22 inch monitors

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Hello there, I usually buy a new PC every 3 years for gaming and when I
do I try to buy everything top of the line so that it affords me the
most ammount of time before it's dated.

The one I bought 3 years ago had a nice Viewsonic Professional Series
P95F 19 inch monitor which has been great but I was looking to get
something better this time around.

I don't know much about monitors except CRTs are better for gaming than
LCDs and I wanted to buy a 21 or 22 inch CRT monitor in the 500 to 600
euro price range, I don't know too much about monitors so I asked
around for a bigger monitor that would also be better since it seems
there's more to "better" than just the size but also the "Hz thingy"
and what resolution it can handle. My current one does 1920 X 1440 and
they told me this P225F was bigger, had better resolution and better
"Hz".

My problem is that here in Portugal there are NO CRTs bigger than 17
inches left for sale, they say they are off the market for some reason
and now it's LCDs or nothing.

Can somebody please help me by telling me if there's some sort of
online European company type amazon.co.uk from which I can buy a nice
21 or 22 inch CRT monitor, order it over the net and have them deliver
it to me here in Portugal? I've been monitor hunting for 4 months and
I'm desperate so any help would be appreciated. Please only EU online
companies otherwise I got to pay tax on top of it and I'm already on a
thight budget.

Many thanks



André

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

HockeyTownUSA wrote:
> <homem-da-natureza@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1122570666.596804.107690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I don't know much about monitors except CRTs are better for gaming than
> LCDs and I wanted to buy a 21 or 22 inch CRT monitor in the 500 to 600
> euro price range, I don't know too much about monitors so I asked
> around for a bigger monitor that would also be better since it seems
> there's more to "better" than just the size but also the "Hz thingy"
> and what resolution it can handle. My current one does 1920 X 1440 and
> they told me this P225F was bigger, had better resolution and better
> "Hz".
>
>
> LCD's are fine. I have a Dell 2001FP (20.1", 16ms response, 1600x1200 native
> res). This thing rocks! I have had it for over a year and use it mainly for
> gaming. Just look for a 1600x1200 native resoltion since they tend to scale
> down better to 1024x768 and 800x600. You can pick up this Dell for about
> $600 US. There are also good Samsung monitors out there too for about
> $700-$800US.



Can you give me a little bit of info on processors as well? Obviously I
want to buy the best, most powerfull processor available now as to give
me plenty of time before it gets outdated. I went to the store and saw
a PC with a processor that was an "Intel Pentium 4 3.8 Ghz LGA775 with
Hyper-Threading" and they told me it was the most recent piece of
hardware.

I'd like to know if this is state of the art or is this somewhat old
news?

I was thinking who knows if maybe the next "leap" in processing power
could come in a couple of weeks and if I bought it now I'd feel like an
idiot once the latest processor came out shortly afterwards.

I told the guy at the store about this worry of mine of buying outdated
equipement and he told me Intel would launch an processor with 4.0 Ghz
(he said maybe it was out already in the US) but I surfed the net and
heard about 3.8 being tops and now they're switching technology so it's
pretty confusing for a guy like me.

Thanks in advance.



André

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

<homem-da-natureza@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122570666.596804.107690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...



Hello there, I usually buy a new PC every 3 years for gaming and when I
do I try to buy everything top of the line so that it affords me the
most ammount of time before it's dated.

The one I bought 3 years ago had a nice Viewsonic Professional Series
P95F 19 inch monitor which has been great but I was looking to get
something better this time around.

I don't know much about monitors except CRTs are better for gaming than
LCDs and I wanted to buy a 21 or 22 inch CRT monitor in the 500 to 600
euro price range, I don't know too much about monitors so I asked
around for a bigger monitor that would also be better since it seems
there's more to "better" than just the size but also the "Hz thingy"
and what resolution it can handle. My current one does 1920 X 1440 and
they told me this P225F was bigger, had better resolution and better
"Hz".

My problem is that here in Portugal there are NO CRTs bigger than 17
inches left for sale, they say they are off the market for some reason
and now it's LCDs or nothing.

Can somebody please help me by telling me if there's some sort of
online European company type amazon.co.uk from which I can buy a nice
21 or 22 inch CRT monitor, order it over the net and have them deliver
it to me here in Portugal? I've been monitor hunting for 4 months and
I'm desperate so any help would be appreciated. Please only EU online
companies otherwise I got to pay tax on top of it and I'm already on a
thight budget.

