If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for New Monitor
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:03:40 -0500
"Daave" wrote: I have a Samsung SyncMaster 950p that is nearly 10 years old. Although it has served me well, it is on its last legs. So I am looking to replace it. I run XP Home and I have the following graphics card: MSI Radeon HD 3870 (PCI-e 2.0, 512MB) http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us (Google cache link provided since regular one is down) Originally, I went to Newegg to look at LCD monitors with good ratings. Since almost everything is wide screen (16:9) these days, that was my starting point. I narrowed down my initial search to these four: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...E168 24009201 I am surprised by how low these prices are! A few questions... The Acer H233 and Acer H235 are similar. Is the newer one worth the extra $20? No. I see that the contrast ratio is significantly higher. (The again, I woder how much of that is "fluff"...) Also the response time is faster. But since I am not a gamer, I'm not sure this would be an issue. Response time, brightness and contrast are all meaningless. If all was equal, you would want low response time, high brightness and high contrast. But these numbers are all pretty much made up, as various manufacturers have different ways of measuring them. Also, in what major way does the Acer P235 differ from either the H233 or H235? That is, what is the difference between the "P" model and the "H" models? There doesn't seem to be any difference between the P and H models. Most likely, the panel itself was just sourced from a different factory. No difference to you, the end user. Another question I have is the resolution. The recommended resolution for these monitors is 1920 x 1080. However, when I notice the choices when I bring up the Settings tab of Display Properties, the highest 16:9 setting listed is 1360 x 768. Is my card already obsolete? Or is there an interaction with my current monitor that is producing these choices? Or does XP have a limitation? Windows will only display resolutions that your current monitor can handle, unless you jump through hoops to make it display other settings (which is NOT recommended, btw). So you are seeing a limitation of your current monitor. In other threads, I have noticed users saying that the recommended resolution (in this case, 1920 x 1080) should be used (hence, the term "recommended"!). But if this is not possible with my current card, should I perhaps upgrade my graphics card? I'd rather keep my card, of course, but I don't want to wind up being unhappy with the video I see on the new monitor. Thanks in advance. You should have no problem with your current graphics card. At worst, you might have to install a driver for your new monitor, if windows doesn't recognize it right away. But then you will have a 1920 X 1080 resolution that you can select. (and yes, you will have to use that exact resolution, unless you want to go blind in a short time) I'd advise you to buy the cheapest Acer on your list. Acer is a good brand of monitor. And the cheapest one on the list says it has a 3 year warranty, which is really good. The other monitors have better claimed specs. but they will all have excellent picture quality. I'm pretty sure you'd love the H233. It has excellent specifications, and your current video card should handle it fine. -Dave |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for New Monitor
I have a Samsung SyncMaster 950p that is nearly 10 years old. Although
it has served me well, it is on its last legs. So I am looking to replace it. I run XP Home and I have the following graphics card: MSI Radeon HD 3870 (PCI-e 2.0, 512MB) http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us (Google cache link provided since regular one is down) Originally, I went to Newegg to look at LCD monitors with good ratings. Since almost everything is wide screen (16:9) these days, that was my starting point. I narrowed down my initial search to these four: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...E168 24009201 I am surprised by how low these prices are! A few questions... The Acer H233 and Acer H235 are similar. Is the newer one worth the extra $20? I see that the contrast ratio is significantly higher. (The again, I woder how much of that is "fluff"...) Also the response time is faster. But since I am not a gamer, I'm not sure this would be an issue. Also, in what major way does the Acer P235 differ from either the H233 or H235? That is, what is the difference between the "P" model and the "H" models? Another question I have is the resolution. The recommended resolution for these monitors is 1920 x 1080. However, when I notice the choices when I bring up the Settings tab of Display Properties, the highest 16:9 setting listed is 1360 x 768. Is my card already obsolete? Or is there an interaction with my current monitor that is producing these choices? Or does XP have a limitation? In other threads, I have noticed users saying that the recommended resolution (in this case, 1920 x 1080) should be used (hence, the term "recommended"!). But if this is not possible with my current card, should I perhaps upgrade my graphics card? I'd rather keep my card, of course, but I don't want to wind up being unhappy with the video I see on the new monitor. Thanks in advance. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for New Monitor
