Analog vs. Digital Dell Flat Panel Monitors?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I've been thinking about buying a Dell system with a 17 or 19 inch flat
panel monitor. They offer different versions of the monitors; analog
or the more expensive digital models.

I use my computer mainly for email, surfing and Ebay. I NEVER use it
for gaming, and seldom for graphics. Would I be better off with an
Analog or Digital Flat Panel monitor?

 

[dogface]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I've seen them both (1704FP/FPT & E173FP). They are both pretty nice. Not
sure I see all that much difference between them. Digital was connected via
digital connection to card. Analog was to onboard graphics.

For what you're doing, I think you'd be fine with the E173FP (or 19") and
saving the money or putting into more memory, CPU, larger display or saving
it.

<joshhemming@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1109831316.142422.81850@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I've been thinking about buying a Dell system with a 17 or 19 inch flat
> panel monitor. They offer different versions of the monitors; analog
> or the more expensive digital models.
>
> I use my computer mainly for email, surfing and Ebay. I NEVER use it
> for gaming, and seldom for graphics. Would I be better off with an
> Analog or Digital Flat Panel monitor?
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Tom Scales wrote:
> I agree. I have the E193FP and am very pleased with it. I also have
the
> Samsung 213T and have run it in both Analog and Digital and honestly
can't
> see a difference.
>

I think the renduring would take the most time,but: digital to digital
is faster than; digital to analog to digital (an unnecessary step)

(If my analogy is flawed...please be kind!)

b_d

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I agree. I have the E193FP and am very pleased with it. I also have the
Samsung 213T and have run it in both Analog and Digital and honestly can't
see a difference.

Tom
"Dogface" <DogFace@doghouse.com> wrote in message
news:zjzVd.2760$QE7.5@fe07.lga...
> I've seen them both (1704FP/FPT & E173FP). They are both pretty nice.
> Not
> sure I see all that much difference between them. Digital was connected
> via
> digital connection to card. Analog was to onboard graphics.
>
> For what you're doing, I think you'd be fine with the E173FP (or 19") and
> saving the money or putting into more memory, CPU, larger display or
> saving
> it.
>
> <joshhemming@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:1109831316.142422.81850@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> I've been thinking about buying a Dell system with a 17 or 19 inch flat
>> panel monitor. They offer different versions of the monitors; analog
>> or the more expensive digital models.
>>
>> I use my computer mainly for email, surfing and Ebay. I NEVER use it
>> for gaming, and seldom for graphics. Would I be better off with an
>> Analog or Digital Flat Panel monitor?
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

IMHO, if the thing is worth doing, it's worth doing right, and "right" means
digital. A digital connection means that the monitor will display *exactly*
what appears in the pixel matrix of the video card. An analog connection
means that the pixel matrix will be converted into an analog signal and then
re-interpreted to be a pixel matrix, and this leaves room for the data to
slide a little with respect to position or shade of color or to otherwise
distort. True, some analog connections work very nicely, so maybe you'll
never notice the difference. But it's clear that DVI is the technically
optimal way to connect a flat panel. Considering that I have to do a lot of
staring at a monitor, I wouldn't cut corners on this point. Maybe you'll
care less if you don't make heavy use of a PC.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<joshhemming@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:1109831316.142422.81850@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I've been thinking about buying a Dell system with a 17 or 19 inch flat
> panel monitor. They offer different versions of the monitors; analog
> or the more expensive digital models.
>
> I use my computer mainly for email, surfing and Ebay. I NEVER use it
> for gaming, and seldom for graphics. Would I be better off with an
> Analog or Digital Flat Panel monitor?

FWIW, it probably isn't a good idea to simply think in terms of analog
flat panel monitors and digital flat panels monitors. There aren't just two
varieties, even if we're just talking about LCD FPs.

There are LCD displays that support only analog connections and there
are LCD displays that support digital connections. Frequently if not always,
the later type actually supports both digital and analog connections. WRT
what type of connection is best, most comments on the net seem to be in
favor of digital connections. In those cases where I tested the same LCD
FP using each, I felt the digital connection produced a slightly better image,
but I've read that depends in large part on the FP and the resolution.

