Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Tom Reviews 13 LCD Displays

CmdrTaco posted about 13 years ago | from the slimmer-is-better dept.

Technology 254

n3r0.m4dski11z noted that Tom's Hardware has a review of 13 LCD Displays for anyone who has been thinking about making the leap from the CRT to that fancy shmantsy LCD stuff thats all the rage with the kids these days. As usual, they do a pretty good job explaining the issues. In this case comparing CRT and LCD technology, as well as covering a ton of screens.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I sex0r your mom (-1, Offtopic)

my brain hurts (451541) | about 13 years ago | (#2837943)

Hey Bill Belsey, I sex0r your mom.

Props to the HTMFers

13" (0, Troll)

hogsback (548721) | about 13 years ago | (#2837953)

13" is way to small for me and, I suspect, most developers.

Try again next year.

Re:15" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2837961)

Typo : meant 15", obviously.

Re:13" (-1)

trollercoaster (250101) | about 13 years ago | (#2837968)

13" is too small for this [goatse.cx] gentleman as well.

Re:13" (2)

laserjet (170008) | about 13 years ago | (#2837971)

smart guy, he is reviewing thirteen different monitors, not 13" monitors. or are you jsut trolling?

Re:13" (2)

yesthatguy (69509) | about 13 years ago | (#2837982)

They're not 13" monitors, there are 13 monitors. As far as I can tell, most seem to be 15". I haven't seen a 13" LCD for a while now, and doubt it would sell, much less be worth reviewing.

Re:13" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2837999)

I know ... 15" is still too small.

Re:13" (1)

st0rmshad0w (412661) | about 13 years ago | (#2838039)

Actually, I'd LOVE a cheap, small (10" - 13") LCD, I need something to mount in my car.

Yeah, I'm a geek. Sue me.

Re:13" (0, Offtopic)

ratguy (248395) | about 13 years ago | (#2838113)

And here I thought the world record was 12"

Or do you require all your lovers to have implants?

Quality? (1)

jargoone (166102) | about 13 years ago | (#2837954)

Has anyone actually seen an LCD with good quality? Admittedly the ones I've seen were in stores, maybe sucky ones hooked up to sucky displays, but they all looked like crap. It reminded me of my first .39 dot pitch monitor.

Re:Quality?--it's the stores that suck! (5, Informative)

coats (1068) | about 13 years ago | (#2837986)

LCDs display much better at their design resolutions than at other resolutions (think about it--you might say that they have "hard-coded" pixels, instead of "wherever the electron beam hits.") Stores, unfortunately, don't bother to set them up like this, and instead run their display samples at some stupid resolution like 800x600 that is way off the actual resolution of the screen. Result: they look horrible.

A properly set-up LCD running at its design resolution looks sharp!

LCD is really sharp (1)

bildstorm (129924) | about 13 years ago | (#2838031)


When I first got my laptop I was blown away by how sharp everything was. I'm so used to using LCDs that I request laptops at work just to make sure that I get an LCD.

The real downside has been watching DVDs on it. So sharp I notice every glaring compression error.

Re:Quality?--it's the stores that suck! (2, Informative)

jamesidm (244299) | about 13 years ago | (#2838089)

I am on a philips brilliance 150P2 right now and the quality is fantastic. There is a slight blur when you scoll, but it is nothing that stands out unless you are actually looking for it, and even then it is not really a problem and occurs on all LCDs.
The best thing about it is being able to pivot the monitor to play vertical mame games vertically. It works great in linux as well :)

Dare I say it? (1)

word munger (550251) | about 13 years ago | (#2838004)

The Apple 15-inch LCD is very sharp, bright, and looks awesome even from an angle. I'm sure some of these newer VGA models are also in that league, but I haven't seen them, so I can't really comment there.

LCD's and pre-press? (2, Insightful)

geigertube (265640) | about 13 years ago | (#2838163)

It looks like from the 'CRT vs. LCD' section in the article that LCDs pretty much suck for accurate pre-press work. (lack of accurate/high quality color, color depth, contrast, and gamma) Which, if I understand things correctly, is a major portion of Apples market. Are the apple LCDs just that much better, or are they leaving the market for pre-press monitors to third parties?

Re:Quality? (3, Informative)

jarodss (243400) | about 13 years ago | (#2838008)

Check out one of these [apple.com] , yes it's an Apple Cinema Display, but take a look at one, they are simply amazing, they are a piece of art, yes it requires a $50CND dongle to go from Mac-DVI for PC users, and I am a pc user, but they are so worth the money, they are great monitors.

Re:Quality? (1)

e1en0r (529063) | about 13 years ago | (#2838230)

I have a Samsung Syncmaster 170mb 17" LCD [samsungusa.com] and it looks excellent. It's also got a TV tuner built in, which I haven't had as much luck with though. I've played a little PS2 on it and it looks pretty bad. But for a monitor it's great.

Slashdot is the Tom's Update Notification (4, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | about 13 years ago | (#2837956)

When a new story is posted at Tom's, it gets front page status here. Shouldn't there be a "daily updates at well known hardware sites" category for those of us who go to those sites anyways? I just don't see what the point behind Slashdot getting cluttered with a "posting notification" for Tom's, Sharky, Anandtech, etc.

Maybe it has a slashbox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2838119)

That would be the answer.

