LCD for sims

My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? Thanks..

"tiger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the > latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate > not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? > > Thanks.. I've been racing on a notebook since the early days of smeary DSTN screens. It depends on what you're used to, but certainly for racing sims I think they're fine now. The main field of view is not changing so much (compared to strafing in a first person shooter) and if anything, any blurriness at the periphery of the screen heightens the impression of smooth speed, but most current TFTs have a fast enough reaction time not to be blurry or show ghosting. Go for it... free your desk of that huge boat anchor. Stephen

Refresh rate is immaterial for LCD's. It's the pixel response rate that matters (technically). The problem is, every manufacturer uses their own testing methods, so a monitor that has a 16ms response rate may not be as good as one with a 25ms response rate. Really, the only thing you can do is research, research, research. Make sure you look at it with gaming in mind. -Larry "tiger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the > latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate > not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? > > Thanks..

Even the cheapest 17" LCD's are fine....dont think that old rubbish anymore mate. AD

I have Samsung syncmaster 171b,17in, cost $1200cdn, not very good for racing on line, i use 21in samsung 1200nf crt. Wayne "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:w7Lwb.14620$yM6.10960@lakeread06...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> Refresh rate is immaterial for LCD's. It's the pixel response rate that > matters (technically). The problem is, every manufacturer uses their own > testing methods, so a monitor that has a 16ms response rate may not be as > good as one with a 25ms response rate. > > Really, the only thing you can do is research, research, research. Make > sure you look at it with gaming in mind. > > -Larry > > "tiger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the > > latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate > > not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? > > > > Thanks.. > >

Well I run an Iiyama AS4315-UTBK with a Radeon 9800 pro at 437/770 - at default 60 Hz "refresh" .... and not even a hint of ghosting. You need a black-white-black pixel response time of 25ms or less. But you must get DVI for beautiful colours and lemon sharp image quality. Your eyes won't regret flat panel. Indeed, you'll wonder why you ever put up with CRT. "tiger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the > latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate > not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? > > Thanks..

I would agree with Aidee. I just purchased a 15" Gem LCD (cant get much cheaper) and it runs any sim we've thrown at it just fine. Mitch "Aidee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq00is$67m$[email hidden]... > Even the cheapest 17" LCD's are fine....dont think that old rubbishanymore > mate. > > AD > >

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:16:57 -0500, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Refresh rate is immaterial for LCD's. It's the pixel response rate that >matters (technically). The problem is, every manufacturer uses their own >testing methods, so a monitor that has a 16ms response rate may not be as >good as one with a 25ms response rate. > >Really, the only thing you can do is research, research, research. Make >sure you look at it with gaming in mind. > >-Larry

Yea, I've read that those 16ms rated ones don't do true colour and that is how they achieve the 16ms rating. My Samsung 171S is avaialable for quite cheap now and is fine for gaming. It's sub 30ms.

LCDs have improved in quality, and in price, but what is still true is they are best when left at the default resolution. In my personal opinion the best LCD will never match the best CRT. If you choose that route, make sure you check how the sim looks in the resolution you want before you by. -- Tim White "tiger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the > latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate > not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? > > Thanks..

tiger wrote: > > My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the > latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate > not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? Until a little while I ago I trusted a few web sites who said that LCD's were not very good for gaming unless you got a really "fast" (expensive) with low response time Then a few weeks ago the opp presented itself to try a Samtron 17" LCD monitor on my main gaming rig and I've now come to the conclusion that some reviewers are full of crap, even that cheap ass Samtron monitor was just fine for racing games and I'll be replacing my 19" CRT with a 19" LCD when I can afford it Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Very true Goy...i bought a customer the very same Samtron 17" LCD and it is just fine. The reviewers best taken notice of are us..lol AD

Aidee wrote: > > Very true Goy...i bought a customer the very same Samtron 17" LCD and it is > just fine. > > The reviewers best taken notice of are us..lol Yeah, it was a monitor that a customer returned due to pixel errors, actually a decent monitor for the price, I put it through it's paces and wouldn't mind one myself, too bad it doesn't have DVI so I'll prolly go one step up and get a Samsung Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

> My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the > latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate > not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? It seems most members of this group aren't very discerning when it comes to motion. LCDs are adequate but I find them far more suited to office applications than 3D games - yes, even the very latest and greatest LCDs. I'm very fussy about these things though so you should probably ignore me and get one anyway. =)

Dell 1800. Highly reviewed by gaming sources, and fairly cheap for 18 in. (sometimes offered on sale for abt. $400). I'll never buy another CRT. "tiger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the > latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate > not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? > > Thanks..

In article <[email hidden]>, tiger says... > My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the > latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate > not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? All new 15 and 17" LCDs are fine and fast enough. It's the 18+ inches models that are the ones still using "old technology" and still need to be checked out carefully. Make sure you get a 'brand name' lcd and you'll be fine. -- And on the 8th day God said, "OK Murphy, you take over." ICQ: 138579247

In article <bq026f$fc$[email hidden]>, Top-poster says... > Well I run an Iiyama AS4315-UTBK with a Radeon 9800 pro at 437/770 - at > default 60 Hz "refresh" .... and not even a hint of ghosting. > You need a black-white-black pixel response time of 25ms or less. > But you must get DVI for beautiful colours and lemon sharp image quality. > Your eyes won't regret flat panel. > Indeed, you'll wonder why you ever put up with CRT. Not if he had a good CRT like Eizo or IIyama. :) -- Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. ICQ: 138579247

> Not if he had a good CRT like Eizo or IIyama. :) Will any of the top players at the winter CPL be using LCDs? I suspect not. ;-)