Many thanks



André



----------------------------------


LCD's are fine. I have a Dell 2001FP (20.1", 16ms response, 1600x1200 native
res). This thing rocks! I have had it for over a year and use it mainly for
gaming. Just look for a 1600x1200 native resoltion since they tend to scale
down better to 1024x768 and 800x600. You can pick up this Dell for about
$600 US. There are also good Samsung monitors out there too for about
$700-$800US.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

homem-da-natureza@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Hello there, I usually buy a new PC every 3 years for gaming and when I
> do I try to buy everything top of the line so that it affords me the
> most ammount of time before it's dated.
>
> The one I bought 3 years ago had a nice Viewsonic Professional Series
> P95F 19 inch monitor which has been great but I was looking to get
> something better this time around.
>
> I don't know much about monitors except CRTs are better for gaming than
> LCDs

I don't agree. LCDs are fine. There is a whole lot of hot air out there
from the usual suspects. Everyone I know who is a gamer and has a modern
LCD would never go back to a CRT. There are many parameters to the
equation, but the issues to do with "image quality" don't cause LCDs to
lose out in mine, and others, opinion.

 

[johno]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Hmmmm......

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I think now and for perhaps the next 9 mounths is one of those times when
its really bad to buy a new machine (where ever you live)....CPUs are going
to change to 64 bit maybe dual core...next year a new machine will 'need' a
64 bit Windows ....maybe the next version of Windows....
there are new designs due from the Graphic card firms....the situation re:
IDE and Serial Hard drives has not setteled down yet......PCI express has
not settled as the new standed for Graphics cards..and other cards....YOU
MIGHT EVEN DECEID THAT ONE OF THE NEAT GEN. CONSOLE MACHINES IS THE BEST WAY
FOR GAMEING ???!!! (shocked myself there...never thought I 'd even think
that about..."gulp!..shudder!...horror!"... CONSOLES ??)...but it might be
the best route.

IMHO any new PC bought in the next few mounths will seem out of date by this
time next year and/or expensive
I think getting just a new monitor now might be ok...the mad price drop in
the change to LCD from CRT seems to have levelled of now ...I think your
going to have to conclude that a LCD rather than CRT is the way to go... but
22 inch !!!???....remember LCD screen size gives an extra inch compared to
CRT ...but if you are prepared to REALLY look around there are some amazing
bargins in CRTs as they are cleared out of the way..
Luv mouse
@@@@@

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

<homem-da-natureza@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122588069.523031.17740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
HockeyTownUSA wrote:
> <homem-da-natureza@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1122570666.596804.107690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I don't know much about monitors except CRTs are better for gaming than
> LCDs and I wanted to buy a 21 or 22 inch CRT monitor in the 500 to 600
> euro price range, I don't know too much about monitors so I asked
> around for a bigger monitor that would also be better since it seems
> there's more to "better" than just the size but also the "Hz thingy"
> and what resolution it can handle. My current one does 1920 X 1440 and
> they told me this P225F was bigger, had better resolution and better
> "Hz".
>
>
> LCD's are fine. I have a Dell 2001FP (20.1", 16ms response, 1600x1200
> native
> res). This thing rocks! I have had it for over a year and use it mainly
> for
> gaming. Just look for a 1600x1200 native resoltion since they tend to
> scale
> down better to 1024x768 and 800x600. You can pick up this Dell for about
> $600 US. There are also good Samsung monitors out there too for about
> $700-$800US.



Can you give me a little bit of info on processors as well? Obviously I
want to buy the best, most powerfull processor available now as to give
me plenty of time before it gets outdated. I went to the store and saw
a PC with a processor that was an "Intel Pentium 4 3.8 Ghz LGA775 with
Hyper-Threading" and they told me it was the most recent piece of
hardware.

I'd like to know if this is state of the art or is this somewhat old
news?

I was thinking who knows if maybe the next "leap" in processing power
could come in a couple of weeks and if I bought it now I'd feel like an
idiot once the latest processor came out shortly afterwards.

I told the guy at the store about this worry of mine of buying outdated
equipement and he told me Intel would launch an processor with 4.0 Ghz
(he said maybe it was out already in the US) but I surfed the net and
heard about 3.8 being tops and now they're switching technology so it's
pretty confusing for a guy like me.

Thanks in advance.



André

I am partial to AMD, and I say that from lots of experience between Intel
and AMD systems I've built for myself and others over the years. AMD has an
FX-57 offering now that will knock the socks off anything that is out there.
Don't worry about GHz anymore, as much as benchmarks. Check out Tom's
Hardware CPU benchmarking comparison:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-13.html

The FX-57 isn't on there, but you can see the FX-55 at 2.6GHz knocks the
socks off Inel's Pentium 4 Extreme Edition at 3.46GHz.

