Are **Analog** DB/HD15 LCD monitors still no good?

[computer]

Hi all. I need to get a 17"-19" LCD monitor for my Dad. He doesn't do any gaming, but decent response time for some games would be nice. Colors, contrast/brightness, sharpness/clarity is however more important and he needs a black one. His PC is mainly used for the net and email. It needs to be analog with the standard 15-pin VGA connector, so I'm wondering if the analog LCD monitors have gotten any better. Last time I checked, many reportedly looked worse than CRT monitors. He's currently using a 17" KDS XF-7b @1024x768, so something sharper/better than that is a must.

I see Chieftech has the Rosewill R710E for $199 shipped so I'm wondering if anyone knows anything about it, I can't find any reviews on it.

Thanks for any info.

Edited: NewEgg has the R710E as well and their site has many reviews on it. Very high ratings.

I looked through the reviews on this at NewEgg (60 reviews and all 5 star except for 2), and I see two (other) people commenting that "LCD monitors are not as sharp as CRT monitors". Huh?? Now I can only speak for my Dell 2001FP, but out of dozens of CRT monitors I've seen, none come even CLOSE to my Dell. I thought LCD's were sharper than their CRT counterparts. ? Is there a problem using an LCD monitor at 1024x768? I know my Dell looks ever better at 1600x1200, so is it of any concern that an LCD monitor would be used at only 1024x768?

 

[ChuckHsiao]

LCD monitors have fixed pixels, at the size of their native resolution. For 17" (and 19") monitors, this is at 1280 x 1024, so at any other resolution (i.e. 1024 x 768), the monitor is using some interpolation algorithm to get the image to "fit" the pixels. Algorithms vary by manufacturer, but this is a physical limitation of LCD monitors, so there's no way around this. On the other hand, this blurring is noticeable mostly for text (where the thickness of fonts tend to be 1 pixel wide), so it shouldn't be much of a problem for games and movies.

There's lots of other reasons why the image may not be as sharp though. For example, if you're using an analog cable, you have to make sure that the "clock" and "phase" settings are correct. Also, LCDs usually have a sharpness adjustment that the user can change. Any of those can affect the sharpness of the screen.

In theory, LCDs beat CRTs in sharpness hands down. This is because LCDs have clearly-defined regions for different colors, while for CRTs, each pixel is actually a Gaussian distribution (or bell curve) in terms of intensity. In fact it's so sharp that users sometimes complain about pixelation for LCDs (i.e. when displaying text), without realizing that it's precisely because of this sharpness that makes seeing the pixelation possible -- CRTs somewhat blend those pixels together (due to the Gaussian distribution) and hence text automatically takes on a softer, blurred appearance, hiding the jagged edges that they're "supposed" to have.

There are lots of 17" monitors in that price range, so have fun picking.

If your will be sticking with 1024 x 768 (and not willing to move up to 1280 x 1024), then for LCDs you should probably get a 15" instead, since those are 1024 x 768 and hence no interpolation issues.

 

[computer]

Thanks for the info. 🙂

Yeah, I know if you don't have "clear type fonts" set correctly, your text on an LCD can look really bad. It did at first that Dell LCD of mine then I changed it and it was like night and day.

There are lots of 17" monitors in that price range, so have fun picking.

That's sort of the problem, there are so many and I don't know which are the best. 😉

That makes sense about the resolution interpolation. His eyes aren't so good, that's why 1024x768 is best for him, but a 15" native 1024x768 monitor would be a 1" "downgrade" size wise. Display is already set for 120 dpi fonts and larger text via "Accessibility wizard".

You didn't touch on the DVI Vs. Analog issue with LCD's. Do the analogs have any issues now days or do they look fine?

 

[ChuckHsiao]

Well if it's a case of being able to see the text, then it might be more important to look at dot pitch rather than size, since that gives the size of each pixel (and hence the size of text). For the KDS, assuming 16.0" viewable, the dot pitch at 1024 x 768 is 0.3175 mm. For LCDs, the dot pitch is 0.297 mm for 15", 0.264 mm for 17", and 0.294 mm for 19". So no matter what you choose, if you want no interpolation problems, he'll have to get used to a somewhat smaller dot pitch (and thus font size, etc.). Otherwise, he could use non-native resolution to have bigger text but then there's them interpolation -- which means you'll have to figure out whether or not a monitor's interpolation algorithm is good enough for you.

