PC Review


Reply
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.

LCD Monitor Settings

 
 
Elle Navorski
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      31st Dec 2004
I have a new 17-inch flat-screen LCD Monitor: a Samsung SyncMaster 712 N.

Can someone recommend the best settings for this?

When I set the monitor to its native resolution of 1280 x 1024, the text is
too tiny to read easily.

Setting it to 1024 x 768 increases the text size, but there's still a bit
of blurriness.

Also, when I go to sites like www.nytimes.com, about 1/4 of the display is
empty (that is, white) on the right side of the screen, regardless of what
resolution is set.

Lastly, regardless of what the resolution is set to, my browser's menu
bar's letters (with the choices "File Edit View etc.) are very dim. The
letters at the NY Times site or in newsgroup posts are fine.

I have played with the Settings-Control Panel-Display-Font etc. settings,
but it's hard to nail down the perfect combination. Plus, one has to
re-start the computer after every change.

I am especially concerned about why the NY Times site does not fill the
screen.

The specs for my new monitor appear at:
http://www.shopping.com/xPF-Samsung_...el_LCD_Monitor

I see also that the monitor's controls have a menu for "image" that
includes adjustments labeled "coarse," "fine" and "sharpness." What are
these for? Experimenting with them doesn't tell me much.

I'm going to hit the manual on the CD and see if it has some clues.

Any help appreciated. I won't hesitate to return this if I can't get some
serious improvement in the display.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John@Smith.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      31st Dec 2004
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 06:50:18 GMT, "Elle Navorski"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I'm going to hit the manual on the CD and see if it has some clues.
>
>Any help appreciated. I won't hesitate to return this if I can't get some
>serious improvement in the display.


The only settings Ive changed are these:

Display settings /advanced/120 DPI
Theres an option right below to apply the change w/o restarting
though this doesnt always work.


Display /Appearance/Effects/
Use the following method to smooth edges of screen fonts - Cleartype

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...ePowerToy.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...pe/tuner/1.htm


Ive got the space on NY times and LA times etc. Im not sure but I
think they use fixed width formats so you cant change it. It doesnt
really bug me. You can change the text size but the width doesnt
change on the overall format. So that when you use a higher res the
page shrinks as a portion of the screen.

The letters - on my system I use the standard WIN XP colors but I use
the classic win option for menu. I get a gray background and black
letters so they really stand out on my browser. This can be changed I
think in the display appearance area.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noozer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      31st Dec 2004

"Elle Navorski" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:KE6Bd.13244$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I have a new 17-inch flat-screen LCD Monitor: a Samsung SyncMaster 712 N.
>
> Can someone recommend the best settings for this?
>
> When I set the monitor to its native resolution of 1280 x 1024, the text

is
> too tiny to read easily.


Make the fonts bigger with the display properties. Leave the resolution at
1280x1024.

> Setting it to 1024 x 768 increases the text size, but there's still a bit
> of blurriness.


Normal. LCD's only work well at their native resolution.


> Also, when I go to sites like www.nytimes.com, about 1/4 of the display is
> empty (that is, white) on the right side of the screen, regardless of what
> resolution is set.


Crappy website

> Lastly, regardless of what the resolution is set to, my browser's menu
> bar's letters (with the choices "File Edit View etc.) are very dim. The
> letters at the NY Times site or in newsgroup posts are fine.


Make the fonts bigger at the native resolution. Turn off cleartype if you
find the letters still fuzzy.

> I have played with the Settings-Control Panel-Display-Font etc. settings,
> but it's hard to nail down the perfect combination. Plus, one has to
> re-start the computer after every change.
>
> I am especially concerned about why the NY Times site does not fill the
> screen.


It's a poorly built website. Email them and complain.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Elle Navorski
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      31st Dec 2004
"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >I'm going to hit the manual on the CD and see if it has some clues.
> >
> >Any help appreciated. I won't hesitate to return this if I can't get

some
> >serious improvement in the display.

>
> The only settings Ive changed are these:
>
> Display settings /advanced/120 DPI
> Theres an option right below to apply the change w/o restarting
> though this doesnt always work.


Thanks. I set it over 150, and this helps a lot.

I think I'm getting one 'free' change without having to restart, then I
have to restart.

> Display /Appearance/Effects/
> Use the following method to smooth edges of screen fonts - Cleartype
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...ePowerToy.mspx
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...pe/tuner/1.htm


This is strictly for digital interface, right?

