Flat Screen Monitor Quality
03-15-2002, 07:57 AM
#1
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Naples
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flat Screen Monitor Quality
I just got a new DELL 1702FP, which is a 17 Flat Screen Monitor.
The picture is not nearly as good as my regular 17 DELL.
Any ideas why ?
I thought flat screens had better picture ?
This is plugged into the same computer.
And right now I am running on Analog, as my TNT 2, 64 video card doesn't have a plug for for the DVI cable, so my video card must not support digital, correct ?
Will I see a big diffence if I get a new video card, that supports digital ?
I am disappointed that the flat screen doesn't have as good of picture.
The picture is not nearly as good as my regular 17 DELL.
Any ideas why ?
I thought flat screens had better picture ?
This is plugged into the same computer.
And right now I am running on Analog, as my TNT 2, 64 video card doesn't have a plug for for the DVI cable, so my video card must not support digital, correct ?
Will I see a big diffence if I get a new video card, that supports digital ?
I am disappointed that the flat screen doesn't have as good of picture.
03-15-2002, 08:22 AM
#2
Drifting
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Miami, Florida
Age: 49
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a flat screen because I thought the picture quality would be better and also to save space, but I returned it two days after and traded it in for a regular monitor.
03-15-2002, 08:39 AM
#3
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Western MA
Age: 49
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Flat Screen Monitor Quality
Originally posted by snook789
I just got a new DELL 1702FP, which is a 17 Flat Screen Monitor.
The picture is not nearly as good as my regular 17 DELL.
Any ideas why ?
I thought flat screens had better picture ?
This is plugged into the same computer.
And right now I am running on Analog, as my TNT 2, 64 video card doesn't have a plug for for the DVI cable, so my video card must not support digital, correct ?
Will I see a big diffence if I get a new video card, that supports digital ?
I am disappointed that the flat screen doesn't have as good of picture.
I just got a new DELL 1702FP, which is a 17 Flat Screen Monitor.
The picture is not nearly as good as my regular 17 DELL.
Any ideas why ?
I thought flat screens had better picture ?
This is plugged into the same computer.
And right now I am running on Analog, as my TNT 2, 64 video card doesn't have a plug for for the DVI cable, so my video card must not support digital, correct ?
Will I see a big diffence if I get a new video card, that supports digital ?
I am disappointed that the flat screen doesn't have as good of picture.
Second, since you are running it in analog mode, you will have to adjust the phase. Your monitor should have come with a tool to do this.
Now looking at the specs on that monitor, the contrast ratio is 350:1 typical and 250:1 minimum. If your problem with the monitor is that black doesn't look black enough, especially when looking at an image that is mostly dark, this is probably where the problem lies. My LCD display (a Sony 18") is 400:1 typical and I don't think blacks are dark enough for things like gaming or watching dark movies. But I don't use my LCD panel for those things, so it doesn't bother me. You can try turning the backlight down to a lower number to help (not the brightness). Mine was set at 100% out of the box and I turned mine down to 40%.
LCD displays aren't for every one; I got one because I was having severe eye strain from looking at a CRT all day and the LCD panel has made a SERIOUS improvement. I kept my CRT though as my ATI Radeon 8500 video card has both DVI-I and analog outputs, so I can have both monitors connected with an extended desktop. I can watch a movie on one screen and be online on the other, or I can edit a picture in Photoshop on one screen and have all the toolbars and menus for Photoshop on the other screen giving me tons of room to work!
Good luck with your display, let me know how it goes.
Paul
03-15-2002, 09:43 AM
#5
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Western MA
Age: 49
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by CKacura
Get a Sony Trinitron monitor. Its one of the best out there. You can stare at it all day and still won't get a headache. I know because i have one.:p
Get a Sony Trinitron monitor. Its one of the best out there. You can stare at it all day and still won't get a headache. I know because i have one.:p
The difference is that CRTs are constantly redrawing an image so many times per second (I usually keep my refresh rate at 85 Hz). Trinitron technology doesn't change that, it just uses an aperture grille (which is a bunch of long vertical wires) instead of a shadow mask (which is a metal plate with a bunch of holes in it) which offers you a brighter image and a better vertical resolution.
LCD displays don't do any of that; a pixel is either on or off.
I never USED to be bothered by staring at CRTs all day. Must be getting old.
