Has anyone got any recommendations on LCD monitors?

I'm looking for;
18" or bigger, although would consider 17" if it is really compelling.
95+% office use, very little gaming, so pixel speed isn't vital (as long as it's not diabolical obviously)
Office is shaded, so it doesn't have to be the brightest...same caveat as above.
Don't care too much about speakers. If it has great speakers that don't add to the price, then fine, but I have a usable set of speakers already.
Reliability and image quality are fairly important.
Manufacturer not important (as long as they don't have a crap reputation for reliability and support!)
Cost is always important
Availability from newegg, directron or major store definately preferred to small online vendors.

Ta...

What I really want is one of thost Mac "cinema" LCD monitors, the huge 16x9 shaped ones, on my PC. Those are the business.

I've got one of these on loan that I'm looking at right now. It's [Marshall from Alias]super-sweet[/Marshall].

Here's a Tom's Hardware roundup on 17" displays. It's several months old though.

Remember...A 17" lcd is going to seem almost like a 18-19" CRT because of the viewable area.

Oh yeah.

I use an iiyama 17" and its cracking, i've also used the 18.1" version and that is even better. The 18.1 also has a super slim bezel which gives it a very sleak look. Both with DVI input and extras like USB hub. The DVI is a must, the USB hub is fairly useful, saves me reaching behind the computer to plug the empeg in.

I think go for a company that has a good reputation because you're going to spend a lot of time in-front of it i imagine. Also no dropped pixels, however i don't know how common these are anymore. Wasn't the cheapest but this is one item where i feel the extra money has been worth it.

I got the Sony SDM-X82 from newegg.com. No dead pixels and I use it for gaming extensively. I got it for $805, it's now $780, slightly more if you want the black colored bezel. I use DVI and the secondary HD-15 input for another computer. I haven't used the speakers that are integrated into it. I am very pleased with it so far.

Samsung 181T or 191T hands down. It's a great all around monitor, is actually one of the best for pixel response time (this does matter even outside gaming for things like scrolling pages, etc...), and size. Also, if your video card supports it, the stand rotates for a portrait view. I have a hotkey sequence that I can press to rotate the display.

Standard warranty on these is 3 years, and a 2 day FedEX cross ship option direct from Samsung.

I've got the Samsung 171 and agree completely. It is fantastic. One caveat on rotating screens: OpenGL doesn't support rotated monitor resolutions. This can lead to BSOD's on W2k.

-Zeke

At work, we have like 4 of the Samsung Syncmaster 240T monitors (without the speakers). Those things are just amazing.

Tony: We have one of the Apple Cinema 23" displays. I think it is the favorite in the office, even though the Samsungs are newer.

Damn! I had no idea they sold LCDs that big! But I still have my eyes on my baby.

i must agree with drakino. i have a samsung 191T after my sony trintron 17 inch died on me. i saw one at a store and once i knew the montor can swivel 180 degrees i was immediately sold. viewing webpages portrait orientation is the way to go. although this monitor is on the expensive side, i paid $800, i think it is worth it because my eyes never feel strained any longer.

if you do get this monitor make sure to get an nVidia graphics card with the latest detonator driver because it allows for rotation of the desktop.

I agree too.

I'm also looking into getting a 191T. It's one pretty monitor and it's specs are amazing. Price is good too.

I can also second what you say about your eyes not feeling strained anymore : I noticed this too when I switched from my Sony trinitron 17" to the Nec Multisync LCD 15" I'm using now. Sure, the NEC is bit smaller, but the pro's sure outweigh the con's. No more red eyes after an evening of surfing of playing counter strike!
If I had known about this sooner I would' ve bought an LCD monitor WAY sooner, but I can't remember ever reading in a review how much easier an LCD is on the eyes. (although, thinking about how the image gets built up now, it only seems logical)

I recently decided to splurge and got the 23" Apple display. You've got room for two side-by-side web browsers, and you can still see plenty of icons on the left (resolution: 1900x1200). The brightness and clarity is just astonishing, and I've never had any persistence problems (which seems to only be an issue on older LCDs). To use one of these on a PC, you have to buy a $100 adapter, and the monitor doesn't support VGA at all. It's fun watching people's jaws hit the floor when they walk into my office.

In terms of bang-for-the-buck, I think one of the best deals out there right now is the 20" LCD from Dell. I haven't priced one recently, but last I looked, most 20" LCDs (1600x1200 resolution) cost $1600, where Dell would sell it to you for $1500, or bundle it with a new computer for something like $1200 over the no-monitor option. One of my colleagues here got one, and it's a beauty. If you buy it with a computer, make sure you've got DVI output on your video card (or, with the Dell Optiplex GX260's, be sure to pay the extra $20 for a "DVI adapter").

