>In my opinion yes. Mark Rhode made mention of a "Prince" monitor
>however, I think he meant "Princeton".
Yes I did indeed mean Princeton and I do believe in the low and
intermediate end they generally offer the best bang for the buck.
Thanks for the correction
>The key to quality is the viewable area and most importantly the dot
>pitch.
I do however disagree with you here. While dot pitch was a big issue 5 to
10 years ago modern monitors all have a dot pitch of .27 or below and it
really has become a non issue. Viewable size is important but you will only
find the high numbers in high end expensive monitors. A 17 inch monitor
should support 1024X768 at 75 MHz but what is most important is that it
supports the resolution your video card supports and the resolution you
intend to use. I have found that most middle age people run their 17 inch
monitors at 800X600 while younger eyes run at 1024X768 . These days there
are many utilities that allow you to quickly switch back and forth between
resolutions.
Color, sharpness and what looks good is very subjective when comparing good
quality monitors. Trinitron monitors are widely accepted as the sharpest
picture but I personally think that text on a Trinitron (Sony, NanoFlex)
picture tube looks ragged and hard to read. When viewing text or CAD I much
prefer a shadow mask (ViewSonic, Samsung, Hitachi, etc) or my favorite a
Diamondtron (Mitsubishi or IIyama ).
If you think that the most important feature is how a monitor protects your
vision and reduces eye fatigue then the refresh rate is the most important
specification. A high refresh rate is what makes the picture flicker free.
The higher the number the less likely you are to notice the flicker.
Professional testers like PCMAG have show that few individuals can detect a
flicker above a 75 MHz refresh rate and no one in a blind test has detected
one above 85Mhz. Still, higher numbers are better.
I am not one of those users that sees a lot of point in having the fastest,
newest and most expensive components and devices unless of course I have a
real need for them. However I have always been a proponent of spending
extra money on a bigger and better monitor. I always tell those that ask to
skip the faster processor or the DVD and spend the savings on a better
monitor.
The monitor is how we interact with our computer. We stare at it for hours
on end and the size and quality of the monitor can vastly effect our
enjoyment of computing as well as our health!
Mark Rode
The NOSPIN Group
> The smaller the dot pitch and the larger the viewable, the image
>will be sharper and clearer. The next important aspect is refresh rate.
>75 and higher are good to prevent flicker and eye strain. <smile> All of
>this hinges upon the quality of your video card too.
>
>You may want to check out this Monitor Buyers Guide presented by
>Viewsonic and judge for yourself. http://www.monitor101.com/ Arm
>yourself with knowledge and the choice will be easier.
>
> > In the past, I've had good luck with viewsonic --- are
> > they still a good choice? Other suggestions for what
> > I should be looking at?
>
>CRTs. (This is the actual tube that goes into the case) What this means
>is, Princeton, View sonic and many others but their tubes for the same
>places.
> >
> > I'm not looking to get the rock-bottom cheapest, but
> > I do want to get value for the money I spend.
>
>In that case, if View sonic has performed well for you stay with them. I
>know many people will time after time purchase a vehicle from the same
>manufacturer be it General Motors, Ford or whomever. Why? Basically due
>to the same reason you gave above about having "good luck with View
>sonic".
>
>In closing, I recommend that you purchase a monitor in the 17" range
>with a dot pitch of .26-.27 and a view able of 16" minimum.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Frank Suszka
>netTek Computers
>[log in to unmask]
The NOSPIN Group provides a monthly newsletter with great
tips, information and ideas: NOSPIN-L, The NOSPIN Magazine
Visit our web site to signup: http://nospin.com
|
