OK - very much off topic, but is anyone on the board an expert on LCD computer monitors? I am going to upgrade from my current 21 inch Viewsonic CRT to a 20 inch LCD monitor. I have been looking at several brands and want an integrated monitor/LCD TV with integrated speakers (desk space is at premium with all of these class papers). Should I purchase a 20 inch LCD TV with computer inputs or should I stick with a monitor designed strictly for a computer? (without the integrated tuner). I noticed that the standard LCD monitor is 1280 x 1024. The LCD TV has a resolution of a bit lower. Does this actually matter that much for a non-gamer? (I use my computer mainly for papers - Internet - and for AutoCAD/Solidworks, etc. Thanks
WOW! Sorry, I can't help you with your monitor question but I think I'm safe in saying that just by posting this question you demonstrated sufficient knowledge of high-tech electronic stuff to qualify for a Knightsbridge Masters degree. Any follow-up posts will help you work toward a PhD. Jack (I, myself, just buy the monitor that comes with the package deal - no Masters for me)
The lower 1024x768 (which is what I presume is the LCD TV's resolution) is more-than-adequate, even at 20-inches. If you want the speakers integrated, etc., that should be sufficient. However, another approach that will give you your higher 1280x1024 resolution, and a bit more flexibility if you ever decided to so something like, for example, record a TV program onto your hard drive or something like that, would be to get the LCD monitor, and then put a TV tuner card into one of the PCI slots inside your computer. If so, then you'll still need your separate speakers unless the LCD monitor happens to have those built-in as well (which they do make... so you, maybe, should keep looking even if you decide to go the monitor/TV-tuner-card route). Personally, I have the latter method (monitor and tv-tuner-card)... but then again, I'm all set up to do high-end digital video editing and all kinds of other stuff that make my having the monitor and the video card (as opposed to a monitor/TV combo device with a tuner in it) the better way to go for more than just the reasons you've cited. Too bad desk space being such a premium is the problem. You'll miss the CRT. LCD isn't perfected yet, and there are irritating digital artifacts even on the best of them that you'll surely notice once you start using an LCD monitor (be it a true monitor, or the monitor/TV-combo device you mentioned) for longer than just trying it out in a store. Only if you also learn to get used to it after you notice it will you be okay with it. Some never are... like me, for example. I'll make room for a CRT on my desk until they stop making the damned things... but that's just me. If you agree, and if your desk is against a wall and there are no shelves or pictures or anything above it, simply putting a shelf on the wall above your desk at a height such that when a CRT is sitting on it the center of the screen will be about two to four inches below the horizontal level of your eyes would get the CRT off your desk and free-up that space, and still allow you to hang-on to what I would argue is still a superior video technology. Plus, $16 for a shelf and some wall mounts from Home Depot is a helluva lot cheaper. Hope that helps.
Oh, yeah... one more thing... I should have added that the higher resolution monitor with the TV-tuner card inside your computer will allow you to do something that you may or may not be able to do (probably not) with the LCD TV/monitor combo product, and that's watching TV in a resizeable window on your screen while you work on a spreadsheet, or write, or post messages here, in another. Think about the coolness of that! Sorry about forgetting to add that.
If you are working CAD, my husband says go with the higher resolution. It is well worth it for the eyes. I guess it would depend on what you are using for it mostly.... TV or CAD / computer work?
I run my 19 inch CRT at 1280 x 1024 as that lets me get more on the screen than would a lower resolution. What I always read about LCD monitors is that you should buy one with the native resolution you intend to use as changing that monitor to other resolutions will produce "blocky" characters.
