Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hooking a computer to a laptop monitor

Last response: in Laptops & Notebooks
Share
June 17, 2004 2:39:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Hi. I would like to hook my desktop computer to my laptop so that I
can use my laptop monitor with it. What is the most straightforward
way to do this? Thanks for any help.
June 17, 2004 5:41:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On 17 Jun 2004 10:39:25 -0700, panettonea@yahoo.com (SJ) wrote:

>Hi. I would like to hook my desktop computer to my laptop so that I
>can use my laptop monitor with it. What is the most straightforward
>way to do this? Thanks for any help.

I haven't tried either myself, but a recent article I read mentiond
the use of one or both of these programs....

MaxVista: http://www.download.com/3000-2346-10250817.html?tag=txt

KaVoom: http://www.kavoom.biz/

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
June 17, 2004 8:46:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm????? Why?

Now if you want to do the opposite, hook the laptop up to the
desktop's monitor, just get a KVM switch. Belkin makes a good one.

hawk

SJ wrote:
> Hi. I would like to hook my desktop computer to my laptop so that I
> can use my laptop monitor with it. What is the most straightforward
> way to do this? Thanks for any help.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 18, 2004 1:18:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"SJ" <panettonea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ef5cd76.0406170939.3ee7e023@posting.google.com...
> Hi. I would like to hook my desktop computer to my laptop so that I
> can use my laptop monitor with it. What is the most straightforward
> way to do this? Thanks for any help.


None.

Unless your laptop happens to
be among the very few having a
video *input*. The resulting
image quality is unlikely to
be worth the effort.



dk
June 18, 2004 2:35:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

That big/old/heavy CRT will out perform any current LCD. If it is
already there, who cares if it is big/old/heavy? LCD screens have been
hyped so much that naive people are switching from excellent CRTs to
mediocre LCDs.

hawk
>
> Probably because they would like to get rid of a
> big/old/heavy CRT connected to their desktop or
> tower PC.
>
> dk
June 18, 2004 3:44:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Charlie <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message news:<sap3d0pluii3f2p1ujrbftn5vh8bcb3pn4@4ax.com>...
> I haven't tried either myself, but a recent article I read mentiond
> the use of one or both of these programs....
>
> MaxVista: http://www.download.com/3000-2346-10250817.html?tag=txt
>
> KaVoom: http://www.kavoom.biz/

Thank you--I'll have to check these out. Thanks for all the other
responses too. Some people were asking why anyone would want to do
this. I want to do this at work so that I don't have to sit in front
of a CRT monitor all day. I already have a laptop too, so I would
like to be able to operate my desktop from the laptop. Concerning why
I don't just get an LCD monitor, my boss is a very difficult person to
deal with. It's like pulling teeth to get anything you *need* (much
less want) from him. :) 
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 18, 2004 11:43:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Am Freitag, 18. Juni 2004 19:35 schrieb hawk:

> That big/old/heavy CRT will out perform any current LCD. If it is
> already there, who cares if it is big/old/heavy? LCD screens have been
> hyped so much that naive people are switching from excellent CRTs to
> mediocre LCDs.

Jep.

e.g. me

Before I had an excellent 19" CRT running at 95 Hz.

Now I have a mediocre 19" LCD running at 75 Hz.

Before I had serious problems with my eyes and often headache resulted
from that. My monitor was good: I had experts here, measuring it and
stating that it was adjusted propperly, also it was positioned ergonomically
correctly.

Now they do not hurt any more - since nearly 1 year, as long as I am
using the mediocre LCD.

Believe me: I do not regret a single day of using that mediocre LCD.

There isn't the slightest flickering, the picture is like engraved
in marble...

Karl-Heinz
--
Karl-Heinz <mailto:khz@indeview.org> <mailto:khz@kde.org>
Zimmer I n d e V i e w K D E
Föhren Presentations Beyond Limitations Conquer your Desktop
www.fiehr.de www.indeview.org www.kde.org
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 18, 2004 11:43:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

hawk wrote:
> That big/old/heavy CRT will out perform any current LCD.
> If it is already there, who cares if it is big/old/heavy? LCD
> screens have been hyped so much that naive people are
> switching from excellent CRTs to mediocre LCDs.


Karl-Heinz Zimmer wrote:
> Before I had an excellent 19" CRT running at 95 Hz.
>
> Now I have a mediocre 19" LCD running at 75 Hz.
>
> Before I had serious problems with my eyes and often
> headache resulted from that. My monitor was good: I
> had experts here, measuring it and stating that it was
> adjusted propperly, also it was positioned ergonomically
> correctly.
>
> Now they do not hurt any more - since nearly 1 year, as
> long as I am using the mediocre LCD.
>
> Believe me: I do not regret a single day of using that mediocre LCD.
>
> There isn't the slightest flickering, the picture is like engraved
> in marble...

Plus, your mediocre LCD has a sharper image than even the sharpest of
excellent CRTs.

Take a magnifying glass to an excellent CRT and try to find your pixels.
Good luck!

Take the magnifying glass to your mediocre LCD and you'll see perfectly
sharp and rectangular red, green, and blue subpixels.

I got my first mediocre LCD six years ago when I got my first ThinkPad 600.
It took me all of sixty seconds to decide I'd never go back to a CRT again,
not even a truly excellent one like the Eizo I was using. Focus? Geometry?
Things of the past.