Ok, all ya'll dream monitors are outdone by the Big Bertha from IBM. I WILL own this some day.

But seriously, the LG Electronics Flattron L1800P is pretty decent. It got a good review from a few different places and I've used it personally. Of course, you should get an Eizo, but this is the next best thing.

For anyone wondering about the IBM monitor, QUXGA-W is 3840x2400. Lets see, 9.2 million pixels. I wonder what IBM's dead pixel policy is

Thanks, I actually WAS wondering what the H/V pixel count was. WOW, now that's some resolution. Yup, I want one.

Yeah, think about the QC necessary on something where there are 9.2 million possible failure points...

Hmmm....anyone got any recommendations on where to find $9k looking for a new owner? Actually, make that $18k or there's going to be marital issues in my household

Wow, is that thing 9 grand? That works out to... what... 1000 pixels per dollar? Hey, not a bad price when you think about it.

Well, tecnhically it's $8.4k, but that's not including tax or shipping.

It's more like over 27.6 million failure points as it's got to have the three RGB elements

The thing is once you start getting past 100dpi it gets much harder to spot the defects. I know my laptop LCD has a few defective segments in a couple of pixels but they're so small I can't see it. Dust on my screen is more noticeable.

- Trevor

I just want the LCD to be 16:9 ratio. 4:3 blows

In reply to:

---

I got the Sony SDM-X82

---

Yeah, I have two of those on my main machine at work, cracking monitors. Only problem is the backlights, two of my colleagues have had problems with them. When you only have a total of seven people in the office I am beginning to wonder whether I'm next ...

On a more positive side, the waranty swapout was a breeze to sort out and was very quick too.....

I was going to suggest the IBM T221 but someone beat me to it. I've got one here at work. $8K is peanuts for this display. It was $25-30K last January when I set one up at Macworld. Which brings me to... I'll be at Macworld again in a few weeks. Moscone center in San Francisco. Jan 7-10. I'll have one of the IBM T221 monitors set up with one of our cards, probably running Maya and showing off Photoshop stills. I'll have my Nikon 5700 with me, so if you pass by you can see how your 5 megapixel mugg looks on a 9 megapixel display.

I'll also have at least 2 Apple 23" Cinema HDs and a few Formac 20" LCDs. The 23" will both be connected to a single card running in an extended desktop config. BTW, you haven't seen anything until you've seen a 23" LCD running in portrait. With another identical LCD running in portrait next to it! Sweet.

Oh, the caveat with the IBM T221 is that with a single DVI interface it runs only at 11Hz (reported as 15Hz). With 2 you can drive it at 20-25Hz. 60Hz with four DVI connections. The LCD is from IDTech and is also found in Iyama and Totoku products.

Bruno

So I'm now looking to get a 17-21 inch LCD. Is the Samsung line (191T, 181T, etc) still so highly suggested?

- Jon

One of my students got a Samsung 17" LCD monitor and loves it. You can't go wrong there. In terms of bang-for-the-buck, Dell is still probably your best deal. Right now, on their web site, Dell prices are:

18": $539 (1280x1024)
19": $674 (1280x1024)
20": $899 (1600x1200)

We've bought a bunch of these Dell's in the office, and everybody loves them.

I set my parents up with two of the 18" dells, and they're very happy with them. Now, admitedly, the only reason my mom wanted them was because they fit better after she remodeled the room, but to each their own. They've got both DVI and VGA, so you can use them with anything and upgrade to DVI when you get around to it.

The Dell LCD pricing is the best out there, especially when they're on sale or have coupons. (Last I checked they had a 10% off code floating around, fatwallet.com is your friend)

Matthew

I tried out the Samsung 191T and the Viewsonic VX900.

The Samsung I had surprisingly did NOT perform as well as I expected in motion/gaming. The Viewsonic really did outshine it. (I had them head-to-head in my house thanks to a rare friendly manager at CompUSA)

I've had the Viewsonic for about 9 months, and it is fantastic!!

Too low res. Get something at least 1600x1200 or you're wasting your time.

Dell has an excellent price on their 20" LCD, and I'm floored by my new BenQ FP2081 here (see thread on Off Topic).

Cheers

Ok, I've looked at all of the recommendations from a year ago and also the ones just posted today. Most of these look cool. I think I agree with mlord on the resolution issue. 1600x1200 is probably better for me since I plan to use this monitor for a lot of years and the higher resolution will be good to have. The other thing I really want is a really small bezel. I admit that one of the reasons for getting an LCD is the look of it and the amount of space it takes up and I dislike the look of an LCD with a big bezel... So the 191T wins for that category.

Any other recommendations are wholly appreciated.

- Thanx
- Jon

Yep, a small bezel is good! If you've really got the bucks, get a 24" LCD 1920x1440 (?). Too rich for me right now (around US$2200 I believe).