You obviously haven't tried a good LCD. CRT's hurt your eyes after more than an hour or two, but you can stare at an LCD forever and there's no eyestrain whatsoever. Other than which, colour saturation is much greater on an LCD - so they are much more vibrant. I won't mention flatness, no reflection, no static, no desk-hogging or portability - and that's before we even start on DVI (expensive in CRT's, defacto on decent LCD's). When you try a good LCD, I promise you'll laugh at what you've just written. "Dalibor Bauernfrajnd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <bq026f$fc$[email hidden]>, Top-poster says... > > Well I run an Iiyama AS4315-UTBK with a Radeon 9800 pro at 437/770 - at > > default 60 Hz "refresh" .... and not even a hint of ghosting. > > You need a black-white-black pixel response time of 25ms or less. > > But you must get DVI for beautiful colours and lemon sharp imagequality.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Your eyes won't regret flat panel. > > Indeed, you'll wonder why you ever put up with CRT. > > Not if he had a good CRT like Eizo or IIyama. :) > > -- > Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. > ICQ: 138579247

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq1ntd$1tqoej$[email hidden]... > > Not if he had a good CRT like Eizo or IIyama. :) > > Will any of the top players at the winter CPL be using LCDs? I suspectnot. If not, they're fools living in the past. > ;-) > > >

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq134n$1sjrjp$[email hidden]... > > My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the > > latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate > > not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? > > It seems most members of this group aren't very discerning when it comesto > motion. LCDs are adequate but I find them far more suited to office > applications than 3D games - yes, even the very latest and greatest LCDs. > I'm very fussy about these things though so you should probably ignore me > and get one anyway. =) Yes, he should. The ONLY people who claim that CRT's are better for gaming are those who've never tried a decent LCD. Why not keep it shut until you're qualified to make the call ? > > >

There *are* differences...among models as well as makes...altho not quite so apparent in 3D sims (like flying & driving). Dire, however, in FPS's and such. Before I buy ANYthing any more, I use Google to search the newsgroups and forums to get the skinny on everything from Linux to Ridex. "Dalibor Bauernfrajnd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, tiger says... > > My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the > > latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate > > not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? > > All new 15 and 17" LCDs are fine and fast enough. It's the 18+ inches > models that are the ones still using "old technology" and still need > to be checked out carefully. > > Make sure you get a 'brand name' lcd and you'll be fine. > > -- > And on the 8th day God said, "OK Murphy, you take over." > ICQ: 138579247

> Yes, he should. > The ONLY people who claim that CRT's are better for gaming are thosewho've > never tried a decent LCD. > Why not keep it shut until you're qualified to make the call ? Er...I mentioned in my post that I've tried the latest and supposedly the best LCD screens. Anyone who claims that there's no noticeable motion blur on even the 16 and 20 ms LCDs is visually impaired. I'm glad they suit your needs but they don't suit mine. They're getting there though and when the response on newer models drop to a *true* 10ms or less I reckon they'll be preferable to a CRT in terms of on-screen motion for hardcore gamers.

Yeah, world champion gamers are notorius for using outdated hardware..... </sarcasm>

Thank you all for the comments. I'm now targeting Samsung 172 series. I kept hearing Samsung ones are good but Tom's Hardware Guide rates the latest model badly on game playing, which confused me a bit. Any of you own those Samsung LCDs? tiger wrote: > > My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the > latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate > not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? > > Thanks..

Goy Larsen wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > tiger wrote: > >>My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the >>latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate >>not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? > > > Until a little while I ago I trusted a few web sites who said that LCD's > were not very good for gaming unless you got a really "fast" (expensive) > with low response time > > Then a few weeks ago the opp presented itself to try a Samtron 17" LCD > monitor on my main gaming rig and I've now come to the conclusion that > some reviewers are full of crap, even that cheap ass Samtron monitor was > just fine for racing games and I'll be replacing my 19" CRT with a 19" > LCD when I can afford it

I was saying the same thing right here months ago. -- Gerry Aitken© ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16 This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.

Damien Smith wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>>My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the >>latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate >>not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? > > > It seems most members of this group aren't very discerning when it comes to > motion. LCDs are adequate but I find them far more suited to office > applications than 3D games - yes, even the very latest and greatest LCDs. > I'm very fussy about these things though so you should probably ignore me > and get one anyway. =) > > >

I'll repost what I told you a few months ago: 'As I stated, 50ms IS fast enough for gaming! I own an 50ms LCD and have tested it with many games. It works perfectly well. It is NOT restricted to 20 fps, as you incorrectly stated.' 'You DON'T own one, you DON'T understand the underlying technology, so I don't think you are in any position to tell me that my LCD isn't good enough.' 'Not that I give a flying fark what you think anyway! :)' Print that out and shove it up your arse! -- Gerry Aitken© ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16 This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.

