Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Just wanted to say thanks

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
May 21, 2002 5:45:53 PM

Just wanted to say thanks to all the residents of the CRT forum. I did some reading here and got opinions from friends and decided on the Misubishi DiamondTron 920 19" aperture grille.

Now I just have to wait for PriceGrabber to come back up so I can get the price I found an hour ago :frown:

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>

More about : wanted

May 21, 2002 8:07:06 PM

What is PriceGrabber? Something like pricewatch.com? Also, what made you decide on the mitsubishi? I'm asking cause I really need a new monitor, but want to invest in a quality 19" Thanks!

-zigzag
May 21, 2002 9:48:51 PM

Just bought the NEC FE950+ off newegg. Will let you guys know on Thursday how it does...
Related resources
May 21, 2002 10:16:20 PM

Look up and to the left. PriceGrabber! :wink:

I decided on the Mitsubishi/NEC because it has the highest refresh rate at 1600x1200 in the $250-400 class, and also has a .24mm dot pitch, whereas most of the others had .25mm. A coworker said that the DiamondTron tube is the best too.

There was a Hitachi for ~$280 that was .20mm dot pitch, but I'm not sure I trust Hitachi.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 22, 2002 4:08:12 PM

What do you mainly use your setup for? Gaming? Text (coding)? I'm just wondering what exactly you looked for in this monitor. Thanks again.

-zigzag
May 22, 2002 6:48:35 PM

I just looked for a brand I can trust with the best features in the price range. I had already decided on a 19" AG.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 23, 2002 4:42:04 AM

Why not the cornerstone P2460? It does have a higher refresh rate, and resolution than the Misubishi and its 80 bucks less at monitorsdirect.com.
May 23, 2002 6:48:47 PM

It's only $30 less, has the same resolution and refresh rates, and isn't a brand I've heard of. Besides, I already ordered the Mitsubishi :smile:

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 23, 2002 11:47:59 PM

Hey, I just realized that the cornerstone is made by Mitsubishi.
May 24, 2002 4:36:18 PM

No! My p1750, p2450 and p2460 use the Mitsubishi NF CRTs but they are not manufactured by Mitsubishi. In fact Mitsubishi does not even manufacture monitors anymore since they merged with NEC.

Jim Witkowski
Chief Hardware Engineer
Cornerstone / Monitorsdirect.com

<A HREF="http://www.monitorsdirect.com" target="_new">MonitorsDirect.com</A>
May 24, 2002 11:59:35 PM

How do you think your 2460 compares to a NEC FE950?
If you had 300 would what would you buy?
May 25, 2002 8:43:20 PM

No, there is much more to a monitor than the CRT. A monitor with an average CRT mated with better electronics and alignment will be much better than a good CRT mated with poor electronics. Just because Samsung uses Mitsubishi CRT in their 900NF and 1200NF make them Mitsubishi monitors?

The FE950+ matches better with my p2450 than it does to the p2460. The FE950 is only a 96Khz monitor like the p2450. Both are optimized for 1280 x 1024 at 85Hz. The p2460 is a 117Khz monitor optimized for 1600 x 1200 at 85Hz. For only $199 and a standard 5-year warranty you cannot beat the p2450.

Jim Witkowski
Chief Hardware Engineer
Cornerstone / Monitorsdirect.com

<A HREF="http://www.monitorsdirect.com" target="_new">MonitorsDirect.com</A>
May 26, 2002 11:10:04 AM

Ok, Thanks
Do you think the the 2560 is worth the extra 90 comparred to the 2450, or round the diff in specs be minute in performance? How would the 2560 compare to the p1450? I read about the 1450 but I havent seen it anywhere for sale.
May 26, 2002 12:29:46 PM

I would be VERY hesitant at buying any monitor that can only run visibly well at resolutions of 1280x1024 or worse, 1600x1200. I can't possibly imagine how anyone would want to use 1600x1200 on all but the largest 24" monitors or a plasma screen. It really doesn't make much sense why a monitor manufacturer would aim for those kinds of resolutions. At some point, doesn't it become hard for a person to read text that's on the screen when it's at such high resolutions? Having to squint or wear glasses when using the computer is what you're going to have to do if you get any of these monitors that only run well in those resolutions. Keep in mind you may use this monitor for many, many years...
May 26, 2002 6:10:04 PM

Logger

The p2450 and p2460 are built on the same chassis, the only difference between them is resolution / refresh rate capabilities. The p1450/p1460 have been discontinued due because Hitachi stopped making the CRT's used in those models.


