i'm going to buy a LCD MONITOR
just need some help on what one to buy

thanks

The more you pay, the better the LCD.. Usually that's how it works. Sony would be my choice if you can afford it.

Well with LCD Moniters I would of suggested a Sony. Not any more, instead, now that Philips have made the First Ever 'Digital' LCD Monitor and I have it and used Sony LCD Moniters before I would say Philips. For sure.

If not sure which is the Digital LCD monitor its the (Philips Brilliance LCD Monitor 150P4)

The Viewsonic VE700 and VG700 (note - not VG700b) are both great 16ms LCDs. And Viewsonic has a great dead pixel policy - 0 dead/3 years.
Both can be picked up for under $650 from MSY.

Hey

I would only buy a LCD monitor if you dont play games. There is a definite blur when you play using an LCD + the refresh rates are low and the resolution is usually no where near as good as a crt.

Yeah sure the LCD's are hip at the moment but not for gamers. A crt well deliver a better gaming (and movie) pic than any LCD. CRT monitors are cheaper for the size - even if you want to splash out on a 19 inch it will only set you back $400 to $750 or do as i did buy a mitsubishi 21 inch diamond pro 2070sb - yeah sure it was $1500 but wat is life all about gaming or saving, having your friends go jesus that's a big monitor or oh yeah i've got one of those flat panel ones at work.

Life is short

populationpaste

When buying an LCD look at the "Pixal Latency". The monitor will have a rating (in milliseconds) of how fast a pixal takes to update. 16ms or less means there is no Blurring effect with FPS games. I have a 17" LCD an have no problems with gaming. I can only run 1280x1024 but for most games thats fine (I run a radeon 9800 Pro) You should also invest in a LCD with DVI input as it's heaps clearer (if u have a Gfx card with DVI output)

Borg

Populatoionpaste doesnt know what he is talking about so take no notice.

Black Lord is correct. An LCD monitor with a response time of <= 16ms is all you need for gaming if thats what you are into. If all your doing is Windows related then you will love using an LCD as they are so much nicer to look at. Colours are more vivid and bright, but it does'nt hurt your eyes.

I bought a Mitsubishi Diamond View 17" LCD (Model DV172) about 2 weeks ago and I am absolutely loving it. Before I buy anything I research the hell out of it and take all the reviews on board and then decide which LCD I will go for. I went for this because of the reviews found at this url http://www.mitsubishi-electric.com.au/PRODUCTS/COMPP/tft/dv172.htm (see the PDF files) and they were reviews by probably the 2 top Australian PC magazines in the country.

Don't believe what APC say about the sturdiness of the stand. It's nit picking really as I'm sure they were hard pressed to find something wrong with this LCD, it's fantastic.It is quite capable of not tipping over if the desk is bumped (I'm testing it now :)).

As for gaming, I mostly play FPS games and I can assure you this LCD has no problem keeping up, its very hard to find any blur (if any) and even if there happens to be some it does'nt satnd out. They recommend you use a resolution of 1280x1024 for this LCD but I play Counter Strike in 800x600 and it looks as good as any CRT and I get a constant 75fps with vsync on (75hz is the LCD's max). But I would'nt recommend anything lower then 1280x1024x32bit in Windows as anything less then that starts to look less appealing :)

The actual LCD panel used in this great LCD is made by Acer (now known as BenQ), you might not know it but they are the 2nd largest manufacturer of LCD panels in the world (yeh not bad hey). The panel used in the DV172 is the same found in the Benq FP767, Hitachi CML174SXW and the Acer AL707 (and probably a few other top brands I dont know about).

What you are looking for in an LCD is a high contrast ratio (pref 500:1) and 260cd/m2 not to mention a response time of 16ms or less and DVI input. The Hitachi specs are 400:1 , 260cd/m2, 16ms. The Mitsubishi 500:1, 260, 16 and same goes for the BenQ. The Acer has a slower response time of 20ms so we wont go there.

The reason I went for the Mitsubishi and not the BenQ keeping in mind they had the same specs was the lack of a DVI input on the BenQ. For some reason they chose to leave it out and that is the reason for the price difference.

My recommendation of course is you buy the Mitsubishi DV172 because it has a DVI input. Saves you having to wait for the screen to auto adjust because of the digital > analog > analog > digital signal change when using a VGA cable

Check www.razorprices.com for prices (Australian based website like PriceWatch).

