LCD screen question

[Beirut]

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.

[Reenk Roink]

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...):

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

[hoom]

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".

[Phatose]

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.

[Beirut]

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.)

[KukriKhan]

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.

[Beirut]

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.

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. "Can I bring you a beer Cutie-Beiruty?"

[Just A Girl]

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.