Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why is the video card industry driven by games but not the..

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 5, 2005 11:12:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.

I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen that
should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic developers
would want.

I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say about
24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice but
how about the standard format too?

Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV or
otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've tested
the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it doesn't
compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like the wide
screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard format would be
better for me.

Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
April 5, 2005 11:22:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

BTW - I've e-mailed Philips, LG, Samsung, Viewsonic, BenQ and Sony to (not
whining) to find out if they have anything on the way that meets these
specs. I'll be sure to post back if I hear anything. Of course if enough
people were to e-mail them, they might realize the market niche is ready. I
understand they work together on some screens so asking each individually
certainly doesn't hurt.

http://www.feedback.philips.com/contact/?country=US&lan...

http://www.lgservice.com/gcsc/b2c/hpi/main

http://erms.samsungelectronics.com/customer/form/formma...

http://www.viewsonic.com/support/index.htm

http://esupport.sony.com/perl/emailform-display.pl?temp...

http://www.benq.us/serviceandsupport/contact/index.cfm?...

"boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>
> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen that
> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic developers
> would want.
>
> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say about
> 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
> but how about the standard format too?
>
> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it
> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
> format would be better for me.
>
> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>
April 5, 2005 11:26:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

BTW - if any of you are thinking about this model, you are correct, it does
come close but the refresh rate is much too slow.

http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddi...

"boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>
> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen that
> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic developers
> would want.
>
> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say about
> 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
> but how about the standard format too?
>
> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it
> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
> format would be better for me.
>
> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 5, 2005 2:44:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

http://www.necdisplay.com/products/ProductDetail.cfm?Pr...

22" NEC/Mitsubishi monitor, 2048x1536 @ 85 Hz, back-busting 77-lb shipping
weight, $709

Now get off your soap box. :-)

Keep in mind the CRT tube contains a vacuum, so it becomes increasingly
difficult to make high-quality, flat displays at larger sizes, due to
atmospheric pressure.

And you'd be surprised how many gamers shell out $500 for a video card, but
keep a shitty 17" monitor and onboard sound... One thing I've discovered
over the years: not everyone thinks the way you do, even if it makes a world
of sense.

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>
> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen that
> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic developers
> would want.
>
> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say about
> 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
but
> how about the standard format too?
>
> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
or
> otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
tested
> the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it doesn't
> compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like the wide
> screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard format would
be
> better for me.
>
> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>
>
April 5, 2005 2:44:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Thanks for your reply and the food for thought. This is a 20" viewable -
same as my current model - I'm hoping to find something with a bigger
viewable area.

"First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aKKdnUCft6eoOc_fRVn-sQ@rogers.com...
> http://www.necdisplay.com/products/ProductDetail.cfm?Pr...
>
> 22" NEC/Mitsubishi monitor, 2048x1536 @ 85 Hz, back-busting 77-lb shipping
> weight, $709
>
> Now get off your soap box. :-)
>
> Keep in mind the CRT tube contains a vacuum, so it becomes increasingly
> difficult to make high-quality, flat displays at larger sizes, due to
> atmospheric pressure.
>
> And you'd be surprised how many gamers shell out $500 for a video card,
> but
> keep a shitty 17" monitor and onboard sound... One thing I've discovered
> over the years: not everyone thinks the way you do, even if it makes a
> world
> of sense.
>
> --
> "War is the continuation of politics by other means.
> It can therefore be said that politics is war without
> bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
>
>
> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>>
>> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
>> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen
>> that
>> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
>> developers
>> would want.
>>
>> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
>> about
>> 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
>> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
> but
>> how about the standard format too?
>>
>> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
> or
>> otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
> tested
>> the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it
>> doesn't
>> compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like the wide
>> screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard format would
> be
>> better for me.
>>
>> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
>> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 5, 2005 3:55:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

boe wrote:

> BTW - if any of you are thinking about this model, you are correct, it
> does come close but the refresh rate is much too slow.
>
>
http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddi...
>
> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>>
>> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
>> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen
>> that
>> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
>> developers would want.
>>
>> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
>> about 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh -
>> 8ms or
>> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
>> but how about the standard format too?
>>
>> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
>> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
>> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it
>> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
>> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>> format would be better for me.
>>
>> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
>> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.

Take a look at a Mitsubishi XC-3725C.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
April 5, 2005 3:55:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I'm not sure if you were joking or not but in case anyone takes this post
seriously,

This is a TV pretending to be a monitor - low refresh rate max 64kHz(it
doesn't say at what resolution) and low resolution 1280 x 1024
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:D 2ucqf0akn@news2.newsguy.com...
> boe wrote:
>
>> BTW - if any of you are thinking about this model, you are correct, it
>> does come close but the refresh rate is much too slow.
>>
>>
> http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddi...
>>
>> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>>> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>>>
>>> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
>>> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen
>>> that
>>> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>>> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
>>> developers would want.
>>>
>>> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
>>> about 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh -
>>> 8ms or
>>> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
>>> but how about the standard format too?
>>>
>>> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV
>>> HDTV
>>> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
>>> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice,
>>> it
>>> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
>>> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>>> format would be better for me.
>>>
>>> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
>>> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>
> Take a look at a Mitsubishi XC-3725C.
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 5, 2005 5:50:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

boe wrote:

> I'm not sure if you were joking or not but in case anyone takes this post
> seriously,
>
> This is a TV pretending to be a monitor - low refresh rate max 64kHz(it
> doesn't say at what resolution) and low resolution 1280 x 1024

Find another 37" direct-view CRT that does 1280x1024. That's hardly a "TV
pretending to be a monitor", it's a purpose made monitor that when new cost
about ten grand and still rents out for $300/day. It's not even a product
of the consumer division of Mitsubishi, it's a product of the same division
that made all their other monitors.

