Your experience with both Viewsonic and LG?

[Yugo]

After only 4 years, my Samsung 950p gave up (I bought it as an end of line
model.) For no apparent reason, sometimes the sides get wobbly, and then,
from the center towards top and bottom, the screen gets fuzzy. If I change
screen resolution, it's OK. Then, it gets fuzzy and I must change
resolution again. Etc. Samsung suggested that they maybe could fix the
problem for approximately the price of a new 19" CRT monitor. Without the
guarantee, of course.

Sometimes the screen is absolutely perfect for an hour or two, so I doubt
it's a big problem but, for a lack of service at a decent price on a CRT
monitors, it seems I'll have to scrap it. Thanks Samsung! I'll remember you.

So, I'm considering 2 LCD monitors. The one that best fits my needs --
writing, browsing the net, looking at pictures, DVDs (well, maybe one day)
-- would be a LG L1952T, also sometimes refered to as L1952TX, apparently.
300 cd/m2, contrast 1400:1, DVI-I (standard DVI, I suppose?), 8ms. Picture
quality seems OK. Price: $289 CAN.

The Viewsonic VX922, is less bright (270 cd/m2), the contrast is not quite
as good (700:1, if I remember well), but it's a 2ms, a monitor for gamers.
Accordingly, it's $50 more expensive: $340 CAN.

Salesman ALL tell me that I'd be much better off with the Viewsonic. The
LGs apparently have dead pixels problems these days. They tell me that the
Viewsonic quality is much better. The VX922 looks like a hot seller for
Viewsonic, so maybe the price is set a bit lower than for other models.

But a friend, who knows more about electronics than I, told me that,
besides pixels dying, the main problem with LCDs is screen fade out. So,
unless Viewsonic's pretention that their light source has a 40,000 hrs
long life (other models have a 50,000 hour life expectancy, though) I
suppose I'd theoretically be better off with the LG.

But I'm not a gamer and never will be. My feeling with LG support is not
very good: they don't even have an 800 number for service!

What is your experience with both Viewsonic and LG? Which monitor would
you go for?

 

[John Smith]

After only 4 years, my Samsung 950p gave up (I bought it as an end of line
model.) For no apparent reason, sometimes the sides get wobbly, and then,
from the center towards top and bottom, the screen gets fuzzy. If I change
screen resolution, it's OK. Then, it gets fuzzy and I must change
resolution again. Etc. Samsung suggested that they maybe could fix the
problem for approximately the price of a new 19" CRT monitor. Without the
guarantee, of course.

Part of it depends on the region you live in. Not sure how service is
with both up in your area. Ive never had a problem with my Viewsonic
and my warranty is up --- only had a 1 yr on my particular model but
its fine for about 1.5 years so far. Theyve been getting top picks -
Viewsonic recently. My inclination is to look at both if they are in
stock and just choose on gut instinct. I think either one will
probably last a while and who knows when theyll be unusable. A power
surge or maybe you knocking it over etc may kill it far before the
backlight dies out etc.

Id be worried about bad pixels. I developed one partial bad pixel on
my Viewsonic after 6 months or so and it was REALLY annoying. It was
stuck on bright blue whenever there was a black background so it
really stuck out. It bugged me so much I was thinking about buying
another LCD and experiences like that really turn you off about a
brand. However and this sounds weird but I found I had a really bad
stick of memory in my system which was causing all sorts of weird
behavior ---- WIN XP corruption and crashing and HD crashing and
acting erratic etc. I was pulling my hair out swapping things in and
out and blaming things. I finally got a replacement stick when I
narrowed it down to that and ever since no partial bad pixel. Havent
had a problem since then. Im using my LCD HDTV screen now for my PC
but still have my Viewsonic. If I get either a widescreen 20" DELL or
Viewsonic Ill put this one on my 3rd system.

 

[kony]

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:28:16 -0400, Yugo

The one that best fits my needs --
writing, browsing the net, looking at pictures, DVDs (well, maybe one day)
-- would be a LG L1952T, >

Which monitor would you go for?

The one that best fits your needs.

 

[Gregory]

What is your experience with both Viewsonic and LG? Which monitor would
you go for?

This is probably down to chance and could happen with any brand, but a
friend of mine bought two of the Viewsonic monitors you mention, and both of
them have a stuck pixel (since day 1). I think you'd be happy with either
screen, so maybe you could just get whichever is more aesthetically pleasing
to you! Bet you haven't considered that

 

[Yugo]

This is probably down to chance and could happen with any brand, but a
friend of mine bought two of the Viewsonic monitors you mention, and both of
them have a stuck pixel (since day 1). I think you'd be happy with either
screen, so maybe you could just get whichever is more aesthetically pleasing
to you! Bet you haven't considered that

Yes I did. In this regard, I'd probably prefer the Viewsonic, but the LG
is OK. What I don't like is that Viewsonic clearly states that, up to 7
dead pixels, they don't consider their panel defective. LG doesn't specify
the amount but they do tell you the replacement they would send you could
also have dead pixels because producing perfect panels would be too costly.