Keep in mind that a 15" 1024 x 768 monitor displays the exact same amount of information as a 17" CRT that's running at 1024 x 768, since the resolutions are the same. It's just that everything is a little bit smaller (by about 6%), so there's no downgrade in terms of amount of information displayed. My main concern is that he might complain about the 17" making everything too small at native resolution (1280 x 1024). Note that the 15" and the 19" have roughly the same dot pitch, so the 19" is essentially the same size text, but more real estate (and more money), while the 17" has more real estate but at the penalty of smaller text, since it squeezes everything the 19" has into a smaller space. So it's hard to know what he might prefer, since it doesn't seem like any size is perfect: 15" is physically smaller (though displays same information), 17" has smaller text (though displays more information), 19" is more expensive (though displays more information and more or less keeps same text size).

The difference between analog (VGA) and digital (DVI) only has to do with the input type and makes no difference in terms of the display itself. I'm not quite sure why "in the past" people would say that analog CRTs look better than analog LCDs (other than the general CRT vs LCD issue), so don't know much about that. But for LCDs, you do have to mess with clock and phase settings to get the optimum picture. Those are actually pretty easy to do, I use techmind.org for that (they have screens that you can calibrate the settings with and it's a free site). The advantage of DVI is that there's no loss of information in this manner. So I would say that analog LCDs are fine, in that they won't be worse than analog CRTs as far as the signal type is concerned. I'll leave it to others to debate whether LCD or CRT is better =P

The reason I mentioned the picking thing is that 17" is the biggest market for LCDs right now, so there's lots of companies trying to fight it out. It's hard to say which one is the best, but $200 or so does seem to be the base going price (i.e. any lower and you're likely to run into mail-in rebates). Realistically, it's hard to have a "low-quality" LCD monitor nowadays, since those things require significant investment to make (they're not exactly backyard technology that anyone can do) so I have somewhat of a "you can't go wrong" attitude in terms of the quality of the monitor itself, as long as you're not looking for anything in particular (like fast response time for gamers). I don't know much about Rosewill, so can't say much about how their company operates; I used to work at Amptron (CMV and Polyview) so that's the only company I can vouch for. Unfortunately last I checked they don't sell any all-black monitors. Heh. So I guess for picking the best one, I'd more recommend checking out the company rather than checking out the specs.

 

[computer]

Thanks again for the info Chuck. 🙂 :beer:

Now if I could only get some input as to which monitors to avoid, that would be a starting point. Dell looks like they have the best LCD deals but only when they have sales and coupons. Natually, I missed the sales by one @#$%! day on their 17" and 19" models.

 

[ChuckHsiao]

Avoid ones that are super cheap only because of a mail-in rebate, if it's a company you've never heard of before and the rebate is one of those where you have to wait for over 8 weeks before they'll give it to you. That's my constant advice. Too many people get shafted by those. Otherwise, I dunno, I personally look for dead pixel policies but that's a personal thing. The monitor qualities are all fairly consistent anyway. Look to see what type of warranty they have. If you were going DVI, I'd say look to see if a DVI cable is included or not. Otherwise, not much more to say. Your dad isn't looking for anything specific, so that means you get to pick. Heh. In that case, don't agonize too much about the decision, because "better is the enemy of good enough". If you overthink your purchase, you're always going to be thinking "man if only I had gotten X instead things would've been better" no matter what you get. Just make sure you look up some basic info about the company to make sure it's one you're comfortable with.

 

[computer]

I really wanted that Dell UltraSharp 1704FP but it was about $320 yesterday AFTER coupons. Good thing I checked again today, since they dropped the price about $100 overnight. I went ahead and got it for only $207 total. I saw nothing but great reviews on it. I think that's quite a bit better deal than the Rosewill 710x since the 1704FP is a much more expensive monitor.

Yes, I was always hesitant about those deal pixel policies, I never saw a place that did NOT have that 8 dead pixel policy except for Dell. That's why I got mine from Dell (I use the 2001FP and it's awesome), and one reason I wanted another one from Dell....not to mention the great reviews on the 1704FP.