Cake

The beauty of the OS and all applications is the fact that fonts etc, are all scaleable. If they are too small at high resolution simply increase them. Then you get the best of both worlds, high resolution and easy to read text. Just because a monitor is optimized to run 1600 x 1200 does not mean you cannot run it at lower resolutions. If you don't plan on using 1600 x 1200 you can save some $ and purchase one optimized for lower resolution.

Jim Witkowski
Chief Hardware Engineer
Cornerstone / MOnitorsdirect.com

<A HREF="http://www.monitorsdirect.com" target="_new">MonitorsDirect.com</A>
May 26, 2002 11:46:41 PM

So correct me if I am wrong but your saying all cornerstones run poorly at low resolutions? I understand that few people would ever read text at 1600x1200,but I am looking for a monitor that would be great for games and low res text. I usually run text at 1024x768T
Thanks for your input
May 28, 2002 4:30:25 PM

No not at all, what I'm saying is there is a reason manufactures have more than one model of each size. For example I have 5 21” models ranging from 1280 x 1024 up to 2048 x 1536 resolution. Why would anyone purchase a monitor optimized for 2048 x 1536 and run it at 1280 x 1024? Yes the image will look good it’s simply a waist of money. It’s like buying a Ferrari and driving it at 55MPH.

If you want to run 1024 x 768 or lower you are better of with a 17” monitor.


Jim Witkowski
Chief Hardware Engineer
Cornerstone / Monitrosdirect.com

<A HREF="http://www.monitorsdirect.com" target="_new">MonitorsDirect.com</A>
May 29, 2002 12:28:35 AM

Hmm... well we're getting into matters of personal preference here, but I disagree. Software and OS's aren't as good at doing what you describe as you might hope. Unfortunately increasing text size is one thing, but there are no things to automatically increase graphic size. You could use things like Windows accessibility to enlarge certain portions of the screen, but get real, why do this when you can ditch it entirely and read everything you need to read at a single resolution, without using an on-screen magnifying glass?

Also, games are really impractical at 1280x1024. At these high resolutions, some games actually do not scale. The on screen text and graphic displays become smaller and smaller until you cannot see them anymore let alone read them.
May 29, 2002 1:40:36 AM

Hey!! Wait a minute somebody here is missinformed, and I think that it's me. I thought that when you played games you wanted to max out the res like 16x12 if possible, but your saying that even 12x10 is too high. What resoultion is usually the optimal res for playing games?
I was thing about getting the cornerstone2460 because it has the higher res(which I thought I would use for games but not text. If what your saying is true though the 2460 would be a waste of 100bucks so I should just go for the 2450.
Help
May 29, 2002 4:47:31 PM

Cake

Because you need to pan and scroll around the screen in lower resolutions (major distraction) if you ask me. This is why I prefer larger fonts etc. at higher resolutions. Any program worth anything scales graphics also. Enabling them is simple in windows and most other popular OS.

Logger

It depends on the game you have. Some scale fine others do not. For those that do 1600 x 1200 is great.

Jim Witkowski
Chief Hardware Engineer
Cornerstone / Monitorsdirect.com

<A HREF="http://www.monitorsdirect.com" target="_new">MonitorsDirect.com</A>
May 29, 2002 6:23:56 PM

Do I get a discount if I buy 3 monitors?
May 29, 2002 6:30:40 PM

I do not set prices so I cant say. You can try calling our sales team and ask them. I doubt they can do anything on the p2450 since its price at $199 is so low to begin with.

Jim Witkowski
Chief Hardware Engineer
Cornerstone / Monitorsdirect.com

<A HREF="http://www.monitorsdirect.com" target="_new">MonitorsDirect.com</A>
May 31, 2002 1:47:13 AM

Just got my monitor from UPS, and all I can say is:

<b>HOLY [-peep-] [-peep-]!!!</b>

This thing is only a 19" but weighs 50.7 pounds. Definitely the biggest monitor I or any of my friends has. I just about ruptured a hernia trying to get it into my car and then getting it into my house.

So far the picutre quality is good. Text is nice and sharp (at the recommended 1280x1024@85Hz). Haven't played any games yet. The conrols for the monitor are simple and complete, which is nice.

Definitely a big change from my crappy 17", and a huge change from the 15" I was using in the interim.

Well, I'm off for dinner and then some Morrowind. Or maybe I'll play some UT at 1600x1200 :cool:

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 2, 2002 11:19:29 AM

so.......tell us how it looks under games already?