Same logic applies to CRT's. You more or less get what you pay for. A correctly configured CRT won't cause eyestrain. Yea a 14" interlaced VGA running 56hz will have you seeing all sorts of anomalies after a couple hours. My 22" NEC FE1250@120Hz doesnt cause me any problems even after a 12-15 hr day 7-10 days in a row. Bottom line. I cant get an LCD of the same size/price as a CRT so none of your other arguments hold any water for me. When the markets meet this demand (as I expect in another yr or so) then I'll go LCD. Till then Im more than happy with my 22" CRT Monster :) Mitch "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq211o$bbc$[email hidden]... > You obviously haven't tried a good LCD. > CRT's hurt your eyes after more than an hour or two, but you can stare atan > LCD forever and there's no eyestrain whatsoever. > Other than which, colour saturation is much greater on an LCD - so theyare > much more vibrant. > I won't mention flatness, no reflection, no static, no desk-hogging or > portability - and that's before we even start on DVI (expensive in CRT's, > defacto on decent LCD's). > When you try a good LCD, I promise you'll laugh at what you've justwritten. > >

Weeeeellllllllll, I Have tried them, and they suck compared to my monitor. So there. Next you'll me telling me you race on a laptop? :)) -- Tim White "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq216h$9cd$[email hidden]... > > The ONLY people who claim that CRT's are better for gaming are those who've > never tried a decent LCD. > Why not keep it shut until you're qualified to make the call ? >

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq2bsd$1t5ke8$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Yes, he should. > > The ONLY people who claim that CRT's are better for gaming are those > who've > > never tried a decent LCD. > > Why not keep it shut until you're qualified to make the call ? > > Er...I mentioned in my post that I've tried the latest and supposedly the > best LCD screens. Anyone who claims that there's no noticeable motion

blur > on even the 16 and 20 ms LCDs is visually impaired. You need to check out a panel with a black-white-black response of sub-25ms, not just black to white or white to black response. The fact is that I have 20/20 vision and am extremely discerning, visually speaking - and my Iiyama has NO ghosting whatsoever. Your story is made up. I'm glad they suit your > needs but they don't suit mine. They're getting there though and when the > response on newer models drop to a *true* 10ms or less I reckon they'll be > preferable to a CRT in terms of on-screen motion for hardcore gamers. > >

Shut up, you dumb phuck - you're full of shi'ite. "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq2but$1u2hmn$[email hidden]... > Yeah, world champion gamers are notorius for using outdated hardware..... > > </sarcasm> > >

Gerry, your comments with regard to Damien look-what-a-wanker-I-am Smith are spot on. The guy is so full of shi'ite, it's unreal. "Gerry Aitken�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... Damien Smith wrote: >>My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the >>latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate >>not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? > > > It seems most members of this group aren't very discerning when it comesto

Quoted text (7 lines)

> motion. LCDs are adequate but I find them far more suited to office > applications than 3D games - yes, even the very latest and greatest LCDs. > I'm very fussy about these things though so you should probably ignore me > and get one anyway. =) > > >

I'll repost what I told you a few months ago: 'As I stated, 50ms IS fast enough for gaming! I own an 50ms LCD and have tested it with many games. It works perfectly well. It is NOT restricted to 20 fps, as you incorrectly stated.' 'You DON'T own one, you DON'T understand the underlying technology, so I don't think you are in any position to tell me that my LCD isn't good enough.' 'Not that I give a flying fark what you think anyway! :)' Print that out and shove it up your arse! -- Gerry Aitken� ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16 This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Rq5xb.463$[email hidden]... > Same logic applies to CRT's. You more or less get what you pay for. A > correctly configured CRT won't cause eyestrain. What a crock of shi'ite. ALL CRT's cause eyestrain, you wallaby. If you knew your arse from your elbow, you'd understand that it's the refresh black-white-black alternation which taxes the visual cortex - causing eyestrain. FFS .... I'm just so fed up with these morons who've never tried a decent LCD coming in here and making up bullshit to support their "points of view". No honestly, you sack of shi'ite ... before you post another bullshi'ite post, go out and BUY an LCD - then you'll realise that you're a childish prick who can't resist telling whoppers. Yea a 14" interlaced VGA

Quoted text (16 lines)

> running 56hz will have you seeing all sorts of anomalies after a couple > hours. My 22" NEC FE1250@120Hz doesnt cause me any problems even after a > 12-15 hr day 7-10 days in a row. > > Bottom line. I cant get an LCD of the same size/price as a CRT so none of > your other arguments hold any water for me. When the markets meet this > demand (as I expect in another yr or so) then I'll go LCD. Till then Im > more than happy with my 22" CRT Monster :) > > Mitch > > > "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bq211o$bbc$[email hidden]... > > You obviously haven't tried a good LCD. > > CRT's hurt your eyes after more than an hour or two, but you can stare

at

Quoted text (7 lines)

> an > > LCD forever and there's no eyestrain whatsoever. > > Other than which, colour saturation is much greater on an LCD - so they > are > > much more vibrant. > > I won't mention flatness, no reflection, no static, no desk-hogging or > > portability - and that's before we even start on DVI (expensive in

CRT's,

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > defacto on decent LCD's). > > When you try a good LCD, I promise you'll laugh at what you've just > written. > > > > > >

No, but I'll tell you you're phucking well lying - you sack of shi'ite. Get a life you phucking vagina. "Tim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:G_5xb.33002$[email hidden]... > Weeeeellllllllll, I Have tried them, and they suck compared to my monitor.So

Quoted text (10 lines)

> there. Next you'll me telling me you race on a laptop? > :)) > > -- > Tim White > > > "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bq216h$9cd$[email hidden]... > > > The ONLY people who claim that CRT's are better for gaming are those

who've > > never tried a decent LCD. > > Why not keep it shut until you're qualified to make the call ? > > > >

Gerry Aitken� wrote: > > I was saying the same thing right here months ago. I know, and I was one of those who didn't really believe you, I should have known better than to trust the opinion of "Tom's" even if it was backed up by a few other places As punishment I will install and run Dick Johnson's V8 Racing for a time period of no less than 48 hours in total Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

My 22" Mitsubishi says you can kiss it's butt :) -Larry "Stephen F." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3fc37a53$[email hidden]... > > "tiger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... Go for it... free your desk of that huge boat anchor. > > Stephen > >

My 22" Mitsubishi says you can kiss it's ***:) -Larry Go for it... free your desk of that huge boat anchor.