And when did 1280x1024 become "low resolution"?

Sorry, but if you want a large direct-view CRT that is designed as a
computer monitor that's _it_. There was also a 34" but nobody seems to
have any of those anymore.

If you don't like your choices then the only thing you're going to be able
to do about it is build your own. If you think that there's a real market
there then get some venture capital and _fill_ it and get rich. If you
don't think there's a real market there then why would the display
manufacturers want to be bothered with a market that even you admit doesn't
exist? And if you say you don't want to be rich, that's a cop-out.

> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:D 2ucqf0akn@news2.newsguy.com...
>> boe wrote:
>>
>>> BTW - if any of you are thinking about this model, you are correct, it
>>> does come close but the refresh rate is much too slow.
>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddi...
>>>
>>> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>>>> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>>>>
>>>> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
>>>> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen
>>>> that
>>>> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>>>> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
>>>> developers would want.
>>>>
>>>> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
>>>> about 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh -
>>>> 8ms or
>>>> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
>>>> but how about the standard format too?
>>>>
>>>> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV
>>>> HDTV
>>>> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
>>>> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice,
>>>> it
>>>> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
>>>> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>>>> format would be better for me.
>>>>
>>>> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
>>>> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>>
>> Take a look at a Mitsubishi XC-3725C.
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
April 5, 2005 5:50:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I certainly have nothing against being rich although developing the
technology for such a screen is a tad out of my skill set. I do believe
the know how does exist and I do believe I'm not the only one who wants it.
Just one of my clients is a gaming company and they would order 20 if they
existed. Now not every company is in the gaming industry but I have an AV
client as well who would order these if they could. Seeing as I am just one
person with a few small accounts, I would imagine there are much bigger
companies that would like such screens as well.

I do believe that such a niche exists just as much as a niche for big screen
TVs exists although bigscreen HDTVs haven't been around 10 years ago in the
US doen't mean there wasn't a niche to be filled.

I consider anything at a size of 21" or larger only capable of 1280 as being
too low of a resolution. 1280 is fine for a 17" monitor but leaves
something to be desired on a larger screen capable of benefiting from
greater detail. A 20" high definition TV doesn't really benefit from being
high def as much as a 60".

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:D 2ujro1k20@news2.newsguy.com...
> boe wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if you were joking or not but in case anyone takes this post
>> seriously,
>>
>> This is a TV pretending to be a monitor - low refresh rate max 64kHz(it
>> doesn't say at what resolution) and low resolution 1280 x 1024
>
> Find another 37" direct-view CRT that does 1280x1024. That's hardly a "TV
> pretending to be a monitor", it's a purpose made monitor that when new
> cost
> about ten grand and still rents out for $300/day. It's not even a product
> of the consumer division of Mitsubishi, it's a product of the same
> division
> that made all their other monitors.
>
> And when did 1280x1024 become "low resolution"?
>
> Sorry, but if you want a large direct-view CRT that is designed as a
> computer monitor that's _it_. There was also a 34" but nobody seems to
> have any of those anymore.
>
> If you don't like your choices then the only thing you're going to be able
> to do about it is build your own. If you think that there's a real market
> there then get some venture capital and _fill_ it and get rich. If you
> don't think there's a real market there then why would the display
> manufacturers want to be bothered with a market that even you admit
> doesn't
> exist? And if you say you don't want to be rich, that's a cop-out.
>
>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:D 2ucqf0akn@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> boe wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW - if any of you are thinking about this model, you are correct, it
>>>> does come close but the refresh rate is much too slow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddi...
>>>>
>>>> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>>>>> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers -
>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
>>>>> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen
>>>>> that
>>>>> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>>>>> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
>>>>> developers would want.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
>>>>> about 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast
>>>>> refresh -
>>>>> 8ms or
>>>>> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are
>>>>> nice
>>>>> but how about the standard format too?
>>>>>
>>>>> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV
>>>>> HDTV
>>>>> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that
>>>>> I've
>>>>> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice,
>>>>> it
>>>>> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would
>>>>> like
>>>>> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>>>>> format would be better for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
>>>>> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>>>
>>> Take a look at a Mitsubishi XC-3725C.
>>>
>>> --
>>> --John
>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 5, 2005 8:11:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:44:05 -0400, "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com>
waffled on about something:

>http://www.necdisplay.com/products/ProductDetail.cfm?Pr...
>
>22" NEC/Mitsubishi monitor, 2048x1536 @ 85 Hz, back-busting 77-lb shipping
>weight, $709
>
>Now get off your soap box. :-)
>
>Keep in mind the CRT tube contains a vacuum, so it becomes increasingly
>difficult to make high-quality, flat displays at larger sizes, due to
>atmospheric pressure.
>
>And you'd be surprised how many gamers shell out $500 for a video card, but
>keep a shitty 17" monitor and onboard sound... One thing I've discovered
>over the years: not everyone thinks the way you do, even if it makes a world
>of sense.

Nice monitor, I have owned a 19" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro for a few
years now, and it's luuurvely, as long as you don't want to carry
anywhere!

Which is why I also have a Hitachi 17" CML174SX, purely for carting
round to friends for a bit of fragging.

D0d6y.
--
MUSHROOMS ARE THE OPIATE OF THE MOOSES
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 5, 2005 9:03:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

boe wrote:

> I certainly have nothing against being rich although developing the
> technology for such a screen is a tad out of my skill set.

