LCD screen question

I've heard that LCD screens, though wonderful and tasty in many ways, are less than ideal for office use, meaning typing and reading text.

My woman does translation and I'm wondering if a CRT or an LCD would be easier on her eyes. (That's the most important criteria for her.)

The resolution, regardless of the screen's native setting, is best at 1024x768 for her, whether LCD or CRT. How much clarity would be lost by switching from a native res to a 1024 setting on an LCD? 1600x1200 on a 17" or 19" LCD would render her blind within an hour.

Thanks.

Can't really say I know enough to answer the first question Beirut, but enabling ClearType should ease the eyes...

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearTypeInfo.mspx

Here's how to turn it on (remarkably, by default it is off...:rolleyes:):

1. Right click on the desktop and select 'Properties'

2. Select the 'Appearance' tab and press the 'Effects…' button

3. Check the box for 'Use the following method to smooth edges of screen fonts', then select 'ClearType' in the dropdown list

4. Close the Effects dialog by clicking 'OK' and click 'Apply' to complete the process

I have an LCD at work & its much preferable to CRT.
Most importantly LCDs don't flicker & the edges between black & white are cleaner than CRT.

Generally LCDs get blurry at other than native res.

But you can actually use the Advanced button on the Appearance tab of Display Properties to increase the size of the display text (& other display elements) to a comfortable size.
I've been doing this for years to make the text properly viewable on CRTs.

Main problem comes with movement eg when scrolling text where an LCD can look icky (same with games) due to slow response time, though its getting better.

Smaller size monitors are down to 2ms response now & I'm currently seriously considering a 24" 6ms screen to replace my 19".

Is there some reason you can't just use a bigger monitor and turn the DPI up? In XP, it's very simple to do that.


I'm fairly certain cleartype is off by default because it's less then ideal for CRTs.



2 ms sounds impressive, but I have to wonder how comparable it is. Lord knows LCD companies aren't above changing the way response time is measured to make themselves look better.

I want to upgrade my El Cheapo 19" Hansol CRT flatscreen to a top of the line 19" Viewsonic G-Series CRT screen. They've gotten really inexpensive and they look really nice.

I can toss her the screen I'm using right now to replace her 17" rounded Samsung, but she needs more real estate on her desk and a flat screen would give her more space, as well as look nice and possibly be easier on the eyes. (Also, it's a nice gift to come home to.)

But that is the question - for lengthy episodes of reading and typing, which is better, a CRT or an LCD, or are they the same as long as the quality is decent?

(Apparently ms time is measured, mostly, by the amount of time it takes for a pixel to go from black to white to black. But there is no standard so some companies only measure how long it takes for a pixel to go from black to a colour, not back to black again.)

These guys at Cornell Univ say LCD beats CRT for prolonged viewing, especially of text-based content (this is the html-version - there's also a PDF) http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=1

Most of the literature I've read says that if your eyeballs are scanning images (as in games) CRT wins; if you're scanning mostly text, LCD's are better. Sounds like your language-translation partner might well do best with LCD; such a 'present' also has the benefit of making you a hero. :smile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Most of the literature I've read says that if your eyeballs are scanning images (as in games) CRT wins; if you're scanning mostly text, LCD's are better. Sounds like your language-translation partner might well do best with LCD; such a 'present' also has the benefit of making you a hero. :smile:

---

Excellent. Thanks Kukri. Your advice jibes with that of my buddy from another site who knows a lot about these matters.

The reviews of the Samsung 730B 17" LCD look good. $299 Cdn, three-year warranty, and it's available at the semi-local computer store. Was thinking of the Samsung 19" 930B for myself but if I do get another screen I think I'll stay with the Viewsonic CRT.

Brother, you got the hero bit down pat. When she comes home to a sweet black-cased LCD screen and a fancy black (French) Microsoft media keyboard instead of that ugly beige CRT and horrid white $10 keyboard, I'm bound to get a smile. :kiss2: "Can I bring you a beer Cutie-Beiruty?"