The key phrase in that last sentence was "same LCD FP". LCD FP's also
differ in terms of matrix & backlighting, and there are significant differences
between the various combinations available. A good introductory read
would be http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-guide.html .

If you won't be using it for gaming AND won't be using it for watching
movies, then I'd suggest you look for a reasonably fast 8-bit panel and
avoid the 6-bit TN+Film ones. I believe the 1704FPT is an example of
the later. Not sure about the other Dell LCDs, except the 1905FP, which
AnandTech reported was a fairly fast 8-bit PVA that they liked. You
have to do some googling, often hard googling and/or Dell forum
searching, to find out what kind of panel is in a given Dell LCD FP. But
in the process, you tend to stumble across potentially helpfull reviews and
people commenting on their experiences.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Talkin Horse" <davidrolfeN0SP&AM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:j0QVd.642$cN6.598@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> IMHO, if the thing is worth doing, it's worth doing right, and "right"
> means digital. A digital connection means that the monitor will display
> *exactly* what appears in the pixel matrix of the video card. An analog
> connection means that the pixel matrix will be converted into an analog
> signal and then re-interpreted to be a pixel matrix, and this leaves room
> for the data to slide a little with respect to position or shade of color
> or to otherwise distort. True, some analog connections work very nicely,
> so maybe you'll never notice the difference. But it's clear that DVI is
> the technically optimal way to connect a flat panel. Considering that I
> have to do a lot of staring at a monitor, I wouldn't cut corners on this
> point. Maybe you'll care less if you don't make heavy use of a PC.
>

While in theory I agree, you have to do a cost/ benefit. I just bought the
E193FP for over a $100 less than the 1905FP. For me, analog was fine, as it
is the second monitor in a dual monitor setup where my Samsung 213T 21" LCD
panel is already running digital.

All that said, I've run the Samsung both ways and I CANNOT TELL A
DIFFERENCE.

Tom

 

[Ed]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I have the Dell 20" and there is a big difference between running it digital
or analog. If you are running XP and don't see a difference, it may be that
font smoothing is turned on. That makes a digital look more like an analog.
Make sure font smoothing is off to really see what digital can do. I would
never go back to analog (unless it was a second monitor since my graphics
card supports one digital and one analog).
Ed

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:X%QVd.100819$pc5.71063@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Talkin Horse" <davidrolfeN0SP&AM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:j0QVd.642$cN6.598@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > IMHO, if the thing is worth doing, it's worth doing right, and "right"
> > means digital. A digital connection means that the monitor will display
> > *exactly* what appears in the pixel matrix of the video card. An analog
> > connection means that the pixel matrix will be converted into an analog
> > signal and then re-interpreted to be a pixel matrix, and this leaves
room
> > for the data to slide a little with respect to position or shade of
color
> > or to otherwise distort. True, some analog connections work very nicely,
> > so maybe you'll never notice the difference. But it's clear that DVI is
> > the technically optimal way to connect a flat panel. Considering that I
> > have to do a lot of staring at a monitor, I wouldn't cut corners on this
> > point. Maybe you'll care less if you don't make heavy use of a PC.
> >
>
> While in theory I agree, you have to do a cost/ benefit. I just bought
the
> E193FP for over a $100 less than the 1905FP. For me, analog was fine, as
it
> is the second monitor in a dual monitor setup where my Samsung 213T 21"
LCD
> panel is already running digital.
>
> All that said, I've run the Samsung both ways and I CANNOT TELL A
> DIFFERENCE.
>
> Tom
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ed wrote:
>
> I have the Dell 20" and there is a big difference between running it digital
> or analog. If you are running XP and don't see a difference, it may be that
> font smoothing is turned on. That makes a digital look more like an analog.
> Make sure font smoothing is off to really see what digital can do. I would
> never go back to analog (unless it was a second monitor since my graphics
> card supports one digital and one analog).

I don't know about you, but XP's Clear Type smoothing gives me nothing
but a headache!