Samsung screwed the pooch (1, Interesting)

quantem placet (48566) | about 13 years ago | (#2837959)

telling Tom's to take a hike. Great bit of negative web publicity, that.

Re:Samsung screwed the pooch - Boycott (1, Insightful)

Molina the Bofh (99621) | about 13 years ago | (#2838042)

I am going to buy a dozen monitors at my work place, they probably would be Samsung, but if they think "Tom's Hardware is just a website, not a magazine." then their mentality is what ? 10 years late ? They couldn't be more stupid.

I, as a consumer, have been underrated by Samsung. I *just* check websites, and it's been a long time since I don't buy computer magazines. I am taking it personal. They don't want web users as consumers ? Fine. I will boycott Samsung. As a system administrator, taking care of 100+ machines, will NEVER more buy Samsung again. I am officially boycotting Samsung.
Suggest you guys do the same. And write letters to Samsung, so they can learn how they screwed up.

And, FYI, I am in no way related to Tom's Hardware.

Re:Samsung screwed the pooch - Boycott (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2838081)

I, for one, could give a shit that Tom's didn't get a monitor, and you're a reactionary wannabee libertarian fanboy. Go read the reviews on the web from publications that have a dead tree arm, and quitcher bitchin.

Also, no one cares how many machines you take care of, for Chrissake.

Re:Samsung screwed the pooch (2, Funny)

platos_beard (213740) | about 13 years ago | (#2838225)

I'm sure someone at Samsung profoundly regrets the sales lost (both of them) by withholding monitors from Tom.

iMac (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2837963)

With its new form factor, is there anyone else but me interested in a non-MacOS, non-Linux iMac?

Microsoft, take me away!

The industrial design that went into the box (it's not even really a box) with an LCD screen attached is great.

Tom Pabst (2, Informative)

Sivar (316343) | about 13 years ago | (#2837965)

Actually, unless it is Tom himhelft doing the review, Tom's Hardware is widely known for fairly bad reviews. Take a look at:
http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboard/01q4/01112 6/ index.html
...which says that the KT266a chipset "blows away" the NForce, when the performance differences are right around 2-3%.
Overall, I still like the site and most pf the reviews, though.

Re:Tom Pabst (1)

Liquid(TJ) (318258) | about 13 years ago | (#2838138)

And in some tests, that 2-3% are in favor of the nForce! I know quite a few people that are MORE likely to buy Samsung now that they've smacked down THG.

the year of the LCD... (4, Insightful)

Rev.LoveJoy (136856) | about 13 years ago | (#2837977)

Will be the year the average 17" LCD costs under $500. Witness the history of the CRT and what business has been willing to spend...

-- RLJ

Re:the year of the LCD... (4, Insightful)

Tyrall (191862) | about 13 years ago | (#2838104)

The difference in size between a decent 15" LCD ($500-$600 currently) and your 15.9" viewable '17 inch' screen is not massive.

The problem with getting that lower price is that the manufacturers are seeing LCD as a cash cow, and a quick and easy method of getting their development costs back.

Re:the year of the LCD... (2)

Rev.LoveJoy (136856) | about 13 years ago | (#2838231)

The cash cow point is a good one. I well remember 17" CRTs that were $800 and up. However, I also remeber the defacto standard size for a monitor going from 13" to 15" to finally 17" for you typical office PeeCee with the price dropping accordingly.

I'm not sure what would be the 'standard' sized CRT today. Any new CRT that I purchase for my business is 19" (desktop space permitting), but I don't expect that I set the standard. :-)

I think most users see the 19" CRS and the 17" LCDs as being analgous. However, you can get a good 19" CRT for $600 while with a decent 17" LCD, the price is still in the clouds.

-- RLJ

Samsung France... (2, Redundant)

GypC (7592) | about 13 years ago | (#2837981)

...really needs to get a clue.

"Tom's Hardware is just a website, not a magazine. The testing monitors are reserved for the press."


The Turd Report 01/14/2002 (-1, Troll)

The Turd Report (527733) | about 13 years ago | (#2837983)

I had two Whoppers w/Cheese and no lettuce last night. It is the first fast food I have had for several months. My body reacted by turning it into a turd with brick-like hardness. It was a big turd, about 5cm across and 30cm long. It was a generic brown. It took a solid minute of pushing to get it out. It stunk like cod fish oil; which, due to my medications, is not shocking. The turd was so hard, it would not flush. It just sat there. A janitor had to come and extract it from the bowl. It was carried out in a little baggie. People retched. I laughed. i rate this turd as an 9, due to trouble it caused others and making people want to barf.

Where/when is OLED? (1)

st0rmshad0w (412661) | about 13 years ago | (#2837987)

Personally I'm inclined to wait for the OLED displays I keep hearing rumors about. They should be at least as good and much cheaper (and lighter) because they don't need a backlight. LCD's are still just to pricey when I can get a decent 19" CRT for about $300.

Re:Where/when is OLED? (2)

coats (1068) | about 13 years ago | (#2838095)

At least the current technology for OLEDs has a problem: has a much shorter lifetime than the other competing technologies -- how would you like it if your monitor "faded out" after 6 months' use (at 40 hours a day, that's about the lifetime of current OLEDs). Sad. :-(

Re:Where/when is OLED? (2, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | about 13 years ago | (#2838117)

There's 40 hours in a day now? Now I have to buy a new watch....

