This is not strictly technology in Taiwan, but…
Somehow I talked my wife into letting me spend most of our income tax return on a new computer. I’m in the US and have been looking at the Gateway 700XL. It’s a bit pricey (US$3,000), but it comes with a
2.2 Ghz processor
512 MB RDRAM
120 GB hard drive
DVD-RAM/DVDR and recordable/rewriteable CDRW
128 MB NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti-4600G with TV Out and DVI Graphics Accelerator
AND an 18.1" viewable analog/digital LCD monitor
I can swap the LCD out for an NEC-Mitsubishi VX1120 22" (.25 dot pitch, natural flat) monitor at no extra cost, or skip the monitor and save $630–and use that to go out and buy a different monitor.
I don’t have much experience with LCD monitors, so my question is how do they compare with CRT monitors in terms of resolution/refresh rate/colors/anything else that might be relevant. I like the idea of saving a lot of desktop space with an LCD monitor, but wouldn’t want to sacrifice too much in terms of image quality. I’ll be using the computer for home video editing, some games, Internet, and work (editing/writing).
quote:Originally posted by Jeff:
I don't have much experience with LCD monitors, so my question is how do they compare with CRT monitors in terms of resolution/refresh rate/colors/anything else that might be relevant. I like the idea of saving a lot of desktop space with an LCD monitor, but wouldn't want to sacrifice too much in terms of image quality.
Basically if you’re not doing anything that requires absolute color fidelity (usually if you’re a graphic/print artist and need the colors you see on the screen to exactly match what you print out), then an LCD is a great investment. To be brief, ads: less energy consumption, much less to no electromagnetic radiation, no more of that eye-straining flickering, takes up waaay less space and weight. Disads: decreased viewing angle, not perfect color fidelity, fixed screen resolution. Well, it’s not completely fixed. Basically with LCDs, the maximum allowable resolution is also the preferred resolution. You can still lower the resolution but clarity and sharpness suffers. So with an 18" LCD, the resolution you’ll most likely wind up using is 1280x1024. You can’t increase it and if you decrease it to like 800x600, things’ll start lookin’ pretty fuzzy.
quote[quote]I'll be using the computer for home video editing, some games, Internet, and work (editing/writing).[/quote]
Heh, with the vid card you mentioned, I’d say you’ll be doing a LOT of game playing. Anyway, I highly recommend LCDs. Your eyes’ll thank you for it. =)
I’ve also been eyeing LCD monitors. Currently, however, there is an enormous difference in price between 15" and 17" models. I’ve read that LCD prices are unlikely to drop this year.
Right now I have a very good 17" CRT but could justify the cost for only a 15" LCD. Would the change be a step up, a step down, or just an expensive whim?
quote:Originally posted by cranky laowai:
I've also been eyeing LCD monitors. Currently, however, there is an enormous difference in price between 15" and 17" models. I've read that LCD prices are unlikely to drop this year.
Yup, unfortunately it seems like it’ll be another year or two before those prices really start coming down. Blame the recession or something.
quote:
Right now I have a very good 17" CRT but could justify the cost for only a 15" LCD. Would the change be a step up, a step down, or just an expensive whim?
Eh, probably not worth it at the moment. For one thing you’ll probably be giving up an inch of viewable space. Plus if you have your existing monitor set to a resolution higher than 1024x768, then you’re gonna have to get used to moving back down to 1024x768. So unless space saving and no more flickering is more important to you, then you could probably hold off for now.
quote:Originally posted by Jeff:
I don't have much experience with LCD monitors, so my question is how do they compare with CRT monitors in terms of resolution/refresh rate/colors/anything else that might be relevant. I like the idea of saving a lot of desktop space with an LCD monitor, but wouldn't want to sacrifice too much in terms of image quality. I'll be using the computer for home video editing, some games, Internet, and work (editing/writing).
Generally, its ok these days to swap the old CRT monitor with an LCD. Most people still clinging to a CRT do this for one or more of three reasons:
resolution
My monitor at work is a slightly larger CRT, because only this way I can run 1600*1200. CAD (mechanic or electronic) does not look very nice on a screen with low resolution and/or small size.
colours (&viewing angle)
Many manufacturers of LCM claim a viewing angle of 160 degrees in all directions. That sounds nice and looks good on the first glance, but still the colours do change if you move out of the 90 degree axis. Also, a module with such parameters is a bit more expensive, so you won’t find it in one of the cheaper monitors.
speed
Depending on the lc technology (this actually means how the lc is arranged in the cell), the response time of an LCM can vary in a certain range, but definitely they are slower than CRTs. While this shouldn’t be of great importance as the human eye is even slower in recognizing changes, “real” gamers insist on a CRT for quaking.
