Thinking of upgrading to a Sony LCD for my PC.

They dont mention refresh rates - is the factor as relevant for an LCD screen as it is for a conventional monitor ?

eg. I normally run my refresh rates on my IIYAMA at 85Hz to save my eyes getting tired. Is this still applicable to an LCD screen?

Also, is there anyone who'd advise NOT getting an LCD screen ?

The Sony comes with inputs for both VGA and DVI - initially I plant to use the VGA connector as my *present* video card doesn't have DVI out. Is there much difference in picture quality between VGA and DVI ?

Cheers, oh fountain of knowledge that is Scoobynet.

-DV

By LCD you mean TFT ? (LCD still brings up images of calculators to me :))

I use a 17" CRT and 17" TFT at work.

No question the TFT is sharper and reflects less. I dont beleive the refresh is such a facotr cos it just works differently but I'm sure someone has the full techy answer.

The only major drawback imho is that they are designed to work at one specific resolution. e.g. 15" normaly 1024x768, 17" = 1280x1024. Whilst they will display others they are very very poor in comparison to the intended size. (Why does PC world have a mixed display of different sizez all driven by one feed so half the screens are at the wrong resolution :rolleyes:)

This, for me. is the main reason not to get on at home yet. I like to use different resolutions in different games sometimes. But for general office use they are great.

I also have a mate who swears they're crap for games because of a slight delay in updating. Personally think thats not true but another opinion ;)

Deano

cheers Deano - interesting comments.

I'm after a Sony 16" which runs at 1280x1024x85Hz, but I'll need to see it first as 16" seems a bit small for the res. Just wondering who'll sell one locally in the North East.

Any ideas who'll do the best price on one also ? Empire ?

-DV

PS: Is 17" in LCD the same size screen as 17" CRT ? Just wondering, as the quote some strange resolutions for the LCD stuff. I wouldn't want to run 1024x768 on a 15" screen! My eyes would go nuts.

[Edited by DazV - 12/19/2001 12:58:01 AM]

The TFT diagonal is more accurate than the CRT diagonal which always seems to allow for plenty of unused CRT. My 17" NEC is only 16" (just measured it :)).

I only use 1024x768 on my 17" CRT, 1280x1024 on the 17" TFT is very comfortable. The other guys with 15" TFTs all run @ 1024x768 which seems fine.

Deano

IMHO, my 18in TFT @ work is useless at gaming, best to test and see if it suits you. A lot of my friends say they are better than CRT's. As they say, "The choice is yours":D

H

TFTs somehow (i duno how, i is fick) work out at being bigger, 15" TFTs are supposed to be the same viewing area as a 17" CRT.

Average viewing area of a 17" CRT monitor is about 15.7" While the 15" TFT is a full 15" so theres not a lot of difference in it.

The DVI connector gives much better picture quality as the signal is digital rather than analogue. Its like comparing DVD to VHS.

Most TFT screens can run a bit slow compared to a good CRT and may be a bit slow for intense gaming.

The best one on the market by miles is the Apple 15" Studio Display but they removed the VGA and DVI conenctors leaving just an ADC which nobody else uses yet !!


AllanB

All useful comments - thanks.

I was in PC World comparing different brands of TFT and the Sony seemed the best. They had the Star Wars 1 CD playing and it looked good.

Think it was called a Sony M51 - 15" TFT, running at a comfortable 1024x768. Tried swtiching it to different resolutions as Deano said and it DID suck at 800x600 (it also offered some weird 848pixel mode too)

I'm gonna look at the 16" model, which runs as 1280x1024x85. Now, if I could only get them in black.

You can get many of the Sony display in black. I'll ask my in house Sony guy for you.


AllanB

I read the reviews of the Sony one that suggested it wasn't so good. I think Eizo are well-regarded, but NEC are the market leader and Sharp are the only ones who make their own TFTs. Make sure you get dual-input (analogue VGA and DVI) as even if your vid card doesn't support DVI when you upgrade in the future you'll regret it.

If you drive the display DVI, it doesn't have a refresh rate! Analogue will still have to 'scan' but there shouldn't be any flicker as there's no phosphor persistence -- each pixel is on when there's power to it regardless of when it's refreshed.

Carl, where did you read the reviews ? Online anywhere ?

-DV

Decent roundup here:
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/pcmag/labs/20...nitors/01.html

Anyone got any more ?

-DV

DazV -- I can't remember :(

All I remember is thinking 'I must get an Eizo one' but not many people stock them. I'm still LCD-less at the moment. There are some Taxan ones here at work that are clearly being driven via the analogue VGA ports and the dot crawl is appalling.

www.pcmagazine.ocom recommended the Eizo - plus they do em in Black as an option.

So far I'm being quoted £200 more for black than the original colour of grey!

Have you found somewhere online that stocks the Eizo then? If so, details would be appreciated.

www.dabs.com