LCD Monitor Settings

Discussion in 'Computer Hardware' started by Elle Navorski, Dec 31, 2004.

  1. 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_Samsung_17_Flat_Panel_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.
     
    Elle Navorski, Dec 31, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Elle Navorski

    Guest

    On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 06:50:18 GMT, "Elle Navorski"
    <> 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/ClearTypePowerToy.mspx

    http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearType/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.
     
    , Dec 31, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Elle Navorski

    Noozer Guest

    "Elle Navorski" <> wrote in message
    news:KE6Bd.13244$...
    > 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.
     
    Noozer, Dec 31, 2004
    #3
  4. "" <> wrote
    > <> 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/ClearTypePowerToy.mspx
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearType/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.
     
    Elle Navorski, Dec 31, 2004
    #4
  5. "Noozer" <> wrote
    > "Elle Navorski" <> 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.
     
    Elle Navorski, Dec 31, 2004
    #5
  6. Elle Navorski

    Noozer Guest

    > > 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/ClearTypePowerToy.mspx
    > >
    > > http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearType/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.
     
    Noozer, Jan 1, 2005
    #6
  7. Elle Navorski

    Guest

    On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 19:46:04 GMT, "Elle Navorski"
    <> 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/ClearTypePowerToy.mspx
    >>
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearType/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.
    >
     
    , Jan 1, 2005
    #7
  8. Elle Navorski

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> ""
    <> 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.
     
    DevilsPGD, Jan 1, 2005
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Cyde Weys

    Re: Screen saver in LCD Monitor

    Cyde Weys, Jun 23, 2003, in forum: Computer Hardware
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    772
    Lieut
    Jun 24, 2003
  2. dave
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,171
  3. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    238
  4. Bartman

    Così per capire, monitor lcd o tv lcd?

    Bartman, Dec 29, 2006, in forum: Computer Hardware
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    232
    Bartman
    Dec 29, 2006
  5. VanguardLH
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    449
    VanguardLH
    Aug 26, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page