ne1 using 21" LCD monitor?

[gabyyyyy]

Every monitor has a maximum resolution and pixels that it can display.

The more pixels the better the resolution.

LCD monitors do not have as good of a resolution as the old fashioned CRT monitors. Many people prefer the LCD because of it's size. However, if you plan on playing any high end computer games, I would say give up the space, save some money and go with a CRT.

[astroglide]

do you use resolutions higher than 1600x1200? it sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Hung]

I heard somewhere that the matrox card does not support 3 monitors on 1600*1200

is this true?

[soooted]

[ QUOTE ]
the dell 2001fp has been discussed ad nauseum. search for it on 2+2

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but I said 21", not 20".

[thwang99]

Samsung 213T. 21.3" monitor, cheap at $1200 or so. Very nice, kills my old Dell 2000FP (though the new 2001FP looks much better). Also kills my Planar 20" monitor, though the Planar is much better than the Dell 2000FP in terms of brightness and contrast.

Running dual monitors on an ATI Fire GL right now, very nice, especially with the "Matrix" screensaver running on both monitors in 3-d mode. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

- Tony

[soooted]

[ QUOTE ]
Every monitor has a maximum resolution and pixels that it can display.

The more pixels the better the resolution.

LCD monitors do not have as good of a resolution as the old fashioned CRT monitors. Many people prefer the LCD because of it's size. However, if you plan on playing any high end computer games, I would say give up the space, save some money and go with a CRT.

[/ QUOTE ]
But they are indeed "good enough" and also many people prefer the LCD image brightness quality vs. CRT. Contrast & color are CRT strengths but are not as big of a deal for non-graphic artists, and even less of a deal for your pro poker player.

Not to mention my 20" CRT is a back-breaker and takes up half my desk. Also, if you're staring at the computer 40-60 hrs/week, the less eye strain with LCD is worth it. Even at 85Mhz refresh, you can still see flicker, and not everyone can run 85Mhz at 1600x1200. And not to re-invigorate this lcd vs. crt discussion as there are better places than here where they consider every factor, such as 2-8x more power consumption on CRT monitors, etc.

[gabyyyyy]

[ QUOTE ]
do you use resolutions higher than 1600x1200? it sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you start with insults, I stop giving my advice. Perhaps you should do your own research, so you can realize that what you just said made no sense.

FYI, Resolution and display clarity concern a lot more then screen size (Ex. 800x600,1024x768, etc.)

Here is a head start for your research: http://compreviews.about.com/library...aa-crtvlcd.htm

[astroglide]

you really feel that is a signifigant difference? 20" is the large standard size for lcds

[astroglide]

you have given nothing but subjective advice via misued terminology

[gabyyyyy]

[ QUOTE ]
you have given nothing but subjective advice via misued terminology

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? That article I posted checks out with everything I said.

Enjoy your overpriced substandard clarity LCD.