 

[computer]

Does anyone know why it's such a big secret what the Dell LCD monitor warranties are?? I've looked all over the place and it's not mentioned anywhere! Is it that bad?? I see it's only 90 days for some of their other 17" LCD's, but it's GOT to be more than that for the 1704FP since I did see some taking about "Dell's great warranty" on it.

 

[computer]

Another thing, does anyone know the big difference between the 1704FPV and the 1704FPT? I got the latter and I'm wondering if I made a mistake. The only differences I can tell is the V version costs more and has 1000:1 contrast as compared to the T version's 500:1 contrast. (Not a big deal there since my 2001FP is 500 or 600:1 and it has TOO MUCH contrast). The cheaper T version though has 12ms response and the V has 25ms. However I see the V version has 16.7 million colors where the T has "only" 16.2 million colors. I know number wise that's not significant, but is that due to V being 8 bit and the T being 6 bit?

 

[ChuckHsiao]

There's plenty of places that go under 8 dead pixels. That's why Newegg says they'll only take a monitor if it has 8 or more...they're expecting you to harass the manufacturer and not them regarding dead pixels, since manufacturers will usually have lower ones. Remember that what you see is almost always a sub-pixel defect and not a whole pixel one (though whole pixel defects, i.e. 3 sub-pixels all burned out side by side, do exist, just very rare).

A partial list is:

Amptron: Maximum 3 bright, 3 dark, or 5 total sub-pixels. Also has adjacency criteria (no more that 1 set of 2 or 0 sets of 3 within 10 mm), which incidentally means no whole dead pixels (of any combination of bright or dark subpixels) are allowed. This is the company I used to work for, so I'm biased on this one. What's funny is that until I came along, they were still selling their monitors under a 5-5-8 policy, since that was considered pretty good when they started selling LCD monitors in 2000. But for the past like half a year to a year before I came, their manufacturer had been guaranteeing 3-3-5 (which is why they can offer that policy), and they just never thought to update the website nor the warranty card. I pointed out that if we were internally offering A Grade panels to the stores, why didn't we make it public? It was like a car company saying their car goes 0-60 in 6 seconds when it really gets there in 5. The salespeople were not amused about this. It was quickly changed to 3-3-5.

CTL: I have to admit, these guys have one of the best dead pixel policies. Even better than Amptron's (heh). For them, within the first 30 days, they will replace a monitor if it has any defective pixels or sub-pixels at all. After that, for 17" and below, they allow 1 bright whole pixel, 1 dark whole pixel, or 3 sub-pixel defects max, and for 19" and above, it's 3 bright whole pixel, 3 dark whole pixel, or 6 sub-pixel defects max. So just be sure to stress out your monitor in the first four weeks.

Dell: 6 "fixed pixels" max. No idea if they mean whole pixels or sub-pixels. But Dell's customer service is reported pretty good, meaning you can have less than that and chances are likely you can still get a replacement. This happens with other manufacturers too but Dell by reputation seems to do it more.

HP: Other than Amptron (and CTL), I think HP has one of the best listed policies, more so especially since they're brand name. It's 3 bright, 5 dark, or 5 total sub-pixel defects max. Like Amptron, they also have adjacency criteria, and thus also don't allow any whole dead pixels of any type.

ISO: Anyone that's ISO 13406-2 compliant must replace a monitor if it has more than 2 whole bright pixel, 2 whole dark pixel, or 6 sub-pixel defects. This is for 17" and 19" monitors only, the number really jumps up once you get to higher resolutions. Guys that are ISO-compliant include Apple, BenQ (I'm still looking for where they say they're explicitly ISO-compliant but they talk a lot about it on their site, so I assume they are), Ilyama, NEC, and many others. If there is anything close to a standard, the ISO is it. Too bad that the standard sucks now; while it was impressive when the thing came out in 2001, many manufacturers do better than them nowadays.

Viewsonic: 7 total sub-pixels max for 17" and 19" monitors.

The other "name brand" monitor companies that I didn't list either have a worse policy than 8 or I haven't found theirs yet. That's right, Samsung is part of that list (9 max). So is Hyundai (also 9 max). I could go on and on.