You don't have to develop the technology, just find out how big an order you
have to place with Sony or whoever to get them to make a tube to your
specification--you can hire designers to do the chassis design--once you've
got the costs worked up then go to the venture capitalists, place the order
etc.

The hard part is going to be convincing the venture capitalists that you can
actually sell the number of monitors you have to build to absorb the
minimum buy on the tubes at the price you need to charge to recoup the
startup costs.

> I do believe
> the know how does exist and I do believe I'm not the only one who wants
> it.

So we have two people who _say_ they want it. How much would you pay?

> Just one of my clients is a gaming company and they would order 20 if
> they
> existed.

At what price? And why would they want 20 displays that were _not_ typical
of what their customers would be using?

> Now not every company is in the gaming industry but I have an AV
> client as well who would order these if they could.

At what price? What kind of "AV" are they doing that would make it
desirable for them to use a different type of monitor from the mainstream?

> Seeing as I am just
> one person with a few small accounts, I would imagine there are much
> bigger companies that would like such screens as well.

At what price?

> I do believe that such a niche exists just as much as a niche for big
> screen TVs exists although bigscreen HDTVs haven't been around 10 years
> ago in the US doen't mean there wasn't a niche to be filled.

There was no niche for HDTVs ten years ago because there was no HDTV
content. However there were most assuredly big (measured in _feet_, not
_inches_) screen displays available that could handle HD content. Further,
those were CRTs. They cost more than a fair sized house, but they _were_
available.

> I consider anything at a size of 21" or larger only capable of 1280 as
> being
> too low of a resolution. 1280 is fine for a 17" monitor but leaves
> something to be desired on a larger screen capable of benefiting from
> greater detail. A 20" high definition TV doesn't really benefit from
> being high def as much as a 60".

Depends on how close you sit.

I'm sure that it is technologically possible to make a 1000 foot CRT with a
resolution of 4 million x 3 million. That is not why they don't exist in
the market. The reason they don't exist in the market is that the market
for them is too small for anyone to be able to manufacture them at a price
that any significant number of potential purchasers is willing to pay.

> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:D 2ujro1k20@news2.newsguy.com...
>> boe wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure if you were joking or not but in case anyone takes this
>>> post seriously,
>>>
>>> This is a TV pretending to be a monitor - low refresh rate max 64kHz(it
>>> doesn't say at what resolution) and low resolution 1280 x 1024
>>
>> Find another 37" direct-view CRT that does 1280x1024. That's hardly a
>> "TV pretending to be a monitor", it's a purpose made monitor that when
>> new cost
>> about ten grand and still rents out for $300/day. It's not even a
>> product of the consumer division of Mitsubishi, it's a product of the
>> same division
>> that made all their other monitors.
>>
>> And when did 1280x1024 become "low resolution"?
>>
>> Sorry, but if you want a large direct-view CRT that is designed as a
>> computer monitor that's _it_. There was also a 34" but nobody seems to
>> have any of those anymore.
>>
>> If you don't like your choices then the only thing you're going to be
>> able
>> to do about it is build your own. If you think that there's a real
>> market
>> there then get some venture capital and _fill_ it and get rich. If you
>> don't think there's a real market there then why would the display
>> manufacturers want to be bothered with a market that even you admit
>> doesn't
>> exist? And if you say you don't want to be rich, that's a cop-out.
>>
>>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:D 2ucqf0akn@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>> boe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BTW - if any of you are thinking about this model, you are correct, it
>>>>> does come close but the refresh rate is much too slow.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddi...
>>>>>
>>>>> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>>>>>> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers -
>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they
>>>>>> will replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a
>>>>>> screen that
>>>>>> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>>>>>> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
>>>>>> developers would want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
>>>>>> about 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast
>>>>>> refresh -
>>>>>> 8ms or
>>>>>> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are
>>>>>> nice
>>>>>> but how about the standard format too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV
>>>>>> HDTV
>>>>>> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that
>>>>>> I've
>>>>>> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is
>>>>>> nice, it
>>>>>> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>>>>>> format would be better for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three
>>>>>> people started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>>>>
>>>> Take a look at a Mitsubishi XC-3725C.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --John
>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
April 6, 2005 1:45:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I am neither a hardware engineer, venture capitalist nor in hedge funds so
I'll just end that part of this discussion.

I would say $1500 - $2000 would be a reasonable price.. Lower of course
would be better.

They use them for their own development - they need to see as much detail as
possible so the customer sees the best image.



I would say 17" monitors are standard and P3 850s would be standard - do you
think ID or Valve develops games using those? Are you trying to be
recalcitrant or are you just playing devil's advocate?


Line quadruplers and phase systems did exist so although there was no
broadcast content, there was the capacity for higher resolution systems.
Perhaps you don't get the point of this discusssion. Just because something
isn't available at this very second on the shelf does not mean the niche
does not exist nor does it mean it is technologicially impossible.

I have my opinion and apparantly you have a different one - shall we leave
it at that?


