunch of people.

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I
should be buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat
tube CRTs.

Am I alone in this? Am I the only one who finds that the finer
dot pitch, the higer light output and the faster screen response
of a good CRT ****es all over that of a TFT (which may have cost
twice as much)?

There are a few things to remember, apart from the more obvious
criteria, when buying/using a TFT screens. Buying on price is a big
mistake so go and look at reviews by a magazine you trust. The best
quality does not come with the highest price tag. Depending on the
application wide viewing angle may be an advantage or not. Secondly
running a flat screen at anything but its native resolution is bound
to degrade the image quality. I am amazed at the number that are set
to something else even though the image is degraded.

Yeah, things like response times and contrast ratios are important - and
really, nothing can beat actually sitting down and looking at one. That's
why I like PC World. Take a look at them, try them out and then go online
and save money - though in my case when buying a CRT I bought the ex-display
one for £70 off the online price and still got full warranty and perfect
condition (just no box or manuals).

D

In article ,
"nightjar" says...

I started using TFT monitors almost as soon as they became available. I had
one user who could see flicker on even the highest spec CRT I could buy at
the time and, at a cost of £2k, the TFT cured the problem. When the prices
came down to affordable levels*, I converted all my office screens and my
home machine to flat screen and I wouldn't go back. I like the small
footprint and the fact that I can adjust height, tilt and swivel without
mounting it on a piece of heavy engineering.

We replaced my partner's CRT monitor with a TFT because I could
see the flicker and although he couldn't he was suffering rather
badly with eyestrain and headaches. Like yours, this wasn't a
cheap, nasty CRT - computers are how we make a living so we don't
cut corners on quality.

The TFT did cure the eyestrain and the headaches but the cat was
very annoyed as she used to nap on that monitor. His Nibs doesn't
have any complaints.

Juliette
--
nowt

On 16 Dec 2003 12:19:39 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

"David Hearn" writes:
Peter Crosland wrote:

[16 lines snipped]

application wide viewing angle may be an advantage or not. Secondly
running a flat screen at anything but its native resolution is bound
to degrade the image quality. I am amazed at the number that are set
to something else even though the image is degraded.

Yeah, things like response times and contrast ratios are important - and
really, nothing can beat actually sitting down and looking at one.

Hear, hear. I bought some 200 a few years ago for a trading room refit,
and we just got all the vendors to send a sample, set them up in a
row and let the traders try them, then vote for which one they wanted.

The one with the hook to hang their red braces? ;-)



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Not the most appropriate news group, but certainly the most well
informed bunch of people.

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I
should be buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat
tube CRTs.

Am I alone in this? Am I the only one who finds that the finer
dot pitch, the higer light output and the faster screen response
of a good CRT ****es all over that of a TFT (which may have cost
twice as much)? Am I the only one who doesn't care that a 19"
CRT takes up a large amount of room, and consumes 50W more than
a 17" TFT??

Rant over. Thanks for reading.

An entirely acceptable point of view.

I had a slightly different perspective - I needed a
widescreen monitor, and I couldn't get a CRT in
widescreen format.

I now have a Samsung 17" widescreen TFT.
As for brightness, this thing is brighter than
anything I've ever seen in CRT - 500cd/m^2
but I recognise that this is higher than the norm
for TFT screens.

You hang on to yout CRT.

Al

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:01:14 +0000, Grunff wrote:

I feel like I'm going crazy - the whole world is telling me I
should be buying TFTs, yet I still want to buy high quality flat
tube CRTs.

Am I alone in this?

Nope, I look on and off to see how LCDs are getting on.
The viewing angle seems to be almost sorted out (now on some models).
This thread has highlighted colour rendition not paid much attention
to that in the past but if the damn thing changes colour as you move
your head it's useless IMHO.
I've yet to see one that has a decent quality text display, pixels are
generally to big so you end up with jaggies (maybe the shops don't run
them at their native resolution?).
I don't like the lag.
Power consumption, they are still remarkably greedy and don't have
built in PSUs. Yet another brick to hide...
LCD costs significantly more.

I'm not a "power user" of display technology, I run at 1024x768 85Hz
on a bog standard CRT (iiyama Vision Master 1402 (aka LS702U)) and
don't play games but I have yet to see an LCD screen that I could sit
in front of without getting annoyed by some aspect of it. So I'll be
sticking with CRT for the time being.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"David Hearn" writes:
Peter Crosland wrote:

[16 lines snipped]

application wide viewing angle may be an advantage or not. Secondly
running a flat screen at anything but its native resolution is bound
to degrade the image quality. I am amazed at the number that are set
to something else even though the image is degraded.