I think Lcd's have gotten much better this last year or so.
they still dont like to be touched on the screen.
but they display quite well.

One thing i dont comprehend is there refresh rates.
CRT monitors needed to be at 75hz or greater to eliviate eye strain.
but aparantly lcd's cause less eye strain at lower refresh rates.
I fail to comprehend the logic behind that.

LCD's do seem to be the way forward.

and you can increase dpi size.
icon text size.
icon size
and web page text sizes all within windows.
However.
I use a tv 2hich is Much larger than any monitor i could possibly affoaed, and as a result. i can bearly read any text at 1024x768 even at the largest setings.

RTW. is virtualy unplayable with text being impossible to read in the campaign map. (no big loss)
so i dunno.
26 inch tv screen. maxes text to small to read in some games.
LCD could be similar.

Quote:

---

One thing i dont comprehend is there refresh rates.

---

Its all about how the two techs actually generate a picture.
A CRT is drawing a picture by scanning a single finely focussed electron beam rapidly across the screen one line at a time.
Whether or not it flickers is a question of how fast it goes through each cycle (refresh rate), how long the phosphors glow before going dark & how fast the eye seeing it works.
eg apparently most cats just see lines if not the dot on a TV because their eyes are faster.
A newer monitor generally will have faster phosphors so will flicker more at lower refresh rates.

An LCD however has a white backlight that is always on, this then shines through the liquid crystal bit which blocks or allows the relevant light for each pixel.
The refresh rate of an LCD is how often the monitor electronics sends updates to the liquid crystal.
Response time is how long the liquid crystal takes to change state.

Given your partener's main use will be text based, DEFINITELY go for an LCD. The argument for CRT in any application is really diminishing, LCDs are getting so good, in a few more years, big box CRTs will be completely out for most people. You'll also save on your electricity bill, LCDs use less power.

A little hint, if your wife has problems seeing small text... Hold down Ctrl, and wheel the mouse wheel up and down to resize all the text on the screen. Works in browsers and in plenty of other apps. Its handy for me, and my eyesight is pretty good! :2thumbsup:

LCD's are definitely the way to go for both office applications and games nowadays. I've got a nice 19" Viewsonic LCD screen and it plays all my games beautifully with no blurring or the colour distortion that was common on older LCD's, and LCD's have always been superior for viewing fairly static images such as text based applications.

The only problem is LCD's need to be used on their native resolution to look their best with is generally 1280x1024 on a 19", meaning newer games can put a serious strain on your sligthly ageing graphics card ~:mecry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordHugh

The only problem is LCD's need to be used on their native resolution to look their best with is generally 1280x1024 on a 19", meaning newer games can put a serious strain on your sligthly ageing graphics card ~:mecry:

---

That's the reason I havent gotten an LCD yet. I have a 19" CRT and I run my desktop and games at 1024x768. Since a 19" LCD would actually have more screen space going 1280x1024 wouldnt be a big deal for my desktop- but my gaming performance would almost certainly take a hit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

Given your partener's main use will be text based, DEFINITELY go for an LCD. The argument for CRT in any application is really diminishing, LCDs are getting so good, in a few more years, big box CRTs will be completely out for most people. You'll also save on your electricity bill, LCDs use less power.

A little hint, if your wife has problems seeing small text... Hold down Ctrl, and wheel the mouse wheel up and down to resize all the text on the screen. Works in browsers and in plenty of other apps. Its handy for me, and my eyesight is pretty good! :2thumbsup:

---

Good point on the LCDs phasing out CRTs. One bonus to that, though, is being able to get a 19" or 21" graphics series Viewsonic for a pitance.

I'm getting her a fancy black Microsoft keyboard that has a slider on the left that zooms in and out on the page for easy viewing. I think that's really going to work well for her. She also does some website maintenance, so that slider will be very handy.

I'm ordering her a Samsung 930B today. The 17" is $330 and the 19" is on sale at $359. Gee, which one should I get? :stupido2:

I'm very tempted to get one for myself.

