OT: Best LCD for Racing

have LCD's improved over the last couple years,

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:02:13 -0500, "mjones53" <[email hidden]> wrote: >have LCD's improved over the last couple years, groups.google.com will show you the many discussions on this matter. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Andrew :

Quoted text (9 lines)

> mjones53 : > >have LCD's improved over the last couple years, > > groups.google.com will show you the many discussions on this matter. > -- > Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, > please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text. > Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

And what is man suppose to write in groups.google.com? LCD? Racing? Simulators? And, is he supposed to read all those discussions, and all those posts (who knows how many of them), to see which one is relevant, or which one is up to date, or things like that. You supposedly tried to show the man how his post was sensless. Well, I think your smart-assing was completly sensless. You wrote so many words, and didn't say anything. Instead you could write 'yes' or 'no', and that would mean (at least) something. Save the man a lot of work. But, this is not your stile. Your idea is that nothing on usenet mustn't be said twice. And this idea is stupid like hell. And you dared to present this stupid idea for all to see. -- Mario

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:19:00 +0100, "Mario Petrinovich" <[email hidden]> wrote moronically: >Save the man a lot of work. What about saving everyone reading this group a lot of work and reading the same discussion as took place a few weeks back. The information hasn't changed since then. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Mario Petrinovich :

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Andrew : > > mjones53 : > > >have LCD's improved over the last couple years, > > > > groups.google.com will show you the many discussions on this matter. > > -- > > Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. > > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, > > please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text. > > Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

And, while we are at that, I must say a few words about your signature. You don't have to spread the word about google around. Maybe you will be surprised, but EVERYBODY knows about google. And everybody knows what it is for (exactly). If they chose not to use it, they had a reason. Instead of this you should write THE most important thing about Usenet (which miteriously slipped from you). Usenet is made to allow us to HELP each other. If you are not ready to help other people, stay away from Usenet. Or you will just vaste other people's time. Like it was compleate vaste of time, for me, to read so many words you wrote in your post. -- Mario

Andrew :

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Mario Petrinovich : > > >Save the man a lot of work. > > What about saving everyone reading this group a lot of work and > reading the same discussion as took place a few weeks back. The > information hasn't changed since then. -- Andrew.

If it is so easy to find this discussion, you would write a lot less words pointing man to this discussion (expalining how exactly to find it, pointing to the most relevant posts in discussion, all posts aren't equally relevant). Or, was it really so hard to write just one word ('yes' or 'no'). And, even if you add a short explaination, it wouldn't hurt your fingers. -- Mario

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:44:08 +0100, "Mario Petrinovich" <[email hidden]> wrote: > And, while we are at that, I must say a few words about your >signature. You don't have to spread the word about google around. Maybe you >will be surprised, but EVERYBODY knows about google. And everybody knows >what it is for (exactly). If they chose not to use it, they had a reason. Everyone knows about Google, but the majority of Usenet posters still don't know or don't bother to use the Usenet archive, which wastes a lot of peoples time needlessly. > Instead of this you should write THE most important thing about >Usenet (which miteriously slipped from you). Usenet is made to allow us to >HELP each other. If you are not ready to help other people, stay away from >Usenet. I have helped hundreds of people, but for FAQ's making people aware of using google helps everyone a lot more. > Or you will just vaste other people's time. Like it was compleate >vaste of time, for me, to read so many words you wrote in your post. I have provided the OP with everything he needs to answer his question thoroughly, whereas you have done precisely nothing to help him. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Andrew :

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Mario Petrinovich : > > >Save the man a lot of work. > > What about saving everyone reading this group a lot of work and > reading the same discussion as took place a few weeks back. The > information hasn't changed since then. -- Andrew.