I have a 15-pin cable connector, so I have only analog, right?

Can I rebuild my hardware to achieve digital interface (21 pin connector,
among other things, I believe)? Will I get a notably better display if I
do? (Pardon if this question is naive. I have no idea but am learning
quickly.)

> Ive got the space on NY times and LA times etc. Im not sure but I
> think they use fixed width formats so you cant change it. It doesnt
> really bug me. You can change the text size but the width doesnt
> change on the overall format. So that when you use a higher res the
> page shrinks as a portion of the screen.


From what Noozer said, I am just about resigned to this disadvantage.

> The letters - on my system I use the standard WIN XP colors but I use
> the classic win option for menu. I get a gray background and black
> letters so they really stand out on my browser. This can be changed I
> think in the display appearance area.


The white background brightness is indeed bothering me, despite lowering
the brightness value. I'll experiment.

As I go to some of my favorite web sites, I sure am finding myself having
to change the display settings a lot. Last night I thought I nailed a good
configuration for general reading (using the natural resolution setting of
1280 x 1024) but now find that I get a lot of white space with the
finance.yahoo.com site (specific stock entries). This will make financial
research annoying unless I change the settings a lot.

I think my eyes are doing better insofar as glare is concerned. This was a
big problem with my old CRT monitor (and becoming moreso as I am in middle
age and my near sightedness is slowly deteriorating). Apart from glare and
desk space, though, my bulky old CRT monitor may be superior.

Has anyone else tried both and found themselves favoring the old workhorse
CRT?

Is it just a reality that the tradeoffs are definitely there for both for
most users? That is, a sub-$300 LCD (or even a more expensive LCD) is NOT
necessarily superior to an old CRT? I've googled and can't quite nail down
an answer to this question. They don't seem to talk about, for example, the
white space problem with the NY Times and finance.yahoo.com that I'm having
with my LCD monitor but don't have with my old CRT monitor.

Aside for the archives: I paid $400 for this monitor at Best Buy yesterday,
with $150 assured in manufacturer rebates. I think Circuit City has the
same deal right now.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Elle Navorski
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      31st Dec 2004
"Noozer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> "Elle Navorski" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> > I have a new 17-inch flat-screen LCD Monitor: a Samsung SyncMaster 712

N.
> >
> > Can someone recommend the best settings for this?
> >
> > When I set the monitor to its native resolution of 1280 x 1024, the

text
> is
> > too tiny to read easily.

>
> Make the fonts bigger with the display properties. Leave the resolution

at
> 1280x1024.
>
> > Setting it to 1024 x 768 increases the text size, but there's still a

bit
> > of blurriness.

>
> Normal. LCD's only work well at their native resolution.
>
>
> > Also, when I go to sites like www.nytimes.com, about 1/4 of the display

is
> > empty (that is, white) on the right side of the screen, regardless of

what
> > resolution is set.

>
> Crappy website
>
> > Lastly, regardless of what the resolution is set to, my browser's menu
> > bar's letters (with the choices "File Edit View etc.) are very dim. The
> > letters at the NY Times site or in newsgroup posts are fine.

>
> Make the fonts bigger at the native resolution. Turn off cleartype if you
> find the letters still fuzzy.


See my post to John about this. I'm not sure I can use this with an analog
interface(?).

> > I have played with the Settings-Control Panel-Display-Font etc.

settings,
> > but it's hard to nail down the perfect combination. Plus, one has to
> > re-start the computer after every change.
> >
> > I am especially concerned about why the NY Times site does not fill the
> > screen.

>
> It's a poorly built website. Email them and complain.


What feature of my old workhorse CRT eliminates the white space?

I'm still not sure I'm going to keep this monitor. I'm finding myself
having to change the display settings a lot as I move to some of my
favorite sites (finance.yahoo.com, NY Times, among others). Is this just
the price I pay for more desk space and less screen glare?

Thank you for your assistance.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Noozer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      1st Jan 2005
> > Display settings /advanced/120 DPI
> > Theres an option right below to apply the change w/o restarting
> > though this doesnt always work.

>
> Thanks. I set it over 150, and this helps a lot.


Although this seems to make things better, be aware that there are several
applications where changing the DPI to anything but default will screw up
dialog boxes, etc. to the point where you can't use the program.

> > http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...ePowerToy.mspx
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...pe/tuner/1.htm

>
> This is strictly for digital interface, right?


No... for ANY video interface. Has nothing to do with the type of monitor or
connection.