The mediocre LCD on my A30p is the best display of any kind I've ever seen
(not counting an extremely high-end IBM LCD that I got a peek at a while
ago).

Here's to mediocre LCDs!

-Mike
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 18, 2004 11:43:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Karl-Heinz Zimmer <khz@kde.org> wrote in
news:2376316.YXSmVrcOXz@linhelp10.org:

> Believe me: I do not regret a single day of using that mediocre LCD.

i guess you don't do anything involving colour calibration. LCD monitors
are great as long as you don't have to do anything relating to art or
publishing.
June 18, 2004 11:43:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Yup, ain't hype wonderful? Makes you see things that aren't there, and
makes you believe things that aren't true.

hawk

Michael Geary wrote:

> hawk wrote:
>
>>That big/old/heavy CRT will out perform any current LCD.
>>If it is already there, who cares if it is big/old/heavy? LCD
>>screens have been hyped so much that naive people are
>>switching from excellent CRTs to mediocre LCDs.
>
>
>
> Karl-Heinz Zimmer wrote:
>
>>Before I had an excellent 19" CRT running at 95 Hz.
>>
>>Now I have a mediocre 19" LCD running at 75 Hz.
>>
>>Before I had serious problems with my eyes and often
>>headache resulted from that. My monitor was good: I
>>had experts here, measuring it and stating that it was
>>adjusted propperly, also it was positioned ergonomically
>>correctly.
>>
>>Now they do not hurt any more - since nearly 1 year, as
>>long as I am using the mediocre LCD.
>>
>>Believe me: I do not regret a single day of using that mediocre LCD.
>>
>>There isn't the slightest flickering, the picture is like engraved
>>in marble...
>
>
> Plus, your mediocre LCD has a sharper image than even the sharpest of
> excellent CRTs.
>
> Take a magnifying glass to an excellent CRT and try to find your pixels.
> Good luck!
>
> Take the magnifying glass to your mediocre LCD and you'll see perfectly
> sharp and rectangular red, green, and blue subpixels.
>
> I got my first mediocre LCD six years ago when I got my first ThinkPad 600.
> It took me all of sixty seconds to decide I'd never go back to a CRT again,
> not even a truly excellent one like the Eizo I was using. Focus? Geometry?
> Things of the past.
>
> The mediocre LCD on my A30p is the best display of any kind I've ever seen
> (not counting an extremely high-end IBM LCD that I got a peek at a while
> ago).
>
> Here's to mediocre LCDs!
>
> -Mike
>
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 18, 2004 11:44:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Am Freitag, 18. Juni 2004 19:35 schrieb hawk:

> That big/old/heavy CRT will out perform any current LCD. If it is
> already there, who cares if it is big/old/heavy? LCD screens have been
> hyped so much that naive people are switching from excellent CRTs to
> mediocre LCDs.

Jep.

e.g. me

Before I had an excellent 19" CRT running at 95 Hz.

Now I have a mediocre 18" LCD running at 75 Hz.

Before I had serious problems with my eyes and often headache resulted
from that. My monitor was good: I had experts here, measuring it and
stating that it was adjusted propperly, also it was positioned ergonomically
correctly.

Now they do not hurt any more - since nearly 1 year, as long as I am
using the mediocre LCD.

Believe me: I do not regret a single day of using that mediocre LCD.

There isn't the slightest flickering, the picture is like engraved
in marble...

Karl-Heinz
--
Karl-Heinz <mailto:khz@indeview.org> <mailto:khz@kde.org>
Zimmer I n d e V i e w K D E
Föhren Presentations Beyond Limitations Conquer your Desktop
www.fiehr.de www.indeview.org www.kde.org
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 19, 2004 1:04:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Am Freitag, 18. Juni 2004 20:44 schrieb Good Man:

> Karl-Heinz Zimmer <khz@kde.org> wrote in
> news:2376316.YXSmVrcOXz@linhelp10.org:
>
>> Believe me: I do not regret a single day of using that mediocre LCD.
>
> i guess you don't do anything involving colour calibration. LCD monitors
> are great as long as you don't have to do anything relating to art or
> publishing.

I use the computer solely for programming and a bit of TeX typesetting.

Therefore I need: a very stable, flicker-free picture I can look at for
hours without hurting eyes...

Color calibration never was an issue for me - so I don't have the
slightest idea whether a very good CRT could be better for this task.

Karl-Heinz
--
Karl-Heinz <mailto:khz@indeview.org> <mailto:khz@kde.org>
Zimmer I n d e V i e w K D E
Föhren Presentations Beyond Limitations Conquer your Desktop
www.fiehr.de www.indeview.org www.kde.org
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 19, 2004 1:41:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Considering your usage, a model 33 Teletype would
be just fine -- not to mention you get to keep all
that paper... ;-)



dk


"Karl-Heinz Zimmer" <khz@kde.org> wrote in message
news:1487994.Zf4W1nn4TP@linhelp10.org...
Am Freitag, 18. Juni 2004 20:44 schrieb Good Man:

> Karl-Heinz Zimmer <khz@kde.org> wrote in
> news:2376316.YXSmVrcOXz@linhelp10.org:
>
>> Believe me: I do not regret a single day of using that mediocre LCD.
>
> i guess you don't do anything involving colour calibration. LCD monitors
> are great as long as you don't have to do anything relating to art or
> publishing.

I use the computer solely for programming and a bit of TeX typesetting.