I don't have time to look up the Dell monitors' specs right now (about to go out). But if the 1704FPV has pretty good viewing angles (i.e. 85 or 170 degrees, however they report it) then it might be that it's an MVA panel. MVA panels tend to be slower but have higher contrast, better viewing angles, better colors, and more expensive. They're usually not on 17" monitors though. If a monitor is 16.2M colors, then it's a 6-bit monitor using frame rate control, while 16.7M is "supposed" to mean 8-bit but manufacturers have found ways around that, so you'll have to read carefully when they say it's 16.7M. Is it going to make a difference? I don't think so, unless you're a professional photographer or something. I have a laptop whose screen I thought was 8-bit (16.7M) for over a month, until while looking into this matter, I found that it wasn't 8-bit (16.7M) and not even 6-bit with FRC (16.2M). It was a regular 6-bit monitor using regular dithering. Surprisingly, it passed those color shading tests that were supposed to out 6-bit monitors...they were perfectly smooth to me. The one it failed was when I tried to see if it could display the brightnesses 253, 254, and 255 (it couldn't). So if you got a 6-bit monitor, use it for a while to see whether or not you can tell the difference. I personally think they have somewhat of an unfair reputation because 6-bit monitors are cheaper (less circuits needed) but they usually have faster response times.

Sources:
Amptron: http://www.amptron.com/html/warranty_user.html
CTL: http://www.ctl.info/v2/info.aspx?hdr=Support&ContentName=PixelPolicy
Dell: http://support.dell.com/support/topics/...ument?dn=1018431&c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19
HP: http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/Document.jsp?objectID=c00288895
Viewsonic: http://www.viewsonic.com/support/qa.cfm?topic=lcd&question=01
6-bit vs 8-bit test: http://www.amptron.com/chuck/bittest.bmp

 

[xtknight]

The graphics card (at least my NVIDIA) can also do interpolation, but personally, I like my monitor's interpolation better when I do lower resolutions. I think I saw a dead pixel or two on my LCD, but my god, I couldn't find them even using Dead Pixel Buddy, I just can't find them anymore, even if I'm looking for them. I wouldn't even worry about it. But that's me.

 

[computer]

I found out today what I got (1704FPT) has the 3 yr warranty.

My Dad (whom the monitor is for) uses an ATI AIW 128 Pro, so I don't know if that would mean there would be any color issues with it on that video card. I suppose it would be a non-issue if you use 16 bit color and don't use 24 or 32 bit since I believe 24 bit is 16.7 million colors. (1704FPT has 16.2 million colors).

Chuck, what I was talking about was vendors, places from where you buy them like NewEgg. It is these places with the "8 dead pixel" policy, I never checked manufacturers before because I'm more concerned with getting a perfect LCD in the first place, before I buy it so I won't ever even have to deal with a manufacturer. If a place from where you buy has an 8+ dead pixel policy, they are more than likely to purposely sell you monitors with 7-8 dead pixels just to unload them, and force you to deal with the issue. If a place has no DP policy and will take any returns, then they of course are more than likely to ship you a perfect LCD--hence the reason for seeking a vendor without any DP return policy.

I found out Dell will take back an LCD monitor for any reason, even if it has only 1 DP.

 

[ChuckHsiao]

Originally posted by: computer
Chuck, what I was talking about was vendors, places from where you buy them like NewEgg. It is these places with the "8 dead pixel" policy, I never checked manufacturers before because I'm more concerned with getting a perfect LCD in the first place, before I buy it so I won't ever even have to deal with a manufacturer. If a place from where you buy has an 8+ dead pixel policy, they are more than likely to purposely sell you monitors with 7-8 dead pixels just to unload them, and force you to deal with the issue. If a place has no DP policy and will take any returns, then they of course are more than likely to ship you a perfect LCD--hence the reason for seeking a vendor without any DP return policy.

I found out Dell will take back an LCD monitor for any reason, even if it has only 1 DP.

The thing is nowadays (especially for online stuff) you're encouraged to go with the manufacturers directly. I mean, what happens when you return a monitor to a vendor for RMA? They return it to the manufacturer. This made sense back when stores were brick-and-mortar and thus they knew more about how to handle those things (for example, RMA items are bundled then sent together when enough accumulates; manufacturers in turn piggyback the repaired RMA items with their regular shipments). But now that quite a few stores themselves simply ship the stuff to you, and it's become commonplace to UPS/FedEx things around, it doesn't make sense for you to ship it to them, only for them to ship it to the manufacturer. It saves to go direct.