03-15-2002, 10:08 AM
#6
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Naples
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seqiro , that is what I have it set to, 1280x1024 and have it set up in analog
Ya my regular DELL and Trintion is much better than this flat screen
I had no idea that the flat screen wouldn't be as good
I will try turning down the back light
What is the worst, is reading fonts, like email, black font on white background
Don't see backlight setting, there is brightness and contrast, then color...
Ya my regular DELL and Trintion is much better than this flat screen
I had no idea that the flat screen wouldn't be as good
I will try turning down the back light
What is the worst, is reading fonts, like email, black font on white background
Don't see backlight setting, there is brightness and contrast, then color...
03-15-2002, 10:19 AM
#7
Advanced
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Orange County
Age: 56
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by snook789
Seqiro , that is what I have it set to, 1280x1024 and have it set up in analog
Ya my regular DELL and Trintion is much better than this flat screen
I had no idea that the flat screen wouldn't be as good
I will try turning down the back light
What is the worst, is reading fonts, like email, black font on white background
Don't see backlight setting, there is brightness and contrast, then color...
Seqiro , that is what I have it set to, 1280x1024 and have it set up in analog
Ya my regular DELL and Trintion is much better than this flat screen
I had no idea that the flat screen wouldn't be as good
I will try turning down the back light
What is the worst, is reading fonts, like email, black font on white background
Don't see backlight setting, there is brightness and contrast, then color...
Trending Topics
03-15-2002, 10:23 AM
#8
Pro
[i]
What is the worst, is reading fonts, like email, black font on white background[/B]
What is the worst, is reading fonts, like email, black font on white background[/B]
03-15-2002, 10:49 AM
#9
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Age: 55
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a huge difference in flat panel quality, especially now with all those $300 models hitting the market.
When I bought mine, I compared several models, and the brightness and contrast on the NEC stood out compared to the other models right next to it, displaying the same picture.
I would return the Dell and look around for one that you like. If you can find a good one, an LCD is well worth the investment. Everything is just sharper and crisper on an LCD. Another advantage I have seen is with heat disipation. I have a small home office, and during the summer, it gets very toasty, but I noticed that it would not get nearly as hot if I turned off the CRT - those things put out a lot of heat. I have not had that problem since I switched to the LCD.
When I bought mine, I compared several models, and the brightness and contrast on the NEC stood out compared to the other models right next to it, displaying the same picture.
I would return the Dell and look around for one that you like. If you can find a good one, an LCD is well worth the investment. Everything is just sharper and crisper on an LCD. Another advantage I have seen is with heat disipation. I have a small home office, and during the summer, it gets very toasty, but I noticed that it would not get nearly as hot if I turned off the CRT - those things put out a lot of heat. I have not had that problem since I switched to the LCD.
03-15-2002, 11:12 AM
#10
Three Wheelin'
lcd's still suck.
Most have a max of 60 refresh rate.... the very very good ones have a 75. CRTs can easily reach 100 even on 1240x1024. Secondly, LCDs have a delay rate. It's essentially the amount of time it take to change the property of a pixel. CRTs have a zero delay (speed of light and all). For graphics and games, you still can't touch a CRT.
Most have a max of 60 refresh rate.... the very very good ones have a 75. CRTs can easily reach 100 even on 1240x1024. Secondly, LCDs have a delay rate. It's essentially the amount of time it take to change the property of a pixel. CRTs have a zero delay (speed of light and all). For graphics and games, you still can't touch a CRT.
03-15-2002, 12:28 PM
#11
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Raleigh, NC
Age: 43
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have one of the better quality Samsungs. I have been EXTREMELY happy with it!! It's thin so that I mounted it on my desk hutch in the middle. It takes up no room that way.
Picture quality is excellent...i wish i had a clue about monitors so i could help. All i can say is that I'm very happy and will never go back to the regular monitors.
Picture quality is excellent...i wish i had a clue about monitors so i could help. All i can say is that I'm very happy and will never go back to the regular monitors.
03-15-2002, 12:32 PM
#12
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Age: 55
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Closer
lcd's still suck.
Most have a max of 60 refresh rate.... the very very good ones have a 75. CRTs can easily reach 100 even on 1240x1024. Secondly, LCDs have a delay rate. It's essentially the amount of time it take to change the property of a pixel. CRTs have a zero delay (speed of light and all). For graphics and games, you still can't touch a CRT.
lcd's still suck.