Re:Where/when is OLED? (2)

coats (1068) | about 13 years ago | (#2838205)

There's 40 hours in a day now?
Oops! I knew my job was getting to me! Should have said "40 hours a week

Re:Where/when is OLED? (3, Funny)

tommck (69750) | about 13 years ago | (#2838186)

I heard that the OLED monitors were superceded by the COMD monitors. COMD monitors are supposed to rule!

Oh wait... COM+D monitors rock!

Wait... this is the last time, I promise: .NetD monitors kick ass!

T :-)

hopefully more than 10 words! (2, Redundant)

laserjet (170008) | about 13 years ago | (#2837988)

I noticed that we

got more than 10

words per page with

this review, but

not much more!

Samsung - Too bad (2)

bildstorm (129924) | about 13 years ago | (#2837991)

I don't know about you guys, but Tom's is one of the prime places I check out for hardware reviews. I don't trust most print sites for the news, like ZDNet, as they easily sell out.

If Samsung thinks Tom's is just an online site, well, they've lost my business. And I really want an LCD. I HATE flicker.

Re:Samsung - Too bad (1)

1stflight (48795) | about 13 years ago | (#2838053)

Same here when making my buying choices, Zdnet, Pcmag are on the bottom of my go-to list. Anandtech, Toms and always on top. In fact my current motherboard, processor (Athlon), even memory are direct results of thier reviews. Funny, I consider them part of the press.

Re:Samsung - Too bad (1)

archen (447353) | about 13 years ago | (#2838101)

Yeah, I find it rather odd that Samsung gave them the shaft. I mean Tom's is a fairly respectable site. I find it hard to believe that sending out an LCD for a review is a lot more expensive than a TV add. And at least on a hardware review page you have people that are actually interested in purchasing one (or at least want to know more about it), as opposed to prime time TV ads that get shown to people like joe-bob in the trailer park who doesn't even own a computer. Samsung needs to get with the program. From what I've seen, most people into computer stuff do not read magazines for their information. I know I don't. Most computer magazines that I get at work, have week old information I've already read up on many times over on the web. I don't like sifting through magazines that are 80% microsoft ads, nor do I think it's worth paying for them. To me, I can probably visit 5 or 6 hardware sites and get a much better picture of what's going on, than reading a magazine.

Re:Samsung - Too bad (5, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | about 13 years ago | (#2838154)

> I don't know about you guys, but Tom's is one of the prime places I check out for hardware reviews.

Tom's used to be

the same for me.

But when it took

longer to render

each of the 20 pages


at one paragraph

per pageview and

4-5 banner ads,

I stopped reading

Tom's Hardware


Which is a shame -- I cut my PC-hardware teeth in the early Pentium-I era learning about the distinctions between chipsets, the various busses and their overclockability, etc. at Tom's. Now I go to Anand, or any other similar site that features a "Print this!" button on their pages, and/or at least more than one sentence per pageview.

That said, Samsung was pretty braindead to dismiss hardware websites as inferior to print magazines as sources for reviews. Particularly for leading-edge products (like LCD panels), you've gotta get the early-adopter mindshare, and I don't know any early adopters who get their tech information from dead trees anymore. (By the time the dead-tree magazine is printed, half the information in it, and all the pricing, is obsolete.)

Redundant Title (0, Flamebait)

the_1000th_Monkey (191263) | about 13 years ago | (#2837992)

LCD Display?! That irks me just as bad as PIN Number!! If you must not end a sentence with an acronym, say LCD screen at least. *shudder* I need a cold shower now, thanks!

Re:Redundant Title (1)

Russ Steffen (263) | about 13 years ago | (#2838056)

LCD display
CRT tube
ATM machne
PIN number
GPS system
SSN number

It's fun when acronyms become words.

Re:Redundant Title (2, Insightful)

UCRowerG (523510) | about 13 years ago | (#2838109)

Yep! LASER, MODEM, FLOPS, MIPS, SNAFU, BIT (okay, that might be stretching it a little)....

Re:Redundant Title (1)

RatOmeter (468015) | about 13 years ago | (#2838139)

The acronym commonly called GPS is really GPSS or, correctly, GPS System [Global Positioning Satellite System].

Re:Redundant Title (2, Insightful)

Tackhead (54550) | about 13 years ago | (#2838165)

> LCD display
> CRT tube
> ATM machne
> PIN number
> GPS system
> SSN number
> >
> It's fun when acronyms become words.

Hey! You forgot GNU's Not UNIX! ;)

Re:Redundant Title (1)

UCRowerG (523510) | about 13 years ago | (#2838073)

While I agree that it seems redundant, if you interpret "LCD" as describing a kind of technology, then the acronym becomes an adjective modifying a noun. In this sense, it could be considered (somewhat) grammatically correct.

Either way, I think I would still opt to write "LCD monitor" or something just to be safe.

Samsung screwed up (2)

revscat (35618) | about 13 years ago | (#2837997)

THG's complaint about Samsung sure is interesting. From the letter Samsung sent to Tom's:

Tom's Hardware is just a website, not a magazine. The testing monitors are reserved for the press."

Umm, hello? I'd be willing to bet that THG has a higher readership than most hardware oriented print publications. Tom's is damn-near the definitive source for these things, is respected, and well-read. I can't believe Samsung screwed up like this.

Oh well. I've never cared for Samsung much anyway.

- Rev.