It seems that you never get 16.7 million colors unless you pay a hefty
price and are ready to cope with a slow response time. Instead, what you
get is (2^6)^3 or 262,144 colors and dithering makes it look like 16.2 M
colors through dithering. So a 6 bit panel could be recognized because
specs say 16.2 instead of 16.7 M colors.

Viewsonic never says if their LCD panels are 6 or 8 bit, never speak about
the number of colors. The VX922 is certainly a 6 bit because it's fast.

LCD still doesn't seem to me like a mature technology.

 

[badgolferman]

After only 4 years, my Samsung 950p gave up (I bought it as an end of
line model.) For no apparent reason, sometimes the sides get wobbly,
and then, from the center towards top and bottom, the screen gets
fuzzy. If I change screen resolution, it's OK. Then, it gets fuzzy
and I must change resolution again. Etc. Samsung suggested that they
maybe could fix the problem for approximately the price of a new 19"
CRT monitor. Without the guarantee, of course.

Sometimes the screen is absolutely perfect for an hour or two, so I
doubt it's a big problem but, for a lack of service at a decent price
on a CRT monitors, it seems I'll have to scrap it. Thanks Samsung!
I'll remember you.

So, I'm considering 2 LCD monitors. The one that best fits my needs
-- writing, browsing the net, looking at pictures, DVDs (well, maybe
one day) -- would be a LG L1952T, also sometimes refered to as
L1952TX, apparently. 300 cd/m2, contrast 1400:1, DVI-I (standard DVI,
I suppose?), 8ms. Picture quality seems OK. Price: $289 CAN.

The Viewsonic VX922, is less bright (270 cd/m2), the contrast is not
quite as good (700:1, if I remember well), but it's a 2ms, a monitor
for gamers. Accordingly, it's $50 more expensive: $340 CAN.

Salesman ALL tell me that I'd be much better off with the Viewsonic.
The LGs apparently have dead pixels problems these days. They tell me
that the Viewsonic quality is much better. The VX922 looks like a hot
seller for Viewsonic, so maybe the price is set a bit lower than for
other models.

But a friend, who knows more about electronics than I, told me that,
besides pixels dying, the main problem with LCDs is screen fade out.
So, unless Viewsonic's pretention that their light source has a
40,000 hrs long life (other models have a 50,000 hour life
expectancy, though) I suppose I'd theoretically be better off with
the LG.

But I'm not a gamer and never will be. My feeling with LG support is
not very good: they don't even have an 800 number for service!

What is your experience with both Viewsonic and LG? Which monitor
would you go for?

I can't speak for LG, but I have seen plenty of Viewsonics at work.
Personally I think they are overpriced and would never buy one with my
money. I do like Princeton and NEC monitors. I would recommend CRT or
LCD type of each, however I don't think Princeton makes CRTs anymore.

 

[Yugo]

Yugo, 6/9/2006,9:28:16 PM, wrote:




I can't speak for LG, but I have seen plenty of Viewsonics at work.
Personally I think they are overpriced and would never buy one with my
money. I do like Princeton and NEC monitors. I would recommend CRT or
LCD type of each, however I don't think Princeton makes CRTs anymore.

You like NEC monitors? I just checked the LCD1980SXi. Impressive. 270
cd/m2, 500:1 contrast ratio, 25 ms response... but it's an 8 bit and only
3 times more expensive than the L1952T LG monitor. At that price, I
suppose there is less allowance for dead pixels...

 

[kony]

Yes I did. In this regard, I'd probably prefer the Viewsonic, but the LG
is OK. What I don't like is that Viewsonic clearly states that, up to 7
dead pixels, they don't consider their panel defective. LG doesn't specify
the amount but they do tell you the replacement they would send you could
also have dead pixels because producing perfect panels would be too costly.

Panel manufacturers may also sort panels by # of dead
pixels, you may have to pay more if you want a guarantee.
Otherwise buy from someplace with a good return policy and
beware that the return policy for LCDs can be different than
other items because of this (nobody wanting dead pixels)
issue.

It seems that you never get 16.7 million colors unless you pay a hefty
price and are ready to cope with a slow response time.

Do you care about the response time if you arent' a gamer?
Don't put too much stock in online reviews of LCDs, geeks
doing the reviews will go out of their way to stress the
very minor differences between each monitor instead of a
more rational "is the difference worth the price"
comparison.