That is incorrect. Higher resolution means that each object on the screen will take-up physically less screen real estate... i.e., everything on the screen gets physically smaller than at the lower resolution. If you're using a CRT monitor (ostensibly because the little experiment I'm about to propose can't be done on most LCD monitors which tend to be locked-in to one resolution or another), make a mental note of the size of the icons on your desktop, and the height of the taskbar across the bottom of the screen. Get a good image in your mind of the size of those things in relation to the total screen space. Now rightl-click on your desktop (but not on an icon) and click on "Properties." Note your video resolution -- probably 1024x768 or 800x600... or so is the currently most common resolution on today's systems. Set it up to the next higher level (1280x1024 for those at 1024x768; or 1024x768 for those at 800x600) and click on the "Okay" button. Now notice how much smaller are the icons; and how much shorter (or less vertical space) is taken-up by your task bar at the bottom of the screen. Smaller almost always equates to harder on the eyes. (You can set your resolution back now.) That said, the better CAD programs have their own resolution settings that will optimize for whatever is the monitor's resolution. When that's the case, it's possible to take advantage of the higher resolution monitor to see images at the same physical size on the higher resolution screen as on the lower screen, thereby adding more pixels to the lines and other parts of the image, and making it more detailed and smooth (i.e., fewer "jaggies" on the arcs, etc.). So, in that sense, the higher resolution is better for CAD. But the problem is that the higher resolution may mean that when one is not using CAD, everything will be too difficult to read -- at least for those with older eyes or other vision problems. Adjusting for the lowest common denominator and then using some kind of software product that maximizes effectiveness only when use that so that one can always see well no matter what program they're in is always better than overshooting with hardware and then only being able to enjoy its advantages in one or two programs. And that said, on a 20-inch screen, 1280x1024 is not too small... so the bottom line is, your husband's right about getting the higher resolution, he's just not got the "why" part right. But the end result is still the same, so I guess it's all moot. General Rule of thumb: The higher the resolution, the larger must be the physical screen size, else everything is too small to read. A 15" or 17" monitor should not be set above 1024x768 (and a 15" is probably better at 800x600). A 19" or 20" monitor can much better image at the higher 1280x1024 or even higher than that.
I just read him that post, and you are right and so was he. I put in the detail about the eyes. He said in CAD the higher resolution is better, as you can "zoom in" when needed, and having the option to see all the assembly in more detail with the higher resolution, etc. He is always in CAD, so does not care about the icons, Word, PPT, etc. It will come down to what you use and how much.
I always go with larger resolution. At work I have a 21 inch LCD with 1600x1200 .... its like heaven in a little box At home I get by with a 17 inch LCD with 1280x1024. It's ok... of course I bought it a couple years ago and now with that money I'd get at least a 20 inch ... but thats life .... I can't live with a 1024x768, it's like torture ... solitary confinement You can pick up quite a few monitors with built-in speakers .. but usually the quality (of the speakers) is not that great. Brandon
You mean "smaller" resolution. 1600x1200 is a smaller resolution than 1280x1024 or 1024x786 or 800x600 or 640x480. It uses larger numbers, but it's a smaller resolution. That's a little too small for only a 17-inch monitor... though it's certainly not impossible. You've obviously got good eyes -- either naturally or corrected. Either way, however, it's evidence that you're using Windows the way it was intended, wherein each application, in its own window, takes-up only a portion of the screen; and there are multiple windows, with different applications in each, open on said screen. So many people open just one thing, in one window, and then maximize it. They'd almost be better off in DOS. Good for you! You, at least, seem to get it. Many don't -- maybe even most.
Thanks Gregg, Thanks for the information. Do you recommend an LCD w/speakers? My space is limited also, and I can't do shelves with these walls. Will print your responses for future reference. Sales people have no idea what they are talking about. And I certainly don't. A fonte praecipitim a tergo lupi. Clay
Interesting thread. I recently replaced a Samsung 19" CRT with a Samsung 710T, which is 17" (the Samsung was starting to go, and the CRT took up way too much space). The native resolution is 1280x1024 which I personally believe is perfect. However, I think that "acceptable" is literally in the eye of the beholder. Go to a store and find a size and form factor that you like and see each screen in its native resolution. Then do a search on epinions or computer magazines to see what users are saying, and how they are using their monitor (general internet use, text, games, etc.). Make your selection and take the plunge! If you play computer games that require high frame rates (Doom, etc.) you will need to also consider the response time of the LCD screen. Older screens having response times in excess of 30ms would cause ghosting (blurring). Ghosting can also occur during action scenes in movies. Refresh rates (60Hz vs. 80Hz vs 100Hz, etc.) on LCDs are meaningless - for CRTs you try and get the highest refresh rate as possible to minimize/eliminate flicker. I have never been a huge fan of having speakers as part of a monitor. Even a set of cheap, very small standalone speakers should have better sound than the small tinny ones built into LCD monitors. However, you can always get a monitor with them built in and then when space allows upgrade by simply getting external speakers. Cheers, Mark
Re: Thanks Depends on how important to you are the sounds your computer makes. If your speakers are basically only there to notify you of Windows errors with beeps and other noises, then speakers built right into the monitor are more than adequate. But if you're listening to music or watching movies, etc., on your PC, then you'll probably want a better quality product. That said, some monitors with built-in speakers have pretty darned good sound. By and large, however, to get the best sound one needs to invest in a halfway serious (but not necessarily the top end) 5.1 or 6.1 or 7.1 3D, mondo speaker system. For most PC users, something better than the $9.95 to $19.95 speakers that all PCs just sort of come with, but far less involved that some kind of overly-sophisticated, five- or six-piece, $89 to $199 sound subsystem, is all anyone needs. Spending $39 to $69 on a pair of PC speakers is usually all anyone needs to do. I'll never forget the first time I got thrown out of a computer or software store. It was an Egghead Software store in a strip mall near I-94 on the Illinois side of the Indiana/Illinois line. I was looking for a 3D modeling package, but I could not help but overhear the complete and utter nonsense that the sales kid was feeding some poor, hapless end-user who was taking it all in, eyes a glaze, as though it were gospel. Finally, I couldn't take it anymore. "I'm sorry," I interrupted, "but I just can't let this go on another minute. Sir?" I said to the customer, "I'm sure this young man means well... but not a single word that has come out of his mouth is true... and it's not because he's trying to deceive you, I'm sure. He, like most computer salespeople in retail, simply hasn't the slightest idea what he's talking about," and then I told the guy what he really needed -- which, by the way, still resulted in a $200 sale for the store... ...but, alas, the manager asked me to leave. Since then it happens to me about once or maybe, at worst, twice a year or thereabouts. I now wear it like a badge of honor. Sound advice.