Re:Samsung screwed up (3, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | about 13 years ago | (#2838088)

So you wouldn't buy from one of the LCD market/value leaders because they didn't cater to Tom's crew? As far as your feelings on Tom's, I don't know if you'd find industry wide agreement: I personally have seen some bizarro conclusions, and some personal biases and agendas (i.e. like issues like this where he or his crew didn't get a sample in a timely manner and it turns into a personal agenda against whichever company he doesn't like that week). I have little respect for any reviews that rely upon the goodwill of companies either: If Tom's is all that successful that they deserve such props then they should head down to the latest computer store and pick up the monitors (so they're testing actual retail samples rather than picks of the litter), selling them at auction or whatever afterwards to recoup most of the cost. Otherwise they end up in this "love/hate" relationship with OEMs and it seriously affects every review: there is always a colour of bias.

Tom Missed the #1 LCD Monitor!!! (5, Interesting)

toupsie (88295) | about 13 years ago | (#2838005)

Guess Tom isn't cool enough or rich enough to get his hands on Apple's 22 "Cinema Display [apple.com] . It is the best LCD monitor on the market for consumers. The only problem is that it is out of the price range of everyone except Steve Jobs.

This is the only piece of hardware I have ever drooled over!

Re:Tom Missed the #1 LCD Monitor!!! (1)

laserjet (170008) | about 13 years ago | (#2838029)

Steve jobs only gets paid $1 a year from apple! How could he afford that?

Oh... you must be talking about his millions of stock options and bonuses...

Re:Tom Missed the #1 LCD Monitor!!! (3, Interesting)

Bilestoad (60385) | about 13 years ago | (#2838055)

The Apple Cinema Display works just fine on a PC. Either the DVIator (Dr. Bott) or the DVI-to-ADC box from Gefen will take the DVI output from a GeForce-based card and allow use of the Cinema Display. Best of all, standard drivers include support for the 1600x1024 optimum resolution. With an OS supporting sub-pixel anti-aliasing the results are awesome.

Re:Tom Missed the #1 LCD Monitor!!! (1)

yggdrazil (261592) | about 13 years ago | (#2838148)

Yup. And Apple's LCD-displays are really good. I'm fortunate enough to have one at my OS X workstation, and it really is a blessing for my eyes.

The digital input (ADC on newer displays, DVI on older) are just great. It makes the pixels much crisper than other analog LCD that I've tried.

The built in USB hub is practical.

Even the power-button on the display can be configured to turn off either just the display or the whole machine if you want that.

I'll never go back to a CRT.

Re:Tom Missed the #1 LCD Monitor!!! (3, Funny)

automatic_jack (181074) | about 13 years ago | (#2838172)

"Thank God Sex is not licensed under GPL or everyone would get to watch! -- me"

No, if sex were licensed under the GPL, everyone would get to join in.

Re:Tom Missed the #1 LCD Monitor!!! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2838217)

"No, if sex were licensed under the GPL, everyone would get to join in."

No, is sex were licensed under the GPL, I wouldn't have to pay for it. ;)


IBM C220 is #1, VS VP230mb is #2!! (3, Interesting)

coats (1068) | about 13 years ago | (#2838179)

Actually, I like the Viewsonic VP230mb (see http://www.viewsonic.com/products/lcd_vp230mb.cfm [viewsonic.com] ) better than the Apple Cinema Display. It has the same 1600x1200 resolution, by the way.

And it is compatible with other things than Macs (as the cinema display is not). The best price I can find on it is $3940; the list is $5370.

Even better is the IBM C220, at about 3Kx2.5K, but it requires a special IBM graphics card and special drivers. Moreover, it runs $21,000.

HW/SW question for slashdotters: For my next system, I'm thinking of getting either a 1920x1440 or a 1600x1200 LCD (probably the VS VP201, instead of the 230--I can afford it better). I like large virtual displays under Linux/XFree86 (currently I'm running 2Kx1.5K that seems to be the most that nVidia will support under XFree86). What graphics card should I choose to be able to get VIRTUAL 3200 2000?

Re:IBM C220 is #1, VS VP230mb is #2!! (1)

Bilestoad (60385) | about 13 years ago | (#2838296)

Clearly you don't know much about the Apple Cinema Display.

It is not 1600x1200, it is 1600x1024.

It is not compatible with anything but a Mac out of the box but there are two products that allow it to be used with a video card that outputs DVI.

LCDs by nature are sharper than CRTs (5, Informative)

yerricde (125198) | about 13 years ago | (#2838022)

In addition to the advantages and drawbacks given in this section of the article [tomshardware.com] , color LCD technology is inherently sharper than CRT. Because of the inherent misregistration of the red, green, and blue planes of pixels, it's possible to address sub-pixels individually, resulting in a nearly threefold improvement in the effective horizontal resolution. More info is available here [grc.com] , Slashdot covered it here [slashdot.org] , and software to sharpen bitmap images on LCDs is available here [pineight.com] .

PC LCDs vs Mac LCDs (1)

nachoman (87476) | about 13 years ago | (#2838023)

Since Apple has not put all it's eggs in one basket, going to all LCDs and trashing the CRTs... We finally get to see how they compare up to other LCDs...

Or maybe they won't review any Apple products...

I though for sure they would with all the hype behind the LCD iMac and such. Oh well.