Instead, what you
get is (2^6)^3 or 262,144 colors and dithering makes it look like 16.2 M
colors through dithering. So a 6 bit panel could be recognized because
specs say 16.2 instead of 16.7 M colors.

So buy an 8 bit panel. Do the research, find one you like.
I don't even know of the two prior models you listed are or
aren't, but it's not hard to find 8 bit panels.

Viewsonic never says if their LCD panels are 6 or 8 bit, never speak about
the number of colors. The VX922 is certainly a 6 bit because it's fast.

LCD still doesn't seem to me like a mature technology.

No technology is every perfect. CRT never was with the
size, weight, cost, disposal issues, power consumption,
blurring... You are really putting to much thought into this
process, just read a few reviews from consumers and buy one.
Most people who use a reasonably good LCD have no desire to
go back to a CRT.

 

[Yugo]

Panel manufacturers may also sort panels by # of dead
pixels, you may have to pay more if you want a guarantee.
Otherwise buy from someplace with a good return policy and
beware that the return policy for LCDs can be different than
other items because of this (nobody wanting dead pixels)
issue.

The best return policy is at Staples. You can apparently return the
product within one month, no question asked if the product is in it's
original state. I never had to. Salesman try their best to sell extra
guaranties, but I'm not sure they're worth anymore than the manufacturer's.

Do you care about the response time if you arent' a gamer?

No. As I said 8ms would be OK.

Don't put too much stock in online reviews of LCDs, geeks
doing the reviews will go out of their way to stress the
very minor differences between each monitor instead of a
more rational "is the difference worth the price"
comparison.

I agree.

So buy an 8 bit panel.

All too expensive. Ir's going to be 6 bit, not as good as a CRT.

Do the research, find one you like.
I don't even know of the two prior models you listed are or
aren't, but it's not hard to find 8 bit panels.

It depends what kind of money we're talking about.

No technology is every perfect. CRT never was with the
size, weight, cost, disposal issues, power consumption,
blurring...

The size and the weight are not a problem for me. I don't move my computer
all around the house. The cost, mainly at the present time is downright
ridiculously low. The maximum power consumption of my monitor is 130W. One
single 100 W bulb left on unnecessarily consumes almost as much
power. Most people who buy LCDs for this reason don't use low voltage
bulbs, which take about 1/4 the electricity. It's a ridiculous argument.

Blurring is not a side effect of the technology. If it happens, the
monitor is defective. Just as turntables that preceeded the CD era were
gems of engineering and offered sound that no 16 bit sampling CD can
provide, CRT monitors offered technology that is far from being equaled by
LCD. You pay as much and even more, and you get less. If there was more
support for this kind of technology, I'd stay with it. (Also, I have a
problem with an eye that /might/ be better off with a LCD.)

You are really putting to much thought into this
process, just read a few reviews from consumers and buy one.

Maybe. I suppose I've been scladed on with this issue about my Samsung
monitor. I certainly would have kept it for a few more years. But I must
admit I put a lot in the process of buying things. Most people buy on a
whim and, if they don't like what they have bought, they buy again, and
again. I get rid of things when they're really badly broken, which I don't
think my monitor is. And I ususally like the things I buy... or what I
choose from all the things that are offered to me, by this I mean even in
the garbage, on the streets.

Rest assured that 99% of those ecology priests pollute more than I. My
dryer is 40 years old. My washing machine, approximately 35. I never paid
a red cent for a tv in my whole life. Ten years ago I spent almost a month
choosing a sweater. I settled on an alpaca one. Just as Evo Morales, I've
worn it all the time, except in summer and for washing it. (Maybe Morales
has more than one, though.) Now, it's growing thin, holes are appearing.
I'll buy another one.

Most people who use a reasonably good LCD have no desire to
go back to a CRT.

You haven't explained why yet. Do they lack space that much?

 

[kony]

No. As I said 8ms would be OK.

Plenty of gamers consider 8ms ok, a non-gamer may easily get
by with even higher. Where are you getting this information
that suggests a gamer would need less or that you need to
stay at 8ms or lower?

I agree.



All too expensive. Ir's going to be 6 bit, not as good as a CRT.

They're not much more expensive. A decent 19" CRT cost as
much 3 years ago as a decent 8 bit 19" LCD does today.

It depends what kind of money we're talking about.

Either you are willing to pay or you aren't... and if you
aren't, why did you even bother to mention any of these
details? It's a bit like claiming automobiles are immature
because they can't do 170MPH, but that you are only
considering the cheap automobiles.

Of course the cheap ones aren't as good, and it will always
be that way with (most) products one can buy... has nothing
to do with LCDs0 in particular.