Plus, if you buy a 939 Pin AMD motherboard, which all their new processors
require, most of them are compatible with dual-core processors, so in the
future you can just install a new dual-core or FX-59 processor (coming end
of this year or beginning of next) if you want. Intel requires new
architecture on their mobos all the time, so you will probably be required
to upgrade your mobo if you want one of their future technologies, including
dual-core. Dual-core will be "the next big thing" so to speak, but right now
Windows XP and/or games and other applications are not programmed for
multi-threading for the most part so you won't be able to take advantage of
it. So if you're into gaming, the AMD FX chip is the best way to go since it
delivers raw power.

 

[Nonymous]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

<homem-da-natureza@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122588069.523031.17740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
HockeyTownUSA wrote:
> <homem-da-natureza@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1122570666.596804.107690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I don't know much about monitors except CRTs are better for gaming than
> LCDs and I wanted to buy a 21 or 22 inch CRT monitor in the 500 to 600
> euro price range, I don't know too much about monitors so I asked
> around for a bigger monitor that would also be better since it seems
> there's more to "better" than just the size but also the "Hz thingy"
> and what resolution it can handle. My current one does 1920 X 1440 and
> they told me this P225F was bigger, had better resolution and better
> "Hz".
>
>
> LCD's are fine. I have a Dell 2001FP (20.1", 16ms response, 1600x1200
> native
> res). This thing rocks! I have had it for over a year and use it mainly
> for
> gaming. Just look for a 1600x1200 native resoltion since they tend to
> scale
> down better to 1024x768 and 800x600. You can pick up this Dell for about
> $600 US. There are also good Samsung monitors out there too for about
> $700-$800US.


I've got the same monitor and it is nice. I was able to pick it up from
Dell brand new for about $450 (40% off) when they were having a sale then
entered in an additional coupon code.

I have no problems with the response time on this monitor - only way I ever
notice any blurring is if I go looking for it and even then it's very
slight.

More of a problem with LCDs including this Dell is ability to render dark
areas well - walk into a dark room in an FPS and it can look much darker
than if the room is seen on a regular CRT. This is very noticeable in BF2 -
walk into some of the buildings and you can have a hard time noticing ppl
lurking in there but they're absolutely no problem to spot when playing on a
CRT. Also, dark textures can look almost completely black sometimes. For
example, tiger tank in BF42 and german uniforms in BF42 look almost
completely black. The german soldiers look more like ninjas they're so
dark. you get used to it, and probably wouldn't even know if you didn't see
it beforehand on a CRT.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:

>Benq FP937S+

Nice specs. Does it do 24-bit at that refresh rate?

 

[fisher]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:17:16 +0100, "Shawk"
<shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:


>There are LCD's out now that could do both work and gaming with no problems
>and my next monitor will be LCD.

LCD's look like shite when iterpolated at lower resolutions. I like
running my games at 1024x768 and not 1280x1024 or 1600x1200. LCD's are
shite for gaming for that one reason alone, never mind the shite
contrast ratio.

 

[fisher]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 00:11:33 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
wrote:


>
> Bullshit. It's an individual taste thing. I would never go back
>to a CRT so there.

Bollocks! It's all in the numbers, CRT is superior in many areas, I've
been over this too many times to bother going over it again with an
ignoramous such as yourself.

 

[fisher]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 28 Jul 2005 19:32:04 -0700, "JohnO" <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:


>A hi-res (1280x1024 or better) fast (16ms or less) LCD is great for
>gaming.

That's what I'm using right now at this moment - next.

 

[fisher]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 07:16:24 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot at
gmail dot com> wrote:


>What kind of LCD do you have? Becuase I have been using a Dell 2001FP
>(20.1", 16ms, 1600x1200) LCD for over a year now and mainly for gaming. Not
>an issue. And I say that coming from a 21" Sony Trinitron. The LCD is so
>much more bright, crisp, and clean, and there *IS NO STREAKING* with this
>monitor and most new ones 16ms or faster refresh. Plus the lighter weight
>and significantly smaller footprint is a great advantage too.
>
>Like anything, depends on quality. I wouldn't play games on my cheapo 17"
>CRT monitor at work because it is a POS. But on my Sony Trinitron I would.
>Same thing with LCD's. I have an old 15" cheapo LCD that I use for LAN
>gaming, but playing on that for more than an hour or so makes my eyes
>fatigue and I do get streaking of images due to the poor refresh. I have
>since upgraded to a better 15" 12ms LCD for LAN gaming and all is well.
>
>If anything, if you do get an LCD, and are on your PC a lot for gaming or
>otherwise, invest in a high quality LCD because your eyes are worth it.
>

I've been using two LCD's, one is a 17" Samsung and one is a 19" BenQ.
The BenQ has a faster response time. I don't have an issue with the
response time, I have an issue with interpolation at lower reolutions
and shitty looking gradations in the blacks.