Yeah, things like response times and contrast ratios are important - and
really, nothing can beat actually sitting down and looking at one.

Hear, hear. I bought some 200 a few years ago for a trading room refit,
and we just got all the vendors to send a sample, set them up in a
row and let the traders try them, then vote for which one they wanted.



Didn't they just say "I'll have 'em all, and whilst you're at it can you
just adjust my machine(s) and apps so that I can have them all on different
screens simultaneously"???


--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

I am looking to buy a TFT (17") and would like some advice as the 'jargon'
means nothing to me i.e. contrast ratio, cd/m2 etc.etc. What should I look
for in these items? I am only looking at a budget of £350 tops what should
I go for and are there any manufacturers/models to avoid? I was looking at
either a Philips 170S4 or the Liyama 430-B both in black. I would really
like one with a thin outer edge (bezel??), not bothered about integral
speakers.

TIA

John

"John" wrote in message
...
I am looking to buy a TFT (17") and would like some advice as the 'jargon'
means nothing to me i.e. contrast ratio, cd/m2 etc.etc. What should I
look
for in these items? I am only looking at a budget of £350 tops what
should
I go for and are there any manufacturers/models to avoid? I was looking
at
either a Philips 170S4 or the Liyama 430-B both in black. I would really
like one with a thin outer edge (bezel??), not bothered about integral
speakers.

TIA

John

Well, simply contrast ratio is (AFAIK) the difference between light and dark
that it can handle. Smaller values are worse I believe. From what I
remember when I was looking, 250:1 ratio is the about what you see on cheap
TFT displays. 300:1 and higher for more expensive ones.

cd/m2 is candelas per m2 where candela is a unit of measurement of light.
Higher values mean its brighter. Cheaper displays tend to have lower
values.

£350 should be a good price to start looking with. I was able to find a few
17" TFT's for just under £300 with plenty more appearing above the £300
bracket. I would suggest you restrict yourself to resolutions of 1280x1024
which is common for that sort of price - though you can still find 1024x768
displays for that price.

D

John wrote:

I am looking to buy a TFT (17") and would like some advice as the 'jargon'
means nothing to me i.e. contrast ratio, cd/m2 etc.etc. What should I look
for in these items? I am only looking at a budget of £350 tops what should
I go for and are there any manufacturers/models to avoid? I was looking at
either a Philips 170S4 or the Liyama 430-B both in black. I would really
like one with a thin outer edge (bezel??), not bothered about integral
speakers.

Obviously I'm biased so bear that in mind, but...

If your budget is £350, *do not* buy a 17" TFT. Or at least
first take a good look at 19" flat CRTs selling at the same
price, or a bit less. You will be gobsmacked by the difference.

--
Grunff

In article ,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
I'm not a "power user" of display technology, I run at 1024x768 85Hz
on a bog standard CRT (iiyama Vision Master 1402 (aka LS702U)) and
don't play games but I have yet to see an LCD screen that I could sit
in front of without getting annoyed by some aspect of it. So I'll be
sticking with CRT for the time being.

Yup. The day they turn up in TV vision control rooms they'll be worth
considering.

--
*Gaffer tape - The Force, light and dark sides - holds the universe together*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:43:47 -0000, "David Hearn"
wrote:

No good for me 'cos I'm using 1600x1200 at home, but I'd love to see
the screen on the 17" titanium Mac Powerbook

But remember - the 17" powerbook only does 1440x900. 900 pixels high is
pretty poor, and the 1440 wide is poor for a widescreen display when you
consider they need to add horizontal pixels to make up the extra width.
Compared to a 4:3 aspect display, its worse than 1280x1024 (but better than
1024x768).

For comparison my 3 year old Dell (non-widescreen) does better with
1440x1050 in 15" (4:3)! The new Dell Inspirons (widescreen - hence weird
horiz res) are doing 1280x800 standard, 1680x1050 for extra £30 and
1920x1200 for extra £80 (currently discounted to +£60).

I can't believe that the 'new spec' iBooks only come with 1024x768
regardless of physical display size.

Bugger I'll stick with me homebuild PC then.
--
cheers,

witchy/binarydinosaurs

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
. 1...

I've yet to see one that has a decent quality text display, pixels
are generally to big so you end up with jaggies (maybe the shops
don't run them at their native resolution?).

Well I bought a Dell 'UltraSharp' 1800FP (18in. 1280x1024, DVI i/p) earlier
this year and it's pretty good. One early observation was that text
displays looked a bit fuzzy, rather like a CRT with poor colour convergence,
whilst graphics were pixel-perfect. I eventually discovered a display
setting in Win-XP (display properties, appearance, effects, "use the
following method to smooth edges of screen fonts") which, when changed from
"cleartype" to "normal", improved things dramatically. So I'll pass this on
as a tip: turn ClearType off, it doesn't help.