Therefore I need: a very stable, flicker-free picture I can look at for
hours without hurting eyes...

Color calibration never was an issue for me - so I don't have the
slightest idea whether a very good CRT could be better for this task.

Karl-Heinz
--
Karl-Heinz <mailto:khz@indeview.org> <mailto:khz@kde.org>
Zimmer I n d e V i e w K D E
Föhren Presentations Beyond Limitations Conquer your Desktop
www.fiehr.de www.indeview.org www.kde.org
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 19, 2004 2:56:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

> Michael Geary wrote:
> > ...your mediocre LCD has a sharper image than even the sharpest
> > of excellent CRTs.
> >
> > Take a magnifying glass to an excellent CRT and try to find your
> > pixels. Good luck!
> >
> > Take the magnifying glass to your mediocre LCD and you'll see
> > perfectly sharp and rectangular red, green, and blue subpixels.
> >
> > I got my first mediocre LCD six years ago when I got my first
> > ThinkPad 600. It took me all of sixty seconds to decide I'd never
> > go back to a CRT again, not even a truly excellent one like the
> > Eizo I was using. Focus? Geometry? Things of the past.
> >
> > The mediocre LCD on my A30p is the best display of any kind
> > I've ever seen (not counting an extremely high-end IBM LCD
> > that I got a peek at a while ago).
> >
> > Here's to mediocre LCDs!

hawk wrote:
> Yup, ain't hype wonderful? Makes you see things that aren't
> there, and makes you believe things that aren't true.

Hawk, if you want to dispute what I said, be specific instead of just saying
I'm deluded. Otherwise no one has any idea what you disagree with. What did
I say that was wrong?

About sharpness:

An LCD is manufactured out of individual red, green, and blue rectangular
subpixels, with a transistor to control each one. Normally you drive an LCD
at native resolution, where each pixel in your operating system maps
directly to a square group of three RGB subpixels in the hardware. This
gives you essentially perfect sharpness. You can run an LCD at a non-native
resolution, but it doesn't look nearly as good because the logical pixels
are stretched across the physical hardware's RGB subpixels instead of being
mapped 1:1.

A CRT also has a "native resolution", the dot pitch of the shadow mask or
stripe pitch of the aperture grille. If you could drive a CRT directly at
this resolution, it might come close to the sharpness of an LCD. But, you
can't. There's no way to synchronize your display pixels with the physical
dots or stripes. You may be driving the CRT at any resolution, greater or
less than the dot/stripe pitch, and the electron beam paints your pixels by
scanning at the resolution you've selected. The pixels are superimposed on
the mask or grille but not synchronized with it at all.

Basically, with a CRT you're always running it at a non-native resolution,
which causes the same trouble that running an LCD at a non-native resolution
does. And that's assuming you don't have focus or geometry problems.

I'm sure there bad LCDs out there, but I'm talking about good LCDs and good
CRTs. I used to use Nanao/Eizo CRTs, and those were high-quality displays,
but the day I got my first ThinkPad was the last day I fiddled with their
focus and geometry and moire adjustments. The FlexView 1600 x 1200 15"
display I'm using now is a marvel for sharpness and clarity, especially for
text with ClearType subpixel rendering.

-Mike
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 19, 2004 3:48:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Am Freitag, 18. Juni 2004 23:41 schrieb Dan Koren:

> Considering your usage, a model 33 Teletype would
> be just fine -- not to mention you get to keep all
> that paper... ;-)

I guess your lack of understanding "how to quote" is considerably similar
to your lack of understanding "how to code".

You know what, we need fast computers nowadays - time is over where you
were happy with TASM and Turbo Debugger. :-D

Karl-Heinz
--
Karl-Heinz <mailto:khz@indeview.org> <mailto:khz@kde.org>
Zimmer I n d e V i e w K D E
Föhren Presentations Beyond Limitations Conquer your Desktop
www.fiehr.de www.indeview.org www.kde.org
June 19, 2004 10:42:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

All I know is that when I built my current computer, I read all of the
reviews on LCD displays. The bottom line was that LCDs were almost as
good as CRTs and cost twice as much.