>The LCD is so
>much more bright, crisp, and clean,

Total bollocks. Take off the rose colored glasses before you look at
your LCD next time.

 

[fisher]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 07:18:24 -0400, "Nonymous" <noham@nospam.com>
wrote:


>More of a problem with LCDs including this Dell is ability to render dark
>areas well - walk into a dark room in an FPS and it can look much darker
>than if the room is seen on a regular CRT. This is very noticeable in BF2 -
>walk into some of the buildings and you can have a hard time noticing ppl
>lurking in there but they're absolutely no problem to spot when playing on a
>CRT. Also, dark textures can look almost completely black sometimes. For
>example, tiger tank in BF42 and german uniforms in BF42 look almost
>completely black. The german soldiers look more like ninjas they're so
>dark. you get used to it, and probably wouldn't even know if you didn't see
>it beforehand on a CRT.
>

Bingo!

 

[nostromo]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thus spake Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk>, Fri, 29 Jul
2005 10:35:37 +0200, Anno Domini:

>Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:
>
>>Benq FP937S+
>
>Nice specs. Does it do 24-bit at that refresh rate?

It does *true* 32 bit colour at that rate (with a simulated 75Hz refresh,
whatever that means to a LCD lol). Work paid for it >8^D

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.

 

[fisher]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:06:21 -0700, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
wrote:


>A refresh rate issue perhaps?
>
>I know I can play (or red) for hours with 80+MHz refresh, but lower
>refresh rates give me eyestrain/headache - depending on how low the
>refresh is and what i'm doing - reading small text @ 60Hz, will give me
>a splitting headache and eyestrain within 15 minutes.
>
>Running at 85Hz I don't have any problems at all.
>
>Xocyll

Yea, I run my CRT at 100hz for the same reason.

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:06:21 -0700, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
wrote:

>A refresh rate issue perhaps?
>
>I know I can play (or red) for hours with 80+MHz refresh, but lower
>refresh rates give me eyestrain/headache - depending on how low the
>refresh is and what i'm doing - reading small text @ 60Hz, will give me
>a splitting headache and eyestrain within 15 minutes.
>
>Running at 85Hz I don't have any problems at all.

I don't know the medical stuff behind it all, but especially for
desktop use, my 19" CRT running at 85hz with no discernable flicker
gave me lots of strain that continued through the day even when not on
the PC. I bought the LCD in the hope it would help, and was happy to
find it totally cured it.
--
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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Fisher <fisher@no_email.here> wrote in
news:q8uke1p01tj598rics8n0g0g4rtci984bg@4ax.com:

> LCD's look like shite when iterpolated at lower resolutions. I
> like running my games at 1024x768 and not 1280x1024 or 1600x1200.
> LCD's are shite for gaming for that one reason alone, never mind
> the shite contrast ratio.
>
>

Bullcrap, I run all my game at 1024X768 and have NO problems at
all. Get a good monitor.

--
Marc
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as
outraged as those who are."--Benjamin Franklin

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Fisher" <fisher@no_email.here> wrote in message
news:q8uke1p01tj598rics8n0g0g4rtci984bg@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:17:16 +0100, "Shawk"
> <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
>
>
>>There are LCD's out now that could do both work and gaming with no
>>problems
>>and my next monitor will be LCD.
>
> LCD's look like shite when iterpolated at lower resolutions. I like
> running my games at 1024x768 and not 1280x1024 or 1600x1200. LCD's are
> shite for gaming for that one reason alone, never mind the shite
> contrast ratio.
>

What size screen do you have? 1024x768 is fine for screens of around 17".
My 21" CRT is meant to run at 1280x1024 and it does. My LCD has a native of
1280x1024 too. Obviously you need a graphic card that can run games quick
enough at the res. What do you have? All my games run at that res and look
great.