Speakers Thanks Gregg, I have bought more wrong equipment, due to bad sales advise, than most computer idiots. I'm slowly learning.
Audio, video, heat, and other stuff... The best pair of everyday (and the operative word, here, is "everyday") computer speakers I ever got was from a couple of Indian guys who owned a store in Tampa. I only bought 'em 'cause they didn't have a pair of even cheaper, crappier speakers that I could just grab, pay for, and run. Turns out the ones I got -- some no-name, Taiwanese, plastic, nondescript, nothing ol'pair of speakers that are about bookshelf speaker sized and just don't look like they'd be good -- have fantastic sound (for "everyday" PC speakers, that is). They're several years old now and I've transferred them to every new or upgraded machine I've ever built. Of course, on the machine on which I do the audio/video editing, I've got the very kind of high-end, ridiculously over-the-top, waaayyy more expensive than $200, outrageously unnecessary, 7.1, 3D, mondo system which I recommended in my previous post that no one needs. So there you are. People will argue with me about this, of course, but some of the old, tried-and-true brands in the computer industry remain the best way to go in most cases. If a person is seriously into PC audio (and the operative word, here, is "seriously"), then s/he's not going to even mess with the consumer-grade products anyway; so PC sound aficionados, please don't take issue with me when I recommend that a perfectly good product line for anyone wishing to take a step (or two or three) up from the everyday, no-name audio products that came with his/her computer is pretty much anything made by Creative Labs -- makers of the time-worn, defacto-standard "SoundBlaster" audio cards of the past and present. Though those who use MIDI sequencing software like Cakewalk, for example, sometimes decry Creative's new AUDIGY line because of IRQ conflicts and other problems, I've always argued that Creative was making PC audio products to industry standards before Cakewalk was; and maybe a closer look at Cakewalk's adherence to said standards would be in order. But I digress. A person merely wishing to step-up one level from the audio card that came with his/her machine would do well with Creative's tried-and-true, nothing special (other than being a Creative product with whatever reliability and adherence to standards that may bring) SoundBlaster Live! card. In fact, an OEM version of that card comes standard in many systems already. Couple that card with Creative's SBS 250 2.0 speakers, and you've got a good, basic, cut-above-the-crap-typically-shipped-with-most-PCs-today audio sub-system that doesn't cost alot of money, and will be guaranteed to so adhere to industry standards that if there is a conflict between your audio card and some other component, it's likely to be the other component's fault. That card and those speakers won't rock your world, mind you, but it's the low-end of truly high-quality PC audio... and I recommend it to anyone wishing to take just one, small step up (that is, assuming their machine didn't already come with that card and those speakers). To step up even further, but to not cross the line into ridiculousness (which can be fun, too), one could get the Creative Audigy LS card; or if one wanted to take a much larger step up to near commercial-grade audio quality, one could get Creative's Audigy 2 ZS card. Of course, there are other Audigy products, but the typical end-user will be happy with one of those; and the gamer happy with the Audigy 2 ZS Gamer card. In fact, adherence to industry technical standards is particularly important for gamers, where joysticks and goosed-up video cards, among other things, can often cause conflicts and other operational problems. Making sure one's audio card is reputable and likely to be strictly adherent is a first step toward ensuring that one's machine doesn't lock-up or suffer from other problems when running highly-resource-intensive games. The Audigy 2 ZS Gamer card is an excellent hedge against those kinds of problems. So, as long as we're on the subject, is adequate cooling. This is just about the best all-'round piece of advice I can offer, generally: Keep your computer cool inside... even if it means you have to purchase an additional fan or two -- and, especially, a larger, beefier CPU heatsink and fan -- and, therefore, your den sounds like it's got a small F-14 fighter engine running in it whenever the computer's turned on. Heat is the enemy of integrated circuitry -- as is temperature change. In fact, second only in importance to keeping the inside of one's machine cool, generally, is never turning it off (or allowing any kind of power-saver, auto-shutoff to engage) -- ever -- so that the chips on the circuit boards stay pretty much one temperature for the life of the machine. Trust me... I know what I'm talking about here. Another very important anti-heat measure is keeping the inside of the machine clean and relatively dust free. Dust settled atop