On Jan 10, 1:03 pm, "Daave" wrote:
I have a Samsung SyncMaster 950p that is nearly 10 years old. Although it has served me well, it is on its last legs. So I am looking to replace it. I run XP Home and I have the following graphics card: MSI Radeon HD 3870 (PCI-e 2.0, 512MB) http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...s.cnet.com/gra... (Google cache link provided since regular one is down) Originally, I went to Newegg to look at LCD monitors with good ratings. Since almost everything is wide screen (16:9) these days, that was my starting point. I narrowed down my initial search to these four: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...t=Property&N=2... I am surprised by how low these prices are! A few questions... The Acer H233 and Acer H235 are similar. Is the newer one worth the extra $20? I see that the contrast ratio is significantly higher. (The again, I woder how much of that is "fluff"...) Also the response time is faster. But since I am not a gamer, I'm not sure this would be an issue. Also, in what major way does the Acer P235 differ from either the H233 or H235? That is, what is the difference between the "P" model and the "H" models? Another question I have is the resolution. The recommended resolution for these monitors is 1920 x 1080. However, when I notice the choices when I bring up the Settings tab of Display Properties, the highest 16:9 setting listed is 1360 x 768. Is my card already obsolete? Or is there an interaction with my current monitor that is producing these choices? Or does XP have a limitation? In other threads, I have noticed users saying that the recommended resolution (in this case, 1920 x 1080) should be used (hence, the term "recommended"!). But if this is not possible with my current card, should I perhaps upgrade my graphics card? I'd rather keep my card, of course, but I don't want to wind up being unhappy with the video I see on the new monitor. Thanks in advance. Used to use a Syncmaster, sits on the floor for a rare troubleshooting or quick pwr-up test these days. Sold off a little Acer, but kept the Samsung because I like the vertical sliding and full-page swivel aspect. Use a 32" now, HDtuner/VGA port at 1368x768, which I believe is factory rated or native. Older AGP board and 3rd party, add-on drivers to get it. Looks pretty much great, main thing being the hefty size. Paid twice the price a 32" sells now, 5 years ago when it came out, but if I had it to replace it, I'd do the research and try to come up with half-decent quality in another 32". Whatever floats the boat, though I'm not looking back or quibbling over gaming responses and color temperatures for pictures in 21-23" offerings -- pretty sad, those little monitors, imo. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for New Monitor
Dave C. wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:03:40 -0500 "Daave" wrote: I have a Samsung SyncMaster 950p that is nearly 10 years old. Although it has served me well, it is on its last legs. So I am looking to replace it. I run XP Home and I have the following graphics card: MSI Radeon HD 3870 (PCI-e 2.0, 512MB) http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us (Google cache link provided since regular one is down) Originally, I went to Newegg to look at LCD monitors with good ratings. Since almost everything is wide screen (16:9) these days, that was my starting point. I narrowed down my initial search to these four: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...E168 24009201 I am surprised by how low these prices are! A few questions... The Acer H233 and Acer H235 are similar. Is the newer one worth the extra $20? No. I see that the contrast ratio is significantly higher. (The again, I woder how much of that is "fluff"...) Also the response time is faster. But since I am not a gamer, I'm not sure this would be an issue. Response time, brightness and contrast are all meaningless. If all was equal, you would want low response time, high brightness and high contrast. But these numbers are all pretty much made up, as various manufacturers have different ways of measuring them. Also, in what major way does the Acer P235 differ from either the H233 or H235? That is, what is the difference between the "P" model and the "H" models? There doesn't seem to be any difference between the P and H models. Most likely, the panel itself was just sourced from a different factory. No difference to you, the end