Why you should wait for OLED (0, Troll)

va_willy (546726) | about 13 years ago | (#2838032)

A couple of months ago, I was hell-bent on purchasing a new flat screen LCD monitor. I learned the hard way that these devices are nothing more than overpriced toys [aibo.com] that have few advantages over a CRT monitor. After buying and returning three LCD panels, I come to share my experiences with you. This is what I found out:
  • Price. Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that LCDs cost about 5-7 times a comparable CRT. The simple fact of the matter is that manufacturers understand how to make CRTs well, and the same cannot be said of LCDs.
  • Picture quality. All of my LCDs had a terrible viewing angle - no better than 15 degrees to either side. Furthermore, ghosting was a big problem with games (even with active matrix, or DSTN, displays), and all of my units had several always-dark or always-light pixels. This should not come as a surprise, as most manufacturers will tolerate shipping units that have as many as 25 or 30 broken pixels.
  • Weight. OLED products promise to significantly reduce the weight of the display, because they will not require so much glass to produce.
  • Durability. LCD displays are scads more sensitive to EMF, shock, and time than CRT displays are. Dropping my CRT resulted in a few scratches; dropping an LCD results in a sloppy mess and a couple hundred dollars down the tubes.
  • Compatibility. I had problems getting two out of the three LCD monitors to run with Linux. Since they rarely use a standard VGA connector, they require a proprietary video card which sometimes will not have open source driver support. Given that I run an all-open source shop this was unacceptable.
What will OLED help address? Well, the simple answer is "everything." I have tested prototype OLED displays and I would recommend them over anything the LCD manufacturers offer. LCD is a technology that deserves to die, and I only hope that we will be giving it a proper burial in short order.


Re:Why you should wait for OLED (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2838074)

Yeah right, like anyone at VA can afford a LCD monitor. Back to your 486 before you get fired!

Re:Why you should wait for OLED (1)

kawaichan (527006) | about 13 years ago | (#2838092)

Large OLED screen is still way off though, OLED will come up on smaller devices first, Motolora's Timeport uses a OLED screen. Next step is a PDA screen then to monitor.

I thought the lifespan of the screen is pretty short, way shorter than LCD/CRT, anyone can comment on that?

OLED should be the future or at least I hope.

Re:Why you should wait for OLED (1)

ergo98 (9391) | about 13 years ago | (#2838151)

"Proprietary" video cards are any of a slew of different video cards (all major videocards) that support digital addressing of LCD displays: What you're really asking is "Does your OS only support obsolete video cards, or fairly recent ones". You can of course get analog fed LCDs as well.

As far as dropping computer hardware: Ignoring the fact that LCDs weigh a tiny portion of a similar CRT (and hence are that much easier to move in a low risk manner, and have much less kinetic energy when they do fall due to the vastly decreased weight), I'm not really in the habit of dropping my hardware and that qualification weights incredibly low on the list. Having said that, you tend to not see CRTs on laptops but there are loads of LCDs out there...

Viewing angle would be a problem if it weren't for the fact that I spend all computing time at a perpindicular angle to my display. In other words for most users that is a moot point anyways.

The LCD price issue is 100% a chicken/egg situation: The few who buy LCDs are paying for the entire R&D and production ramp-up, but technically each LCD monitor SHOULD cost far less than a CRT. In any case the price of a good quality LCD is generally about 2x the price of a good quality monitor (comparing a 15" LCD versus a `17"' CRT). In any case the contention that vendors don't know how to make LCDs seems dubious given the millions of laptops out there...

You didn't look at any good LCD monitors, then. (2)

John Miles (108215) | about 13 years ago | (#2838168)

A good LCD monitor will exhibit almost no ghosting in games, will support either standard VGA or DVI, and will have a viewing angle well over 100 degrees.

I'm sure the OLED displays will be insanely awesome and all, but the present-day reality is that the best LCD displays are now reasonably competitive with the best CRTs. You must have been looking at some really cheap LCD monitors -- or some really old ones -- in order to get the impressions you posted.

DSTN (2)

mattdm (1931) | about 13 years ago | (#2838180)

not to nitpick... okay, to nitpick a little bit.... but DSTN is a passive-matrix LCD technology. Active matrix is TFT.

Re:DSTN (2)

mattdm (1931) | about 13 years ago | (#2838198)

or maybe you meant not to put commas around "or DSTN". which turns this into a punctuation nitpick. which i'm sorry about. :)

Then don't drop it!!! (2)

toupsie (88295) | about 13 years ago | (#2838191)

Dropping my CRT resulted in a few scratches; dropping an LCD results in a sloppy mess and a couple hundred dollars down the tubes.

Why the hell are you dropping your monitor in the first place? You put the monitor on your desk not on your lap! Just because its an LCD doesn't make it a notebook.

Re:Why you should wait for OLED (3, Interesting)

dschuetz (10924) | about 13 years ago | (#2838193)

Price. Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that LCDs cost about 5-7 times a comparable CRT

Yes, they're expensive. But getting cheaper, especially the 15" ones. OLEDs won't be any cheaper when they start getting produced, either, I'm sure...

All of my LCDs had a terrible viewing angle - no better than 15 degrees to either side.

I think that's improved dramatically -- most of the units in the review (which I only had time to skim) look like they do 120-160 degrees, not 30 degrees like you seem to have gotten...

OLED products promise to significantly reduce the weight of the display, because they will not require so much glass to produce.