Vendors don't check beforehand how many dead pixels any particular monitors have. Literally millions of monitors are sold per month in the U.S. Can you imagine vendors opening them all up, turning them all on, letting them burn in for a while, then look for dead pixels themselves? They simply sell them "as-is", i.e. box comes in from manufacturer, box goes out to customer. So it's ludicrous to say that vendors go out purposely looking to sell monitors with lots of dead pixels, because they don't know how many dead pixels are in each monitor themselves. Instead, how many dead pixels there are is guaranteed by the manufacturer. So vendors have no reason to take in monitors for dead pixels, since it's supposed to the manufacturer doing it themselves. But they'll often specify one because, well, it is part of the warranty package.

I don't see how you can equate not having a dead pixel policy with quality. If there is no dead pixel policy, then they are not obliged to replace your monitor for any number of dead pixels, period. You might complain to them "hey my monitor has x dead pixels so it's defective" but then they'll point to that little sentence in their warranty that says "aside from what's in here, there are no other warranties or guarantees". A dead pixel policy encourages them to seek out manufacturers that have better policies themselves, since it defines a maximum above which the vendor starts losing money. That's the whole purpose of warranties, right? To guarantee that you the customer will get at least a certain amount of quality? How does buying a product that doesn't have a warranty attached imply that it is higher quality than one with a warranty?

You tacked on "and will take any returns" to a place not having a dead pixel policy, but if any store will take any returns, then it doesn't matter whether or not they have a dead pixel policy -- since all the policy is is providing a framework for...when they will take returns. But again, that's assuming there's a store that will take any returns. Most stores don't. Dell *officially* doesn't either, but they do it as a matter of customer service. They don't pre-screen their monitors before it goes out for shipping either, so it's just as big a gamble whether or not you'll get dead pixels from them as with from anyone else. It's just that Dell has a reputation for better customer service. But they do it not because of whether or not they have a dead pixel policy (they do), but to maintain their reputation.

Dead pixels happen in roughly 30% of all monitors (possibly lower now because that's using outdated data) so you'll *likely* get a monitor without one and make this all a moot point. Good luck. I would call up Dell to make sure they will take it back with just 1 dead pixel, so you can be sure you're covered by their unofficial policy.

With regards to bits, yes 24-bit does mean 16.7M colors. So does 32-bit under Windows. What actually happens with 32-bit (in the vast majority of the time, unless you have a specialized video card or something) is that the last 8 bits are just dummy bits, meant to space out the data so that it's easier for computers to process. It is somewhat of a non-issue if you're using 16-bit for your video settings. In that case, whether your monitor is 8-bit (16.7M) or 6-bit with FRC (16.2M) won't really matter, since 6-bit without FRC is already 18-bit.

 

[computer]

Vendors don't check beforehand how many dead pixels any particular monitors have. Literally millions of monitors are sold per month in the U.S. Can you imagine vendors opening them all up, turning them all on, letting them burn in for a while, then look for dead pixels themselves? They simply sell them "as-is", i.e. box comes in from manufacturer, box goes out to customer. So it's ludicrous to say that vendors go out purposely looking to sell monitors with lots of dead pixels, because they don't know how many dead pixels are in each monitor themselves. Instead, how many dead pixels there are is guaranteed by the manufacturer. So vendors have no reason to take in monitors for dead pixels, since it's supposed to the manufacturer doing it themselves. But they'll often specify one because, well, it is part of the warranty package.

I don't see how you can equate not having a dead pixel policy with quality. If there is no dead pixel policy, then they are not obliged to replace your monitor for any number of dead pixels, period. You might complain to them "hey my monitor has x dead pixels so it's defective" but then they'll point to that little sentence in their warranty that says "aside from what's in here, there are no other warranties or guarantees". A dead pixel policy encourages them to seek out manufacturers that have better policies themselves, since it defines a maximum above which the vendor starts losing money. That's the whole purpose of warranties, right? To guarantee that you the customer will get at least a certain amount of quality? How does buying a product that doesn't have a warranty attached imply that it is higher quality than one with a warranty?