Oh, now I figured out where you are making mistake. You know, Andrew, you don't have to read all posts on Usenet. It is enough to read only threads that are important to you. And that goes for everybody. Whoever isn't interested in the subject of the thread, he can simply skip it. Easy like that. Not everybody will read this thread. Only people who are interested in this information, and only people who are kind enough to provide this information, will have anything to do with this thread. -- Mario

Andrew :

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Mario Petrinovich : > > And, while we are at that, I must say a few words about your > >signature. You don't have to spread the word about google around. Maybe > >you > >will be surprised, but EVERYBODY knows about google. And everybody knows > >what it is for (exactly). If they chose not to use it, they had a reason. > > Everyone knows about Google, but the majority of Usenet posters still > don't know or don't bother to use the Usenet archive, which wastes a > lot of peoples time needlessly.

Nobody is wasting your time, expect you.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Instead of this you should write THE most important thing about > >Usenet (which miteriously slipped from you). Usenet is made to allow us > >to > >HELP each other. If you are not ready to help other people, stay away > >from Usenet. > > I have helped hundreds of people, but for FAQ's making people aware of > using google helps everyone a lot more.

Are you suggesting that man should read FAQ of usenet, as well. And FAQ of this group? And what you are suggesting further to read? And what would be the benefit? Why don't you simply write man the answer?

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Or you will just vaste other people's time. Like it was compleate > >vaste of time, for me, to read so many words you wrote in your post. > > I have provided the OP with everything he needs to answer his question > thoroughly, whereas you have done precisely nothing to help him. > -- > Andrew.

Well, I don't know the answer. And it is easier for me to find that answer here, even if I talk to you for hours. Because, only now and here I will get relevant information. I don't know what to type in Google (was there talking about TFT instead of LCD, few weeks before?). And if somebody write a few words, it will be just what I want. Plus, I want to finish with you. Because of you, and people like you, a lot of people in need for information were sent on some tricky, tiresome, and uncertain, long trip to search for information, only because some smart-ass people were figured out how to persuade other people to don't deliver the information to the one who need it. -- Mario

Andrew you really are a star at antagonising people,what on earth is your reason for being such a repulsive person. The google group search is a perfect way to find all your crap,please seek help for your abrasive,totally out of order attitude,in your one man crusade for the 'Perfect World by Andrew' Either that or just keep your nose out of alot more and leave well meaning folk alone you bully. AD "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:44:08 +0100, "Mario Petrinovich" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > And, while we are at that, I must say a few words about your > >signature. You don't have to spread the word about google around. Maybeyou

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >will be surprised, but EVERYBODY knows about google. And everybody knows > >what it is for (exactly). If they chose not to use it, they had a reason. > > Everyone knows about Google, but the majority of Usenet posters still > don't know or don't bother to use the Usenet archive, which wastes a > lot of peoples time needlessly. > > > Instead of this you should write THE most important thing about > >Usenet (which miteriously slipped from you). Usenet is made to allow us

to > >HELP each other. If you are not ready to help other people, stay awayfrom

Quoted text (15 lines)

> >Usenet. > > I have helped hundreds of people, but for FAQ's making people aware of > using google helps everyone a lot more. > > > Or you will just vaste other people's time. Like it was compleate > >vaste of time, for me, to read so many words you wrote in your post. > > I have provided the OP with everything he needs to answer his question > thoroughly, whereas you have done precisely nothing to help him. > -- > Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, > please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text. > Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:16:07 +0100, "AD" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Andrew you really are a star at antagonising people,what on earth is your >reason for being such a repulsive person. I gave one very useful piece of advice to the OP. All the abuse is coming from you and the other guy, and neither of you have done anything to help the OP. If others in this group want to repeat the same discussion again, they are free to do so. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

As if everyone knows that this discussion took place a few weeks ago. I'd like to know the answer as well. Please look it up for us all to see. Thanks. :-) "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:44:08 +0100, "Mario Petrinovich" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > And, while we are at that, I must say a few words about your > >signature. You don't have to spread the word about google around. Maybeyou