integrated circuit chips is just like a blanket. One can have four high-end, brushless DC, ultra-quiet, top-o-the-line cooling fans, and a $150 liquid CPU cooling subsystem, in his/her machine, and if there's a layer of dust all over everything inside it won't do a damned bit of good! Buy a can of "Dust Off" (or equivalent); turn the machine off; open it up, and blow the dust off of everything inside, and out of the machine, a minimum of four times a year. So important is the heat issue, let me tell you, that I have seen machines with inexplicable problems, lockups, etc. -- even the inability to calculate accurately -- and which had been trouble-shot every which way and passed all complex diagnostics, and with which no one could figure out what was wrong, suddenly start working perfectly by merely getting the temperature of the CPU and the interior cabinet down by a mere 10 or 20 degrees. While computer equipment no longer requires near refrigeration, as was once the practice in corporate, raised-floor computer rooms; the rule of thumb today is simple: If the ambient temperature is uncomfortable for humans, then it's hard on the computer, too. Figuring out how to get the ambient temperature inside the cabinet down as close as possible to the ambient temperature outside the cabinet will make anyone's computer magically more reliable, and will add years to its life. Trust me on this. Same for monitors... CRTs, of course... but also -- perhaps even more so -- LCD displays. I won't get into it here, in this post, but if anyone wants to learn more about LCD heat issues, and prolonging LCD panel life, generally, just say so and I'll go into it a bit in this thread. But I digress... yet again. Getting back to audio... A person wishing to step-up one level from the speakers that came with his/her machine could not go wrong with the earlier-mentioned Creative SBS 250 2.0 speakers; or, stepping-up yet another level and into truly superior sound (over typical "everyday" speakers) the SBS 270 or, better yet, the top of the 2.0 line, Creative's iTrigue 2200 speakers. Beyond speakers like that, one would be stepping into a world where subwoofers and other 3rd thru 7th (or more) speakers would be in play (no pun intended). In that arena, an excellent all-'round, beyond-just-two-speakers subsystem would be Creative's SBS 450 4.1 speaker system. For the vast majority of users who just want something more, but who don't want their wives to shake their heads in disbelief at the sophistication level of the sound system they've added to their home computer, the SBS 450 4.1 system should just about do it. But there's a full line of 2.0, 2.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 systems that Creative makes so that any end-user can go way overboard if s/he really wants to. I like Creative Labs' stuff, just generally, because they've been at it longer than anyone else and are the "defacto" industry standard; they understand words like "quality" and "value;" they make products easily as good as or better than any out there; they are price-competitive; and they honor their warranty without an argument. It's a safe recommendation that I make to just about anyone interested in going one step beyond the crap that comes standard with most of today's PCs -- and even to those who want to get some serious PC audio equipment that's good enough to stand-up to what the pros use. Hope that helps.
I don't know how many are interested, but I have to agree that the quality of the SB Live and Audigy cards is very, very good. So good, in fact, that I doubt most people (and by most I mean almost every one, or about 99.9%) could choose the "pro" card in a blind comparison test using the same speakers, system, and material. The same goes for recording quality, it is very, very good. In fact, my first soundcard was a "pro"sumer Turtle Beach Monterrey, which at the time was just about the only affordable (~$350 at the time) option for someone who wanted something decent without spending thousands of dollars. The first SB live,which I bought (~$79) for my gaming machine (and Gregg's point is a very good one, as all gamers know, you want a soundcard that will not only sound good, but actually work with every game), had better sound than the TB Monterrey. I was amazed at the quality Creative offered, especially at the low price point, and considering their original Soundblaster line was nothing special at all. On the topic of speakers, if you want a little better experience without shelling out mega bucks, I would recommend the Klipsch Promedia line. Then again, I have always loved Klipsch, but many of my friends think they are somewhat harsh in the upper registers. The best advice, since speaker quality is somewhat subjective, is to actually listen to the darn things (for more than 2 minutes if possible, because what sounds nice and bright at first might be a little too bright at last) in an environment similiar to where they will finally end up. Okay, enough rambling. (Sometimes it is nice when the topic isn't KW.) Tony