Cheers

I have been looking at these three

Samsung 241MP

Samsung 240T

Sony SDM-P232

The 241MP has no DVI ? I don't know how much difference there is between DVI and VGA I have never had a DVI monitor.

The 240T has DVI from what I can tell it supported 1280 x 1024 from the DVI and 1920 x 1200 from the vga when it was released but it has been updated to support 1920 x 1200 on DVI but I have only read this on message boards.

The sony one looks about the best but I can't find a single review of it or any info other than the sony website.

Anyone have any info on these ?

DVI is *essential*. Do not purchase a monitor that lacks it. The difference is HUGE between the fuzzy analog inputs (still better than most CRTs though), and the crisp clear DVI input.

Cheers

Here are two screenshots of a small icon on my DVI monitor, taken with my digicam. One of them shows the screen in DVI mode, the other shows the same scene using the analog inputs. Mind you, the analog would look a little better if it wasn't routed through my KVM switch, but .. well. you be the judge.

First pic is attached here -- you figure out which one this is.
Next message has the second pic.

Cheers

Second pic -- see previous posting for explanation.

Cheers

The text on the first is clearer. I'll guess the first is DVI. If not, then DVI sucks;)

That's one of my problems with LCDs, actually. It's certainly very nice for text to be clear, but CRTs have something of a natural antialiasing effect that looks nice on images, I think. Of course, that's really just prejudice based on how I want stuff to look.

I actually use text more than images, so I've decided that the next monitor I buy will be an LCD, but I still think that images look a little too sharp on them. I'll get used to it, though, and will like it more, eventually.

That's one of my problems with LCDs, actually. It's certainly very nice for text to be clear, but CRTs have something of a natural antialiasing effect that looks nice on images, I think. Of course, that's really just prejudice based on how I want stuff to look.

Yeah, you're right, pr0n looks much better with the smoother anti-aliased display of a CRT.

Kinda like a built-in airbrushing effect.

Er, so I've heard...

I was just excited because I got a new 17" CRT to replace my old 17" CRT. At least I got it for free.

That (photos) was my complaint on LCDs, until the current crop appeared -- finer dot pitch, higher contrast, and vastly improved viewing angles have combined to push LCDs firmly over the top for me. My photos look a LOT better on my new LCD than on my top-end Eizo CRT monitor. Anyone want a used 21" FX-E8? Really cheap?

EDIT: anyone nostalgic for that airbrushed CRT look could just use the analog inputs instead of DVI.

Cheers

anyone nostalgic for that airbrushed CRT look could just use the analog inputs instead of DVI.

Heh.

Still, though, just because I'm anal, I feel compelled to point out that there's a big difference between analog LCD and CRT fuzziness. In all but the cheapest CRTs, the phosphors are still reasonably smaller than a pixel of resolution. With the LCDs, the individual elements are supposed to be the same size as a pixel, so imprecision on an LCD looks worse than the same imprecision on a CRT, IMO.

The 2nd one is much fuzzier that must be the analog one. Is it true that the max resolution for DVI-D is supposed to be 1600 X 1200.

No. I've personally run 1920x1200. I don't see any reason that they would put an arbitrary limit on it, especially one that's already been surpassed.

Yeah, you're right, pr0n looks much better with the smoother anti-aliased display of a CRT.

You're absolutely right.

Sorry for the slow response. It's hard to type using only one hand.

Actually, I've found some stuff that says it can do a maximum of 1600x1200@60Hz when used with a digital CRT, and that's for single-link, which apparently only uses about half the pins of DVI-D. Dual-link can apparently do up to 2048x1536 on either LCDs or CRTs.

This is all DVI version 1 stuff, BTW.

Sorry for the slow response. It's hard to type using only one hand.

Phlurmp!!!!!

(I am at times *soooo* naive!. I just got it!)

Ouch, you have ghosting on both of them.

Bruno

1600x1200 is sort of a soft limit given the current crop TMDS transmitters (165MHz). That's probably the source of your "limit" comment. However, by using reduced timing intervals, it's possible to push 1920x1200 from current hardware. We do this by reducing the blanking interval for Apple's current Cinema HD.

However, to surpass this resolution we would need a new crop of hardware. So panel manufacturers (some high end ones like Eizo, Totoku and IDTech) are now using dual-input displays (IDTech's 22" display actually taks 1, 2 or 4 inputs). Either dual-link or genlock (or other syncronizing method) to get multiple digital outputs feeding portions of the display. I have this running on 3MP (2048x1536) as well as 9MP (3840x2400) displays. 3MP at 60Hz and 9MP at 24-30Hz depending on config.