Huh? I'm not sure that they'll really use any less glass, as I'd bet that the OLED screen will be behind some kind of protective screen, anyway. Regardless, as someone else pointed out, OLEDs are way off. And it's not like the LCD panels weigh 50 pounds like the old 21" monitors I used to lug around...

Durability. LCD displays are scads more sensitive to EMF, shock, and time than CRT displays are. Dropping my CRT resulted in a few scratches; dropping an LCD results in a sloppy mess and a couple hundred dollars down the tubes. And who knows if OLEDs won't be just as fragile -- they might be a really thin film that gets torn the second the glass breaks, leaving you with just as useless a monitor (though without the funky LCD ooze).

The same goes for laptops. Solution? Try not to drop it. Seriously. As long as they don't break in normal use (like, say, if your framed MCSE falls off the wall onto it when your office neighbor slamdances the wall), then this isn't that big a deal.

Compatibility. I had problems getting two out of the three LCD monitors to run with Linux. Since they rarely use a standard VGA connector, they require a proprietary video card which sometimes will not have open source driver support.

I really don't understand this one. Almost all displays have at least one standard VGA port. I've seen flat panels on all kinds of systems. There are some with digital video ports, and for those, yes, you need a special card and thus enter driver hell. But (again, I only skimmed) it looked like all the screens the review looked at should support Linux over standard VGA.

What kinds of screens were you trying? Were they all the same make/model, or did you try a sampling? Were they wacky mega-advanced things like the 16x9 SGI panel, or simple stuff you found at CompUSA?


Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2838235)

The parent comment is a hardcore troll, geeze people, get with it! STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS, dammit!

What i think.... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2838037)

I think that despite the steady drop in the prices of monitors since the beginning of the year, there has been a slight increase in prices, allegedly in response to climbing prices for panels. However, I fail to understand how this is possible, considering that panels generally cost about $15. In fact, the global price increases could have been offset against the higher sales growth in TFTs. Ironay anyone?

Why? (1)

sitturat (550687) | about 13 years ago | (#2838046)

Why would anyone want an LCD for a desktop computer? CRTs are cheaper and produce a better image.

What is the point of saving space when your PC has a massive, ugly case anyway? If desktop size and beauty are important to you then pick up an iMac.

Re:Why? (2)

Tackhead (54550) | about 13 years ago | (#2838229)

> What is the point of saving space when your PC has a massive, ugly case anyway? If desktop size and beauty are important to you then pick up an iMac.

Agreed - for now, I'm a CRT bigot, and I'll remain a CRT bigot until such time as LCDs can give me better resolution and better refresh rates (that is, less flicker when scrolling/gaming) than CRTs at a comparable price.

LCDs have gotten good. Damn good. For instance, I'd no longer hesitate to use a laptop as my main "work" computer today.

But for home use - where I'm planning on using it as a computer, TV, DVD player, and gaming box (YMMV, of course), I'm sticking with CRTs.

The limiting factor for CRTs (for me) isn't relative footprint, it's absolute footprint.

That is, if you offered me a choice between a 24" LCD, a 19" CRT, and a 24" CRT, I'd likely go with the 19" CRT, because that's all that fits on my desk unless I start carving holes in the drywall.

If, a year or two from now, someone develops a tech to narrow the depth of the tube and allow that 24" CRT to fit in the same "depth" as a present-day 19" or 17" CRT, I'll choose it over even a 24" LCD. Sure, the hypothetical 24" LCD gives me more desk space -- but that's space behind the screen, which I never use anyways.

(And on the 24" front -- considering the problems inherent with LCDs and wide viewing angles, how are present-technology LCDs ever going to scale beyond 21"?)

Personally, I think we're going to wind up with micromechanical systems and retinal projection in the long run. Isn't the human eyeball's limit something like 4096x4096x32-bit?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2838271)

A good deal of people keep their cases under the desk. In terms of desktop space an LCD can save you a lot of space (assuming case is under your desk)

Because... (2)

virg_mattes (230616) | about 13 years ago | (#2838294)

The PC case doesn't have to sit on the desktop, but it's a safe argument that the monitor does. Small desk plus 19' CRT means early blindness from sitting two feet away from it, and wrist cramps from having your keyboard crammed on to the same small geography. With a flat panel, you can recover a huge amount of desktop (meatspace desktop, that is) so you can work more comfortably.


Ars Technica LCD buyers guide (5, Informative)

Digital_Quartz (75366) | about 13 years ago | (#2838061)

On a related note, Ars Technica recently pushed out a Flat Panel buyer's guide [arstechnica.com] .

one he missed.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2838066)

KDS RAD5 [kdscanada.ca] . Traditionally low-brow brand, but damn good monitor. one of the sharpest 15" LCD. Only 1024x768, though. Can be had for $300 or less.

Re:one he missed.. (2)

coats (1068) | about 13 years ago | (#2838275)

I bought my wife a KDS 17 last fall for her new home system, ahd she loves
, Beautifully sharp, good contrast and viewing angle, and only about $600.

My LCD is better for my eyes (5, Informative)

peterdaly (123554) | about 13 years ago | (#2838079)

As someone who sits in front of computers all day who has a preference for ungodly high resolutions, my laptop has really helped my eyes. I recently got a Dell Laptop with a 15" 1600x1200 LCD display. For years my eyes have not been great. Not bad enough to really need glasses, but enough to bug me every now and then. Since I started using the LCD, I have had ever decreasing eye problems.