hawk

Michael Geary wrote:
>>Michael Geary wrote:
>>
>>>...your mediocre LCD has a sharper image than even the sharpest
>>>of excellent CRTs.
>>>
>>>Take a magnifying glass to an excellent CRT and try to find your
>>>pixels. Good luck!
>>>
>>>Take the magnifying glass to your mediocre LCD and you'll see
>>>perfectly sharp and rectangular red, green, and blue subpixels.
>>>
>>>I got my first mediocre LCD six years ago when I got my first
>>>ThinkPad 600. It took me all of sixty seconds to decide I'd never
>>>go back to a CRT again, not even a truly excellent one like the
>>>Eizo I was using. Focus? Geometry? Things of the past.
>>>
>>>The mediocre LCD on my A30p is the best display of any kind
>>>I've ever seen (not counting an extremely high-end IBM LCD
>>>that I got a peek at a while ago).
>>>
>>>Here's to mediocre LCDs!
>
>
> hawk wrote:
>
>>Yup, ain't hype wonderful? Makes you see things that aren't
>>there, and makes you believe things that aren't true.
>
>
> Hawk, if you want to dispute what I said, be specific instead of just saying
> I'm deluded. Otherwise no one has any idea what you disagree with. What did
> I say that was wrong?
>
> About sharpness:
>
> An LCD is manufactured out of individual red, green, and blue rectangular
> subpixels, with a transistor to control each one. Normally you drive an LCD
> at native resolution, where each pixel in your operating system maps
> directly to a square group of three RGB subpixels in the hardware. This
> gives you essentially perfect sharpness. You can run an LCD at a non-native
> resolution, but it doesn't look nearly as good because the logical pixels
> are stretched across the physical hardware's RGB subpixels instead of being
> mapped 1:1.
>
> A CRT also has a "native resolution", the dot pitch of the shadow mask or
> stripe pitch of the aperture grille. If you could drive a CRT directly at
> this resolution, it might come close to the sharpness of an LCD. But, you
> can't. There's no way to synchronize your display pixels with the physical
> dots or stripes. You may be driving the CRT at any resolution, greater or
> less than the dot/stripe pitch, and the electron beam paints your pixels by
> scanning at the resolution you've selected. The pixels are superimposed on
> the mask or grille but not synchronized with it at all.
>
> Basically, with a CRT you're always running it at a non-native resolution,
> which causes the same trouble that running an LCD at a non-native resolution
> does. And that's assuming you don't have focus or geometry problems.
>
> I'm sure there bad LCDs out there, but I'm talking about good LCDs and good
> CRTs. I used to use Nanao/Eizo CRTs, and those were high-quality displays,
> but the day I got my first ThinkPad was the last day I fiddled with their
> focus and geometry and moire adjustments. The FlexView 1600 x 1200 15"
> display I'm using now is a marvel for sharpness and clarity, especially for
> text with ClearType subpixel rendering.
>
> -Mike
>
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 19, 2004 3:11:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"hawk" <hawk@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:10d8gl91mtht40b@corp.supernews.com...
| All I know is that when I built my current computer, I read all of the
| reviews on LCD displays. The bottom line was that LCDs were almost as
| good as CRTs and cost twice as much.
|
| hawk
|

It depends on exactly your uses, but for the most part, an LCD (at native
resolution), provides much much better image quality than a CRT. Yes they
are way more expensive than a cheap CRT, but a good LCD is not anywhere near
twice the cost of a truly good CRT.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 19, 2004 8:28:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"Michael Geary" <Mike@DeleteThis.Geary.com> wrote:


>An LCD is manufactured out of individual red, green, and blue rectangular
>subpixels, with a transistor to control each one.....
>
>A CRT also has a "native resolution", the dot pitch of the shadow mask or
>stripe pitch of the aperture grille.
.....

Mike,
What you say is true - but, as everything in life, there are pros and
cons. CRT's have advantages LCD's don't. But LCD's are getting better
all the time.

Such as:
It's rare that you see a bad phosphor spot on a CRT as opposed to
stuck or burned out pixels on an LCD.

The brightness/contrast ranges on CRT's are still better.

Viewing a CRT from an angle deos not change pix quality and colors as
it does on LCD's.

The display speed of a CRT is far superior to any LCD right now.
This mostly affects gamers where fast moving actiont may create
artifacts.
This is another area manufacturers 'tweak' the truth in their ads:
While they now specify speeds as low as 12ms , this is only the
absolute max. from white to black. Anything in betwee, ie: shades of
grey or color, take considerably longer.

BTW - with regards of the original subject matter: as an avid Flight
Simmer, I would love to be able to use the12" LCD screen of an old
laptop as a secondary panel for the instruments. Then I wouldn't have
to switch back-and-forth between outside and cockpit views all the
time.

BTW2 - I am able to see the phosphor dots on my 19" CRT monitor, even
without a magnifying glass. Use some Windex on your magnifier ;-))

-=tom=-
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 20, 2004 12:56:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Michael, you are much more correct than Hawk, but there are some
misunderstandings in your post as well.

First, the presumption that a pixel on the video card maps to a pixel on
the LCD is only true if a digital interface is used. If an LCD monitor
[desktop] is connected to an analog VGA port, the monitor has to convert
the analog signal back to a digital signal by sampling it at discreet
moments.

There is no assurance that these will "line up exactly" with the video
card (e.g., you might catch a pixel transition rather than the proper
"pixel moment"). Also, the time base stability is not perfect, so you
might catch a transition on some samples, the pixel to it's left on
other samples, and the pixel to it's right on other samples. If the
frequency and phase of the monitor are not properly adjusted, even worse
things can happen (in the monitor you sample 1024 pixels quicker than
they are created in the VGA card, that is, you sample 1024 pixels while
the monitor is only making 985 pixels, although both resolutions are set
to 1024x768).

So with an analog LCD, there are a lot of ways to "get it wrong",
although if perfectly adjusted, an analog display can be as good as a
digital display. [I have -- long ago -- posted links to test pattern
generators that will let you know if your monitor is "perfectly
adjusted", and to adjust it as close as it will go, which may or may not
be "perfect"].

As for a CRT, it is not correct that there are physical pixels. There
are physical dot phosphors. But the diameter and shape of the electron
beam don't turn these into pixels. The electron beam has an irregular
shape that changes over different parts of the screen, it's size
"illuminates" multiple dot phosphors at once, and it's edges are not
"sharp" (dot phosphors don't turn on and off, they "fade"). It's a real
mess, unless the dot phosphor pitch is a LOT higher than the resolution
of the display (which it usually is, thankfully).