Notan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Ed" <ekirstein_atcatskill.net> wrote in message
news:112frep4067ha61@corp.supernews.com...
>I have the Dell 20" and there is a big difference between running it
>digital
> or analog. If you are running XP and don't see a difference, it may be
> that
> font smoothing is turned on. That makes a digital look more like an
> analog.
> Make sure font smoothing is off to really see what digital can do. I
> would
> never go back to analog (unless it was a second monitor since my graphics
> card supports one digital and one analog).
> Ed
>

It very much depends on the quality of the monitor. The Samsungs can
accomplish the same quality with analog.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Font smoothing makes my 1905FP display look better (digital card). How does
font smoothing degrade your display Ed?

Brian


"Ed" <ekirstein_atcatskill.net> wrote in message
news:112frep4067ha61@corp.supernews.com...
>I have the Dell 20" and there is a big difference between running it
>digital
> or analog. If you are running XP and don't see a difference, it may be
> that
> font smoothing is turned on. That makes a digital look more like an
> analog.
> Make sure font smoothing is off to really see what digital can do. I
> would
> never go back to analog (unless it was a second monitor since my graphics
> card supports one digital and one analog).
> Ed

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 00:11:11 -0500, Ed <ekirstein_atcatskill.net> wrote:
> I have the Dell 20" and there is a big difference between running it digital
> or analog. If you are running XP and don't see a difference, it may be that
> font smoothing is turned on. That makes a digital look more like an analog.
> Make sure font smoothing is off to really see what digital can do. I would
> never go back to analog (unless it was a second monitor since my graphics
> card supports one digital and one analog).
> Ed

There is no visible difference between DVI and VGA my 19" 1280x1024 LCD
monitor or 27" 1280x720 widescreen HDTV. The only real difference for
the PC monitor is that sizing/centering of DVI is automatic for different
video modes, but for VGA I sometimes need to use an Auto setting on its
menu to do that. However, my Dell 17" analog LCD at work automatically
syncs properly when changing video modes. I do use XP "Clear Type" on
both the 19" DVI and 17" analog, because it is easier to read when tiny
than blocky fonts.

Since my DVD player only up converts on DVI, I use 720p DVI for that and
720p VGA for OTA HDTV on the 27" widescreen. Since VGA HDTV is as good as
DVI HDTV on that set, there would be no benefit buying a DVI switch.

Maybe it takes a higher resolution than 1280x1024 (more required
bandwidth) to notice a difference between DVI and VGA.

 

[Ed]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Font Smoothing makes type look less sharp. Looks more like an analog
display.
ed

"Brian K" <iibntgyea4 REMOVE_THIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4T2Wd.184262$K7.12870@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Font smoothing makes my 1905FP display look better (digital card). How
does
> font smoothing degrade your display Ed?
>
> Brian
>
>
> "Ed" <ekirstein_atcatskill.net> wrote in message
> news:112frep4067ha61@corp.supernews.com...
> >I have the Dell 20" and there is a big difference between running it
> >digital
> > or analog. If you are running XP and don't see a difference, it may be
> > that
> > font smoothing is turned on. That makes a digital look more like an
> > analog.
> > Make sure font smoothing is off to really see what digital can do. I
> > would
> > never go back to analog (unless it was a second monitor since my
graphics
> > card supports one digital and one analog).
> > Ed
>
>

 

[Ed]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I wonder if the difference using font smoothing is more noticeable on my
1600 x 1200 pixel display than on a lower res. display. -Ed

"Brian K" <iibntgyea4 REMOVE_THIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4T2Wd.184262$K7.12870@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Font smoothing makes my 1905FP display look better (digital card). How
does
> font smoothing degrade your display Ed?
>
> Brian
>
>
> "Ed" <ekirstein_atcatskill.net> wrote in message
> news:112frep4067ha61@corp.supernews.com...
> >I have the Dell 20" and there is a big difference between running it
> >digital
> > or analog. If you are running XP and don't see a difference, it may be
> > that
> > font smoothing is turned on. That makes a digital look more like an
> > analog.
> > Make sure font smoothing is off to really see what digital can do. I
> > would
> > never go back to analog (unless it was a second monitor since my
graphics
> > card supports one digital and one analog).
> > Ed
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I use ClearType. I thought that's what you meant by Font Smoothing, but
maybe not?