> The white background brightness is indeed bothering me, despite lowering
> the brightness value. I'll experiment.


Use the display properties to adjust the colour of the individual items on
the screen. Look on the Appearance tab under the Advanced button.

> As I go to some of my favorite web sites, I sure am finding myself having
> to change the display settings a lot. Last night I thought I nailed a good
> configuration for general reading (using the natural resolution setting of
> 1280 x 1024) but now find that I get a lot of white space with the
> finance.yahoo.com site (specific stock entries). This will make financial
> research annoying unless I change the settings a lot.


There are a LOT of website that used a very specific font size and you can't
make them bigger. Try using Firefox for your browser as you can adjust text
size much easier and much more that IE.

It really sounds like you should invest in a 19" monitor if you want to use
1280x1024 or move to a 17" that has 1024x768 as the native resolution.


 
Reply With Quote
 
John@Smith.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      1st Jan 2005
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 19:46:04 GMT, "Elle Navorski"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>Thanks. I set it over 150, and this helps a lot.


I had lots of concerns too. Even with my CRT I tended to use lower res
settings cause I didnt want all those problems with text and most
sites seem to be set for 800x600 or 1024x768.

But frankly the LCD screens are so crisp looking and the bright , I
can actually see text much more clearly on the LCD even at the native
res of 1280x1024 and Im using 120.

>I think I'm getting one 'free' change without having to restart, then I
>have to restart.
>
>> Display /Appearance/Effects/
>> Use the following method to smooth edges of screen fonts - Cleartype
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...ePowerToy.mspx
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...pe/tuner/1.htm

>
>This is strictly for digital interface, right?


They seem to be saying that but they also say its helps with CRTs and
they use analog connections. I use it and it does seem to be crisper
with the one weird thing of having slightly a red tinge in the letter
"l" but only in internet explorer in some backgrounds.

>I have a 15-pin cable connector, so I have only analog, right?
>
>Can I rebuild my hardware to achieve digital interface (21 pin connector,
>among other things, I believe)? Will I get a notably better display if I
>do? (Pardon if this question is naive. I have no idea but am learning
>quickly.)


Nope. You buy a LCD with DVI AND analog connector . The cheaper ones
tend not to have both just the analog 15 pin. This causes lots of
consumers to go aroun asking if such and such a deal has a DVI. But
all the overviews and reviews Ive read like Ive posted say there isnt
a whole lot of difference at the moment but who knows someone may
point to some review that claims it does.

>From what Noozer said, I am just about resigned to this disadvantage.


Im used to it now. It does seem to be a waste to have all that screen
space doing nothing but thats just the way it is.

>The white background brightness is indeed bothering me, despite lowering
>the brightness value. I'll experiment.


Yeah you can choose all kinds of colors , desktop styles or do your
own custom one. Ive tried that before and I get stuck endlessly
changing colors like being in quicksand so I stick with the
traditional colors.

>As I go to some of my favorite web sites, I sure am finding myself having
>to change the display settings a lot. Last night I thought I nailed a good
>configuration for general reading (using the natural resolution setting of
>1280 x 1024) but now find that I get a lot of white space with the
>finance.yahoo.com site (specific stock entries). This will make financial
>research annoying unless I change the settings a lot.


>I think my eyes are doing better insofar as glare is concerned. This was a
>big problem with my old CRT monitor (and becoming moreso as I am in middle
>age and my near sightedness is slowly deteriorating). Apart from glare and
>desk space, though, my bulky old CRT monitor may be superior.


Really? Ive been really skeptical about LCDs cause of the native res
issue leading the dinky text or weirdly proportioned text vs the
format of the pages and all that. Ive had a Sony before and got rid
of my Viewsonic 19" ultrabrite. The text just seems fuzzier and the
LCD screens are so much more crisper to me in regards to text that
though I am seeing smaller fonts , I can still read things much
easier. As well as the space savings - thats GIGANTIC to me and I have
a large desk glare as you point out. The novelty of having a thing
screen actually makes watching movies etc kind of fun at the moment.

>Has anyone else tried both and found themselves favoring the old workhorse
>CRT?


I actually was hanging on to my 1 yr old Viewsonic thinking I would
have to use both since I imagined I would get moderate ghosting on
games, murkiness for dark scenes in movies and games and weird and
hard to read text due to native res issues. However like all the
posters I read - consumer feedback at retail sites , everything is
pretty much "good enough" to the point it actually might be noticeably
worse (response time and murkiness as well color accuracy) but unless
someone points it out with critical tests --- I really dont notice it
that much to the point I got rid of my CRT after being paranoid about
having to rely only on my LCD. In fact Im 99% sure Im getting a 19"
tomorrow or so.