Most have a max of 60 refresh rate.... the very very good ones have a 75. CRTs can easily reach 100 even on 1240x1024. Secondly, LCDs have a delay rate. It's essentially the amount of time it take to change the property of a pixel. CRTs have a zero delay (speed of light and all). For graphics and games, you still can't touch a CRT.
I use my LCD for video editing and games, and it performs as well or better than any CRT I've ever owned.
03-15-2002, 12:36 PM
#13
Three Wheelin'
Originally posted by mikester
FUD.
I use my LCD for video editing and games, and it performs as well or better than any CRT I've ever owned.
FUD.
I use my LCD for video editing and games, and it performs as well or better than any CRT I've ever owned.
03-15-2002, 01:19 PM
#14
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Western MA
Age: 49
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Closer
lcd's still suck.
Most have a max of 60 refresh rate.... the very very good ones have a 75. CRTs can easily reach 100 even on 1240x1024. Secondly, LCDs have a delay rate. It's essentially the amount of time it take to change the property of a pixel. CRTs have a zero delay (speed of light and all). For graphics and games, you still can't touch a CRT.
lcd's still suck.
Most have a max of 60 refresh rate.... the very very good ones have a 75. CRTs can easily reach 100 even on 1240x1024. Secondly, LCDs have a delay rate. It's essentially the amount of time it take to change the property of a pixel. CRTs have a zero delay (speed of light and all). For graphics and games, you still can't touch a CRT.
Now, what DOES make a difference is response time. A high response time (>25ms combined up/down) can cause blurring of high speed action (like a DVD or a game). My sony is 50ms and I can definitely see this in gaming. But it's not the primary use of my display; I use my CRT for that stuff. Personal preference.
So while you may not like LCD displays for one reason, it's not because of low refresh rates. LCD displays DON'T REFRESH.
Paul
03-15-2002, 01:22 PM
#15
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Western MA
Age: 49
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by mikester
FUD.
I use my LCD for video editing and games, and it performs as well or better than any CRT I've ever owned.
FUD.
I use my LCD for video editing and games, and it performs as well or better than any CRT I've ever owned.
It really comes down to which LCD display you have. I'm guessing Snook's DELL just doesn't cut it.
03-15-2002, 08:43 PM
#17
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Western MA
Age: 49
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by oracion
What does "response time" mean? Is that like the "refresh rate" on a CRT?
What does "response time" mean? Is that like the "refresh rate" on a CRT?
The refresh rate on a CRT is how many times the picture is being redrawn per second, since that is how a CRT works--an electron beam constantly scans the image onto the phosphor coating. The faster the better, because otherwise you get flicker. The phosphor coating gets bright when it is hit by the beam, but starts to darken very quickly. If the refresh rate is too low, this becomes noticeable which is why you want at least 85 Hz or higher.
With an LCD, a pixel is either on or off. The response time is how fast a pixel can change from on to off and off to on. So if it takes 15ms to turn a pixel on and 10ms to turn a pixel off, the response time for that panel is 25ms. If you have an image moving across the screen faster than the response time of the LCD, you get a blurry image wherever the movement is. However, the screen is not constantly redrawing the whole time, hence refresh rate is meaningless to an LCD.
03-15-2002, 09:48 PM
#18
Retired MOD
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Age: 46
Posts: 3,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by snook789
Seqiro , that is what I have it set to, 1280x1024 and have it set up in analog
Ya my regular DELL and Trintion is much better than this flat screen
I had no idea that the flat screen wouldn't be as good
I will try turning down the back light
What is the worst, is reading fonts, like email, black font on white background
Don't see backlight setting, there is brightness and contrast, then color...
Seqiro , that is what I have it set to, 1280x1024 and have it set up in analog
Ya my regular DELL and Trintion is much better than this flat screen
I had no idea that the flat screen wouldn't be as good
I will try turning down the back light
What is the worst, is reading fonts, like email, black font on white background
Don't see backlight setting, there is brightness and contrast, then color...
22"
Digital
Pure flat
just awesome
for $1khttp://www.monitoroutlet.com/501977.html
Good comparison for LCD's http://www.monitoroutlet.com/quiccomlcddi.html
The only reason I would get an LCD is because of my eyes and maybe space.
Seqiro what is the difference between an LCD panel and Laptop LCD? I have no problem with my laptop LCD. This is what I'm using and I could read and see everything perfect.