In the end, an LCD has it all over a CRT in almost all respects except
response time (which can still be close). Some of the advantage of an LCD:

-There is ZERO geometric distortion
(of any of the dozen or so different kinds)
-There is ZERO "focus" error
-There is ZERO convergence error
-There is ZERO flicker

Now, admittedly, analog LCD display can introduce sampling errors not
present in CRT monitors that result in "sparkle" and moire patters.
HOWEVER, this is limited to analog LCD displays only, and if an analog
LCD is perfectly adjusted with a test pattern, these will not occur even
with an analog display. Note, some combinations of LCD display and
video card can be perfectly adjusted, others cannot. The only way to
find out is to display a test pattern of vertical black and white
alternating bars exactly one single pixel wide (every other pixel on,
every other pixel off) across the entire screen, which will make
problems immediately apparent. Fortunately, windows programs to
generate such a pattern are available at no cost.

Some people insist on sticking their heads in the sand when a newer,
better technology is replacing an older technology. Hawk appears to be
one of those.



Michael Geary wrote:
>>Michael Geary wrote:
>>
>>>...your mediocre LCD has a sharper image than even the sharpest
>>>of excellent CRTs.
>>>
>>>Take a magnifying glass to an excellent CRT and try to find your
>>>pixels. Good luck!
>>>
>>>Take the magnifying glass to your mediocre LCD and you'll see
>>>perfectly sharp and rectangular red, green, and blue subpixels.
>>>
>>>I got my first mediocre LCD six years ago when I got my first
>>>ThinkPad 600. It took me all of sixty seconds to decide I'd never
>>>go back to a CRT again, not even a truly excellent one like the
>>>Eizo I was using. Focus? Geometry? Things of the past.
>>>
>>>The mediocre LCD on my A30p is the best display of any kind
>>>I've ever seen (not counting an extremely high-end IBM LCD
>>>that I got a peek at a while ago).
>>>
>>>Here's to mediocre LCDs!
>
>
> hawk wrote:
>
>>Yup, ain't hype wonderful? Makes you see things that aren't
>>there, and makes you believe things that aren't true.
>
>
> Hawk, if you want to dispute what I said, be specific instead of just saying
> I'm deluded. Otherwise no one has any idea what you disagree with. What did
> I say that was wrong?
>
> About sharpness:
>
> An LCD is manufactured out of individual red, green, and blue rectangular
> subpixels, with a transistor to control each one. Normally you drive an LCD
> at native resolution, where each pixel in your operating system maps
> directly to a square group of three RGB subpixels in the hardware. This
> gives you essentially perfect sharpness. You can run an LCD at a non-native
> resolution, but it doesn't look nearly as good because the logical pixels
> are stretched across the physical hardware's RGB subpixels instead of being
> mapped 1:1.
>
> A CRT also has a "native resolution", the dot pitch of the shadow mask or
> stripe pitch of the aperture grille. If you could drive a CRT directly at
> this resolution, it might come close to the sharpness of an LCD. But, you
> can't. There's no way to synchronize your display pixels with the physical
> dots or stripes. You may be driving the CRT at any resolution, greater or
> less than the dot/stripe pitch, and the electron beam paints your pixels by
> scanning at the resolution you've selected. The pixels are superimposed on
> the mask or grille but not synchronized with it at all.
>
> Basically, with a CRT you're always running it at a non-native resolution,
> which causes the same trouble that running an LCD at a non-native resolution
> does. And that's assuming you don't have focus or geometry problems.
>
> I'm sure there bad LCDs out there, but I'm talking about good LCDs and good
> CRTs. I used to use Nanao/Eizo CRTs, and those were high-quality displays,
> but the day I got my first ThinkPad was the last day I fiddled with their
> focus and geometry and moire adjustments. The FlexView 1600 x 1200 15"
> display I'm using now is a marvel for sharpness and clarity, especially for
> text with ClearType subpixel rendering.
>
> -Mike
>
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 20, 2004 12:56:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Thanks for the comments, Barry. I do understand these issues but didn't do a
very good job explaining them. So your elaboration and clarification is much
appreciated.

I should have made it clear that I was talking about digitally driven LCDs
like the displays in my ThinkPads. With an analog LCD there are of course
many ways for things to go wrong.

About the "physical pixels" on a CRT, I was speaking somewhat figuratively.
The big problem with a color CRT is that it does have a physical pattern to
it--the phosphor dots or stripes. Unlike an LCD, where you have the
capability of driving it at native resolution where each pixel maps directly
onto a group of three subpixels, there is no possibility of mapping your
display pixels directly onto individual dot or stripe triads. So, roughly
speaking, with a CRT you are always in a situation analogous to running an
LCD at non-native resolution.