You misunderstood me. When LCD's first came out, I don't ever remember seeing any DP policies. I think, I bet they started to get returns for DP's, then eventually started the 8 DP return policy. I bet you, that many vendors with these policies know good and well that they are selling monitors with DP's. I bet many of them were returns prior to any DP policy, then they are now selling them and indemnify themselves against returns due to their posting of the DP policy.

The way I see it, is if I see this DP policy, it of course means if you get 8 or less DP's, you eat it (or have to deal with the manufacturer IF they cover it). If vendor does NOT have a DP policy, then their LCD monitors are going to fall under the return policy of anything else at their site (i.e. "satisfaction guaranteed on all products", or "if you're not satisfied with your [whatever], just return it within [whenever]", etc., etc....such as Dell for example. An acceptable good return policy for ALL products = probably a better chance of getting an LCD with no DP's; then of course if you do happen to get one with only 1 or 2 DP's, you can return it. That is how I "equate" it.

 

[ChuckHsiao]

No because even if a vendor had a dead pixel policy, you can still use the return policy of whatever is on their site (i.e. Dell) if it exists (that's why brick and mortar stores are good for it, because they almost always have a "satisfaction guaranteed" thing; online stores don't). In fact Dell is an example of a vendor who _does_ have a dead pixel policy and yet will often do better than it because of their "satisfaction" thing. Without a dead pixel policy, a vendor can say their warranties don't cover dead pixels at all, so you eat it, no matter how many you get...one, two, ten, twenty, whatever. Yes, vendors can now say "sorry, that doesn't meet the limits that we set", but otherwise, vendors could say "sorry, that's not covered at all within our warranties" and you'd simply be out of luck...it'd be like arguing they should replace your monitor because it's too heavy for your tastes or something. Not having a dead pixel policy does not mean they have a "satisfaction guaranteed" clause that you can use, so it's pointless to look for one that expressly doesn't have a dead pixel policy. I can point out many companies that I still don't have dead pixel policies for (because I can't find it on their site), that don't have such a clause in their warranties.

I think the whole confusion stems from assuming that if a vendor doesn't have a dead pixel policy, then you will be able to use their warranty against them. But it doesn't work like that. Whether or not a vendor has a dead pixel policy, and whether or not it has a "satisfaction guaranteed" or something like that clause, are mutually exclusive. Dell is an example of a company that has both (informally because of their customer service). Brick and mortar stores are an example of where they have a satisfaction guaranteed thing but not a dead pixel policy (usually, though I haven't checked that hard for them). And there are many companies that have a dead pixel policy but no "satisfaction guaranteed" policy, meaning yes it will be harder to argue for replacements than with Dell, for example. But also, there are many companies with no dead pixel policy, and also no satisfaction guaranteed policy or anything like that. In which case, you're screwed no matter how many dead pixels you have. Of course you want a good return policy. But not having a dead pixel policy doesn't mean they'll automatically be of the "satisfaction guaranteed" variety as opposed to the "too bad you're screwed" variety.

Of course vendors know that some monitors will have dead pixels. That's a statistical thing. Dell knows that some of their monitors have dead pixels too. But I think you would lose the bet that "many of them were returns prior to any DP policy" simply because many companies are not that new. Unless you buy from a start-up, of course, but I always recommend doing your homework on a company before buying (especially online, because you don't have that face-to-face contact to evaluate how legit they are). But for example, Amptron has had a dead pixel policy since 2000; I doubt you need to be concerned about getting a monitor now that was supposedly returned before 2000 before they had a dead pixel policy. Many companies have had dead pixel policies for years. But by choosing one without a dead pixel policy specifically because they have none, then you are indemnifying them against returns for any number of dead pixels at all -- they can always just say their warranty doesn't cover it. At least a dead pixel policy tells you that 1) they're aware of the subject 2) they set limits on when they *must* replace a monitor (as I've said, you can still argue with guys that do have explicit policies) 3) they don't try to sweep the issue under the rug. Seriously. Because dead pixel raise up warning flags in consumers, so the more companies don't mention them, the higher chance of consumers not being aware of them until after the purchase, when it's too late because they already have your money. But a company that's willing to deal upfront with the subject means they're willing to be honest about the product's shortcomings -- would you rather buy a car from someone who says "this car is perfect for everything!" versus "well this car needs a heavier hand when making left turns, and the gas pedal can use some adjusting" when it's more or less the same car?