user. Another question I have is the resolution. The recommended resolution for these monitors is 1920 x 1080. However, when I notice the choices when I bring up the Settings tab of Display Properties, the highest 16:9 setting listed is 1360 x 768. Is my card already obsolete? Or is there an interaction with my current monitor that is producing these choices? Or does XP have a limitation? Windows will only display resolutions that your current monitor can handle, unless you jump through hoops to make it display other settings (which is NOT recommended, btw). So you are seeing a limitation of your current monitor. In other threads, I have noticed users saying that the recommended resolution (in this case, 1920 x 1080) should be used (hence, the term "recommended"!). But if this is not possible with my current card, should I perhaps upgrade my graphics card? I'd rather keep my card, of course, but I don't want to wind up being unhappy with the video I see on the new monitor. Thanks in advance. You should have no problem with your current graphics card. At worst, you might have to install a driver for your new monitor, if windows doesn't recognize it right away. But then you will have a 1920 X 1080 resolution that you can select. (and yes, you will have to use that exact resolution, unless you want to go blind in a short time) I'd advise you to buy the cheapest Acer on your list. Acer is a good brand of monitor. And the cheapest one on the list says it has a 3 year warranty, which is really good. The other monitors have better claimed specs. but they will all have excellent picture quality. I'm pretty sure you'd love the H233. It has excellent specifications, and your current video card should handle it fine. -Dave Thanks so much for your very thorough answer, Dave. :-) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for New Monitor
If you're considering an LG monitor, check out a LED backlit monitor at a
B&M shop. Newegg has one listed in the price range your considering. It is 16:10 instead of 16:9 but this isn't that important unless your a heavy gamer. They are absolutely stunning especially in a side by side comparison with the traditional backlit LCD monitors. Additionally, they use less power. This may not be important on a individual basis, but it can add up to significant power/cost saving when deployed widely. In fact, LED back lit LCD panels are fairly common in the HDTV field - partly to comply with California standards. "Daave" wrote in message .. . I have a Samsung SyncMaster 950p that is nearly 10 years old. Although it has served me well, it is on its last legs. So I am looking to replace it. I run XP Home and I have the following graphics card: MSI Radeon HD 3870 (PCI-e 2.0, 512MB) http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us (Google cache link provided since regular one is down) Originally, I went to Newegg to look at LCD monitors with good ratings. Since almost everything is wide screen (16:9) these days, that was my starting point. I narrowed down my initial search to these four: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...E168 24009201 I am surprised by how low these prices are! A few questions... The Acer H233 and Acer H235 are similar. Is the newer one worth the extra $20? I see that the contrast ratio is significantly higher. (The again, I woder how much of that is "fluff"...) Also the response time is faster. But since I am not a gamer, I'm not sure this would be an issue. Also, in what major way does the Acer P235 differ from either the H233 or H235? That is, what is the difference between the "P" model and the "H" models? Another question I have is the resolution. The recommended resolution for these monitors is 1920 x 1080. However, when I notice the choices when I bring up the Settings tab of Display Properties, the highest 16:9 setting listed is 1360 x 768. Is my card already obsolete? Or is there an interaction with my current monitor that is producing these choices? Or does XP have a limitation? In other threads, I have noticed users saying that the recommended resolution (in this case, 1920 x 1080) should be used (hence, the term "recommended"!). But if this is not possible with my current card, should I perhaps upgrade my graphics card? I'd rather keep my card, of course, but I don't want to wind up being unhappy with the video I see on the new monitor. Thanks in advance. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for New Monitor
Daave wrote:
I have a Samsung SyncMaster 950p that is nearly 10 years old. Although it has served me well, it is on its last legs. So I am looking to replace it. I run XP Home and I have the following graphics card: MSI Radeon HD 3870 (PCI-e 2.0, 512MB) http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us (Google cache link provided since regular one is down) Originally, I went to Newegg to look at LCD monitors with good ratings. Since almost everything is wide screen (16:9) these days, that was my starting point. I narrowed down my initial search to these four: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...E168 24009201 I am surprised by how low these prices are! A few questions... The Acer H233 and Acer H235 are similar. Is the newer one worth the extra $20? I see that the contrast ratio is significantly higher. (The again, I woder how much of that is "fluff"...) Also the response time is faster. But since I am not a gamer, I'm not sure this would be an issue. Also, in what major way does the Acer P235 differ from either the H233 or H235? That is, what is the difference between the "P" model and the "H" models? Another question I have is the resolution. The recommended resolution for these monitors is 1920 x 1080. However, when I notice the choices when I bring up the Settings tab of Display Properties, the highest 16:9 setting listed is 1360 x 768. Is my card already obsolete? Or is there an interaction with my current monitor that is producing these choices? Or does XP have a limitation? In other threads, I have noticed users saying that the recommended resolution (in this case, 1920 x 1080) should be used (hence, the term "recommended"!). But if this is not possible with my current card, should I perhaps upgrade my graphics card? I'd rather keep my card, of course, but I don't want to wind up being unhappy with the video I see on the new monitor. Thanks in advance. Thanks to Dave C. and wayneP. If I were to choose from the four above, I would probably go with this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824009179 But I think I might go to MicroCenter to look at the LED Backlight LCDs to see what they look like. I'd like to open my question to as many as possible: Is this feature worth the extra money? Thanks for your opinions. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for New Monitor
Daave wrote:
Thanks to Dave C. and wayneP. If I were to choose from the four above, I would probably go with this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824009179 But I think I might go to MicroCenter to look at the LED Backlight LCDs to see what they look like. I'd like to open my question to as many as possible: Is this feature worth the extra money? Thanks for your opinions. Speaking of an inexpensive LED Backlight LCD, this one seems good: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824236075 Thoughts? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for New Monitor
On 1/31/2010 2:12 PM, Daave wrote:
Daave wrote: Thanks to Dave C. and wayneP. If I were to choose from the four above, I would probably go with this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824009179 But I think I might go to MicroCenter to look at the LED Backlight LCDs to see what they look like. I'd like to open my question to as many as possible: Is this feature worth the extra money? Thanks for your opinions. Speaking of an inexpensive LED Backlight LCD, this one seems good: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824236075 Thoughts? Try to look for 1900x1200 resolution; it makes a difference. I use this Asus, which is on sale until the end of the day and carries a $30 rebate offer. Absolutely no problems with it after three months' use. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824236046 hth Ron Moore |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Searching for New Monitor
On Jan 31, 5:12 pm, "Daave" wrote:
Daave wrote: Thanks to Dave C. and wayneP. If I were to choose from the four above, I would probably go with this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824009179 But I think I might go to MicroCenter to look at the LED Backlight LCDs to see what they look like. I'd like to open my question to as many as possible: Is this feature worth the extra money? Thanks for your opinions. Speaking of an inexpensive LED Backlight LCD, this one seems good: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824236075 Thoughts? $55 more - and a lot more real estate. Bigger/better tho I'd still want to see is what a desktop and few open programs look like, maybe a movie. (Haven't seen backlighting yet). That and double check connection specs. Sylvania 32 for $299 model no. LC320SLX. Apply coupon code "URTYJLI8" to drop it to $269.10 + free shipping. http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/179-2734450-3415733?asin=B001OGZRZM&AFID=shopping_df&LNM=|B001 OGZRZM&CPNG=electronics&ref=tgt_adv_XSC10001 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Still searching........ | Robert E. Watts | Packard Bell Computers | 0 | August 29th 09 11:04 PM |
searching 500 gb hdd | one-eyed | General Hardware | 0 | November 21st 07 08:28 PM |
searching hdd-monitor program | wolfgang schneider | Storage (alternative) | 2 | October 8th 05 01:05 AM |
Searching monitor card for 2 (!) monitors | Thomas Jerkins | General | 0 | October 1st 04 06:49 AM |
Searching for a good LDC or CRT monitor | POLLET Christophe | General | 6 | September 5th 04 12:40 PM |