That just shows the hard-learnt "don't be an early adopter" lesson. In 1999, we bought 2 15" HP LCD screens for $1500 apiece. For that money today, I could get 9 19".

For $30 difference, "super-size" me, I say.

Yeah, go with the 19".

Interestingly enough I am using a Samsung 930B right now. It is a very good choice!:2thumbsup:
I only have a 17" though.:shame:

It's done.

No Samsung 930Bs LCD (19") available at the store or from my computer dude. Now only the 940BF (19") is available for $500 instead of the 930B for $359. Gah! So I ordered a Samsung 740B (17") for $299. Should have it Wednesday. I'm a bit bummed out that it's not a 19", but I'm sure she's going to like it far more than the four year-old ugly beige Samsung CRT she has now. Ordered her the fancy Microsoft Digital Media keyboard as well.

I'm going to test out her 740B screen on my rig to see how well it works with IL2-PF. If it has the same screen size as a 19" CRT and looks good flying, I might get myself one as well. 80% of my game time if flying, so if the screen doesn't look good in flight, it's no good to me at all.

Also ordered myself an Nvidia 7800 GS AGP card to replace my 9800Pro. The AGP version is $200 cheaper than the PCI-E version and I can keep my present MB and CPU. Can't afford to change everything in one shot and go PCI-E. Should have the card Wednesday as well. I'll be flying IL2 at ultra-max settings with that puppy 'till the wee hours as soon as it's installed.

Toys-toys-toys. :bounce:

This one's minor but it's worth it - from memory the 740B has both a digital and an analogue input. The picture quality will be better on the digital - however a lot of older video cards don't have a DVI output. It won't be a major improvement but if your wife doesn't play games she won't need a expensive video card so you may want to think about upgrading that.

The difference is in how the signal goes. CRT's need an analogue signal to display, LCD's need a digital signal. Video cards output in digital, so the train goes something like this.

CRT

Video card --digital output-> digital to analogue convertor --analogue output-> display

LCD (Analogue input)

Video card --digital output-> digital to analogue convertor --analogue output-> monitors analogue to digital convertor --reconverted digital output-> display

LCD (Digital input)

Video card --digital output-> display

The elimination of the conversion steps stops a loss of quality on each conversion. Also a digital input means that things such as adjusting monitor boundaries can be automatically carried out without the monitor having to approximate (which they are admittedly now good at).

The quality loss is not huge, but I've had two identical LCD monitors side by side one on analogue, one on digital and the digital one is definately sharper.

most £30-£50 cards, seem to have DVI output.
you know older ati cards that were new at one point excetera.
so an upgrade to DVI should not be expensive Even if it was essential.

DGB,

Thanks for that. I appreciate the help.

I think she has a scrap video card of some kind, but I might throw in my 9800Pro after my 7800 gets installed. So I'll have to keep track of what cable to use and when. Only the analog cable comes with the screen.

I'm guessing that my 7800 card will have a DVI input so maybe I'll just buy the cable now, use it for her if I can or save it for me when I get an LCD screen.

*By the by, how are you doing after Larry? Everything's ok I hope.

Well, finally got it. My computer dude was a week late delivering my new LCD screen. In the end, the samsung 730B I was looking at wasn't available and I ended up with a 17" Samsung 740N. Same price, $300.

I set it up on my woman's desk and called her in to see. I thought she was going to be mad because I "wasted" the money. Took about five seconds for it to sink in and she fell in love. Not with me, with the screen. The desk never looked so roomy.

The screen - easy to assemble, easy to get the plugs in, then it's plug n' play, though there are drivers on a CD for advanced colour and control options. The CD refuses to work in her CD player, though, but works fine in my CD/DVD player, Odd.

It's a very bright screen. Even with the gamma and brightness turned down this thing is bright. The native res is 1280x1024, smaller than the 1024x768 we both are used, to but the screen is very clear so it's easy to read at the higher res. For surfing and text work, this screen in great. Clear, crisp, easy to read. Good office screen.