_______________________________________

The world sucks. Keep your pants on.
Anonymous
June 2, 2002 1:59:12 PM

Hehe, gota love that weight huh, puts me off cleaning behind the desk trying to move my monitor around.

Well it looks like my old Phillips Brilliance 109s is still there, doing a mighty fine job at 1024x768 - 85Hz and will go too 1600x1200, as mentioned above going higher involves a bit of windows tweaking and more Hz, I really dont need to do that now.

<A HREF="http://www.koalanet.com/australian-slang.html" target="_new">Aussie slang</A>
June 3, 2002 7:59:40 PM

Looks awesome. There are two visible lines at 1/4 and 3/4 the way down the screen. I'm not sure if they're supposed to be there, or if it's a defect in the tube. Regardless, you can only notice it when the screen is white or close to it, so I don't really care. Not a problem at all.

Speaking of white, I had to turn the brightness down to 30% to keep blank white screens from blinding me. Definitely a big difference, and it'll be nice when watching movies with the lights off, or watching TV in bed.

So far, everything is perfectly crisp. 2D pictures, 3D in games, text on websites (even at 1600x1200). I'm definitely happy with this monitor. And games are much more immersive with a bigger monitor, I have a feeling that future parts of Morrowind are going to scare the crap out of me :tongue:

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 6, 2002 3:51:17 AM

ffffff where did you get it!? it's not liisted as available under price grabber!

_______________________________________

The world sucks. Keep your pants on.
June 6, 2002 4:24:32 AM

Some games do not scale to higher resolutions, and 1024x768 for desktop, which is really a personal preference, is fine for me. I actually found higher resolutions harder to use, but as you say, they can scale if you adjust font and graphics. In the end, the straw that breaks the camel's back is price--monitors that run in high resolutions are usually, though not always, the most expensive.

The higher resolution for games is an entirely different argument. I'll quote my other long post:

"Also, the advent of anti-aliasing becoming a default feature on graphics cards now makes running 1600x1200 less economical and even less aesthetic. Running 2x AA in 1024x768 or 4x in 800x600 is much more rewarding than running no AA in 1600x1200 because you get playable framerates and generally better image quality. From personal experience, running 4x 1024x768 almost complete elminates jagged edges (jagged edges are unnoticeable when playing), so if you ask me if I think the games industry is pushing for higher resolutions, I say no. If you think about it, FSAA 4x in 1024x768 resolution is really like running a game in 2048x1536 without FSAA. The reason is simple. FSAA 4x draws the scene 4 times and then collates the image into one. So if we do the math we get:

1024x768x4=3,145,728 texels
2048x1536=3,145,728 texels

One of the very reasons why FSAA was invented was to allow us the freedom to not have to buy monitors and graphics cards that support 2048x1536 resolution at stable refresh rates (after all they aren't cheap!). Also, keep in mind that a monitor you buy today will probably last 7 or 8 years, and during that time, anti-aliasing technology will improve, whereas resolution, unfortunately, will always stay the same. Just look at the matrox parhelia and think about what ATi and especially nVidia will do. Theory suggests that AA processing can be done with just 15-50% of the processing power of current FSAA functions if you target just the jagged edges as opposed to the whole screen, making higher resolutions not only inacessible to many due to high monitor requirements but also requiring more processing power thereby lowering framerate!"

I'm being optimistic in the post above. I'm hoping Matrox's 16X FAA (fragment anti-aliasing) will be successful and that others will follow its lead. The anti-aliasing quality alone should be a factor when buying video cards nowadays, but since people care a lot more about speed than quality, or think that speed=quality, I'm not sure if 16X FAA is getting the attention it deserves.

We'll never know anything until we get the benchmarks for the Parhelia-512 using 16X FAA, but based on what we know in theory, it's going to make all higher resolutions obsolete except for anything involving 2D graphics. For the professional user, by all means, run high resolutions and get the monitors that can run those high resolutions. But for the average user who plays games every now and then, it's smarter to save money and not pay for features you're not going to use. I'm not trying to bash higher resolutions, but I'm working against the notion that people think they're actually going to use those high resolutions. A recent survey among gamers who played Half-Life showed that 50% of them used 1024x768, with the rest split evenly between 800x600 and the resolutions higher than 1024x768.
June 6, 2002 3:58:11 PM

Cake


I think I know why we disagree, you are looking at the issue from a Gamers point of view. I admit that running games at lower resolutions has many advantages. I look at the issue from a business application point of view. CAD/CAM, document imaging, word processing, financial spread sheets, where the value of high resolution and the payback in your return on investment is quite short even for an expensive monitor.