>Is it just a reality that the tradeoffs are definitely there for both for
>most users? That is, a sub-$300 LCD (or even a more expensive LCD) is NOT
>necessarily superior to an old CRT?


Actually the guides will tell you its not in various areas like I
mentioned. One is games - response times. Its noticeably slower. Its
a non-issue with CRTs but its something gamers obsess about. However
even the really weak points like this -- they dont REALLY seem to be
the big issue that some make it out to be if you read the avg
consumers reponse. They are playing even the fast games with 25ms
screens . The other color accuracy. LCDs actually seem better than
real life sometimes - the samething I noticed with digi cameras. I
mean when I got my first one I took pics and my eyeballs popped out.
Blues were so vivid etc --- I went "Is that the same street I just
took a pic of ?????" Things seem a bit overly saturated , tweaked up.
I went around taking pics of everything since everything looked so
darn good - colorful.

Also the sites say contrast ratios - the murkier scenes dont show the
fine gradations in games , movies. So you see some obsess over
contrast ratios - CRTs are said to get 700-800:1 but as many say the
numbers can be fudged for LCDs .

However most guides notes text seems crisper, clearer and LCDs can
be really bright. Ive always thought my CRTs seemed kind of dull even
after I bought my ULTRABRITE viewsonic. LCDs also all have improved
immensely. A few years ago no way would I spend $500-700 for a
screen that often looked weird, washed out etc. These post right now
to the newsgroup --- the text looks much clearer to me than on my CRTs
, I can read posts etc much easier. The white background in AGENT my
newsreader is brighter and whiter - it looks like theres more contrast
than my CRT.











> I've googled and can't quite nail down
>an answer to this question. They don't seem to talk about, for example, the
>white space problem with the NY Times and finance.yahoo.com that I'm having
>with my LCD monitor but don't have with my old CRT monitor.
>
>Aside for the archives: I paid $400 for this monitor at Best Buy yesterday,
>with $150 assured in manufacturer rebates. I think Circuit City has the
>same deal right now.
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
DevilsPGD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      1st Jan 2005
In message <(E-Mail Removed)> "(E-Mail Removed)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>I have a 15-pin cable connector, so I have only analog, right?
>>
>>Can I rebuild my hardware to achieve digital interface (21 pin connector,
>>among other things, I believe)? Will I get a notably better display if I
>>do? (Pardon if this question is naive. I have no idea but am learning
>>quickly.)

>
>Nope. You buy a LCD with DVI AND analog connector . The cheaper ones
>tend not to have both just the analog 15 pin. This causes lots of
>consumers to go aroun asking if such and such a deal has a DVI. But
>all the overviews and reviews Ive read like Ive posted say there isnt
>a whole lot of difference at the moment but who knows someone may
>point to some review that claims it does.


I've connected both DVI and analog at the same time (My LCD has 6
different inputs, including a couple DVI and a couple analog VGA ports)
and gone back and forth. The difference between the analog output
(after tweaking the video modes on the monitor) and the DVI output is
negligible. I doubt I could tell the difference in a blind test.

Personally, I don't plan to go back to analog video outputs though, for
one simple reason. When I'm using DVI, I don't have to tweak the
monitor when I happen to be using a non-standard resolution /
refresh-rate (usually as a result of a game or app that runs full
screen, or a full screen text mode).


--
Some people are like Slinkies... You can't help but
smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LG vx8100 housing,vx8100 LCD,vx8500 housing,vx8500 LCD,vx8600 housing,vx9900 LCD sale@cellphonepartszone.com Printers 0 30th Aug 2007 06:27 AM
Switching from a standard LCD monitor to a widescreen LCD monitor History Fan Windows XP General 4 18th Jun 2007 11:04 AM
dimensions - is the new 19" wide LCD as high as a 19" square lcd or 17'LCd rbt Video Cards 3 22nd Nov 2006 06:16 PM
LCD Monitor vs. LCD TV with PC input R.H. Video Cards 5 14th Feb 2005 11:52 AM
"lcd monitor" vs. "lcd/tv monitor" syrdave Video Cards 4 23rd Nov 2004 05:34 AM


Features
 

Advertising
 

Newsgroups
 


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:58 PM.