"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:D 2v0580208a@news3.newsguy.com...
> boe wrote:
>
>> I certainly have nothing against being rich although developing the
>> technology for such a screen is a tad out of my skill set.
>
> You don't have to develop the technology, just find out how big an order
> you
> have to place with Sony or whoever to get them to make a tube to your
> specification--you can hire designers to do the chassis design--once
> you've
> got the costs worked up then go to the venture capitalists, place the
> order
> etc.
>
> The hard part is going to be convincing the venture capitalists that you
> can
> actually sell the number of monitors you have to build to absorb the
> minimum buy on the tubes at the price you need to charge to recoup the
> startup costs.
>
>> I do believe
>> the know how does exist and I do believe I'm not the only one who wants
>> it.
>
> So we have two people who _say_ they want it. How much would you pay?
>
>> Just one of my clients is a gaming company and they would order 20 if
>> they
>> existed.
>
> At what price? And why would they want 20 displays that were _not_
> typical
> of what their customers would be using?
>
>> Now not every company is in the gaming industry but I have an AV
>> client as well who would order these if they could.
>
> At what price? What kind of "AV" are they doing that would make it
> desirable for them to use a different type of monitor from the mainstream?
>
>> Seeing as I am just
>> one person with a few small accounts, I would imagine there are much
>> bigger companies that would like such screens as well.
>
> At what price?
>
>> I do believe that such a niche exists just as much as a niche for big
>> screen TVs exists although bigscreen HDTVs haven't been around 10 years
>> ago in the US doen't mean there wasn't a niche to be filled.
>
> There was no niche for HDTVs ten years ago because there was no HDTV
> content. However there were most assuredly big (measured in _feet_, not
> _inches_) screen displays available that could handle HD content.
> Further,
> those were CRTs. They cost more than a fair sized house, but they _were_
> available.
>
>> I consider anything at a size of 21" or larger only capable of 1280 as
>> being
>> too low of a resolution. 1280 is fine for a 17" monitor but leaves
>> something to be desired on a larger screen capable of benefiting from
>> greater detail. A 20" high definition TV doesn't really benefit from
>> being high def as much as a 60".
>
> Depends on how close you sit.
>
> I'm sure that it is technologically possible to make a 1000 foot CRT with
> a
> resolution of 4 million x 3 million. That is not why they don't exist in
> the market. The reason they don't exist in the market is that the market
> for them is too small for anyone to be able to manufacture them at a price
> that any significant number of potential purchasers is willing to pay.
>
>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:D 2ujro1k20@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> boe wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if you were joking or not but in case anyone takes this
>>>> post seriously,
>>>>
>>>> This is a TV pretending to be a monitor - low refresh rate max 64kHz(it
>>>> doesn't say at what resolution) and low resolution 1280 x 1024
>>>
>>> Find another 37" direct-view CRT that does 1280x1024. That's hardly a
>>> "TV pretending to be a monitor", it's a purpose made monitor that when
>>> new cost
>>> about ten grand and still rents out for $300/day. It's not even a
>>> product of the consumer division of Mitsubishi, it's a product of the
>>> same division
>>> that made all their other monitors.
>>>
>>> And when did 1280x1024 become "low resolution"?
>>>
>>> Sorry, but if you want a large direct-view CRT that is designed as a
>>> computer monitor that's _it_. There was also a 34" but nobody seems to
>>> have any of those anymore.
>>>
>>> If you don't like your choices then the only thing you're going to be
>>> able
>>> to do about it is build your own. If you think that there's a real
>>> market
>>> there then get some venture capital and _fill_ it and get rich. If you
>>> don't think there's a real market there then why would the display
>>> manufacturers want to be bothered with a market that even you admit
>>> doesn't
>>> exist? And if you say you don't want to be rich, that's a cop-out.
>>>
>>>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:D 2ucqf0akn@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>>> boe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW - if any of you are thinking about this model, you are correct,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> does come close but the refresh rate is much too slow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddi...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>>>>>>> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers -
>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they
>>>>>>> will replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a
>>>>>>> screen that
>>>>>>> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>>>>>>> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
>>>>>>> developers would want.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
>>>>>>> about 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast
>>>>>>> refresh -
>>>>>>> 8ms or
>>>>>>> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are
>>>>>>> nice
>>>>>>> but how about the standard format too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV
>>>>>>> HDTV
>>>>>>> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that
>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is
>>>>>>> nice, it
>>>>>>> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>>>>>>> format would be better for me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three
>>>>>>> people started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take a look at a Mitsubishi XC-3725C.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --John
>>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>>
>>> --
>>> --John
>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 6, 2005 6:37:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 07:12:07 -0700, boe wrote:
>
> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen
> that should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
> developers would want.

If you want a quality screen, you don't have to look very far - there are
19" through 22" available for under $800 that have the quality and ability
you are asking for.

> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
> about 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh -
> 8ms or less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models
> are nice but how about the standard format too?

There are many 21" monitors available - many of us already have them, and
most of the last 4+ years. In most cases, you might find that a quality
19" screen is better for gaming than a 24" screen since you don't have to
move your eyes as much. The main requirement in gaming is the ability to
detect movement/details, and when you are looking at one point (about 10
inches) the rest is just peripheral motion detection, so the larger screen
does little for your gaming experience. I play CS at 1024x768 and find
that there are times when 800x600 offers better tactical advantages, I
can't imagine playing at 1600x1200 on a 19" or 21" monitor, it would be
more hassle/pain than anything.

The reason the card vendors cater to the gaming people is that the
technology for monitors is old and already proven, doesn't require much to
do anything. Game vendors are always pushing the detail levels, the need
for power, etc... An old VGA monitor will not make any difference in
performance if the card can't support the game being played.