I would think that an acceptable good return policy for all products actually means higher chance of dead pixels, since (presumably) more monitors with dead pixels are returned, and hence their warehouse has more monitors with dead pixels. After all, since you're assuming that vendors with newly-created dead pixel policies now sell returns, you also have to assume that companies with a good return policy also sell returns, right?

Oh and one more thing. Yes, it is ridiculous that there are (many) manufacturers that have a dead pixel policy of 8 or 10 or whatever. But you know what? That amount is set by market demand/response. Frankly, until customers as a whole start demanding better numbers, manufacturers have no reason to make better numbers. But that hasn't happened here in America. Australia and New Zealand (or thereabouts) have very very low dead pixel policies (i.e. 2 or 3), with a fair amount of guys offering zero. It's like SUVs: regardless of their miles per gallon, if lots of people buy them anyway, manufacturers don't have much of a reason to improve on it (except government regulation, but that hasn't happened here with monitors). Be honest, all you brand name users: before you bought your Samsung, or Hyundai, or Dell, or Apple, or Viewsonic monitor, did you check out what the dead pixel policy was? Or did you go by "well these guys recommended it and I've heard of them before so they must be quality"? And before you say "See? You just admitted that manufacturers use the policies to indemnify themselves", remember that it's mostly the big brand name companies that peddle this sort of stuff. Smaller companies don't have that sort of budget to wage a full-scale marketing campaign to build brand name and gloss over minor details like dead pixel policies. That's why I made note of HP's dead pixel policy, they're one of the few brand name guys that do offer a competitive one. But because the big companies are raking the cash in, they don't have much of an incentive to improve on their dead pixel policy...nor pay for the inventory space for the returns that a good dead pixel policy would entail. Amptron doesn't need to worry about that because the amount of monitors is relatively low, hence they can offer a good policy. In fact, I found that it's mostly the smaller companies with the better policies. That's because for smaller companies, having more than (say) 5 dead pixels on a monitor is a curiosity, while it's a warehouse liability for bigger companies. I had never heard of CTL before looking around for dead pixel policies, yet they have one of the best around.

 

[computer]

No because even if a vendor had a dead pixel policy, you can still use the return policy of whatever is on their site.

Argumentative aren't you. No.....if their policy is 8 or more and you have FEWER than that DP's, you cannot return the LCD monitor. It's logical to conclude that any vendor's DP policy is going to supersede any of their other policies.

I would think that an acceptable good return policy for all products actually means higher chance of dead pixels, since (presumably) more monitors with dead pixels are returned, and hence their warehouse has more monitors with dead pixels. After all, since you're assuming that vendors with newly-created dead pixel policies now sell returns, you also have to assume that companies with a good return policy also sell returns, right?

Huh?? So why would they continue to sell the monitors with DP's if they take them back? Why would their warehouses have more monitors with DP's when they'd be returning them to the manufacturer?

But by choosing one without a dead pixel policy specifically because they have none, then you are indemnifying them against returns for any number of dead pixels at all -- they can always just say their warranty doesn't cover it.

How the hell do you get that???? They are obligated to take returns on anything if their warranty/terms makes no mention of LCD w/DP's returns! That's the POINT of seeking a vendor WITH some type of a "satisfaction guarantied" policy and NO DP policy which could circumvent the satisfaction guarantied policy!

But also, there are many companies with no dead pixel policy, and also no satisfaction guaranteed policy or anything like that.

And who mentioned that?? Not I, I never brought that up once.

At least a dead pixel policy tells you that 1) they're aware of the subject 2) they set limits on when they *must* replace a monitor (as I've said, you can still argue with guys that do have explicit policies) 3) they don't try to sweep the issue under the rug.

An (8) DP policy specifically tells you (as I've been saying) that you are STUCK WITH that LCD monitor that has 8 or less DP's! Because they are "aware" of it is irrelevant. Geeze, do you work for a place that has a DP return policy?? You still don't get it. Allow me spell it out:

Go to vendor and order LCD monitor. Vendor has 8 Dead Pixel return policy, any other return policies of theirs are of course irrelevant. Your monitor arrives and it has 7 DP's. You're screwed.