-Mike

Barry Watzman wrote:
> Michael, you are much more correct than Hawk, but there are
> some misunderstandings in your post as well.
>
> First, the presumption that a pixel on the video card maps to a
> pixel on the LCD is only true if a digital interface is used. If an
> LCD monitor [desktop] is connected to an analog VGA port, the
> monitor has to convert the analog signal back to a digital signal
> by sampling it at discrete moments.
>
> There is no assurance that these will "line up exactly" with the
> video card (e.g., you might catch a pixel transition rather than
> the proper "pixel moment"). Also, the time base stability is not
> perfect, so you might catch a transition on some samples, the
> pixel to it's left on other samples, and the pixel to it's right on
> other samples. If the frequency and phase of the monitor are not
> properly adjusted, even worse things can happen (in the monitor
> you sample 1024 pixels quicker than they are created in the VGA
> card, that is, you sample 1024 pixels while the monitor is only
> making 985 pixels, although both resolutions are set to 1024x768).
>
> So with an analog LCD, there are a lot of ways to "get it wrong",
> although if perfectly adjusted, an analog display can be as good
> as a digital display. [I have -- long ago -- posted links to test
> pattern generators that will let you know if your monitor is
> "perfectly adjusted", and to adjust it as close as it will go, which
> may or may not be "perfect"].
>
> As for a CRT, it is not correct that there are physical pixels.
> There are physical dot phosphors. But the diameter and shape
> of the electron beam don't turn these into pixels. The electron
> beam has an irregular shape that changes over different parts of
> the screen, it's size "illuminates" multiple dot phosphors at once,
> and it's edges are not "sharp" (dot phosphors don't turn on and
> off, they "fade"). It's a real mess, unless the dot phosphor pitch
> is a LOT higher than the resolution of the display (which it
> usually is, thankfully).
>
> In the end, an LCD has it all over a CRT in almost all respects
> except response time (which can still be close). Some of the
> advantages of an LCD:
>
> -There is ZERO geometric distortion
> (of any of the dozen or so different kinds)
> -There is ZERO "focus" error
> -There is ZERO convergence error
> -There is ZERO flicker
>
> Now, admittedly, analog LCD display can introduce sampling
> errors not present in CRT monitors that result in "sparkle" and
> moire patters. HOWEVER, this is limited to analog LCD displays
> only, and if an analog LCD is perfectly adjusted with a test pattern,
> these will not occur even with an analog display. Note, some
> combinations of LCD display and video card can be perfectly
> adjusted, others cannot. The only way to find out is to display a
> test pattern of vertical black and white alternating bars exactly
> one single pixel wide (every other pixel on, every other pixel off)
> across the entire screen, which will make problems immediately
> apparent. Fortunately, windows programs to generate such a
> pattern are available at no cost.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 20, 2004 1:01:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

LCDs with a digital interface are better in every regard except for
response time. Analog interfaced LCDs can be better or worse, and it's
largely dependent on how the frequency and phase of the dot clock in the
analog LCD monitor is adjusted. The "one touch automatic adjustment"
that most monitors have almost always gets close, but also almost never
hits it exactly right.


hawk wrote:

> All I know is that when I built my current computer, I read all of the
> reviews on LCD displays. The bottom line was that LCDs were almost as
> good as CRTs and cost twice as much.
>
> hawk
>
> Michael Geary wrote:
>
>>> Michael Geary wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...your mediocre LCD has a sharper image than even the sharpest
>>>> of excellent CRTs.
>>>>
>>>> Take a magnifying glass to an excellent CRT and try to find your
>>>> pixels. Good luck!
>>>>
>>>> Take the magnifying glass to your mediocre LCD and you'll see
>>>> perfectly sharp and rectangular red, green, and blue subpixels.
>>>>
>>>> I got my first mediocre LCD six years ago when I got my first
>>>> ThinkPad 600. It took me all of sixty seconds to decide I'd never
>>>> go back to a CRT again, not even a truly excellent one like the
>>>> Eizo I was using. Focus? Geometry? Things of the past.
>>>>
>>>> The mediocre LCD on my A30p is the best display of any kind
>>>> I've ever seen (not counting an extremely high-end IBM LCD
>>>> that I got a peek at a while ago).
>>>>
>>>> Here's to mediocre LCDs!
>>
>>
>>
>> hawk wrote:
>>
>>> Yup, ain't hype wonderful? Makes you see things that aren't
>>> there, and makes you believe things that aren't true.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hawk, if you want to dispute what I said, be specific instead of just
>> saying
>> I'm deluded. Otherwise no one has any idea what you disagree with.
>> What did
>> I say that was wrong?
>>
>> About sharpness:
>>
>> An LCD is manufactured out of individual red, green, and blue rectangular
>> subpixels, with a transistor to control each one. Normally you drive
>> an LCD
>> at native resolution, where each pixel in your operating system maps
>> directly to a square group of three RGB subpixels in the hardware. This
>> gives you essentially perfect sharpness. You can run an LCD at a
>> non-native
>> resolution, but it doesn't look nearly as good because the logical pixels
>> are stretched across the physical hardware's RGB subpixels instead of
>> being
>> mapped 1:1.
>>
>> A CRT also has a "native resolution", the dot pitch of the shadow mask or
>> stripe pitch of the aperture grille. If you could drive a CRT directly at
>> this resolution, it might come close to the sharpness of an LCD. But, you
>> can't. There's no way to synchronize your display pixels with the
>> physical
>> dots or stripes. You may be driving the CRT at any resolution, greater or
>> less than the dot/stripe pitch, and the electron beam paints your
>> pixels by
>> scanning at the resolution you've selected. The pixels are
>> superimposed on
>> the mask or grille but not synchronized with it at all.
>>
>> Basically, with a CRT you're always running it at a non-native
>> resolution,
>> which causes the same trouble that running an LCD at a non-native
>> resolution
>> does. And that's assuming you don't have focus or geometry problems.
>>
>> I'm sure there bad LCDs out there, but I'm talking about good LCDs and
>> good
>> CRTs. I used to use Nanao/Eizo CRTs, and those were high-quality
>> displays,
>> but the day I got my first ThinkPad was the last day I fiddled with their
>> focus and geometry and moire adjustments. The FlexView 1600 x 1200 15"
>> display I'm using now is a marvel for sharpness and clarity,
>> especially for
>> text with ClearType subpixel rendering.
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 21, 2004 12:12:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

hawk wrote:
> How nice for you. But, experts are often WRONG. As I said,
> LCDs are almost as good as CRTs. And as you said, "LCDs
> are better than CRTs in ALMOST all regards, EXCLUDING
> response time, and with A FEW CAVEATS if the interface is
> analog rather than digital." And at twice the price.