Oh, one other thing... Check the warranty, especially the Backlight Warranty!!! If possible, contact the manufacturer and ask them what their charge would be to replace a defective backlight OUT of warranty. Don't be suprised if you don't get an answer, from anyone. That's because the backlight is the LCD industries DLS (Dirty Little Secret). I can't believe I'm on this rant again :) But, the major computer periodicals simply refuse to cover this most-important issue. First, you must understand that eventually the Backlight _will_ fail. It is the #1 failure spot on LCD's, Desktop or Laptop. And when it does, don't believe for a second that they will sell you a $20 light bulb. Nosiree.... You are in for a major shock. They will only replace the entire LCD panel even if the bulb is replaceable (and from what I hear most of them _are_ replaceable). I have to send 20-40 Laptops a year out for LCD replacements due to bad Backlights. The one's that are out of warranty cost around $900 a pop because of a $20 lamp. It's disgusting to me. It reminds me of printers that cost $80, when a new set of cartridges for the same printer cost the same amount. -Larry

From a visual standpoint, I agree. I have a 17" IBM LCD at work, which is quite nice. At home I use a 22" Mistubishi DiamondPro 2060u. Both cost about the same. If I were forced to choose between the two, and factors such as size were not an issue, the Mistu would win hands-down. I really like LCD's, especially from a Text-Readability standpoint, but when forced to choose... -Larry "Dalibor Bauernfrajnd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <bq026f$fc$[email hidden]>, Top-poster says... > > Well I run an Iiyama AS4315-UTBK with a Radeon 9800 pro at 437/770 - at > > default 60 Hz "refresh" .... and not even a hint of ghosting. > > You need a black-white-black pixel response time of 25ms or less. > > But you must get DVI for beautiful colours and lemon sharp imagequality.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Your eyes won't regret flat panel. > > Indeed, you'll wonder why you ever put up with CRT. > > Not if he had a good CRT like Eizo or IIyama. :) > > -- > Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. > ICQ: 138579247

I see you've read the latest "How to make friends and influence dogs" books... -Larry "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq2taj$rvt$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> What a crock of shi'ite. > ALL CRT's cause eyestrain, you wallaby. > If you knew your arse from your elbow, you'd understand that it's the > refresh black-white-black alternation which taxes the visual cortex - > causing eyestrain. > > FFS .... I'm just so fed up with these morons who've never tried a decent > LCD coming in here and making up bullshit to support their "points of

view".

Quoted text (7 lines)

> No honestly, you sack of shi'ite ... before you post another bullshi'ite > post, go out and BUY an LCD - then you'll realise that you're a childish > prick who can't resist telling whoppers. > > Yea a 14" interlaced VGA > > running 56hz will have you seeing all sorts of anomalies after a couple > > hours. My 22" NEC FE1250@120Hz doesnt cause me any problems even after

a > > 12-15 hr day 7-10 days in a row. > > > > Bottom line. I cant get an LCD of the same size/price as a CRT so noneof

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > your other arguments hold any water for me. When the markets meet this > > demand (as I expect in another yr or so) then I'll go LCD. Till then Im > > more than happy with my 22" CRT Monster :) > > > > Mitch > > > > > > "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:bq211o$bbc$[email hidden]... > > > You obviously haven't tried a good LCD. > > > CRT's hurt your eyes after more than an hour or two, but you can stare > at > > an > > > LCD forever and there's no eyestrain whatsoever. > > > Other than which, colour saturation is much greater on an LCD - so

they

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > are > > > much more vibrant. > > > I won't mention flatness, no reflection, no static, no desk-hogging or > > > portability - and that's before we even start on DVI (expensive in > CRT's, > > > defacto on decent LCD's). > > > When you try a good LCD, I promise you'll laugh at what you've just > > written. > > > > > > > > > > > >

That's another good point to consider. The manufacturers "Dead Pixel Policy". Some are quite gracious. Others are pure bullshit. Don't expect a perfect panel. If every panel had to be perfect, these things would cost $5000 (or so the argument goes). -Larry "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Aidee wrote: > > > > Very true Goy...i bought a customer the very same Samtron 17" LCD and itis

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > just fine. > > > > The reviewers best taken notice of are us..lol > > Yeah, it was a monitor that a customer returned due to pixel errors, > actually a decent monitor for the price, I put it through it's paces and > wouldn't mind one myself, too bad it doesn't have DVI so I'll prolly go > one step up and get a Samsung > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "goyl at nettx dot no" > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

I own the Samsung 191T 19"" LCD model and I wouldnt give it up for anything, well almost anything. Phillip "tiger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Thank you all for the comments. > I'm now targeting Samsung 172 series. I kept hearing Samsung ones are > good but Tom's Hardware Guide rates the latest model badly on game > playing, which confused me a bit. Any of you own those Samsung LCDs? > > > > tiger wrote: > > > > My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the > > latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate > > not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? > > > > Thanks..

Larry wrote: > > That's another good point to consider. The manufacturers "Dead Pixel > Policy". Some are quite gracious. Others are pure bullshit. > > Don't expect a perfect panel. If every panel had to be perfect, these > things would cost $5000 (or so the argument goes). Well, my customers expect a perfect panel, and according to our consumer laws he had the right to return it if wanted it to because of ONE dead pixel, and he did even though I offered him a 100 dollar rebate, I on the other hand didn't get a refund on it from the distributor "One single dead pixel does not warrant an RMA or a refund" Bastards, I now have a 17" LCD on display in my shop..... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Oh, my. And the hits just keep a comin' :) "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq2tck$s4u$[email hidden]... > No, but I'll tell you you're phucking well lying - you sack of shi'ite. > > Get a life you phucking vagina.