The screen is so much sharper than any CRT at high resolutions. I am starting to consider replacing my 21" sony trinitron (sp?) on my home desktop machine with an LCD. I want more screen real-estate than these 13" screens, but the prices keep coming down.

If you have eye problems as a result of using a CRT all day long, I highly recomend a high-res LCD.


What about dot pitch? (2)

sid_vicious (157798) | about 13 years ago | (#2838090)

Maybe I missed it in the review - but I didn't notice where they mentioned the dot pitch of the various LCD monitors. They cover technology type, response time, contrast ratio, and price, but I didn't notice any dot pitch ratings.

I recently had to bite the bullet and buy a new monitor. I considered buying a flat panel screen for a while, but among the (many many) reasons for not buying one was that the dot pitch sucked. After having a 15" Trinitron with a .25 mm dot pitch for five years, I can't go back to those awful, grainy flat panels.

So, I ended up buying a 19" Trinitron (think it's a .24 mm dot pitch). Cost me less than a 17" flat panel, better dot pitch, good refresh. Just had to pull my desk out 6" from the wall to handle it, and that's just fine with me.

Re:What about dot pitch? (2, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | about 13 years ago | (#2838178)

Well if it's a Trinitron then it's not dot pitch, it's strip pitch. Stripe pitch is always smaller than dot pitch, even on comparable monitors, the reason is is that for a given pixel you need 3 colors r,g,b and the stripes are arrange like this |||| so the size of a pixel = 3*stripe pitch. For a conventional crt the phosphors are arranged in a triangular configuration, so the average pixel size is between 2 and 2.5 times the dot pitch. That is why the numbers are not directly comparable.

Why no Apple Displays? (2, Insightful)

osOpinion.com (263889) | about 13 years ago | (#2838098)

Apple makes some incredible displays [apple.com] , yet Tom didn't mention any of them. Is this anti-Apple bias or simply an oversight?

It's not as if Apple's monitors only work on their hardware.

Re:Why no Apple Displays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2838218)

Maybe because the monitor you linked to costs $2,400 and the ones they reviewed cost $500-600? If you want to spend that much you might as well get a projector and an old movie/slide screen.

What about video cards? (3, Informative)

MattRog (527508) | about 13 years ago | (#2838107)

I own a Dell Inspiron 8000 with a GORGEOUS 15.1" UltraXGA screen. It's wonderful to look at and sometimes it's even easier on my eyes then my dual 19" CRT system on my workstation.

However, from what I understand about LCD screens is that they need to be mated with particular video cards (digital, of course) in order to even come close to high-quality laptop LCDs. Laptop manufacturers mate the best LCDs with the best, tuned, video cards in order to achieve the best display out there. With a much wider array of desktop LCDs and video cards you'd be hard pressed to be able to perfectly match a digital video card to a LCD display without massive amounts of time, money, and trial-and-error.

OH NO! Windows is dying! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2838112)

It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: Windows is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Windows community when
recently IDC confirmed that Windows accounts for less than a fraction of 0.1
percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft
survey which plainly states that Windows has lost more market share
this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Windows
is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by
failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin
comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a nerd
to predict Windows's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Windoss
faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for
Windows because Windows is dying. Things are looking very bad for
Windows. As many of us are already aware, Windows continues to lose market
share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. Windows XP is the most
endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Windows leader
Bill gates states that there are 7000 users of Windows 2000. How many users
of Windows ME are there? Let's see. The number of Windows 2000 versus Windows ME
posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are
about 7000/5 = 1400 Windows ME users. Windows XP posts on Usenet are about
half of the volume of Windows ME posts. Therefore there are about 700
users of Windows XP. A recent article put Windows 98 at about 80 percent
of the Windows market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400
Windows 98 users. This is consistent with the number of Windows 98 Usenet

Due to the troubles at Redmond, abysmal sales and
so on, Windows went out of business and was taken over by
Internet Explorer who sell another troubled OS. Now Internet Explorer is also
its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major
surveys show that Windows has steadily declined in market share. Windows is
very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Windows
is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. Windows
continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at
this point in time. For all practical purposes, Windows is dead.

Fact: Windows is dead

Re:OH NO! Windows is dying! (-1, Offtopic)

First_In_Hell (549585) | about 13 years ago | (#2838159)

my anus hurts from that. Windows is dead, Linux is ass, BE is gone, MAC OS has negative 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000005% market share. The PC world is headed for a fucking fecal dark age.

Just get a used notebook (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | about 13 years ago | (#2838127)

My 12" tft display [baber.com] was only $500 plus it came with a p233, 32Mb, 6Gb, kybd, touchpad, cdrom, battery, sound and slots for wireless net cards to plug VNC into any box I want. It runs Linux and Win2k just fine.

(the link above is a little skimpy on disk size, 2G doesn't cut it for me).

So the display holds other LCD devices? (1, Funny)

jkerman (74317) | about 13 years ago | (#2838130)

Have you seen the VIN number on my car? its the same as the PIN number on my LCD display.

anyone know where an ATM machine is?

Ignorance is bliss!

Re:So the display holds other LCD devices? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2838219)

Windows 2000: Built on NT technology.

What about Apple? (1, Insightful)

First_In_Hell (549585) | about 13 years ago | (#2838141)

How come nobody ever included Apple's flat panels in these roundups? It is my understanding that they will work with PC's as well as Macs and the image quality was amazing.