Brian


"Ed" <ekirstein_atcatskill.net> wrote in message
news:112l3n24le02m89@corp.supernews.com...
>I wonder if the difference using font smoothing is more noticeable on my
> 1600 x 1200 pixel display than on a lower res. display. -Ed
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Brian K wrote:
>
> I use ClearType. I thought that's what you meant by Font Smoothing, but
> maybe not?

With XP, there's "Standard" and "ClearType."

To my eyes, ClearType produces a very faint shadow, which,
in my opinion, makes the fonts appear slightly fuzzy.

Notan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I've noticed that shadow too. It's not present on my 1905F but is present on
one of my CRT monitors. Even so, I prefer ClearType.

Brian



"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:422A9520.CAA54C64@ddress.com...
> Brian K wrote:
>>
>> I use ClearType. I thought that's what you meant by Font Smoothing, but
>> maybe not?
>
> With XP, there's "Standard" and "ClearType."
>
> To my eyes, ClearType produces a very faint shadow, which,
> in my opinion, makes the fonts appear slightly fuzzy.
>
> Notan

 

[nick]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 06:58:08 GMT, in alt.sys.pc-clone.dell, "Brian K"
<iibntgyea4 REMOVE_THIS@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I've noticed that shadow too. It's not present on my 1905F but is present on
>one of my CRT monitors. Even so, I prefer ClearType.
>
>Brian
>
>
>
>"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
>news:422A9520.CAA54C64@ddress.com...
>> Brian K wrote:
>>>
>>> I use ClearType. I thought that's what you meant by Font Smoothing, but
>>> maybe not?
>>
>> With XP, there's "Standard" and "ClearType."
>>
>> To my eyes, ClearType produces a very faint shadow, which,
>> in my opinion, makes the fonts appear slightly fuzzy.

Reading this thread, I got curious and tried turning ClearType off to see
how much difference it was making on my Dell 2001FP.

With ClearType off, the text is very grainy (with the Standard font
smoothing or none at all): letters are obviously made of a series of square
pixels strung together, which gives them a jagged, fuzzy outline.

With ClearType enabled, the letters are made up of solid lines and are much
sharper looking, which makes the text easier on my eyes and easier to read.

Even looking at the screen very closely, I don't see any sign of a shadow on
the text, and ClearType makes my text a lot sharper.

Guess it's all a matter of individual eyes, monitors, etc.

--
Nick <mailto:tanstaafl@pobox.com>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Nick wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 06:58:08 GMT, in alt.sys.pc-clone.dell, "Brian K"
> <iibntgyea4 REMOVE_THIS@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I've noticed that shadow too. It's not present on my 1905F but is present on
> >one of my CRT monitors. Even so, I prefer ClearType.
> >
> >Brian
> >
> >
> >
> >"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> >news:422A9520.CAA54C64@ddress.com...
> >> Brian K wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I use ClearType. I thought that's what you meant by Font Smoothing, but
> >>> maybe not?
> >>
> >> With XP, there's "Standard" and "ClearType."
> >>
> >> To my eyes, ClearType produces a very faint shadow, which,
> >> in my opinion, makes the fonts appear slightly fuzzy.
>
> Reading this thread, I got curious and tried turning ClearType off to see
> how much difference it was making on my Dell 2001FP.
>
> With ClearType off, the text is very grainy (with the Standard font
> smoothing or none at all): letters are obviously made of a series of square
> pixels strung together, which gives them a jagged, fuzzy outline.
>
> With ClearType enabled, the letters are made up of solid lines and are much
> sharper looking, which makes the text easier on my eyes and easier to read.
>
> Even looking at the screen very closely, I don't see any sign of a shadow on
> the text, and ClearType makes my text a lot sharper.
>
> Guess it's all a matter of individual eyes, monitors, etc.

ClearType fills in the area, "between the squares," with a slightly
lighter color, giving the impression of a less jagged font.

As you said, it all a matter...

Notan