Oh, my. And the hits just keep a comin' :)

Yeah, I'm waiting for the next sale on that one myself :) I have a spare port on my card and want to use it as a second display :) -Larry "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ZbWwb.144004$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Dell 1800. Highly reviewed by gaming sources, and fairly cheap for 18 in. > (sometimes offered on sale for abt. $400). I'll never buy another CRT. > > "tiger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seems the > > latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refresh rate > > not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? > > > > Thanks.. > >

Google is your friend :) I shit you not, I was searching for someting else (really) and I found a page with Condom Reviews with Google once. -Larry "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b81xb.101003$[email hidden]... > There *are* differences...among models as well as makes...altho not quiteso > apparent in 3D sims (like flying & driving). Dire, however, in FPS's and > such. Before I buy ANYthing any more, I use Google to search thenewsgroups > and forums to get the skinny on everything from Linux to Ridex. > > "Dalibor Bauernfrajnd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > In article <[email hidden]>, tiger says... > > > My monitor is going to die and I'm thinking of those 17" LCD. Seemsthe > > > latest models are promising on specs but I'm concerning the refreshrate

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > not enough for car sims. Any recommendations? > > > > All new 15 and 17" LCDs are fine and fast enough. It's the 18+ inches > > models that are the ones still using "old technology" and still need > > to be checked out carefully. > > > > Make sure you get a 'brand name' lcd and you'll be fine. > > > > -- > > And on the 8th day God said, "OK Murphy, you take over." > > ICQ: 138579247 > >

Yeah, that's cheapo laptop LCD's - with very tight space constraints. Quality standalones are built to much higher spec because they have the room to house the kit. "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Dq8xb.15154$yM6.6820@lakeread06...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Oh, one other thing... > > Check the warranty, especially the Backlight Warranty!!! > > If possible, contact the manufacturer and ask them what their charge would > be to replace a defective backlight OUT of warranty. > > Don't be suprised if you don't get an answer, from anyone. That's because > the backlight is the LCD industries DLS (Dirty Little Secret). > > I can't believe I'm on this rant again :) But, the major computer > periodicals simply refuse to cover this most-important issue. > > First, you must understand that eventually the Backlight _will_ fail. It

is > the #1 failure spot on LCD's, Desktop or Laptop. > > And when it does, don't believe for a second that they will sell you a $20 > light bulb. Nosiree.... You are in for a major shock. They will only > replace the entire LCD panel even if the bulb is replaceable (and fromwhat

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I hear most of them _are_ replaceable). > > I have to send 20-40 Laptops a year out for LCD replacements due to bad > Backlights. The one's that are out of warranty cost around $900 a pop > because of a $20 lamp. > > It's disgusting to me. It reminds me of printers that cost $80, when a

new > set of cartridges for the same printer cost the same amount. > > -Larry > >

Gerry Aitken and Mr "Top-Poster" prefer LCDs..... I rest my case.

ROTFL - "you suffer exquisitly" (Hellraiser) "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq2tck$s4u$[email hidden]... > No, but I'll tell you you're phucking well lying - you sack of shi'ite. > > Get a life you phucking vagina.

Goy Larsen wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Gerry Aitken© wrote: > >>I was saying the same thing right here months ago. > > > I know, and I was one of those who didn't really believe you, I should > have known better than to trust the opinion of "Tom's" even if it was > backed up by a few other places > > As punishment I will install and run Dick Johnson's V8 Racing for a time > period of no less than 48 hours in total >

Peace be upon you. -- Gerry Aitken© ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16 This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.

Damien Smith wrote: > Gerry Aitken and Mr "Top-Poster" prefer LCDs..... > > I rest my case. > > Well actually, I never said I preferred them. So you got that wrong too. -- Gerry Aitken© ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16 This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.

I think the fact that you prefer CRT rests the case for everyone and all time. Get an LCD, you weirdo. "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq36fl$1ueee4$[email hidden]... > Gerry Aitken and Mr "Top-Poster" prefer LCDs..... > > I rest my case. > >

Ill guess a Wallaby is Kangaroo of sort? Hehe, real good one mate ;) not.. You act as if the CRT is the pox of humanity. The steady flicker of flourecent lamps or the UV rays that occur naturally, smog smoke and on and on each cause more eye strain than any correctly configured high refresh CRT. So you like your LCD. Who really cares, I don't cause next year when I do go with an LCD which will cost me half as much for twice the perf as your POS I'll just sit back and laugh at you. When I can get a LCD of similar size and performance to my 22" CRT then Ill likely go that route. Till then take your useless propaganda and shove it squarely up your arse. BTW I use many types of displays daily both LCD and CRT and I dont disagree with your general assesment of LCDs, right up till you turn into a raving fool. At no time was I "childish" in my previous response soooo... PLONK ..l.. "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq2taj$rvt$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > What a crock of shi'ite. > ALL CRT's cause eyestrain, you wallaby. > No honestly, you sack of shi'ite ... before you post another bullshi'ite > post, go out and BUY an LCD - then you'll realise that you're a childish > prick who can't resist telling whoppers. >

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rC8xb.15158$yM6.2407@lakeread06... > Oh, my. And the hits just keep a comin' :) > > Yes he seems to be "wind-milling", doesn't he.

> Well actually, I never said I preferred them. So you got that wrong too. So I was wrong to assume you prefer LCDs? You actually prefer CRTs? Why is that exactly?