From what you wrote, none of the above should bother you, so you only need to watch for sufficient brightness, contrast and viewing angle. A monitor with more than SXGA resolution will probably not be within your budget. If you want to save some money, go for 17" instead of 18.1". The difference in screen size does not really matter, but you will notice a significant price difference.
Oh, a warning: If someone wants you to buy a so called “high brightness” model (more than 300cd), you should switch it on and after a while gently touch the glass on the upper or lower edge. If it is warm, don’t buy it…
I just recently bought a 17" LCD. It is the actualy display size of my 19" CRT. I love the LCD. Based on the specs of the system you are interested, you should make sure that the lcd you are getting also includes DVI input. DVI makes the display of the LCD look a lot cleaner becuase the information of the image is rendered by the LCD instead of the image rendered by the video card and then transfered to LCD. The resolution limitations is not too bad. I play games like Ghost Recon and Alien Versus Predator 2 and things look pretty good. If you are a graphics user, you shouldn’t even be on a PC, you should be using a MAC.
Hey folks,
Thanks for all the advice. Sounds like the disadvantages aren’t serious enough to offset the space-saving advantage of the LCD. By the way, the relevant specs are:
This isn’t exactly an answer to what you asked, but for $3,000US, why don’t you spend your money on a system that won’t depreciate so quickly (Gateway doesn’t have the best rep in the business)? Personally, I’d much rather pick up a Sun workstation: http://www.allsunplus.com/store/desktops.asp
Ihey make boxes with class and best of all…no silly Microsoft virii.
Item no. 1: LCD monitors are more expensive that CRT.
Item no. 2: LCD monitors are cheaper to run than CRT because they use less electricity.
What I can’t find anywhere is a rundown on how long you would have to run an LCD monitor to save the extra money you spent buying it. Is the money saved through reduced energy comsumption by an LCD monitor in its lifetime more or less than the difference in price between a CRT monitor and an LCD one? I suspect it is more, but where is the proof? In this hot climate, it should also be taken into account that CRT monitors produce much more heat, which means the air conditioning has to to more work, which also uses more electricity.
Your average Taiwanese employer could not give a toss whether his/her employees get eradiated or not. Money factors are more persuasive. If the advantages of an LCD monitor were available for all to see in dollars and cents, then one might stand a better chance of persuading one’s employer to buy LCD monitors instead of CRT.
I saw something about this in a brochure from Viewsonic, so perhaps that company’s website will have something on the topic. IIRC, an LCD monitor cost around NT$1,000 (??) less per year to operate (in terms of the electricity it uses). If the life of the monitor is five years, the difference still wouldn’t be as large as the cost difference between LCDs and CRTs.
I recently bought a top-of-the-line 17" LCD monitor, a Samsung SyncMaster 171P. Even on sale it cost a helluva lot of money (NT$25,000), but I don’t regret buying it. I spend a lot of time in front of computers, so my eyes benefit from the change.
Thanks for the info, Cranky. We can do sums if you tell us the price of a CRT monitor of equivalent size and quality to your LCD one. (I understand the size in inches is misleading, is it not?) NT$5,000 is no doubt less than the difference in price, but a fair chunk of it nevertheless. Then we have to consider the savings in air-conditioning costs. I imagine they are considerable, but how on earth can we calculate them?
A previous poster advised against using an LCD for color work because or calibration issues. This is not the case with all LCDs. I used to sell to designers/printers back in the states and we had some large design clients standardize on 22" Apple LCDs using standard LaCie Blue Eye calibrators. The calibration was actually easier, they did not have to recalibrate nearly as often.
I prefer drooling over their latest 23" LCDs with 1920x1200 resolution $3,500 US though. Ouch!
Hi folks, I just bought a LCD monitor and it contains both a VGA input as well as DVI. Now I know DVI is better and would like to connect the Xbox 360 via that input. However, I have done some research and it appears that the Xbox 360 does not support this. Some have said just simply get an HDMI/DVI cable however, I don’t see any HDMI female jack on the Xbox 360 so I am confused as to why they would suggest that. How can I connect my Xbox 360 to my LCD monitor that has VGA and DVI inputs?
Anyway, I highly recommend LCDs. Your eyes’ll thank you for it. =)
$3,500 US though. Ouch!