 

[fisher]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:38:15 +0100, "Shawk"
<shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:


>What size screen do you have? 1024x768 is fine for screens of around 17".
>My 21" CRT is meant to run at 1280x1024 and it does. My LCD has a native of
>1280x1024 too. Obviously you need a graphic card that can run games quick
>enough at the res. What do you have? All my games run at that res and look
>great.
>

I have an ATI X800XL - is that good enough for you? The reason I like
1024x768 is that I have problems reading text at 1280x1024 so I prefer
1024x768. I do run the desktop at 1280x1024 on LCD's as I do have
reading glasses but still run games at 1024x768 but you are forgetting
that many games don't support 1280x1024 anyway. I don't just run new
games and play many games that don't support 1280x1024. For these
older games a CRT is much better.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> looked up from reading the entrails of the
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:06:21 -0700, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
>wrote:
>
>>A refresh rate issue perhaps?
>>
>>I know I can play (or red) for hours with 80+MHz refresh, but lower
>>refresh rates give me eyestrain/headache - depending on how low the
>>refresh is and what i'm doing - reading small text @ 60Hz, will give me
>>a splitting headache and eyestrain within 15 minutes.
>>
>>Running at 85Hz I don't have any problems at all.
>
>I don't know the medical stuff behind it all, but especially for
>desktop use, my 19" CRT running at 85hz with no discernable flicker
>gave me lots of strain that continued through the day even when not on
>the PC. I bought the LCD in the hope it would help, and was happy to
>find it totally cured it.

Hmm, you might try boosting the refresh (if you can).

I used to be just fine at anything 70+, and 60 would only have an effect
after some time, but now even 75 is too low, and will give me a headache
in a pretty short time.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

 

[Hawk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Nonymous wrote:
> a problem with LCDs including this Dell is ability to render dark
> areas well - walk into a dark room in an FPS and it can look much darker
> than if the room is seen on a regular CRT. This is very noticeable in BF2 -
> walk into some of the buildings and you can have a hard time noticing ppl
> lurking in there but they're absolutely no problem to spot when playing on a
> CRT. Also, dark textures can look almost completely black sometimes. For
> example, tiger tank in BF42 and german uniforms in BF42 look almost
> completely black. The german soldiers look more like ninjas they're so
> dark. you get used to it, and probably wouldn't even know if you didn't see
> it beforehand on a CRT.
>

Generally its the other way around. The blacks on an LCD will look
lighter (less black) in a dimly lit room. Your pupils are open wider in
the dim room, thus letting in more light.

LCD's will look best in a normally lit room, and the contrast will
appear to be much better. If you are playing a game where you need
black blacks...make sure you have adequate ambient lighting in the room.


(*>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I have a Trinitron (22 inch/20 viewable... i think) and I am tempted
to get a LCD just to get rid of the damn heat this thing puts out. I
can NOT keep the room cool when this monitor is on. The fact that it
takes up half of my desk and weighs 80 lbs is an issue as well.

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Hawk" <taoHawk2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11ensesp5a8t596@corp.supernews.com...
> Nonymous wrote:
>> a problem with LCDs including this Dell is ability to render dark areas
>> well - walk into a dark room in an FPS and it can look much darker than
>> if the room is seen on a regular CRT. This is very noticeable in BF2 -
>> walk into some of the buildings and you can have a hard time noticing ppl
>> lurking in there but they're absolutely no problem to spot when playing
>> on a CRT. Also, dark textures can look almost completely black
>> sometimes. For example, tiger tank in BF42 and german uniforms in BF42
>> look almost completely black. The german soldiers look more like ninjas
>> they're so dark. you get used to it, and probably wouldn't even know if
>> you didn't see it beforehand on a CRT.
>
> Generally its the other way around. The blacks on an LCD will look
> lighter (less black) in a dimly lit room. Your pupils are open wider in
> the dim room, thus letting in more light.
>
> LCD's will look best in a normally lit room, and the contrast will appear
> to be much better. If you are playing a game where you need black
> blacks...make sure you have adequate ambient lighting in the room.
>

Dont have the knowledge to agree or disagree with you but there are
definitely LCD monitors out there with piss-poor contrast ratio's that make
any type of shadows pure black. Mine is one. Makes Doom3 unplayable on the
LCD - I play it on the CRT. Newer LCD's are much better - averaging around
double the contrast ratio of mine.

 

[fisher]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:47:32 +0100, "Shawk"
<shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:


>That was discussed. Suprised someone with your training didnt pick it up.
>
>

I saw it being discussed but you myopic muppets choose to ignore the
facts so it needs to be drummed into your heads again and again.