Damien Smith wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>Well actually, I never said I preferred them. So you got that wrong too. > > > So I was wrong to assume you prefer LCDs? You actually prefer CRTs? Why is > that exactly? > >

I prefer my 22" CTR because it's bigger. My 17" LCD, while smaller, is still more than adequate for gaming. -- Gerry Aitken© ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16 This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.

> I prefer my 22" CTR because it's bigger. My 17" LCD, while smaller, is > still more than adequate for gaming. So you have no preference for either - you just care about size?

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Hibxb.59160$[email hidden]... > Ill guess a Wallaby is Kangaroo of sort? Hehe, real good one mate ;)not.. > > You act as if the CRT is the pox of humanity. The steady flicker of > flourecent lamps or the UV rays that occur naturally, smog smoke and onand > on each cause more eye strain than any correctly configured high refresh > CRT. No such thing as a "correctly configured" CRT, matey. You think just because you've adjusted the refresh rate to just beyond the visible that it isn't refreshing ? Sorry, but you have absolutely no understanding of the workings of the visual cortex - I suggest you go and read some books. > > So you like your LCD. Who really cares, Well I know I certainly do. And millions of other LCD users feel the same way about theirs. I don't cause next year when I do > go with an LCD which will cost me half as much for twice the perf as your > POS I'll just sit back and laugh at you. Well, you're just gunna have to put up with another year of eyestrain on the road to an opthalmic prescription and shi'ite viewing/tough document-reading for another year then, aren't you .... eh ? When I can get a LCD of similar > size and performance to my 22" CRT then Ill likely go that route. A 1,500lb 22" CRT sack of shi'ite has the same viewable area as a 20" LCD. Till then > take your useless propaganda and shove it squarely up your arse. > > BTW I use many types of displays daily both LCD and CRT and I dontdisagree > with your general assesment of LCDs, right up till you turn into a raving > fool. The only fools around are the ones who think CRT's are acceptable viewing. > > At no time was I "childish" in my previous response soooo... The tone of the response may not have been childish - but lying to "justify" that bullshi'ite is the sort of thing you should have given up at seven y-o. > > PLONK ..l.. <BWAAAH> <Looks for sleeping pills to overdose on ... as cry for help>

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bq2taj$rvt$[email hidden]... > > > > > > What a crock of shi'ite. > > ALL CRT's cause eyestrain, you wallaby. > > No honestly, you sack of shi'ite ... before you post another bullshi'ite > > post, go out and BUY an LCD - then you'll realise that you're a childish > > prick who can't resist telling whoppers. > > > >

"jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WHbxb.35$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:rC8xb.15158$yM6.2407@lakeread06... > > Oh, my. And the hits just keep a comin' :) > > > > > > Yes he seems to be "wind-milling", doesn't he.

Ooh ... windmilling ..... uh man, you're really freaking me out now. Freak. > >

"Gerry Aitken�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... Damien Smith wrote: >>Well actually, I never said I preferred them. So you got that wrong too. > > > So I was wrong to assume you prefer LCDs? You actually prefer CRTs? Whyis > that exactly? > > I prefer my 22" CTR because it's bigger. My 17" LCD, while smaller, is still more than adequate for gaming. Nah. -- Gerry Aitken� ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16 This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.

"Cobblers!" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:16:57 -0500, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Refresh rate is immaterial for LCD's. It's the pixel response rate that > >matters (technically). The problem is, every manufacturer uses their own > >testing methods, so a monitor that has a 16ms response rate may not be as > >good as one with a 25ms response rate. > > > >Really, the only thing you can do is research, research, research. Make > >sure you look at it with gaming in mind. > > > >-Larry > > Yea, I've read that those 16ms rated ones don't do true colour and > that is how they achieve the 16ms rating. My Samsung 171S is > avaialable for quite cheap now and is fine for gaming. It's sub 30ms.

That's true for some of them, but there are 16ms panels coming onto the market with true color. The Dell FP2001 20" is one of them, it uses an LG-Phillips LCD. There's a review at http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1918 if you're interested. ...Klinn

In article <bq211o$bbc$[email hidden]>, Top-poster says...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> You obviously haven't tried a good LCD. > CRT's hurt your eyes after more than an hour or two, but you can stare at an > LCD forever and there's no eyestrain whatsoever. > Other than which, colour saturation is much greater on an LCD - so they are > much more vibrant. > I won't mention flatness, no reflection, no static, no desk-hogging or > portability - and that's before we even start on DVI (expensive in CRT's, > defacto on decent LCD's). > When you try a good LCD, I promise you'll laugh at what you've just written.

I worked in a computer shop and you need to invest some 3 to 4 times more for a LCD to have the qualities you just mentioned, especialy color quality. I'd say you probably never seen a good CRT. My eyes don't hurt even after 6 hours on my EIZO (@100Hz). -- Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. ICQ: 138579247

"Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote a ton of fanatical ranting to which I now say This guy is obviously the top poster quantity wise, but as far as quality goes.............................. Kerrrrrrrrrrrrrr PLONK!

Damien Smith wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>I prefer my 22" CTR because it's bigger. My 17" LCD, while smaller, is >>still more than adequate for gaming. > > > So you have no preference for either - you just care about size? > >

We had this discussion a few month ago. Back then you stated that LCD panels were, in your opinion, totally inadequate for gaming. That was bollocks then and it's bollocks now. -- Gerry Aitken© ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16 This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.