03-15-2002, 10:12 PM
#19
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Western MA
Age: 49
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Bitium
Seqiro what is the difference between an LCD panel and Laptop LCD? I have no problem with my laptop LCD. This is what I'm using and I could read and see everything perfect.
Seqiro what is the difference between an LCD panel and Laptop LCD? I have no problem with my laptop LCD. This is what I'm using and I could read and see everything perfect.
One of the best LCD screens I've ever seen is my wife's original iBook. But then every Apple LCD display is amazing.
03-15-2002, 10:27 PM
#20
Retired MOD
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Age: 46
Posts: 3,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by Seqiro
I believe, technologically speaking, that they are the same. However, they are much smaller and probably it is more economically possible to put a higher quality 12-14" LCD display in a laptop.
I believe, technologically speaking, that they are the same. However, they are much smaller and probably it is more economically possible to put a higher quality 12-14" LCD display in a laptop.
03-16-2002, 09:38 PM
#21
Sporty X type
Snook, I have the 15" Dell Flat panel display & it looks as good as my older 19" sony CRT.(except for the size!) It didn't at first. I was trying several settings & to no avail. I was about ready to send it back to Dell, but decided to go to their web site & downloaded the latest drivers for the 1503 flat panel. Voila...what a difference it made. I also have the GeForce Nvidia MX 4/400 AGP card w/ analog output into the screen. Give it a try first, before giving up on the screen.
03-18-2002, 10:13 AM
#23
Burning Brakes
Since you spoke of the problem with reading text, you may be driving at the wrong resolution. Pixel straddling (a mismatch of the driving resolution, as compared to the panel's native pixel count) could be occuring, which is a problem for fixed-pixel technologies (LCDs, Plasma displays, DLP and D-ILA Projectors).
Never mind what Dell says the native should be, try a few different ones, and see what you get. have you done this? 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x1024, or 1280x960.
LCDs are pretty particular about resolutions- there's really only one that will make the panel look "right."
Get the latest drivers for the video card, or better yet, get a card with DVI out. The latest Radeons (7200, 7500, 8500) have them, and you don't have to spend a lot of money if you don't want.
We have several of the Samsung 570V (15"), and at 1024x768@75Hz, they look great. Anything else, no good.
Todd
Never mind what Dell says the native should be, try a few different ones, and see what you get. have you done this? 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x1024, or 1280x960.
LCDs are pretty particular about resolutions- there's really only one that will make the panel look "right."
Get the latest drivers for the video card, or better yet, get a card with DVI out. The latest Radeons (7200, 7500, 8500) have them, and you don't have to spend a lot of money if you don't want.
We have several of the Samsung 570V (15"), and at 1024x768@75Hz, they look great. Anything else, no good.
Todd
03-18-2002, 01:58 PM
#24
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Naples
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T Ho , thank you
I have tried all rez. , and tried updating my Video card drivers, fonts still look like ****
Maybe I will try the Radeons card
I see the 8500 are about $140
So you think going digital will correct the fonts looking so bad ?
I have tried all rez. , and tried updating my Video card drivers, fonts still look like ****
Maybe I will try the Radeons card
I see the 8500 are about $140
So you think going digital will correct the fonts looking so bad ?
03-18-2002, 02:12 PM
#25
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Western MA
Age: 49
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by snook789
T Ho , thank you
I have tried all rez. , and tried updating my Video card drivers, fonts still look like ****
Maybe I will try the Radeons card
I see the 8500 are about $140
So you think going digital will correct the fonts looking so bad ?
T Ho , thank you
I have tried all rez. , and tried updating my Video card drivers, fonts still look like ****
Maybe I will try the Radeons card
I see the 8500 are about $140
So you think going digital will correct the fonts looking so bad ?
Check out this attachment to see the difference.
Windows 95, 98, ME and 2000 support standard font smoothing which is turned off by default. Windows XP ClearType, however, is far superior at the smaller font sizes.
03-18-2002, 02:23 PM
#26
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Naples
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Windows 2000, and I tried checking the box for windows smoothing, and it didn't help
I read in this post about Windows XP having the option for the fonts, I almost went out and bought it this weekend, just to try out
boy I have such a headach right now, my eyes are killing me
I read in this post about Windows XP having the option for the fonts, I almost went out and bought it this weekend, just to try out
boy I have such a headach right now, my eyes are killing me
03-18-2002, 02:32 PM
#27
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Western MA
Age: 49
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I was playing with ClearType to make that sample image, I noticed how BAD the fonts looked when it was turned off. I got this LCD after I already had Windows XP--where ClearType is turned on by default--and had never really seen how crappy it looked without it. So I can understand why you aren't happy with the LCD.