--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 6, 2005 6:37:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:TXH4e.12066$Fh4.7100@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 07:12:07 -0700, boe wrote:
>
> The reason the card vendors cater to the gaming people is that the
> technology for monitors is old and already proven, doesn't require much to
> do anything. Game vendors are always pushing the detail levels, the need
> for power, etc... An old VGA monitor will not make any difference in
> performance if the card can't support the game being played.
>
>

Can you imagine what it would be like if we had both the
computer's video bus changing and the video display
functional parameters changing, at the same time? We are
coming up on enough of that with HD Digital "Home
Theater" "Convergence" in the offing.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 6, 2005 6:40:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 08:07:51 -0700, boe wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply and the food for thought. This is a 20" viewable
> - same as my current model - I'm hoping to find something with a bigger
> viewable area.

Since bigger won't improve your online playing ability, won't improve your
shot accuracy, and will increase eye strain, what are you hoping to get
out of the larger monitor?

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
April 6, 2005 6:40:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Actually if you do a search on the web - it has been proven that larger
monitors REDUCE eye strain. I also hope to gain a more immersive
environment and the ability to get easier to review higher detail for
graphics analysis.



"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:N_H4e.12068$Fh4.7631@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 08:07:51 -0700, boe wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your reply and the food for thought. This is a 20" viewable
>> - same as my current model - I'm hoping to find something with a bigger
>> viewable area.
>
> Since bigger won't improve your online playing ability, won't improve your
> shot accuracy, and will increase eye strain, what are you hoping to get
> out of the larger monitor?
>
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 6, 2005 6:40:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

For first-person shooters, true. At the same time, a lot of hardcore gamers
run at ugly graphics settings so their framerates never fall below 60 fps...

However, for other games, in particular, simulations, a larger monitor helps
with immersion.

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:N_H4e.12068$Fh4.7631@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Since bigger won't improve your online playing ability, won't improve your
> shot accuracy, and will increase eye strain, what are you hoping to get
> out of the larger monitor?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 6, 2005 1:28:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 01:42:51 -0400, First of One wrote:
>
> For first-person shooters, true. At the same time, a lot of hardcore
> gamers run at ugly graphics settings so their framerates never fall
> below 60 fps...
>
> However, for other games, in particular, simulations, a larger monitor
> helps with immersion.

If you are not playing first-person shooters, and you need immersion, then
you need a DLP projection device. It would be easy to install a dual or
quad video card to connect to 2 or 4 of those and then you don't need a
monitor at all, just flat/white walls.



--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 6, 2005 1:28:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:D ZN4e.12087$Fh4.2558@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 01:42:51 -0400, First of One wrote:
>>
>> For first-person shooters, true. At the same time, a lot of hardcore
>> gamers run at ugly graphics settings so their framerates never fall
>> below 60 fps...
>>
>> However, for other games, in particular, simulations, a larger monitor
>> helps with immersion.
>
> If you are not playing first-person shooters, and you need immersion, then
> you need a DLP projection device. It would be easy to install a dual or
> quad video card to connect to 2 or 4 of those and then you don't need a
> monitor at all, just flat/white walls.
>

Michael Caine, as Harry Palmer in "The Ipcress File", yes I
guess you could call that immersion.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 6, 2005 2:56:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Leythos wrote:
> There are many 21" monitors available - many of us already have them, and
> most of the last 4+ years. In most cases, you might find that a quality
> 19" screen is better for gaming than a 24" screen since you don't have to
> move your eyes as much.

If the FOV is set correctly, thats not true. If you set close to a 24"
monitor, you widen our FOV with the result that you can see more. Like
in real life. If you;re sitting a long way off, then you should narrow
the FOV, otherwise you're only able to see through a window thats 30°
wide and 2 foot away - not like life at all.

> The main requirement in gaming is the ability to
> detect movement/details,

Yes.

> and when you are looking at one point (about 10
> inches) the rest is just peripheral motion detection, so the larger screen
> does little for your gaming experience.

You don't seem to understand FOV (Field of View). The human eye has a
(horizontal) FOV of well over 120°, from where I'm sitting the monitor
probably takes up about 35°. So most of my periphery vision in-game has
been lost. I literally cannot see things outside of my FOV without
turning, whereas in real life you can pretty much see things approaching
from either side simultaneously. If I could, I would be a better gamer,
I would spot things earlier.

> I play CS at 1024x768 and find
> that there are times when 800x600 offers better tactical advantages, I

How? Assuming that frame rates are high, how can less detail be better?

> can't imagine playing at 1600x1200 on a 19" or 21" monitor, it would be
> more hassle/pain than anything.

Actually it's really nice. When my 9800 Pro could do games at 1600x1200
(such as splinter cell), the level of detail in far-off objects was a
great help. Contrast that to what you would see on a console with a
standard TV - with such a low resolution you lose depth of field and
have to get closer to the target to know what it is.

> The reason the card vendors cater to the gaming people is that the
> technology for monitors is old and already proven, doesn't require much to
> do anything. Game vendors are always pushing the detail levels, the need
> for power, etc... An old VGA monitor will not make any difference in
> performance if the card can't support the game being played.

It always amases me how little people spend on a monitor, mouse and
keyboard. They'll buy the fastest processor, fastest graphics card,
some will buy 2 of the fastest hard drives... the system might cost
£1000. But often, only 10% of that is spent on the entire HCI
equipment! What good is an amazing computer when you can't tell 'cos
your monitor is poor and the mouse is wonky?

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 6, 2005 9:07:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:56:40 +0100, Ben Pope wrote:
>
> Leythos wrote:
>> There are many 21" monitors available - many of us already have them,
>> and most of the last 4+ years. In most cases, you might find that a
>> quality 19" screen is better for gaming than a 24" screen since you
>> don't have to move your eyes as much.
>
> If the FOV is set correctly, thats not true. If you set close to a 24"
> monitor, you widen our FOV with the result that you can see more. Like
> in real life. If you;re sitting a long way off, then you should narrow
> the FOV, otherwise you're only able to see through a window thats 30°
> wide and 2 foot away - not like life at all.