There have been many studies on this subject, the most notable by Alistar Sutcliffe and Peter Faraday of the Center for HCI design in London. They concluded that larger monitors at higher resolutions increased user productivity significantly.

I do not have a soft copy of the study but if you send me a fax number I can fax you hard copy.

Also prices are not that bad these days, I have a 21” 1600 x 1200 at 85Hz monitor, my new C1035 for only $499. See this link.


http://shop.monitorsdirect.com/product.asp?sku=1908711

Jim Witkowski
Chief Hardware Engineer
Cornerstone / Monitorsdirect.com


<A HREF="http://www.monitorsdirect.com" target="_new">MonitorsDirect.com</A>
June 7, 2002 6:33:40 AM

I did some more thinking, and I believe the argument I posted earlier is actually at fault. When games become more detailed, the polygon count will increase and the polygons themselves will shrink in size. So the games industry actually <i>is</i> going to push for high resolutions, but not for another 10 years. 10 years is basically a very rough estimate for the point in time in which we will say "running 1024x768 doesn't look as good as 1600x1200". Within 5 years we may notice an impact as well if we start to deal with games that are dominated by polygons with edges that are 4 pixels long.

However, I do think that there will be a limit to how far we will go. At some point in time, resolutions will be so large that people cannot notice any differences. We're awfully close to that figure right now. Perhaps 2048x1536 is that particular resolution? $499 for a 21" 1600x1200 monitor is a steal, anyway. Thanks for sharing your point of view, it's nice to hear opinions from someone who designs monitors for a living.
June 7, 2002 11:26:20 AM

Quote:

There are two visible lines at 1/4 and 3/4 the way down the screen. I'm not sure if they're supposed to be there, or if it's a defect in the tube

I dont know if anyone has answered your question yet,
but - Yes, these lines are supposed to be there. All Sony tubes have them also, they are used to stabilize the AP.
After a while you will stop noticing them.
<pre>unless you post from home too, for these boards are mostly grey </pre><p>
June 7, 2002 6:04:11 PM

Quote:
<i>flyin says:</i>
ffffff where did you get it!? it's not liisted as available under price grabber!


I found a great price on there, then it disappeared. There were about a dozen, and they're all gone. Dunno what happened. I got mine from <A HREF="http://www.emscomputing.com" target="_new">EMS Computing</A> for $318, shipping included. They weren't incredibly fast, but no complaints.

Quote:
<i>globe111 says:</i>
Yes, these lines are supposed to be there. All Sony tubes have them also, they are used to stabilize the AP.
After a while you will stop noticing them.


Ok, thanks. That's what I figured. And I've pretty much stopped noticing them. The only time I do is when the lines are on white or nearly white.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 8, 2002 4:12:08 AM

On my own vivitron I always notice them whenever I type in Word XP. But that's the only time I ever notice them.

Censorship makes us so much more creative.
June 9, 2002 1:46:54 PM

Quote:
There are two visible lines at 1/4 and 3/4 the way down the screen.

Yep, they are supposed to be there. What is so amazing is that Sony could design such technology, think that its okay and then SELL it! Goes to show what suckers us consumers are.
As you can see, I don't like the Trinitron lines, therefore I have a shadow mask.
What is also clear from your email is that you didn't follow the number one golden rule when buying a monitor. GO SEE IT.
June 9, 2002 4:07:18 PM

sjonnie:

I don't appreciate your reference to "us customers" as suckers. If you believe Sony along with other brands incorporate the metal dividers simply to rip off customers, then...well I don't care what you believe.

I went to BestBuy and CompUSA recently to execute your method of " GO SEE IT." The problem? Their monitors weren't setup to be tested for quality, convergence, moire, etc. They were setup to advertise the brand name computers they have for sale. And it's impossible(or at least improbable) to "GO SEE" every monitor available. Some high quality monitors aren't available at large chains let alone on display for testing.

While your opinions of the Trinitron's technology are appreciated, your blatantly biased and offensive opinons are not. Please be helpful, not hurtful.

_______________________________________

The world sucks. Keep your pants on.
June 10, 2002 10:43:57 PM

It's a DiamondTron made by Mitsubishi, not a TriniTron made by Sony.

I'd much rather have an awesome monitor with two hardly noticeable lines than something that sucks ass, but does it across the entire screen.

You didn't mention what monitor you have, either.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
!