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.
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.