Actually, as a target shooting I completely understand FOV, in fact, a
smaller FOV is what is needed to play most games and for target shooting -
as a larger field of view means more information, smaller objects, harder
to find target point.

>> The main requirement in gaming is the ability to detect
>> movement/details,
>
> Yes.
>
> > and when you are looking at one point (about 10
>> inches) the rest is just peripheral motion detection, so the larger
>> screen does little for your gaming experience.
>
> You don't seem to understand FOV (Field of View). The human eye has a
> (horizontal) FOV of well over 120°, from where I'm sitting the monitor
> probably takes up about 35°. So most of my periphery vision in-game
> has been lost. I literally cannot see things outside of my FOV without
> turning, whereas in real life you can pretty much see things approaching
> from either side simultaneously. If I could, I would be a better gamer,
> I would spot things earlier.

Having a 35% FOV on a screen, 24" widescreen unit, that's 18 inches (and
many game players play with less than that) in front of you, means you
move your eyes more than I would on a 19" screen at the same distance -
less eye strain.

> > I play CS at 1024x768 and find
>> that there are times when 800x600 offers better tactical advantages, I
>
> How? Assuming that frame rates are high, how can less detail be better?

Easier to place the reticle on the target point - this isn't horse-shoes.
Most games require exact placement of a shot in order to be most
effective, the lower res often relates into better accuracy as a single
pixel, in some games, is related to screen res and that means shot
accuracy.

>> can't imagine playing at 1600x1200 on a 19" or 21" monitor, it would be
>> more hassle/pain than anything.
>
> Actually it's really nice. When my 9800 Pro could do games at 1600x1200
> (such as splinter cell), the level of detail in far-off objects was a
> great help. Contrast that to what you would see on a console with a
> standard TV - with such a low resolution you lose depth of field and
> have to get closer to the target to know what it is.

I have played at those res and I didn't like it, it was harder to place
the shot.

>> The reason the card vendors cater to the gaming people is that the
>> technology for monitors is old and already proven, doesn't require much
>> to do anything. Game vendors are always pushing the detail levels, the
>> need for power, etc... An old VGA monitor will not make any difference
>> in performance if the card can't support the game being played.
>
> It always amases me how little people spend on a monitor, mouse and
> keyboard. They'll buy the fastest processor, fastest graphics card,
> some will buy 2 of the fastest hard drives... the system might cost
> £1000. But often, only 10% of that is spent on the entire HCI
> equipment! What good is an amazing computer when you can't tell 'cos
> your monitor is poor and the mouse is wonky?

I mostly agree with you, beyond a certain level there is little difference
in monitor quality - if you spend about $500~$700 on a quality CRT you get
about the best image quality regardless of size. I do agree about the
keyboard, mouse, monitor being very key points - as I always tell
customers, those are the only things you see/use on the computer that make
a difference.

Due to certain vendors making games that exceed the current technology in
video cards, having a fast card is also becoming important, but you won't
see much difference in image quality as long as you purchase a mid/upper
level monitor. For most gamers, the $350 Viewsonic 19" won't provide much
over the $500 Viewsonic 19" monitor.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2005 12:52:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Leythos wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:56:40 +0100, Ben Pope wrote:
>
>>If the FOV is set correctly, thats not true. If you set close to a 24"
>>monitor, you widen our FOV with the result that you can see more. Like
>>in real life. If you;re sitting a long way off, then you should narrow
>>the FOV, otherwise you're only able to see through a window thats 30°
>>wide and 2 foot away - not like life at all.
>
>
> Actually, as a target shooting I completely understand FOV, in fact, a
> smaller FOV is what is needed to play most games and for target shooting -
> as a larger field of view means more information, smaller objects, harder
> to find target point.

Having the extra information means that you can see the target on screen
by moving your eyes, instead of the characters head. Thats quicker.

What you're saying is that if you stuck a box on your head, with a
window in front of you (in real life), you'd be more effective. I doubt
it. I'm not saying the objects are going to be any smaller at all...
your distance from the screen compensates that.

>>You don't seem to understand FOV (Field of View). The human eye has a
>>(horizontal) FOV of well over 120°, from where I'm sitting the monitor
>>probably takes up about 35°. So most of my periphery vision in-game
>>has been lost. I literally cannot see things outside of my FOV without
>>turning, whereas in real life you can pretty much see things approaching
>>from either side simultaneously. If I could, I would be a better gamer,
>>I would spot things earlier.
>
>
> Having a 35% FOV on a screen, 24" widescreen unit, that's 18 inches (and
> many game players play with less than that) in front of you, means you
> move your eyes more than I would on a 19" screen at the same distance -
> less eye strain.

I don't get any eye strain so I can't comment.

>>> I play CS at 1024x768 and find
>>>that there are times when 800x600 offers better tactical advantages, I
>>
>>How? Assuming that frame rates are high, how can less detail be better?
>
>
> Easier to place the reticle on the target point - this isn't horse-shoes.
> Most games require exact placement of a shot in order to be most
> effective, the lower res often relates into better accuracy as a single
> pixel, in some games, is related to screen res and that means shot
> accuracy.

When you play at a higher resolution you have greater depth of field
(potentially). That doesn't make things smaller... but it does allow
you to see smaller things. If you play at 800x600, and a target is
6pixels across, you might find it hard to work out what it is. If you
play at 1600x1200, it's 12 pixels across, and that might provide enough
information to know whether it's a tree or an enemy soldier.