I hate to recommend buying an upgrade to an operating system just to improve your fonts, but I think that unless there is some aftermarket solution out there that can do subpixel shading for fonts in Win2K, Cleartype in XP may be the best way to help your fonts if you want to keep the LCD.
I hate to recommend buying an upgrade to an operating system just to improve your fonts, but I think that unless there is some aftermarket solution out there that can do subpixel shading for fonts in Win2K, Cleartype in XP may be the best way to help your fonts if you want to keep the LCD.
03-18-2002, 03:04 PM
#28
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Western MA
Age: 49
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, this might help you make up your mind about XP.
I found a link to a program that simulates what ClearType does. It's a two year old program and actually doesn't do the job as well as ClearType (IMO, it looked a little blurry whereas ClearType is sharp). However, I think the program might be good enough to give you an idea of what ClearType can do for you and if it would be worth upgrading for.
http://grc.com/freeandclear.htm
Download the program and run it. It will show you what text looks like now in the upper box and what it would look like with sub-pixel font smoothing in the lower box.
I hope this helps. Let me know how it goes.
Paul
I found a link to a program that simulates what ClearType does. It's a two year old program and actually doesn't do the job as well as ClearType (IMO, it looked a little blurry whereas ClearType is sharp). However, I think the program might be good enough to give you an idea of what ClearType can do for you and if it would be worth upgrading for.
http://grc.com/freeandclear.htm
Download the program and run it. It will show you what text looks like now in the upper box and what it would look like with sub-pixel font smoothing in the lower box.
I hope this helps. Let me know how it goes.
Paul
03-18-2002, 03:14 PM
#29
Three Wheelin'
Originally posted by Seqiro
Refresh rate on an LCD means nothing. Zip, zero, zilch. You won't noticed any difference. LCD displays do NOT redraw the screen, which what the refresh rateis all about. It's basically there for compatibility purposes, but it will not make any difference whatsoever.
Now, what DOES make a difference is response time. A high response time (>25ms combined up/down) can cause blurring of high speed action (like a DVD or a game). My sony is 50ms and I can definitely see this in gaming. But it's not the primary use of my display; I use my CRT for that stuff. Personal preference.
So while you may not like LCD displays for one reason, it's not because of low refresh rates. LCD displays DON'T REFRESH.
Paul
Refresh rate on an LCD means nothing. Zip, zero, zilch. You won't noticed any difference. LCD displays do NOT redraw the screen, which what the refresh rateis all about. It's basically there for compatibility purposes, but it will not make any difference whatsoever.
Now, what DOES make a difference is response time. A high response time (>25ms combined up/down) can cause blurring of high speed action (like a DVD or a game). My sony is 50ms and I can definitely see this in gaming. But it's not the primary use of my display; I use my CRT for that stuff. Personal preference.
So while you may not like LCD displays for one reason, it's not because of low refresh rates. LCD displays DON'T REFRESH.
Paul
03-19-2002, 06:06 AM
#30
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Naples
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Seqiro
Hey, this might help you make up your mind about XP.
I found a link to a program that simulates what ClearType does. It's a two year old program and actually doesn't do the job as well as ClearType (IMO, it looked a little blurry whereas ClearType is sharp). However, I think the program might be good enough to give you an idea of what ClearType can do for you and if it would be worth upgrading for.
http://grc.com/freeandclear.htm
Download the program and run it. It will show you what text looks like now in the upper box and what it would look like with sub-pixel font smoothing in the lower box.
I hope this helps. Let me know how it goes.
Paul
Hey, this might help you make up your mind about XP.
I found a link to a program that simulates what ClearType does. It's a two year old program and actually doesn't do the job as well as ClearType (IMO, it looked a little blurry whereas ClearType is sharp). However, I think the program might be good enough to give you an idea of what ClearType can do for you and if it would be worth upgrading for.
http://grc.com/freeandclear.htm
Download the program and run it. It will show you what text looks like now in the upper box and what it would look like with sub-pixel font smoothing in the lower box.
I hope this helps. Let me know how it goes.
Paul
I will get XP upgrade, and clear it up
Thanks Seqiro
03-19-2002, 10:19 AM
#32
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Western MA
Age: 49
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by snook789
Can you upgrade Windows 2000 to XP ?