"Dalibor Bauernfrajnd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <bq211o$bbc$[email hidden]>, Top-poster says... > > You obviously haven't tried a good LCD. > > CRT's hurt your eyes after more than an hour or two, but you can stareat an > > LCD forever and there's no eyestrain whatsoever. > > Other than which, colour saturation is much greater on an LCD - so theyare > > much more vibrant. > > I won't mention flatness, no reflection, no static, no desk-hogging or > > portability - and that's before we even start on DVI (expensive inCRT's, > > defacto on decent LCD's). > > When you try a good LCD, I promise you'll laugh at what you've justwritten. > > I worked in a computer shop and you need to invest some 3 to 4 times more > for a LCD to have the qualities you just mentioned, especialy colorquality. > > I'd say you probably never seen a good CRT. My eyes don't hurt even after > 6 hours on my EIZO (@100Hz). You won't notice the difference until you spend an unbroken spell of several hours on an LCD. Maybe your eyes are screwed anyway - do you have assisted vision ? I've had the best of CRT - including the top Sony and a 22" Eizo - neither compares to my Iiyama 17" LCD for relaxed viewing or easy document-reading. > > > -- > Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. > ICQ: 138579247

"Byron John Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3fc625e3$[email hidden]... > > "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote a ton of fanatical rantingto > which I now say > > This guy is obviously the top poster quantity wise, but as far asquality > goes.............................. > > > > Kerrrrrrrrrrrrrr PLONK! You wound so deeply. Kerrrrrrrr PHUCK OFF, loser. > >

A poll of LCD users would overwhelming reveal that they would NEVER for a minute, dream of going back to CRT. The only people defending CRT's are those without decent LCD's. Why don't they graciously concede defeat ... or failing that, that they're full of shi'ite. "Klinn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ABmxb.16$[email hidden]... > "Cobblers!" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:16:57 -0500, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >Refresh rate is immaterial for LCD's. It's the pixel response ratethat > > >matters (technically). The problem is, every manufacturer uses theirown > > >testing methods, so a monitor that has a 16ms response rate may not beas > > >good as one with a 25ms response rate. > > > > > >Really, the only thing you can do is research, research, research.Make

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > >sure you look at it with gaming in mind. > > > > > >-Larry > > > > Yea, I've read that those 16ms rated ones don't do true colour and > > that is how they achieve the 16ms rating. My Samsung 171S is > > avaialable for quite cheap now and is fine for gaming. It's sub 30ms. > > That's true for some of them, but there are 16ms panels coming onto the > market with true color. The Dell FP2001 20" is one of them, it uses an > LG-Phillips LCD. There's a review at > http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1918 if you're interested. > > ...Klinn > > >

Later assmunchie. <FLUSH> "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq4djc$e0m$[email hidden]... > > > Ooh ... windmilling ..... uh man, you're really freaking me out now. > > Freak. >

> The only people defending CRT's are those without decent LCD's. > Why don't they graciously concede defeat ... or failing that, that they're > full of shi'ite. I believe that about 90% of people would prefer LCDs. I'm not one of them.

> You won't notice the difference until you spend an unbroken spell ofseveral > hours on an LCD. > Maybe your eyes are screwed anyway - do you have assisted vision ? > I've had the best of CRT - including the top Sony and a 22" Eizo - neither > compares to my Iiyama 17" LCD for relaxed viewing or easydocument-reading. Agreed, but relaxed FPS gaming? I don't think so.....

document-reading. Agreed, but relaxed FPS ***? I don't think so.....

> We had this discussion a few month ago. Back then you stated that LCD > panels were, in your opinion, totally inadequate for gaming. That was > bollocks then and it's bollocks now. No, I said they were adequate but inferior.

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq5p7g$1v120h$[email hidden]... > > You won't notice the difference until you spend an unbroken spell of > several > > hours on an LCD. > > Maybe your eyes are screwed anyway - do you have assisted vision ? > > I've had the best of CRT - including the top Sony and a 22" Eizo -neither > > compares to my Iiyama 17" LCD for relaxed viewing or easy > document-reading. > > Agreed, but relaxed FPS gaming? I don't think so..... Still haven't got a decent LCD then ? > >

In article <bq5cqk$oam$[email hidden]>, Top-poster says... > You won't notice the difference until you spend an unbroken spell of several > hours on an LCD. I spend 4 hours in front of a LCD (cheap one tho, hansol) every day and still go "aahhhh" when i turn my Eizo on at home. There were some LCDs that have a better picture, no doubt about it, but again, it will cost at least 3 times as much as the same (viewable) size CRT, so it's a no brainer which I'd choose if I was on a budget and needed as good as I can get. When LCDs get cheaper, i'll consider one. Also, a single working resolution is a big downside for me. > Maybe your eyes are screwed anyway - do you have assisted vision ? No, my eyes are 22 years old and i've been working with computers for over half of that period and have been watching the development of crt and lcd both very closely as I was always concerned with the wellbeing of my eyes. > I've had the best of CRT - including the top Sony and a 22" Eizo - neither > compares to my Iiyama 17" LCD for relaxed viewing or easy document-reading. Fine. But I'd guess that the 17" lcd you mention costs as much (or very close to) the Sony/Eizo you mention, and this IS a group about games and I'm sure 99% of ppl here would go for a 22" whatever over a 17" whatever if we're talking about the same money. -- Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. ICQ: 138579247

"Dalibor Bauernfrajnd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <bq5cqk$oam$[email hidden]>, Top-poster says... > > You won't notice the difference until you spend an unbroken spell ofseveral > > hours on an LCD. > > I spend 4 hours in front of a LCD (cheap one tho, hansol) every day andstill > go "aahhhh" when i turn my Eizo on at home. > > There were some LCDs that have a better picture, no doubt about it, butagain, > it will cost at least 3 times as much as the same (viewable) size CRT, soit's > a no brainer which I'd choose if I was on a budget and needed as good as > I can get. When LCDs get cheaper, i'll consider one. Also, a singleworking

