Question:
I am after a flat screen monitor for my rather old (purchased around 1998) computer setup.
Ideally I would like a 17" flat screen to work with Windows ME. I do not require it to receive TV, but I am torn between whether to get one with speakers or not. I presently have four small speakers, although I do not use them a great deal, and I guess that having integrated speakers would neaten things up somewhat in my little office.
I am after good quality, good picture, good response time, at a maximum price of £250. Anything less would be a bonus.
To be honest, I am not sure what I should be looking for and find it all a bit daunting knowing what to get for the best.
If anyone of you very nice people out there could throw some light on the matter and give some advice, I would be grateful.
Answers:
You could get by if you spent half the amount on the screen. Try they have screens on offer. The rest of the budget should be put towards the future costs of a new PC. The speakers on a flat screen are often rubbish so don't expect too much.
J_B.
Answers:
Check reviews on the Sharp LL172GB. I bought it a month ago. Brilliant monitor, I haven't seen anything better for £250. Check out
Watford Electronics (they're ok if nothing goes wrong) have it for £243 which is one of the cheapest.
It has a DVI connector too (for digital connection) but your machine probably won't be able to take advantage of that. I'd imagine you have the standard analog d-Sub connection. DVI is a lot more future proof and offers a better picture. If you don't feel you need that then TFT's without that connector are a bit cheaper. In that case the NEC looks very good.
Answers:
Check reviews on the Sharp LL172GB. I bought it a month ago. Brilliant monitor, I haven't seen anything better for £250. Check out
Watford Electronics (they're ok if nothing goes wrong) have it for £243 which is one of the cheapest.
It has a DVI connector too (for digital connection) but your machine probably won't be able to take advantage of that. I'd imagine you have the standard analog d-Sub connection. DVI is a lot more future proof and offers a better picture. If you don't feel you need that then TFT's without that connector are a bit cheaper. In that case the NEC looks very good.
Like wolfman says; TFT's are either good or poor. You have wolfmans word that the Sharp is a damn fine TFT. Apart from going round shops and actualy watching a DVD/Game or just looking how good the colours appear. Sharp do make some nice equipment, its all about personal choice.
Answers:
Anyone tell me what dead pixels are? I take it I should be avoiding these.
What kind of resolution should I be looking for (minimum) on a good quality flat screen?
Also, what kind of (minimum) response time should I be looking for?
Many thanks for the responses so far - I have taken a look at the links but I keep hearing/reading that speakers are not particularly good when part of the screen, so I think I may just try to get a flat screen with no speakers - unless anyone knows better ..... ?
Answers:
Dead pixels are as the name describes, pixels on the screen that are dead. They don't respond and usually appear as a green (or black) dot on the screen. They're only really noticeable on a white background and you'd get used to it. They're not that common with newer LCD's anyway. Most online stores check the screen before shipping it. If you read the terms they'll usually allow for no more than 4 dead pixels on the screen. The best thing you can do is buy a decent quality monitor, instore, so that you can see it working before purchasing it. I bought my Sharp LL172GB online and it doesn't have any dead pixels.
Resolutions are different with LCD's compared with CRT's (standard tube monitors) as the output picture has to be scaled. Because of this each size of LCD will have a "native" resolution, which is the ideal, or best resolution to run it in.
For example 17" LCD's have a native resolution of 1280x1024. If you run it in 800x600 you'll find the picture blurs because a 1280x1024 image is being mapped to an 800x600 image and this is not a 1:1 mapping. Same applies with higher resolutions.
Native resolutions:
15" - 1024x768
17" - 1280x1024
19" - 1280x1024
21" - 1600x1200
With regards to response times, for around £250 you should be looking at under 20ms. I think my Sharp is around 16ms, which is taken as an average. Watch out for manufacturers quoting the fastest rate, rather than the average as it will vary during use.