I just got bought the upgrade, but none said Windows 2000 as an OS supported for the upgrade ?
Can you upgrade Windows 2000 to XP ?
I just got bought the upgrade, but none said Windows 2000 as an OS supported for the upgrade ?
03-19-2002, 10:20 AM
#33
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Naples
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shoot, it looks like I can only upgrade to XP if I get the professional version
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWSXP/p...ing/matrix.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWSXP/p...ing/matrix.asp
03-19-2002, 10:24 AM
#34
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Western MA
Age: 49
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by snook789
Shoot, it looks like I can only upgrade to XP if I get the professional version
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWSXP/p...ing/matrix.asp
Shoot, it looks like I can only upgrade to XP if I get the professional version
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWSXP/p...ing/matrix.asp
Damn, I wish I'd been more specific and not just said "XP" before...
03-19-2002, 09:57 PM
#35
Someday pigs WILL fly!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Pequannock, NJ USA
Posts: 3,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well....I can see YOU guys need an education in LCD's. Laptops are generally passive matrix LCD's which have a refresh rate that is driven by the newest signal. LCD's on 110VAC stepped down to 12~18 VDC generally are active matrix.
I work for Sharp so I am a little biased. Not all LCD's are the same. Generally the ones made by Korean companies are not quite up to snuff with Sharp. Sharp has over 86% of worldwide LCD panel sales. Now, enough bragging. Our newest panels are 170 degree viewing angle for both horizontal and vertical. The brightness is 450~480 candellas, and the contrast ratio is 500:1. Whoever said they should be viewed in their native resolution is correct. So..... if you have a VGA panel it should be run in 640X480, XVGA 800:600 mode, etc. Different LCD's are used for TV viewing as well as PC monitors. We make Compaq's LCD's and a few others. They are definitely not all the same.
If you have questions email me at flemingm@sharpsec.com.
End commercial
I work for Sharp so I am a little biased. Not all LCD's are the same. Generally the ones made by Korean companies are not quite up to snuff with Sharp. Sharp has over 86% of worldwide LCD panel sales. Now, enough bragging. Our newest panels are 170 degree viewing angle for both horizontal and vertical. The brightness is 450~480 candellas, and the contrast ratio is 500:1. Whoever said they should be viewed in their native resolution is correct. So..... if you have a VGA panel it should be run in 640X480, XVGA 800:600 mode, etc. Different LCD's are used for TV viewing as well as PC monitors. We make Compaq's LCD's and a few others. They are definitely not all the same.
If you have questions email me at flemingm@sharpsec.com.
End commercial
03-19-2002, 10:52 PM
#36
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Age: 55
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by gto2050
Well....I can see YOU guys need an education in LCD's. Laptops are generally passive matrix LCD's which have a refresh rate that is driven by the newest signal. LCD's on 110VAC stepped down to 12~18 VDC generally are active matrix.
Well....I can see YOU guys need an education in LCD's. Laptops are generally passive matrix LCD's which have a refresh rate that is driven by the newest signal. LCD's on 110VAC stepped down to 12~18 VDC generally are active matrix.
03-20-2002, 05:31 PM
#37
Someday pigs WILL fly!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Pequannock, NJ USA
Posts: 3,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by mikester
The last 3 laptops I have had (over the past 5 years or so) have all had active matrix displays. Is there some trick with terminology manufacturers are playing here?
The last 3 laptops I have had (over the past 5 years or so) have all had active matrix displays. Is there some trick with terminology manufacturers are playing here?
03-22-2002, 01:38 AM
#38
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LCD Flat Panel Article from CNET
A 21" TRINITRON CRT still looks the best to me, even if it's huge and bulky. But I am a believer in the LCD Flat Panel Screens and based on the technology they should be better.
LCD Flat Panel Article from CNET - hope this helps.
http://news.com.com/2010-1074-281482.html
LCD Flat Panel Article from CNET - hope this helps.
http://news.com.com/2010-1074-281482.html
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MrHeeltoe
1G TSX Tires, Wheels, & Suspension
20
02-23-2023 01:54 PM
emailnatec
5G TLX Tires, Wheels & Suspension
29
09-28-2018 04:27 PM
MrHeeltoe
2G TSX Tires, Wheels & Suspension
3
09-29-2015 10:43 PM
MrHeeltoe
3G TL Tires, Wheels & Suspension
0
09-28-2015 05:43 PM