I don't like the lag.

Not noticeable on this one, but I don't do games.

Power consumption, they are still remarkably greedy [...]

Not. I measured 42W for a typical screen, 50W flat out white, 2W in
powersave, and 1.5W when "off".

[...] and don't have built in PSUs. Yet another brick to hide...

This one does. Standard IEC mains connector on the underside of the housing
behind the screen: very neat.

LCD costs significantly more.

But becoming competitive with high-quality CRTs, perhaps. The display
quality of cheap CRTs seems to be getting worse - as more cost reductions
are implemented, no doubt.

--
Andy

In message , BigWallop
writes

As I told the rep' that sold us them, " They are the highest spec' of
crap I've ever seen ". He wasn't to
pleased to hear I didn't like mine. They cost a wapping £499.99 each
incl' VAT, and you can't look at
them at any other angle than straight on, or they either change colours
or look as if they've gone blank.

I'm personally going for a Cathode Tube Monitor again. The TFT thing
I've got now drives me crazy,
especially when I turn it round for other people to look at, and then
they tell me they can't see it
properly.

Definitely the highest specification crap I've come across. :-))


I use an NEC 18" TFT - it has the same viewable area as a 19" CRT and
cost just over £400. Unfortunately it has a wide enough viewing angle
that my wife can see when I'm looking at what I shouldn't be. It knocks
spots off the 3 19" CTR monitors I have.
--
geoff

wrote in message
...
Chris Oates none wrote:

Yes, I have a 19", flat, CRT display too. A TFT of the same size that
will do 1600x1200 (which I do run it at) would still cost a very great
deal more than the CRT one.

You must have good eyesight then, cos I can't read the writing under the
icons at that resolution :-)
And my monitor is 20 inches.
Or do you only use that res for games (I hope, or I'm going blind)

Dave

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
I'm not a "power user" of display technology, I run at 1024x768 85Hz
on a bog standard CRT (iiyama Vision Master 1402 (aka LS702U)) and
don't play games but I have yet to see an LCD screen that I could sit
in front of without getting annoyed by some aspect of it. So I'll be
sticking with CRT for the time being.

Yup. The day they turn up in TV vision control rooms they'll be worth
considering.

and nobody has mentioned 'dead pixels' yet either !

Chris Oates wrote:

and nobody has mentioned 'dead pixels' yet either !

I could live with the odd dead pixel (I have one on my laptop -
it's like a fried to me) if all else was equal. But it's not.

--
Grunff

"davenpat" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
Chris Oates none wrote:

Yes, I have a 19", flat, CRT display too. A TFT of the same size that
will do 1600x1200 (which I do run it at) would still cost a very great
deal more than the CRT one.

You must have good eyesight then, cos I can't read the writing under the
icons at that resolution :-)
And my monitor is 20 inches.
Or do you only use that res for games (I hope, or I'm going blind)

Dear Dave
dreadfully sorry but your are going blind
1600x1200 is lurverly (I'm short sighted)

I'd go higher but the monitor won't take it.

Andy Wade wrote:

whilst graphics were pixel-perfect. I eventually discovered a display
setting in Win-XP (display properties, appearance, effects, "use the
following method to smooth edges of screen fonts") which, when changed from
"cleartype" to "normal", improved things dramatically. So I'll pass this on
as a tip: turn ClearType off, it doesn't help.

Clear type uses so called "sub pixel anti aliasing" - the idea being
with a LCD you can control the individual pixels with accuracy, and
hence you can position 1/3rd pixels to give you a smoother edge. It
requires that the monitor has the same ordering of RGB elements in each
pixel that the software is expecting - if you get a monitor with a
different order then you get the colour fringe effect.

This one does. Standard IEC mains connector on the underside of the housing
behind the screen: very neat.

Most I have seen these days have built in PSU

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

davenpat wrote:

wrote in message
...
Chris Oates none wrote:

Yes, I have a 19", flat, CRT display too. A TFT of the same size that
will do 1600x1200 (which I do run it at) would still cost a very great
deal more than the CRT one.

You must have good eyesight then, cos I can't read the writing under the
icons at that resolution :-)

You can change the size of the writing to whatever you want, it's not
dictated by the resolution.

--
Chris Green )

geoff wrote:

I use an NEC 18" TFT - it has the same viewable area as a 19" CRT and
cost just over £400. Unfortunately it has a wide enough viewing angle
that my wife can see when I'm looking at what I shouldn't be. It knocks
spots off the 3 19" CTR monitors I have.

.... and is over twice the price I should think.

--
Chris Green )