|
|
#13
02-11-2005, 01:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I feel like I\'m missing something about these 2001fps
These guys are all fools....the Viewsonic VP211B is a much higher quality monitor, plus it's 1.3in bigger. Costs a lot more though. But with the hours we put in at the screen, I think it's worth it. Much easier to look at.
|
|
#14
02-11-2005, 01:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I feel like I\'m missing something about these 2001fps
I am probably the only "serious" 2+2'er who actually doesn't have one.
I keep waiting for someone to come out with something better. I mean...these are 2001 models afterall....can't some company come up with 1900x1200 or something for a reasonable price? I have a CRT that does 1600x1200 (actually it does more than that but it's pretty small)...and my laptop does 1400x1050. So I feel like I'm behind the times. I have a tinted screen-filter over my CRT that is much easier on the eyes then most CRT's I have dealt with. I don't have any eye-strain problems with it or anything....which is pretty impressive because my eyes are sensitive to just about everything.
|
|
#16
02-11-2005, 02:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I feel like I\'m missing something about these 2001fps
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 1) LCDs are easier on the eyes then CRTs for extended periods of time. [/ QUOTE ] Are you kidding me? Look at refresh rates. [/ QUOTE ] CRT's refresh. the faster the refresh, the better on your eyes. LCD's dont need to refresh. that's why it's great on your eyes. it can probably be set to 1hz, but 60hz is the lowest standard for Windows.
|
|
#17
02-11-2005, 02:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I feel like I\'m missing something about these 2001fps
I can't explain the exact details, but refresh rates don't mean the same thing on LCDs and CRTs.
Edit: What the guy above me said.
|
|
#18
02-11-2005, 02:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I feel like I\'m missing something about these 2001fps
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 1) LCDs are easier on the eyes then CRTs for extended periods of time. [/ QUOTE ] Are you kidding me? Look at refresh rates. [/ QUOTE ] You can't just look at refresh rates to compare CRTs to LCDs, they update the screen in a completely different way. LCDs aren't plagued with the flicker problem that CRTs have at the lower refresh rates. This is what makes LCDs so much more easy on the eyes than CRTs.
|
|
#19
02-11-2005, 03:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I feel like I\'m missing something about these 2001fps
[ QUOTE ]
Cause every serious 2+2'er has one [/ QUOTE ] I knew if I was diligent enough, I would eventually find out whether or not I was a serious 2+2'er. Now I know for sure that I'm not a serious 2+2'er, because I have a 21.3" Samsung 213T. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
|
|
#20
02-11-2005, 03:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I feel like I\'m missing something about these 2001fps
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 1) LCDs are easier on the eyes then CRTs for extended periods of time. [/ QUOTE ] Are you kidding me? Look at refresh rates. [/ QUOTE ] Refresh rate doesn't really come into play in LCDs at all. Anyway, I switched from a dual CRT setup (19" Sony and 21" Dell Trinitron) to a dual 2001FP, and my eyestrain has reduced significantly. No more headaches. Rob
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