Equivelently, I can now see things which are further away... I have
greater depth of field.

>>Actually it's really nice. When my 9800 Pro could do games at 1600x1200
>>(such as splinter cell), the level of detail in far-off objects was a
>>great help. Contrast that to what you would see on a console with a
>>standard TV - with such a low resolution you lose depth of field and
>>have to get closer to the target to know what it is.
>
>
> I have played at those res and I didn't like it, it was harder to place
> the shot.

I still don't see how... the target is the same physical size regardless
of your resolution.

>>It always amases me how little people spend on a monitor, mouse and
>>keyboard. They'll buy the fastest processor, fastest graphics card,
>>some will buy 2 of the fastest hard drives... the system might cost
>>£1000. But often, only 10% of that is spent on the entire HCI
>>equipment! What good is an amazing computer when you can't tell 'cos
>>your monitor is poor and the mouse is wonky?
>
>
> I mostly agree with you, beyond a certain level there is little difference
> in monitor quality - if you spend about $500~$700 on a quality CRT you get
> about the best image quality regardless of size.

I have a Sony G400 (19" CRT) it must be over 5 years old now. I run my
desktop at 1600x1200@85Hz - I can and often do, sit here all day long
coding and never get eye strain. It was an excellent investment, even
at £400 back then.

> I do agree about the
> keyboard, mouse, monitor being very key points - as I always tell
> customers, those are the only things you see/use on the computer that make
> a difference.

My mouse is the Logitech MX1000 - it's outstanding... I couldn't fault
the MX700 but after using this one, I can tell you it really is a superb
bit if kit that does go that extra mile. Keyboard is Logitech too, say
nearly £100 on mouse/keyboard (which is, admittedly, excessive), but
given the amount of time I sit in front of it, I think it's worth it.

> Due to certain vendors making games that exceed the current technology in
> video cards, having a fast card is also becoming important, but you won't
> see much difference in image quality as long as you purchase a mid/upper
> level monitor. For most gamers, the $350 Viewsonic 19" won't provide much
> over the $500 Viewsonic 19" monitor.

Understood... for gaming. But then a TV seems to work well too, in many
situations.

You don't really need 1600x1200 on a 19" screen. Much beyond, say
1280x960 with a tad of AA and the image is fine. Given the dot pitch of
my screen, 1440*1080 is probably the maximum "detail" you'll get from
it, but it's still sharp at 1600x1200.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2005 12:52:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:52:38 +0100, Ben Pope wrote:
>
> When you play at a higher resolution you have greater depth of field
> (potentially). That doesn't make things smaller... but it does allow
> you to see smaller things. If you play at 800x600, and a target is
> 6pixels across, you might find it hard to work out what it is. If you
> play at 1600x1200, it's 12 pixels across, and that might provide enough
> information to know whether it's a tree or an enemy soldier.

Not on any of the First Person games I play, a object that is 6 pixels at
800x600 is also 6 pixels at 1600x1200.

If everything increased in pixels when you change resolution, there would
be little point, other than possibly more detail in those extra pixels, if
the card/game actually provided those extra details.

I've yet to see a game, CS, CS Source, Unreal, FarCry, where you got
"more" detail at a higher resolution - sure you get more area/view, but
it's the same detail.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
April 7, 2005 1:24:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:52:48 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>Not on any of the First Person games I play, a object that is 6 pixels at
>800x600 is also 6 pixels at 1600x1200.

So every object is half the size on the screen at 1600x1200? Try to
think through what you wrote.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2005 3:13:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:24:20 +0000, Andrew wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:52:48 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
>>Not on any of the First Person games I play, a object that is 6 pixels
>>at 800x600 is also 6 pixels at 1600x1200.
>
> So every object is half the size on the screen at 1600x1200? Try to
> think through what you wrote.

Not quite half the size, but if you go from 800x600 to 1600x1200 you see
more of the surrounding area, but everything is much smaller - call it
what you want, but it's still smaller and not double the size.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2005 5:37:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Leythos wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:24:20 +0000, Andrew wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:52:48 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Not on any of the First Person games I play, a object that is 6 pixels
>>>at 800x600 is also 6 pixels at 1600x1200.
>>
>>So every object is half the size on the screen at 1600x1200? Try to
>>think through what you wrote.
>
>
> Not quite half the size, but if you go from 800x600 to 1600x1200 you see
> more of the surrounding area, but everything is much smaller - call it
> what you want, but it's still smaller and not double the size.

For a given display, a given object, viewed from a given point will be a
fixed physical size regardless of resolution. Thats true for every
single 3D game I have played.

If you move from 800x600 to 1600x1200 the object has 4 times as many
pixels that make it up, and it therefore has more detail.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
April 7, 2005 1:17:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

It turns out LG has a 32" LCD with a 8ms response time. That is pretty
impressive. This gives me hope that they might make a standard format
instead of wide screen that might come closer to my goal.


"boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>
> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen that
> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic developers
> would want.
>
> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say about
> 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
> but how about the standard format too?
>
> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it
> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
> format would be better for me.
>
> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>
April 9, 2005 2:01:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

You want Quality, not Lucky Goldstar :)  8ms I doubt it, but if so,
sounds great..

boe wrote:
> It turns out LG has a 32" LCD with a 8ms response time. That is pretty
> impressive. This gives me hope that they might make a standard format
> instead of wide screen that might come closer to my goal.
>
>
> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>
>>Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>>
>>I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
>>replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen that
>>should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>>manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic developers
>>would want.
>>
>>I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say about
>>24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
>>less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
>>but how about the standard format too?
>>
>>Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
>>or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
>>tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it
>>doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
>>the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>>format would be better for me.
>>
>>Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
>>started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2005 2:01:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Minotaur wrote:

>
>
> You want Quality, not Lucky Goldstar :) 

What leads you to believe that LG suffers from any lack of quality? I've
been using their stuff now for 15 years or so with no problems. The only
problems I've ever even _heard_ of anybody having with their stuff were
with the firmware on a few models of DVD burner. It's not always cutting
edge but it's always been reliable. Bear in mind that they make IBM heavy
iron for the Korean market. If they lacked quality IBM would not license
them to do that.