The size and the weight are not a problem for me. I don't move my computer
all around the house. The cost, mainly at the present time is downright
ridiculously low. The maximum power consumption of my monitor is 130W. One
single 100 W bulb left on unnecessarily consumes almost as much
power. Most people who buy LCDs for this reason don't use low voltage
bulbs, which take about 1/4 the electricity. It's a ridiculous argument.

Not really, some people don't WANT different bulbs. Maybe
they are not as energy conservation minded as they could be
or should be, but preferring one kind of light bulb doesn't
not take away from the energy savings of any or every other
appliance.

Blurring is not a side effect of the technology. If it happens, the
monitor is defective.

Nope, CRTs can never have per-pixel accuracy as they are
essentially a projection based system.

On the other hand, some people esthetically prefer smoother
images, their eye might prefer the slight blur of a CRT.
After a certain point the blur gets much much worst but it
is always there on a CRT.

Just as turntables that preceeded the CD era were
gems of engineering and offered sound that no 16 bit sampling CD can
provide, CRT monitors offered technology that is far from being equaled by
LCD. You pay as much and even more, and you get less. If there was more
support for this kind of technology, I'd stay with it. (Also, I have a
problem with an eye that /might/ be better off with a LCD.)

You are delusional. Quit wasting our time, if you want a
CRT they are not impossible to find yet, go buy one.

You haven't explained why yet. Do they lack space that much?

Because there's not much a CRT can do as well, let alone
better. Color accuracy is one strong area but the human eye
cannot perceive color as well as a test instrument needed to
perceive differences in better modern LCDs. That is, unless
you are trying to rub your nose against the screen while
looking at it, instead of sitting back at a normal viewing
distance.

Realize something- a video card outputs pixels. That
should look pixelated. If you want blur from a CRT, you
prefer artifically degraded image. Along the border of
every single pixel (change) the great color accuracy of a
CRT is destroyed by the blurring. That can easily make a
photograph look more realistic, but it is not an accurate
representation of what comes from your video card.

 

[Yugo]

Quit wasting our time

Poor little you!

 

[kony]

Poor little you!

Oh?

I have a nice Trinitron CRT and LCDs. Right now I'm using
an LCD because I prefer it.

 

[John Smith]

You haven't explained why yet. Do they lack space that much?

I think its because people really arent that picky they arent using it
to layout print graphics so they dont need absolutely accurate colors
etc.

The thing I noticed was most people seem to be pretty satisfied with
their LCDs. Unless you have a frame of reference and people point it
out to you , the flaws arent that apparent. And maybe like some
digital cams ----- even if the colors are less apparent and there are
other flaws , perhaps the artificially boosted colors which seem
better than real life look good to most people. I remember when I
bought my first digital camera. I would take pics of everything and
think WOW , thats the street Im stand next to !???? It looked way
better than real life. The whole thing had a sharpness and vibrant
look --- the colors were sooooo colorful.

You add that AND you get far more space. Its not as trivial as you
first may think. I thought of both things before I bought my first
LCD. I used to see those ridiculous early prices 600--800 and I was a
very late adopter since CRTs started going down and down. I bought my
first LCD about 1 year ago for 299 a Viewsonic. I read about all the
flaws and back then fast panels were still new so there were lots of
older slow panels and nobody wanted the slow panels. People didnt talk
about any 8 bit advantage initially just mainly how horrible the slow
panels were with ghosting on games etc. The viewing angles, brightness
and other mundane issues nowadays were much more hyped then as
problems.

And I thought space ? BIG deal ! When you see how much space it clears
out it does become a big deal and the old bulky hot CRTs seem like
some relic. I know people into photography still advocate using both
or mostly CRTs. However for others Im not sure if thats necessary. I
had a Sony trini before my last two CRTs --- both Viewsonic CRTs. The
last viewsonic CRT was a flat screen for cheap then vs an LCD $229
when LCDs were 400-600. I thought it was a good compromise the flat
screen crt. However I still have my old non-flat CRT VIewsonic on my
3rd PC and it seems like a humongoid relic. CRTs also had lots of
problems with the picture. I remember when I had a NEC before my Sony
which was raved about and very expensive in the mid 90s -- a picky
friend bought one at the same time and he returned it 3 times. He was
one of those guys who just couldnt stand it if the picture wasnt
perfectly straight on all sides etc. There usually was some pincushion
effect etc that couldnt be totally fixed , angle to the side etc. with
most CRTs. You dont at least have those problems with LCDs.

There is one funny thing though. I was thinking the samething --- is
it better to get say one fast panel and one good 8 bit panel for photo
work etc? I guess not. Maybe a decent cheaper CRT as a 2nd monitor
would be good to have around for that.