Quoted text (9 lines)

> resolution is a big downside for me. > > > Maybe your eyes are screwed anyway - do you have assisted vision ? > > No, my eyes are 22 years old and i've been working with computers for over > half of that period and have been watching the development of crt and lcd > both very closely as I was always concerned with the wellbeing of my eyes. > > > I've had the best of CRT - including the top Sony and a 22" Eizo -

neither > > compares to my Iiyama 17" LCD for relaxed viewing or easydocument-reading. > > Fine. But I'd guess that the 17" lcd you mention costs as much (or veryclose to) > the Sony/Eizo you mention, and this IS a group about games and I'm sure99% > of ppl here would go for a 22" whatever over a 17" whatever if we'retalking > about the same money. Well a 17" LCD is a 19" CRT - only a size and a half down on the 22" in viewable area. Strangely, I find CMR3 better at a distance on my screen. I've tried it right up close, but it's just not as real. Size is not proportional to realism. > > -- > Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. > ICQ: 138579247

> Well a 17" LCD is a 19" CRT - only a size and a half down on the 22" in > viewable area. > Strangely, I find CMR3 better at a distance on my screen. > I've tried it right up close, but it's just not as real. > Size is not proportional to realism. You play CMR3? I guess you think it's the best rally game?

Damien Smith wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>>You won't notice the difference until you spend an unbroken spell of > > several > >>hours on an LCD. >>Maybe your eyes are screwed anyway - do you have assisted vision ? >>I've had the best of CRT - including the top Sony and a 22" Eizo - neither >>compares to my Iiyama 17" LCD for relaxed viewing or easy > > document-reading. > > Agreed, but relaxed FPS gaming? I don't think so..... > >

Not all FPS are like UT. Ghost Recon plays at a much slower pace. -- Gerry Aitken© ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16 This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht news:Rq5xb.463$[email hidden]... > Same logic applies to CRT's. You more or less get what you pay for. A > correctly configured CRT won't cause eyestrain. Yea a 14" interlaced VGA > running 56hz will have you seeing all sorts of anomalies after a couple > hours. My 22" NEC FE1250@120Hz doesnt cause me any problems even after a > 12-15 hr day 7-10 days in a row. I've actually worked on a 50Hz 14" interlaced monitor daily for about a year (doing 3D rendering on an Amiga in 'hi-res' 640x512 interlaced mode). I got used to it, no problems working the whole day with that display mode. RSI is for wimps :^D The biggest drawback of a CRT is that the pixels just aren't sharp, they can't be, as a CRT has variable resolution. The biggest drawback of an LCD (apart from the non-variable resolution) is the fixed 60Hz framerate which is noticably less smooth (games and mousepointer) than, say, a CRT running at 85Hz. Even though the TFT of my laptop isn't the best one, viewing angle and latency wise, I still prefer it over a CRT display. It does have a great rasor-sharp resolution of 1400x1050 at only 15 inch.

"Tim" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht news:G_5xb.33002$[email hidden]... > Weeeeellllllllll, I Have tried them, and they suck compared to my monitor.So > there. Next you'll me telling me you race on a laptop? > :)) I play racing games on my Centrino/Radeon9000 laptop, I've got no problems with it. GPL doesn't get above 35FPS anyway :^)

> I play racing games on my Centrino/Radeon9000 laptop, I've got no problems > with it. GPL doesn't get above 35FPS anyway :^) Yeah, it does.......just

Yes it is. "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq5ue4$q82$[email hidden]... > I've tried it right up close, but it's just not as real. > Size is not proportional to realism.

LOL. "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq5cs5$cis$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > "Byron John Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3fc625e3$[email hidden]... > > > > "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote a ton of fanatical ranting > to > > which I now say > > > > This guy is obviously the top poster quantity wise, but as far as > quality > > goes.............................. > > > > > > > > Kerrrrrrrrrrrrrr PLONK! > > > You wound so deeply. > > Kerrrrrrrr PHUCK OFF, loser. >

Ok, it's official. If you don't have a LCD then your a loser! LOL. Looks like a bad case of - can't win races in a sim so attempts to be a usenet hero. "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq5d0m$csf$[email hidden]... > A poll of LCD users would overwhelming reveal that they would NEVER for a > minute, dream of going back to CRT. > > The only people defending CRT's are those without decent LCD's. > Why don't they graciously concede defeat ... or failing that, that they're > full of shi'ite.

"Byron John Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3fc74162$[email hidden]... > Ok, it's official. If you don't have a LCD then your a loser! No, only if you claim that CRT performance is superior without benefit of an appreciation of LCD. > > LOL. > > Looks like a bad case of - can't win races in a sim so attempts to be a > usenet hero. No, but I think I might know someone who does. > > "Top-poster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bq5d0m$csf$[email hidden]... > > A poll of LCD users would overwhelming reveal that they would NEVER fora > > minute, dream of going back to CRT. > > > > The only people defending CRT's are those without decent LCD's. > > Why don't they graciously concede defeat ... or failing that, thatthey're > > full of shi'ite. > >

Yeah. It tops out at 36 :) -Larry "Gunther Dressel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bq7edc$1u55sr$[email hidden]... > > I play racing games on my Centrino/Radeon9000 laptop, I've got noproblems > > with it. GPL doesn't get above 35FPS anyway :^) > > Yeah, it does.......just > >