> 8ms I doubt it, but if so,
> sounds great..

<http://us.lge.com/Product/proddetail.do?actCategory=com...;

Currently everybody seems to be sold out.

> boe wrote:
>> It turns out LG has a 32" LCD with a 8ms response time. That is pretty
>> impressive. This gives me hope that they might make a standard format
>> instead of wide screen that might come closer to my goal.
>>
>>
>> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>>>
>>>I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
>>>replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen
>>>that
>>>should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>>>manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
>>>developers would want.
>>>
>>>I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
>>>about 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh -
>>>8ms or
>>>less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
>>>but how about the standard format too?
>>>
>>>Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
>>>or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
>>>tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it
>>>doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
>>>the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>>>format would be better for me.
>>>
>>>Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
>>>started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>>>
>>
>>
>>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
April 10, 2005 12:59:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:17:47 -0700, "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:

>It turns out LG has a 32" LCD with a 8ms response time. That is pretty
>impressive. This gives me hope that they might make a standard format
>instead of wide screen that might come closer to my goal.
>
>
>"boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>>
>> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
>> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen that
>> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic developers
>> would want.
>>
>> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say about
>> 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
>> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
>> but how about the standard format too?
>>
>> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
>> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
>> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it
>> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
>> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>> format would be better for me.
>>
>> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
>> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>>
>

Also close:

HP L2335 based on the same panel used by one Apple monitor.
23 inches, 1920x1200 max resolution, HP doesn't quote a response time,
I'm betting it's 25ms at best, and the one review I have found says
you have REAL fun finding a video card that will sync to it at
1920x1200...but it can be done.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 11, 2005 6:00:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:01:40 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:

>Minotaur wrote:
>> You want Quality, not Lucky Goldstar :) 
>
>What leads you to believe that LG suffers from any lack of quality? I've
>been using their stuff now for 15 years or so with no problems.

If you'd been around for more than 15 years, you'd remember the gawd
awful cheap TV sets that Goldstar used to whore around.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 11, 2005 6:02:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 02:40:45 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 08:07:51 -0700, boe wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your reply and the food for thought. This is a 20" viewable
>> - same as my current model - I'm hoping to find something with a bigger
>> viewable area.
>
>Since bigger won't improve your online playing ability, won't improve your
>shot accuracy, and will increase eye strain, what are you hoping to get
>out of the larger monitor?

You live in an interesting world. Do they have you on prozac ?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 11, 2005 8:57:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

repairs_r_us wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:01:40 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Minotaur wrote:
>>> You want Quality, not Lucky Goldstar :) 
>>
>>What leads you to believe that LG suffers from any lack of quality? I've
>>been using their stuff now for 15 years or so with no problems.
>
> If you'd been around for more than 15 years, you'd remember the gawd
> awful cheap TV sets that Goldstar used to whore around.

I don't remember seeing a "Goldstar" TV until very recently. The first LG
product I remember seeing was a monitor that had been working fine for
years.

But that might have been the time in my life when I had little interest in
television.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 12, 2005 1:11:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:02:50 -0700, LOL wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 02:40:45 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 08:07:51 -0700, boe wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply and the food for thought. This is a 20"
>>> viewable - same as my current model - I'm hoping to find something
>>> with a bigger viewable area.
>>
>>Since bigger won't improve your online playing ability, won't improve
>>your shot accuracy, and will increase eye strain, what are you hoping to
>>get out of the larger monitor?
>
> You live in an interesting world. Do they have you on prozac ?

Do you not understand the basics of resolution and gaming while you're on
Viagra? I think the blue shift has tinted your judgment.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 12, 2005 1:11:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:11:56 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:02:50 -0700, LOL wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 02:40:45 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 08:07:51 -0700, boe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your reply and the food for thought. This is a 20"
>>>> viewable - same as my current model - I'm hoping to find something
>>>> with a bigger viewable area.
>>>
>>>Since bigger won't improve your online playing ability, won't improve
>>>your shot accuracy, and will increase eye strain, what are you hoping to
>>>get out of the larger monitor?
>>
>> You live in an interesting world. Do they have you on prozac ?
>
>Do you not understand the basics of resolution and gaming while you're on
>Viagra? I think the blue shift has tinted your judgment.


LOL. Some of us have real eyes and real reflexes.

We don't make up strange excuses and then pawn them off on others ;) 

Buy the 21" Mitsubishi/Nec CRT monitor.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 12, 2005 1:17:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

<repairs_r_us> wrote in message
news:96pl515cim2nsqoom58v227198e9mtjlqe@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:01:40 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Minotaur wrote:
> >> You want Quality, not Lucky Goldstar :) 
> >
> >What leads you to believe that LG suffers from
any lack of quality? I've
> >been using their stuff now for 15 years or so
with no problems.
>
> If you'd been around for more than 15 years,
you'd remember the gawd
> awful cheap TV sets that Goldstar used to whore
around.

Their CD Writers are great. The old Goldstar
stereos from the 90's were nasty.
!