I was in a store watching a DVD on one of their widescreen studo displays and it was breahtaking.

Even for PC users these things should be considered.

Re:What about Apple? (2)

cheinonen (318646) | about 13 years ago | (#2838242)

Newer Apple LCD's (the ones they could get review versions of in theory) now use a special Apple display connector so they won't work with any other computers besides Apple. I think I saw there might be a DVI converter that a 3rd party makes, but they basically made their 24" Cinema Display Mac only.

Samsung.... (4, Informative)

John Miles (108215) | about 13 years ago | (#2838149)

Samsung's flat-panel product line is fairly easy to summarize, even without a formal review. I looked closely at several different models when upgrading my monitor late last year.

The Samsung 170T is godlike, especially with a DVI connection. It has a 400:1 contrast ratio, 0.26mm dot pitch, and it's bright enough to be painful to look at in dim light. The 160-degree viewing angle will remind you of a CRT. Oddly enough, it's not much more expensive than their (far inferior) 170MP and other 17" models.... which explains why most mail-order houses are usually sold out of the 170T.

I've replaced every CRT monitor in my house (three) with 170Ts, and couldn't be happier. There is only one dead pixel among the three.

Sadly, however, the other Samsung monitors are all junk, no better or worse than everything else in the slush pile at CompUSA. I imagine the 170T is blown away by the 210T, but those are even larger, more expensive, and (probably) harder to find.

e-mail to Samsung (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2838185)

Please find the e-mail I've sent to samsung france:
Samsung, really demonstrated a very big distance for the computer market. Tom's Hardware is one of the biggest if not the biggest hardware/software and whatever technological gadgets in the world. Samsung with this position makes me not to ever take a product from you, a company that is completely technologically out of this world (and I say this in a negative way).
Please consult their website, make a search on internet and inform yourself with whom you should play or not. http://www.tomshardware.com/display/02q1/020114/in dex.html

Re:e-mail to Samsung (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2838227)

I certainly hope that your paragraph is the result of a multipass Babelfish-fest.

Re:e-mail to Samsung (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2838239)

anyway it was for samsung france. Frenchs(Not all) are stupid and since it was for a stupid company I think there is no problem!

LCD sucks (-1, Troll)

SackMasterZero (550877) | about 13 years ago | (#2838210)


I rely on what I see... (2)

SevenTowers (525361) | about 13 years ago | (#2838260)

I have a 22 inch samsung (not france) CRT monitor. Apart from the fact that the first one failed miserably and Samsung replaced it without a glitch, it works perfectly. Not one burned pixel, perfect color and contrast, 2048*1536 32 bit at 85hz and no distortion. I have seen quite a few LCD monitors, and I AM NOT switching. The difference is just to great. Anything below or equal to 72 hz gives me a headache and I can clearly see it. I wonder how people can work with a 40hz maximum refresh rate and a resolution that is at best 1600*1200 9but for that you have to go in the 18 inch or above LCD and it costs 5000$) .02

Very bad review (5, Insightful)

RovingSlug (26517) | about 13 years ago | (#2838263)

Maybe I'm naive, but I'd say two very relevant qualities of an LCD display, hell any display, are size and resolution.

As far as I can tell, few to none of the "Test Tests" pages provide this information.

The "Conclusion" is actually just a summary of monitor properties with no rankings or opinions gathered presumably from a "review" process. Even then, the summary doesn't include size or resolution.

On the first page, there's no description why these values are not relevant nor significant for the review. Instead, there's three paragraphs regarding why Samsung-France is big and mean for not sending a unit to "review". Not only does that seem like last-page material, it seems unprofessional to even print.

Going back the introductory pages, I did find some references to "only of limited interest for a 15" monitor", and a few other references to "768 pixels". So, after correlating and cross-referencing text from a number of pages in the review, I can make the guess that all the monitors have 15" diagonal with max resolution 1024x768.

Considering the quality of both the review process and the journalism, Samsung was right to not send them a monitor. And, I'm right to resume my practice of never visiting Toms Hardware.

Tom's Hardware Guide is kind of shady (2)

Stiletto (12066) | about 13 years ago | (#2838266)

I stopped trusting THG after reading a glowing review of an nVIDIA video card blowing away the competition, while the page itself had a big ol nVIDIA advertisement at the top.

Sure, nVIDIA's hardware truly does rock, but how do we know that the only thing paid for was the little banner ad?

Then again, many, many print magazines pull the exact same shenanigans...

KDS RAD-5 !!! Awesome LCD!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2838283)

The KDS Rad-5 [slashdot.org] is just about the BEST Price / Performance LCD i've come across. About $350 , 15" and Ultra-thin. The quality is amazing, 300:1 contrast ratio does a good job to deliver nice whites. Check out this CNET Review [cnet.com] . Users rating is 90% Im not an anonymous coward, im just lazy!

Potential customer... (2)

singularity (2031) | about 13 years ago | (#2838293)

I have been looking to buy a 15" LCD in the near future. I had heard good things about the Samsung but I was disappointed to hear that they refused to provide Tom with a unit.

After looking around their web pages for about ten minutes, I finally was able to find an email address to express my displeasure.

Contact Samsung's PR department [samsungelectronics.com] .

I believe that Samsung makes the highly regarded Apple Studio monitors, as well.

One question I have (as I read through Tom's article) is why a DVI connection will put you back about $100 more than a similar VGA-only LCD.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?