Hope that helps ;)

Raven

I dont know where you are getting your information from but both the VE700 and VG700 have slow response times of 35ms. Are you receiving endorsements from Viewsonic or something? :)

A quote from the following review http://reviews.cnet.com/ViewSonic_VE700/4505-3174_7-20091031-2.html

"which comes as no surprise considering the VE700's slow 35ms pixel-response time specification.....although acceptable, this is no gamer's monitor"

VE700 review http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/ViewSonic_VE700/4505-3177_16-20091031.html

VG700 review http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1232

I would not buy any of those LCD's. Especially if it was for gaming.

if i were you, i would rather buy a flat screen Philips 22" CRT or Sony.
OR
get a 24" or above Samsung LCD Screen.
OR
get 2 17" or 19" LCD BenQ or something with 16ms response time. with a thin bezel and use them as 1 monitor using nview.

the reason. the 22" is big, if you go after for size. and it's still reliable to play FPS and movies with no streaking.
if you just go for 19" or 20" LCD, they still streak at fast movements. and for the price is not worth it.

but if you go the 24" lcd, the size and cool factor outweigh the streaking problem.

but if you got 2 thin lcd monitor side by side, it also serves the purpose (considering price) but you'll have a gap area.

I also have the Diamond Data (mistubishi) Model DV172. I am totally satified with it. It does everything I wanted and looks great.

I personally think Large CRT's look crap. 1024x768 can look chunky on a 22" monitor without useing things like AA. Plus if u ever go to a LAN a LCD is ur best friend. Nothing like carrying in ur PC and monitor in one trip with ease. the LCD is totally better to pack into the car to and if u r going on a LAN roadtrip it makes easy packing (just make sure u keep the box).

After having my LCD for about 2 months I could never go back to a CRT.

Just one thing that does come in handy is the ability to plug in another PC to the VGA port on the LCD (This is dependant an the LCD model) and switching between the two (DVI and VGA inputs).

I recently bought an LCD screen after doing a lot of research on them. I finally settled on an Eizo 15" L367 for $1220, which is incredibly expensive but very high quality (I needed a screen with very specific physical dimensions).

It's brightness is 250 cd/m^2 and it's ridiculously bright, way brighter than my CRT. I can't imagine any brightness problems with an LCD screen, as this certainly isn't the highest.

It's contrast ratio is 450:1, and this is plenty. I actually find it a bit annoying, as I can pick up analogue interference artifacts on uncompressed video captures which I can't spot at all on my CRT screen (which is a pro series ViewSonic).

It's response time is 25ms. I can't see any blurring or smearing in any 3D game or window scrolling, even when I look really hard for it. It's perfect for games. The only problem related to this I've spotted is in fast, high contrast side scrollers, like Wonder Boy and other ancient games. But when you're submersed in the action it's not noticable anyway.

I've tried the analogue and digital inputs and cannot see any difference whatsoever.

The screen is 15" and has a viewable area of 38cm. My 17" ViewSonic has a viewable area of 40cm, so it's hardly a noticable decrease in size. CRT screen sizes aren't as true to their official specs as LCD screens, so if you get a 15" LCD it's going to be bigger than a 15" CRT. But screen size is definately a personal preference - I don't want a screen where I have to turn my head a lot to read the screen.

Also, I will never buy a CRT screen again. :-)

I am yet another Mitsubishi DV172 user and it is a good buy. I managed to get it under $900. The box is the same size as my Lian Li PC 60 case. At 4.4 kg and 43cm of viewable area, it is a hell of a lot easier to move around than a 17 inch CRT. The removeable video and power cables are a good thing. I run it using the DVI plug and games like Battlefield look excellent. I don't think I can ever play games on CRT again :-)

A few months ago I managed to find the cash for a Philips 22" CRT. Very nice. With my monitor now being too heavy to lift and take to lans, I decided to get myself a secondary monitor specifically for lans. I had already used several at work, and I was familiar with the issues with blurriness. I find that the lcd is great as a gp monitor, the clarity is excellent if you run it in its native resolution, but there is some blurriness in games. I find that it's not enough to be a major concern, but it's noticeable. I still find the quality of my CRT to be far superior, but then I'm comparing a top of the range CRT to a bottom of the range LCD.

I chose to go with CRT as a primary screen in the first place as it supports higher resolutions, is more affordable for its size, and handles gaming with ease.

Others have expressed good reports with higher end LCDs, best bet is to see if you can try one out yourself before you buy, as a lot of it is personal preference.

Don't get a sony, they are overpriced and not consumer friendly.

Get a DV172 from mitsubishi (I own one) has:

DVI+analog
500:1 contrast
260cm/d brightness
16ms response time
auto adjust button + calibration software
comes with all the needed cables

Other good brands imo are Acer/BenQ/Samsung (not really a gamers monitor)

heres a small guide I put together:
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=94850

gl