Incidentally, current ROM revisions for our Mac cards support DVI Hotplug right now - plug in a display and it will instantly come online. This allows you to switch displays live or add a second display live. No user intervention is needed in the OS. If you don't mind manually selecting a menu item, then you can also make a VGA or TV connection live. Just another interesting item. That Dell article is a nice primer. It makes a few bold statements about what is currently supported by the industry however. No all display adapters conform to the full feature set available - hot-plug for instance. I can tel you right now that there is no display adapter in th consumer space for Windows or Mac OS outside ours that offers the level of display suport and special features we have. Stay tuned for our new control panel for Mac OS X (partially designed by yours truly )

Bruno

That sounds like what I read except they made it sound more like a hack to get 1920x1200.

Do the current ATI cards (9000 pro, 9500 pro) for PC support 1920x1200 on DVI. One review I read said the 8500DV did not.

Nice, but does it work with Linux?

Or is ATI still being extremely anti-social in that regard?

Cheers

Mm.. actually, I think my monitor is being driven from an ATI card, so I suppose they must have finally kissed and made up at some point.

Cheers

ATI Linux FAQ

Press release announcing Linux support

The driver RPM bundle

I thought all linux users could build video cards for $2 out of old calculators and duct tape? Or is that just MP3 players?

You would see lightning speed driver development from any company if given the opportunity to supply a large Linux OEM account. Linux isn't a significant contributor to the bottom line of this industry, so it tends to be at the bottom of priorities for the majority of hardware/software companies.

But as Drakino pointed out, there have been steps to bridge the gap. And I know some additional Linux work will be starting up soon in this very office, a few cubicles over.

Bruno

Or you could release specs for the cards so that interested developers could write drivers on their own.

Actually, nVidia has done a surprisingly good job making it so that they can release binary drivers without having to contend with differently compiled kernels, etc.

I'm guessing you guys are busy trying to figure out how to develop the world's ugliest Linux GUI to control the video card.

You'll have issues when using the nVidia binary drivers if you're a kernel developer or if you ever want to submit a kernel bug report. It'll taint the kernel and they'll just throw out your bug report since in theory the nv driver could have been stomping all over your memory and you wouldn't know.
Also aren't the binary drivers based on the Windows code? It's how they can release new versions so quickly after the Windows driver comes out. They have some abstraction layer built into it that allows the Windows driver code be wedged into the Linux kernel. This is all what I've heard anyway so it could be false.

- Trevor

All lcd displays I've used for a decent amount if time, so far (not so many, and just on laptops, and that's why I am asking ) had this problem:

They have a preferred, "native" resolution. When switching to any other one, the image would look blurrier or somehow much worse in quality. Is it still true with current, most recent LCD displays (or, do you know if there are some specifically NOT affetced by this problem)? Other than that I'd really love to buy an LCD now...

It's not a preferred resolution, but a native resolution. LCDs have a fixed number of elements of a fixed size. A CRT on the other hand has the cabability to re-focus to produce a variable number of pixels (how blurry will depend on your dot or trio pitch). An LCD has to have its display scaled to produce alternate resolutions. Theis is accomplished in a number of ways: biult-in scaler hardwae in the panel (some are better than others), built-in scaling hardware on the graphics chip (ATI chips have a built-in ratiometric scaler) or by using a software scaler (we're doing this on the Mac right now for Apple displays at certain resolutions).

The quality of the scaled image will depend on the scaler as well as the resolution you're switching to. Resolutions that don't divide evenly into the native resolution are the easiest to scale. There will always be an even number of panel pixels to represent a scaled pixel. To add to the effects (good or bad) of scaling, you'll also have to contend with font-smoothing on Windows and Mac desktops. This sometimes makes a world of difference - without smoothing you'd have completely unacceptable text for most scaled resolutions, however, becaus the scalers will do their own smoothing, the OS' text smoothing can really muddy things up.

The best looking smoothing IMO, is using a software scaler like we're doing on Apple panels. It has a small performance impact of course. Built into our drivers, the scaling code will use the chip's 3D hardware to scale the display data which is then sent to the LCD at its native resolution. On Apple panels external scaling is a necessity, as they lack any such hardware themselves (one of the reasons their LCDs are priced relatively low).

When buying an LCD, buy it for its native resolution. Don't buy a 1600x1200 panel if you always want to run 1280x1024. In that case you can save yourself plenty of money by going with a 17 or 18" display. Going to lower resolutions will require going with smaller displays, however you would not be happy running those lower resolutions on a very large screen anyway (the pixels would be far too crisp and enormous).

I don' generally change the resolution of my primary monitor unless I am testing something. When playing a game, the scalers mentioned above are tolerable, so it's not an issue.

Bruno

however you would not be happy running those lower resolutions on a very large screen anyway (the pixels would be far too crisp and enormous).

Yeah, but it'd be perfect for Strong Bad's duck pond game.