Answers:
Dead pixels are as the name describes, pixels on the screen that are dead. They don't respond and usually appear as a green (or black) dot on the screen. They're only really noticeable on a white background and you'd get used to it. They're not that common with newer LCD's anyway. Most online stores check the screen before shipping it. If you read the terms they'll usually allow for no more than 4 dead pixels on the screen. The best thing you can do is buy a decent quality monitor, instore, so that you can see it working before purchasing it. I bought my Sharp LL172GB online and it doesn't have any dead pixels.
Believe it or not, there are regulations which ALLOW dead pixels. The have produced guidelines on dead pixels. There are rules about how many, grouping, position on screen, etc. Be warned that if the monitor has dead pixels which fall into these categories, then you will have no recompense under UK consumer legislation.
Answers:
I am after a flat screen monitor for my rather old (purchased around 1998) computer setup.
Ideally I would like a 17" flat screen to work with Windows ME. I do not require it to receive TV, but I am torn between whether to get one with speakers or not. I presently have four small speakers, although I do not use them a great deal, and I guess that having integrated speakers would neaten things up somewhat in my little office.
I am after good quality, good picture, good response time, at a maximum price of £250. Anything less would be a bonus.
To be honest, I am not sure what I should be looking for and find it all a bit daunting knowing what to get for the best.
If anyone of you very nice people out there could throw some light on the matter and give some advice, I would be grateful.
Just a minor point, and I don't mean to be anal - you just need to be slightly careful about using the term 'Flat Screen Monitor' as what I think you are referring to specifically is TFT.
Big fat CRT's can also be 'Flat Screen', whereas I'm assuming you meant TFT (Thin Film Technology) which are the thin space saving ones that everyone is after nowadays.
Having a Flat Screen means just that - Flat 'Screen' - and nothing more. I.e nothing to do with how fat the rest of the monitor is.
As for a recommendation - watch out on this forum as I am doing a bit research on something that might prove very popular - I hope to post something tmrw.
Thanks
L
Answers:
Is 20ms ok for gaming? Any ghosting? DVD's?
Aria have this :- 17" Arianet FastXS TFT Silv - 12ms
£139.95 exc, £164.44 inc
Nearly twice as fast as the £250 20ms Sharp
Answers:
I'd stay away from such offers if I were you, unless you've really looked into it.
With cheaper brands you're more likely to get dead pixels, or there may be no guarantee against them. Also like I mentioned before, 12ms may not be a true representation. Manufacturers sometimes put the minimum response time the monitor is capable of instead of the average to make it look better. Plus is the picture quality, colour accuracy, sharpness etc... going to be as good?
The Sharp is proven in reviews, has DVI output as well as d-Sub, a decent response time 16ms (average), a solid build, plus 3 years warranty. Alternatively if you don't want to spend £250, then use the link I posted above to a review of an NEC LCD. It doesn't have DVI though, nor such an ajustable stand but costs £190. If you still can't afford that then I'd recommended sticking with a CRT for now, or looking at a 15" LCD.
With regards to ghosting I wouldn't worry about it too much. Even on a 25ms monitor I barely noticed anything unless I looked very closely. With my Sharp I've yet to notice any ghosting.
Remember, monitors are effectively one of the most important parts of the computer, especially if you use it a lot. If I were you I'd spend a little more and get a better quality one.
Answers:
Remember, monitors are effectively one of the most important parts of the computer, especially if you use it a lot. If I were you I'd spend a little more and get a better quality one.
Gotta agree, whats the point in spending £300 for the latest ATi GPU when its only going to be running a rubbish 19' CRT @ 75Hz. It makes me laugh but so many people do it!
I still love my 17' Sony Trinitron flatty, it keeps me warm on a night and its very pleasing on the eyes running at 1024x768 @ 100Hz.
TFT's have a long way to go until im convinced........buying anything that has the word 'dead' to me is not good.
Answers:
Yes, what I am after is a TFT 17" screen - my eyesight is not my greatest asset (no questioning on that please!) and I do not want to buy anything which may be rubbish - a quality product with a nice crisp picture is what I am after.