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >will be surprised, but EVERYBODY knows about google. And everybody knows > >what it is for (exactly). If they chose not to use it, they had a reason. > > Everyone knows about Google, but the majority of Usenet posters still > don't know or don't bother to use the Usenet archive, which wastes a > lot of peoples time needlessly. > > > Instead of this you should write THE most important thing about > >Usenet (which miteriously slipped from you). Usenet is made to allow us

to > >HELP each other. If you are not ready to help other people, stay awayfrom

Quoted text (15 lines)

> >Usenet. > > I have helped hundreds of people, but for FAQ's making people aware of > using google helps everyone a lot more. > > > Or you will just vaste other people's time. Like it was compleate > >vaste of time, for me, to read so many words you wrote in your post. > > I have provided the OP with everything he needs to answer his question > thoroughly, whereas you have done precisely nothing to help him. > -- > Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, > please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text. > Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 06:50:07 -0400, "BClay" <[email hidden]> wrote: >As if everyone knows that this discussion took place a few weeks ago. I'd >like to know the answer as well. Please look it up for us all to see. >Thanks. :-) Despite the top posting, seeing as you asked nicely, here is one recent discussion: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=684ec45a.0404190633.5e8d956a%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlcd%2Bgroup:rec.autos.simulators%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_qdr%3Dm3%26selm%3D684ec45a.0404190633.5e8d956a%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D1 -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Andrew wrote: > Despite the top posting, seeing as you asked nicely, here is one > recent discussion: > >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=684ec45a.04041906 33.5e8d956a%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlcd%2Bgroup:rec.a utos.simulators%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_qdr%3Dm3%26selm%3D684ec4 5a.0404190633.5e8d956a%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D1 Look at all the bandwidth we'd have saved if you just posted that in the first place ;) -- Ian P <email invalid due to spammers>

Just look for low response times>25ms or better...

To not be an ass, I'll respond. Yes, they've gotten better, you just need to get the right ones. Make sure the refresh of it is below 25ms and you'll be golden. "mjones53" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > have LCD's improved over the last couple years, > >

"mjones53" wrote ... > have LCD's improved over the last couple years, You bet. I've been playing sims on a Dell 2001FP for many months, and they look great to me. (GPL, NR2003, F1-CS, and the occasional FPS) Many people seem to prefer the newer, faster-response-time LCD, typically a 16ms rated response. But be aware that a number of panel manufacturers only achieved that rating by reducing the number of colours on-screen. They try to simulate full colour by dithering, but I'd rather have a full-colour panel to begin with. Here's a decent review of the Dell 2001FP by AnandTech: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1918 As you'll probably hear, it's best to run an LCD panel at it's native resolution. For the 20" Dell, that means 1600x1200. The thing to watch out for is that apparently pumping that much data through the DVI channel is getting close to it's maximum spec. So you have to be careful that your video card matches the spec closely. Apparently some of the last generation nVidia cards had problems with that. I haven't seen any tests for the new nVidia line, but here's a comparative test from ExtremeTech that explains the issue: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1187651,00.asp As always, the best test is to try and see some LCD's in action and see how they look to you. Hope this helps, ...Klinn

I agree. BTW... top posting or bottom posting, who cares as long as the message gets across? "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YeXyc.14644$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Andrew wrote: > > > Despite the top posting, seeing as you asked nicely, here is one > > recent discussion: > > > > >

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=684ec45a.04041906 >33.5e8d956a%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlcd%2Bgroup:rec.a >utos.simulators%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_qdr%3Dm3%26selm%3D684ec4 > 5a.0404190633.5e8d956a%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D1 > > Look at all the bandwidth we'd have saved if you just posted that in the > first place ;) I agree. BTW... top posting or bottom posting, who cares as long as the message gets across?

