Wife wants to buy me one for my birthday [probably wants me to take up less room ;) ] but I can't decide what to get.

I'm using a 17" CRT at 1024x768 which is comfortable but I think a 17" LCD monitor has to be used at 1280x1024 which is distinctly uncomfortable.

Is it possible to use LCDs with less than default resolution, or do I have to settle for a 15" ?

Native resolution on a 17" LCD is 1280*1024 ... so using it at less than that is a not ideal.

If you find screen fonts are too small for your liking, you could always increase them (and still keeping the 1280*1024 res).

Thanks Jamie, - I'll try that on this CRT.

Isn't a 17" CRT equivalent to a 15" TFT is terms of screen real-estate?

And I thought a 17" TFT would be equivalent to a 19" CRT, so running the 17" TFT at 1280 x 1024 shouldn't be uncomfortable.

It can depend on the monitor. I have a 17" Benq one here which runs at 1024 perfectly. But the CTX one I have at work just doesn't look the same at 1024.

This (http://www.microdirect.co.uk/ProductInfo.aspx?ProductID=5612&GroupID=431) is the monitor if you're interested. It's absolutely fantastic.

Originally posted by alchresearch

This (http://www.microdirect.co.uk/ProductInfo.aspx?ProductID=5612&GroupID=431) is the monitor if you're interested. It's absolutely fantastic.

Thanks. - Just to confirm you're running this at 1024x768 with small fonts ?

Abdul, I guess I'll have to have a look at one working. I think Cole's have them on display so will check next week. Even using large fonts 1208x1024 on this CRT was hard to read.

Most TFTs look nasty at anything other than native res. But yes, a 17" TFT is bigger than a 17" CRT. It depends what you're comparing it to, to be honest. I run my 17" CRT at home at 1280 res, but it's a good quality one - most cheap ones tend to be a bit blurry. I used to use a 17" TFT at work at its 1280 native res, and it was perfectly sharp and large enough. Don't forget that LCD pixels tend to be a bit clearer and also you don't have to worry about refresh rate flicker...

Like you said, go have a look in the shop - although make sure that the ones you see are fed off an individual display rather than a splitter, I've seen banks of monitors running off a single PC that made the picture quality awful.

or consider spending the £50 extra and getting 19". Same resolution, so everything is bit bigger.

Plumped for a 19" Philips LCD (The 190/S Model). Yes it was £200, so not low range, but for sheer picture quality and design of the unit it looks stunning.

Slight threadjack, but does anyone know how much you need to spend to get a TFT that's good for graphics? I had an LG which was moderate-consumer level, but it was pretty useless for photographic work (and also rather naff when I tested a dvd movie on there). I vaguely remember hearing the more expensive ones were ok, but I'm not sure how much you need to spend...

Originally posted by Cyclone
or consider spending the £50 extra and getting 19". Same resolution, so everything is bit bigger.

I would go with that suggestion.

I am fortunate enough to run a 23" LCD, it rules!

Originally posted by rich951
Slight threadjack, but does anyone know how much you need to spend to get a TFT that's good for graphics? I had an LG which was moderate-consumer level, but it was pretty useless for photographic work (and also rather naff when I tested a dvd movie on there). I vaguely remember hearing the more expensive ones were ok, but I'm not sure how much you need to spend...

in what way is LG not suitable?

and what was the problem with watching dvds on it?

We've got some OEM monitors that are effectively just a rebadged iiyama 435s they have 8ms refresh and 350cd brightness and DVI, you don't get much better on spec for a 17".
£139+VAT for a 1 off
Discounts for qty

They sometimes go into a back order due to popularity.

Originally posted by Cyclone
in what way is LG not suitable?

and what was the problem with watching dvds on it?
It had very poor colour depth - felt like I was trying to do graphics work in 256 colours! :) I didn't even get as far as wondering if the colour balance was accurate, because I could tell it wasn't worth pursuing. And I particularly remember watching a bit from a movie where it was a dark scene and I could hardly see anything! (and no, it wasn't just the brightness turned down too low :))

You need one with a low millisecond refresh rate for movies and gaming. Most cheap monitors have a 25m/s refresh, and you really need 12m/s or less.

If there had been any fast movement then fair enough, but the refresh rate isn't going to help the lack of gray colour depth :)

I seem to remember reading something about cheaper TFT monitors really only using 6 bits per colour instead of 8, giving a total of 18-bit colour. They claim 16 million colours, but it's really dithering up from 262K. Another issue is not being able to reproduce the entire colour spectrum. Anyone got any more insight into this?

I remember someone recommending Eizo TFTs once, but they aren't cheap!

LGL1715S's can be had for about £200, bloody great things..

http://www.linuxmod.co.uk/misc/images/dscn1065.jpg

:D

Very nice monitors

Joel

Yeah, dabs are selling those for just under £150, so you can't go wrong :) I think it was a 1720 I used to use and don't get me wrong, it was excellent for general office work, just not brilliant for anything that required accurate colours - which is a fault of TFTs in general, not that brand/model...

Just to plonk a quick comparison you'd know from way back when I was around..

The LG L1715S and L 1730S TFT screens were the ones that I was using and I was able to watch movies, and do plenty of graphic work on them without worry.. The 1730S has a 12ms response time but I've noticed no difference against the 1715S at all...

The only problem I found with any of them was the way that the screen display was invariable brighter than any printed output. I suspect a colour profile would handle that though...


Worth noting that I've seen a year older LG 17" screen with DVI and compared it against my own RGB outputs and my monitors were better... So the whole DVI vs' RGB issue is less an issue than it was 2 years ago.

The one thing to really watch out for is that your graphics card is not useless. I found one monitor was fuzzing like crazy when plugged into the 2nd port of a Radeon 7000 but moving it to use a dual port Matrox 450 returned it to crystal clear display again...

So, it won't always be the screen.

Hope that helps...