Hawk, since you claim to know more about LCDs than an LCD and CRT display
product manager (Barry) and someone who has used LCDs every day for six
years (me), you really owe us all an answer to one question:

How much time have you spent using LCDs?

Do you have any experience at all with LCDs? Any?

-Mike
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 21, 2004 4:17:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

> hawk wrote:
> > How nice for you. But, experts are often WRONG. As I said,
> > LCDs are almost as good as CRTs. And as you said, "LCDs
> > are better than CRTs in ALMOST all regards, EXCLUDING
> > response time, and with A FEW CAVEATS if the interface is
> > analog rather than digital." And at twice the price.

Michael Geary wrote:
> Hawk, since you claim to know more about LCDs than an LCD
> and CRT display product manager (Barry) and someone who
> has used LCDs every day for six years (me), you really owe us
> all an answer to one question:
>
> How much time have you spent using LCDs?
>
> Do you have any experience at all with LCDs? Any?

Hmm... Besides being a bit more confrontational than it needed to be (sorry,
hawk!) part of that borders on an Appeal to Authority:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22appeal+to+authority%2...

At the risk of prolonging this thread, let me clarify: You, or anyone,
shouldn't believe what Barry or I say about LCDs vs. CRTs just because of
our credentials. (Oh, BTW, speaking of which, I've spent many years working
on display drivers, font rendering, GUI design, and the like. <g>)

But you do have to face the fact that we're both display geeks. When we both
say the exact same thing, we could both be wrong, but it's more likely that
we know what we're talking about--especially the objective, factual
differences between the two technologies, such as the most basic one: LCDs
have actual physical pixels, and CRTs don't.

-Mike
June 21, 2004 12:57:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Michael, I have been using LCD displays since 1994. And I have
supervised technoweenies like you and Barry. Both you and Barry appear
to have succumbed to a common ailment of technical experts. I have
seen many experts let their egos get wrapped up in a technology. When
that happens they no longer are capable of rational thought. The
decisions and recommendations they make are not in the best interests
of the company but in the best interests of their egos. I am sure that
you can quote specs and design criteria that "prove" LCDs are better
than CRTs. But from a practical view point, those specs don't mean
much. The impact of those specs on most users will not be worth the
increased cost. And some users (gamers) will not be satisfied at all.
So, in my opinion, LCDs are almost as good as CRTs but cost much more.
(And remember it is just my opinion, and not a challenge to your ego.)

hawk


Michael Geary wrote:
> hawk wrote:
>
>>How nice for you. But, experts are often WRONG. As I said,
>>LCDs are almost as good as CRTs. And as you said, "LCDs
>>are better than CRTs in ALMOST all regards, EXCLUDING
>>response time, and with A FEW CAVEATS if the interface is
>>analog rather than digital." And at twice the price.
>
>
> Hawk, since you claim to know more about LCDs than an LCD and CRT display
> product manager (Barry) and someone who has used LCDs every day for six
> years (me), you really owe us all an answer to one question:
>
> How much time have you spent using LCDs?
>
> Do you have any experience at all with LCDs? Any?
>
> -Mike
>
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 21, 2004 2:15:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:40D4ED56.8080909
@neo.rr.com:

> I have degrees in both Electrical Engineering and an MBA. I have been a
> product manager for displays (both CRT and LCD) with a major Fortune 500
> US manufacturer for 7 years. I also worked in Broadcast Engineering as
> a teenager and while in college, I have an FCC Commercial license to
> operate commercial broadcast television transmitters and did studio and
> tranmitter engineering for quite a few years. LCDs are better than CRTs
> in almost all regards, excluding response time, and with a few caveats
> if the interface is analog rather than digital.

The most important problem with LCDs for video/broadcast is that LCDs do
not provide true black level (that pesky backlight is the problem). So for
multimedia, where color/colour is important, you have to use CRTs (or
rather professional monitors based on CRT technology).

Alexei
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 22, 2004 12:41:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

hawk <hawk@spamex.com> wrote:
> Michael, I have been using LCD displays since 1994. And I have
> supervised technoweenies like you and Barry. Both you and Barry appear
> to have succumbed to a common ailment of technical experts. I have

Uh - unfortunately for you, the "technoweenies" are right. In all the
dimensions of better that we care about in practice, lcds are better
tha crts (and yes, I am a PhD in electrical engineering, university
professor of hardware engineering, etc.).

Where crts might be better is in displaying analog data from analog
inputs. But they'd still be awfully heavier and more dangerous, which
makes them a lot worse in at least two dimensions!