BClay wrote: > I agree. BTW... top posting or bottom posting, who cares as long as the > message gets across? >> [..] > I agree. BTW... top posting or bottom posting, who cares as long as the > message gets across? Nice one :) But... try to read several hundred newspostings every day and you'll know that style is important. Writing an elegant newsposting is like driving a good line: It saves time. A message gets written once, but is read many times over. So why not touch it up a little for easy reading. It's just more effective. To the original poster: LCD's are perfect for racing. I really dig my NEC Multisync LCD 1880SX. Just make sure you don't get fooled by a few numbers. Sure, they all have 16ms now, but what is being measured? Beware of the marketing machine. PS: I got a 2:12.5 in the GTR demo today. Man it feels good to be rewarded for all the practice :) can't wait for the final game. I've never been into driving sims before, but GTR gets me hooked.

The guy Andrew is a burk, he's more interested in his own view of correctness than helping out others who ask perfectly acceptable questions. I use a 19" 25ms neovo X-Series and it's fine for all the driving sims I've tried, notably later ones such as TRD2 and CMR04. It's OK for RPG's but struggles a bit on fps's. The current limit seems to be those that claim a 16ms refresh time (be careful, some manufacturers split the time between rise and fall, you need to add those together). 16ms is only really available in 17" (unless someone can point me to a 19" 16ms panel), I've seen the Hitachi 170 series highly recommended. Andi. Doh, top posting again, wonder if Andrew ill chastise me yet again. -- Remove only one zero to reply. "mjones53" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > have LCD's improved over the last couple years, > >

You know Andy, top posting corrects a problem that you clearly are concerned about in reply to mjones53. Having to read the same thing over and over again. Top posting keeps from having to read replies twice before the next response. I'll stand over here while your head explodes.

GMpartsguy wrote: > Having to read the same thing over and over again. Top posting keeps from > having to read replies twice before the next response. There is another option: Smart quoting, i.e. only quoting the relevant parts. Unfortunately some newsreaders do their best to make smart quoting difficult. Like yours. I have to use Outlook at work. It makes me want to puke everytime i hit "reply". There is a solution to this, check out the examples: http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/ slightly OT in this OT thread, so sorry for the noise. :)

I actually dont consider myself quotable, and just happened to notice the loop in Andy's logic. Top or bottom posting isnt very high on my list of priorities. I reserve such things for work, food, sex, fishing, and the such. I'm really not being serious in this post either.

I use a samsung syncmaster 191T "mjones53" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > have LCD's improved over the last couple years, > >

I use a samsung syncmaster 191T "mjones53" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > have LCD's improved over the last couple years, > >

"Andi Cole" wrote: > The guy Andrew is a burk, he's more interested in his own view of > correctness than helping out others who ask perfectly acceptablequestions. This has been discussed in a previous thread. Please do not repost it. Make the world a better place...

In article <4Kozc.212$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> "Andi Cole" wrote: > > > The guy Andrew is a burk, he's more interested in his own view of > > correctness than helping out others who ask perfectly acceptable > questions. > > This has been discussed in a previous thread. Please do not repost it. Make > the world a better place... > > >

What has been discussed, Andre being a pill, or the best LCD for racing? For what its worth, I think re-hashing info like this is relevant every few months due to the alarming rate of change we see in the industry. Something new hits the street every day, and there have been great strides made in LCD latency in the last year.

"John Simmons" wrote: > > This has been discussed in a previous thread. Please do not repost it.Make

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > the world a better place... > What has been discussed, Andre being a pill, or the best LCD for racing? > > For what its worth, I think re-hashing info like this is relevant every > few months due to the alarming rate of change we see in the industry. > Something new hits the street every day, and there have been great > strides made in LCD latency in the last year.