BUT .... gosh, this is getting rather confusing with all this terminology - I'm afraid I am going to need a great deal of gentle handling, and explainations that a nerd could understand!
When I first started looking at these TFT's about three years ago the prices were so much more, but I have noticed the prices generally lowering since then.
So, is it worth waiting and perhaps purchasing a flat screen with a new set-up (which I really did not want to go to the expense of doing) or does anyone think it is worth considering a purchase of a TFT for my old set-up?
Answers:
Sure it's worth it, when you do come to upgrade you just take you're monitor with you. Most computers come with optional monitors anyway. I'd go for a decent monitor that'll last you for a good few years.
Answers:
Speakers built in to a TFT monitor will be rubbish.
Dead pixels are a bi-product of cheap mass production. If you don't want dead pixels, buy a medical grade monitor and pay well over a grand for a 15".
Having said that we bought 400 Dells in work, most are 15s but a few 17s as well and I've yet to spot a dead pixel on any of them. I personally own three Dell 1800 18" which are a remarkable monitor, far sharper than my Iiyama CRTs were - owned a number of 19s and a few 21s which were not cheap monitors - and the Dells panels blow them out of the water for sharpness. No dead pixels on any of mine either.
Aria are very cheap a follow the ISO guidelines for return if the problem is very big. If you want to inspect yourself of course you will have to instead chose a high street retailer and buy the display model.
Answers:
I am after good quality, good picture, good response time, at a maximum price of £250. Anything less would be a bonus.
I got an 19" Acer AL1913s from my local Staples today for £200. They didn't have many in though, so I bought on the '14 day no quibble money back' as they couldn't plug it in to let me view it. The AL1912s is generally cheaper than the AL1913s elsewhere, with faster response time but worse brightness, contrast ratio and viewing angle. 3 year guarantee included.
Answers:
Right: Crash course in TFTs coming up:
There are three types of panel:
TN+Film - Low response time (less than 20MS), cheap, relatively poor colours, good for games and multimedia.
SIPS - Low Response Time (20 - 25 MS), Good colour, Expensive (Apple use these for their gorgeous displays), good all rounders.
MVA - Great Colour, Poor response times, expensive, really only good for high end design work due to colour accuracy.
Most of the monitors in this thread are TN+Film. Unless you are doing lots of work with colour such as photo manipulation or design to any level above amateur then this is probably your best bet. I'd recommend monitors from LG (great value) or Samsung, the leader in the field. They have had a zero tolerance policy on lit and unlit pixels since January, and are very strict on lazy pixels too. Both companies offer a 3 year warranty.
As your computer is old, it probably won't have a DVI port on it, but I'd recommend buying a monitor with DVI so you'll get the best possible quality when you upgrade your computer.
I'd go with the at the upper end of your budget, or the if you want to save some money. I own the latter monitor and it's great, no ghosting (smearing of the image with fast movement) or faulty pixels. It lacks DVI but the image is nice and sharp, the untrained eye won't notice the difference. The colour is a little cold out the box but that's easily correctable. It's probably the best value monitor out there right now.
As for prices: If you're going to buy soon, buy NOW. Due to a manufacturing slump caused by surplus stock pre Christmas, the prices are currently artificially low and will be rising shortly due to demand outpacing supply. It'll take a few months to stabilise so my recommendation would be to take the plunge ASAP. Also, avoid integrated speakers. Nasty, Nasty things that inflate the price far above their worth. If you desire some new ones spend the money you save on a nice set of Logitech X230s or something.
Answers:
After the great recommendations previously given, I am leaning towards the LG L1740P over the LG L1715S, purely because when I update my system it has the DVI, plus it does not appear to have the integrated speakers. I admit the Sharp has good reviews, but that does seem to have the integrated speakers.
However, I am having difficulty finding any reviews on the LG L1740P to get varied input - can anyone lead me in the right direction please?
Answers:
You can always trust a review from TrustedReviews....
Answers:
I got mine from ebay last year, was just over £100.