For games things change. In IL2 (flightsim) horizontal lines appear looking like a new page trying to be inserted over the old one when the action gets fast. I'm not sure what this is called but it looks like tearing. I didn't notice much ghosting, fast moving images leaving trails behind them, just the tearing. The game looked good, though odd to see it on a screen an inch thick, looks like a comic book. The colours were good, the detail is nice. If it wasn't for the tearing I'd buy one of these in a second to play on.

Also, DVDs don't look that great. A bit fuzzy and with that LCD pixelated haze thing going on. I'll try a few more to be sure.

Another good thing - the 17" on this LCD has only 1/2" less viewable than my 19" CRT. Gotta love that.

I've got a Samsung 930BF as one of my monitors on my desk. It is a sweet monitor that looks good and performs well.

Do you have a separate games machine? Have you tried the monitor on that to see if the tearing is a graphics card issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Do you have a separate games machine? Have you tried the monitor on that to see if the tearing is a graphics card issue?

---

The screen works fine on her vanilla office machine which is on the desk beside me. It was when I hooked it up to my rig (AMD64-3000/9800Pro) that it got a bit bonky. A fella at another site said it was probably the V-sync that needed to be enabled.

As soon as I find the V-sync, well, darnit, I'll enable it!

Mind you, me and the kids were flying around in FS2004 an hour ago and it looked really nice with no tearing at all. It only happened when things got fast and close in IL2.

I'm looking at this one for myself. Tomshardware.com gave it a very good review for games.
http://www.viewsonic.com/products/de...xseries/vx924/

Congrats on your new "baby".

VSync is an in-game setting, right? Different for each game? Not something ajustable in Windows. Or do I misunderstand?

I can adjust it globally in the ATI tray tools that comes with the Omega drivers. You can also try to turn on AA and AF for games like IL2, which I believe, dont have in-game support for those features.

I never did find the v-sync. Odd.

I did have the AA and AF enabled in the Catalyst Control center that ran my 9800Pro.

I said "ran" because I just got my Nvidia BFG 7800GS 256 meg AGP card installed. Yay! :bounce:

Beiruty-Patooty is going to be up late flying tonight. I'll give a test report later. I've only had it in the machine for fifteen minutes.

Vsynch is AKA "Wait for vertical refresh" ie it forces the graphics card to only render as many frames as the refresh rate or an even division therof eg for 60hz 60/30/15fps.

Quote:

---

The native res is 1280x1024, smaller than the 1024x768 we both are used, to but the screen is very clear so it's easy to read at the higher res.

---

:helloo: Dude even though the text is clearer on the LCD, go to the display properties -> appearance tab & fiddle with the text sizes.

Folks: Windows does indeed allow you to have bigger than 10pt text. Oh Yes indeed it does :2thumbsup:

Seriously. So many people sit around with 1024 desktop for no reason other than failure to explore settings :wall:

Dude?

I wonder if that means I'm young again?

I'll try as you suggest. If it works and she's happy with it, I'll make her call me "Hoom" tonight.

By the by, I happen to like 1024x768. It's been my friend since the days of my P200 and my 15" screen. ~;p

There's a very informative post on VSync (and how to optimize your graphics settings) here: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=928593

A highly recommended read for all.

Good read!

Thanks.

Quote:

---

I wonder if that means I'm young again?

---

Just frustration that I'd already mentioned it twice in the thread, then when you actually got the monitor, you mentioned that the text was small...

Anyways so did she call you Hoom? :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoom

Just frustration that I'd already mentioned it twice in the thread, then when you actually got the monitor, you mentioned that the text was small...

Anyways so did she call you Hoom? :balloon2:

---

Sorry, I've been stuck on bonehead for days now.

Ask me tomorrow. :eyebrows:

Beirut, install this for her as well.

No need to install it if its an XP machine, Display Properties -> Apperance -> Effects -> Tick "Use the following method to smooth fonts..." -> select ClearType -> OK out