I quite agree. The OP got a ticking off from Andrew for asking the question, hence my response to Andi I'll add a smiley next time... :)

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:09:50 GMT, "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >The OP got a ticking off from Andrew for asking the question, hence my >response to Andi I didn't give him a ticking off, I just made a useful suggestion. It seems giving people useful advice is a major crime around here, *sigh*. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Andrew only you think your 'advice' was such,please wake up to what sort of impression you have made here. AD "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:09:50 GMT, "Tony Rickard" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >The OP got a ticking off from Andrew for asking the question, hence my > >response to Andi > > I didn't give him a ticking off, I just made a useful suggestion. It > seems giving people useful advice is a major crime around here, > *sigh*. > -- > Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, > please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text. > Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

But you could have been helpful and given the guy an answer!! Instead you go on and on about how your ideal world would go. Andi. -- Remove only one zero to reply. "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:09:50 GMT, "Tony Rickard" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >The OP got a ticking off from Andrew for asking the question, hence my > >response to Andi > > I didn't give him a ticking off, I just made a useful suggestion. It > seems giving people useful advice is a major crime around here, > *sigh*. > -- > Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, > please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text. > Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Repost what, if you're talking LCD's they need to be updated when ever possible so reposts are important, if you're talking about Andrew, I'm entitled to tell other people not to wory about his endless nagging about etiquette. Andi. -- Remove only one zero to reply. "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4Kozc.212$[email hidden]... > "Andi Cole" wrote: > > > The guy Andrew is a burk, he's more interested in his own view of > > correctness than helping out others who ask perfectly acceptable > questions. > > This has been discussed in a previous thread. Please do not repost it. Make > the world a better place... > >

"Andi Cole" wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > This has been discussed in a previous thread. Please do not repost it. > > Make the world a better place... > Repost what, if you're talking LCD's they need to be updated when ever > possible so reposts are important, if you're talking about Andrew, I'm > entitled to tell other people not to wory about his endless nagging about > etiquette.

Clearly my sarcasm was too subtle :) It was a gentle stab at Andrew's initial reaction and his signature. It seemed funny at the time, but now I just feel a bit of a tit... <G>

Samsung 172x? 12ms response time is one of the lowest right now if I'm not mistaken.

Probably my fault, getting too carried away with Andrews attitude, sorry. Andi. -- Remove only one zero to reply. "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:JbJzc.1007$[email hidden]... > "Andi Cole" wrote: > > > > This has been discussed in a previous thread. Please do not repost it. > > > Make the world a better place... > > > Repost what, if you're talking LCD's they need to be updated when ever > > possible so reposts are important, if you're talking about Andrew, I'm > > entitled to tell other people not to wory about his endless nagging about > > etiquette. > > Clearly my sarcasm was too subtle :) > > It was a gentle stab at Andrew's initial reaction and his signature. > > It seemed funny at the time, but now I just feel a bit of a tit... <G> > >

Only the 172X has 12ms, wow that's fast. The 173 is listed as 25ms so be careful with your supplier. Another thing to note about resolution, when you get to the larger screens with 1600*1200 I've read a couple of tech notes saying that DVI will struggle at that amount of data and soem errors wil occur. Andi. -- Remove only one zero to reply. "doubleu" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:cxNzc.10669$[email hidden]... > Samsung 172x? 12ms response time is one of the lowest right now if I'm not > mistaken. > >

"doubleu" wrote in ... > Samsung 172x? 12ms response time is one of the lowest right now if I'mnot > mistaken. Check the somewhat mixed review at http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=2072 This is one of those panels that achieves faster response time by limiting the number of colours it can show, then using dithering to simulate the rest, as I mentioned in my previous post. ...Klinn

Hmm interesting. -- Remove only one zero to reply. "Klinn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:GhWzc.5359$[email hidden]... > "doubleu" wrote in ... > > Samsung 172x? 12ms response time is one of the lowest right now if I'm > not > > mistaken. > > Check the somewhat mixed review at > http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=2072 > This is one of those panels that achieves faster response time by limiting > the number of colours it can show, then using dithering to simulate the > rest, as I mentioned in my previous post. > > ...Klinn > >