> seen many experts let their egos get wrapped up in a technology. When
> that happens they no longer are capable of rational thought. The

Oh come off it. Put a sock in it. Etc. If you know of something that
crts are better at, say so. So far the only thing people have loaned
you as a possibility is "response time", and I bet you don't care about
it for your computer screen.

> So, in my opinion, LCDs are almost as good as CRTs but cost much more.

My lcd costs about the same. My 15" sony trinitron cost about $250-300 new.
I think my 15" LG and samsung screens cost way less new, now!

> (And remember it is just my opinion, and not a challenge to your ego.)

What the heck is your worthless opinion based on? :) 

Peter
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 22, 2004 12:41:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es (P.T. Breuer) wrote in
news:b5a7bc.ckv.ln@news.it.uc3m.es:

> Oh come off it. Put a sock in it. Etc. If you know of something that
> crts are better at, say so.

colour calibration. end of story.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 22, 2004 6:13:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"Good Man" <heyho@letsgo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns950FB0D61AF2sonicyouth@216.196.97.132...
> ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es (P.T. Breuer) wrote in
> news:b5a7bc.ckv.ln@news.it.uc3m.es:
>
> > Oh come off it. Put a sock in it. Etc. If you know of something that
> > crts are better at, say so.
>
> colour calibration. end of story.
>


Not quite yet.

Better contrast (3000:1), higher
resolutions (2048x1536 and even
higher), faster response (up to
120 Hz), less ghosting, etc.

There is no question however that
LCD's win on convenience.



dk
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 22, 2004 6:35:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Contrast ratios for LCDs exceed 400:1 (substantially, in some cases).
While your point has a degree of validity, the number of people for whom
this is an issue is so small that it's simply not a mainstream issue,
and. One can always find "niche" applications for which one or another
(or all) classes of mass market products are not suitable, for one or
several reasons. That doesn't change the validity of my argument.


Alexei Boukirev wrote:

> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:40D4ED56.8080909
> @neo.rr.com:
>
>
>>I have degrees in both Electrical Engineering and an MBA. I have been a
>>product manager for displays (both CRT and LCD) with a major Fortune 500
>>US manufacturer for 7 years. I also worked in Broadcast Engineering as
>>a teenager and while in college, I have an FCC Commercial license to
>>operate commercial broadcast television transmitters and did studio and
>>tranmitter engineering for quite a few years. LCDs are better than CRTs
>>in almost all regards, excluding response time, and with a few caveats
>>if the interface is analog rather than digital.
>
>
> The most important problem with LCDs for video/broadcast is that LCDs do
> not provide true black level (that pesky backlight is the problem). So for
> multimedia, where color/colour is important, you have to use CRTs (or
> rather professional monitors based on CRT technology).
>
> Alexei
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 22, 2004 12:48:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in
news:40D79B26.1070109@neo.rr.com:

> Contrast ratios for LCDs exceed 400:1 (substantially, in some cases).
> While your point has a degree of validity, the number of people for
> whom this is an issue is so small that it's simply not a mainstream
> issue, and. One can always find "niche" applications for which one or
> another (or all) classes of mass market products are not suitable, for
> one or several reasons. That doesn't change the validity of my
> argument.
>

Barry,

Both CRTs and LCDs have advantages and disadvantages, and we can argue
here forever. But remember that this is comp.sys.laptops, and original
question was about hooking laptop LCD to a desktop computer. Laptop
LCDs, due to the space and power constraints, are typically inferior to
desktop LCDs in several areas: vertical viewing angle, brightness range,
contrast ratio.

Besides, laptop LCD panel digital connector is incompatible with the ones
used by desktop LCDs from my experience. A year ago, I took several
laptops apart and a couple of desktop LCDs just to check the theory in
the subject (yes, that idea visits most laptop owners' minds). You
probably know the specifics of it. I remember that laptop LCD panel
interface is called LVDS or something.

Alexei
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
a b C Monitor
June 23, 2004 2:35:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

LVDS (low voltage differential signaling) is basically the same as a DVI
digital connector (not that they are exactly electrically compatible,
they are not). Most laptops have analog VGA outputs, a few have DVI
digital LCD outputs as well, sometimes on the laptop itself, other times
on a docking station (quite a few thinkpad docking stations have DVI
connectors).



Alexei Boukirev wrote:

> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in
> news:40D79B26.1070109@neo.rr.com:
>
>
>>Contrast ratios for LCDs exceed 400:1 (substantially, in some cases).
>>While your point has a degree of validity, the number of people for
>>whom this is an issue is so small that it's simply not a mainstream
>>issue, and. One can always find "niche" applications for which one or
>>another (or all) classes of mass market products are not suitable, for
>>one or several reasons. That doesn't change the validity of my
>>argument.
>>
>
>
> Barry,
>
> Both CRTs and LCDs have advantages and disadvantages, and we can argue
> here forever. But remember that this is comp.sys.laptops, and original
> question was about hooking laptop LCD to a desktop computer. Laptop
> LCDs, due to the space and power constraints, are typically inferior to
> desktop LCDs in several areas: vertical viewing angle, brightness range,
> contrast ratio.
>
> Besides, laptop LCD panel digital connector is incompatible with the ones
> used by desktop LCDs from my experience. A year ago, I took several
> laptops apart and a couple of desktop LCDs just to check the theory in
> the subject (yes, that idea visits most laptop owners' minds). You
> probably know the specifics of it. I remember that laptop LCD panel
> interface is called LVDS or something.
>
> Alexei
!