Go to other vendor and order LCD monitor. Vendor has no dead pixel return policy and has some type "satisfaction guarantied" policy. Your monitor arrives and it has X number DP's. You can return it.

Conclusion: it is more logical to purchase LCD monitors from vendors with NO DP return policy, and INSTEAD with some kind of a "satisfaction guarantied" policy.

If you see it otherwise, FINE, buy your LCD monitors from vendors with the >8 DP return policy and be stuck with monitors with 8 DP's.

Now if you want to argue for some reason, start another thread on it. This is pointless and is not part of the topic.

 

[ChuckHsiao]

Ya know I was reading through what started this mess and I think we've basically been saying the same thing, but in different ways.

You're saying that a store with no dead pixel policy but with a "satisfaction guaranteed" policy (or something similar) means you likely won't get dead pixels, and even if you do, you can return it for an exchange. I am in complete agreement with you on that point. That's why I always say to stick with brick and mortar stores if you're concerned about dead pixels, because they're the ones that'll likely have a "satisfaction guaranteed" thing. (They likely don't have a dead pixel policy if for no other reason than they sell thousands of items and can't be bothered to make one for just one line of products.) Online stores do not have that because they can't afford to keep shipping everything back and forth, while that doesn't affect B&M stores because you bring it in for exchange anyway. Of course, it's more expensive at a B&M store, but part of what you pay for is the "insurance" on dead pixels.

What my point was though was that not having a dead pixel policy is not sufficient. It must go hand in hand with a "satisfaction guaranteed" policy. Otherwise, vendors can do whatever they want; that's why the bottom of warranties always say "other than this, there's no other warranties or guarantees" -- so that they can protect themselves from anything that they didn't cover in their warranty. And in the presence of a "satisfaction guaranteed" policy, a dead pixel policy is pretty much worthless and becomes moot. Just look at Dell. The customer's tolerance for dead pixels is exceeded long before Dell's stated policy of more than 6 fixed pixels.

So in other words, a satisfaction policy is going to trump everything else, because it gives you the customer the ability to return the product for any reason you want -- including dead pixels. In the absence of one though (i.e. when buying online), at least seeing a dead pixel policy is going to be better than having none at all, because then there's no reason for them to exchange it and you have no means of forcing them to. Of course, it may be ridiculously high, like Newegg's 8 (meaning "go to the manufacturer directly"), but that's due to the lack of market pressure.

As for where I work, I've made no secret that I worked for Amptron in the past. That's where I got interested on the subject of LCDs and dead pixels in the first place -- I was interested in seeing how Amptron's policy stacked up with others. In fact, once I found out that Amptron was guaranteed 3-3-5 but offering 5-5-8 publicly, I wrote up the new policy myself (Amptron didn't mind because they were getting free labor...I did it in my spare time) and passed it around the various department heads for approval, after trying to correct some of the problems that were in the old policy. So I read with some consternation that review on Newegg that said that you have to read it carefully, because I tried to make it as clear as possible. Oh well. (As an aside, the review was for a Polyview V293 with 3 dead pixels, including two adjacent flashing ones; I'm glad Amptron decided to RMA it even though it didn't meet any of the requirements, since that's what I would've done if I had still worked there. Flashing dead pixels are annoying.) Amptron is not a brand-name company by a long shot. It doesn't have a marketing department. That's (partly) why its prices are so low -- it's a low-overhead "no-frills" company but that also means you don't have to pay for bells and whistles. But it competes against many companies that do have a marketing department, so I was surprised that many of those focus on promoting their monitors' quality but lack a stated policy to back it up and of course, has a warranty with the usual "no other warranties" thing attached so they're not actually liable for whatever the quality is. That's what I was targeting -- and that's why I made the distinction between companies with no dead pixel policies but with a "satisfaction guaranteed" policy (good) versus companies with no dead pixel policies and no "satisfaction guaranteed" policy (bad). Both types of companies exist.

And I will be opening up a thread on dead pixels eventually, once I've finished my thing on it (so much for timeliness...I was originally going to finish it for Amptron while I still worked there, but now it's become more or less a personal project). There are so many ridiculous things that companies say in order to protect themselves and give you less than what you thought they would, and I'm not just talking about the high number of dead pixels. But it's still a ways away from being finished, so it won't happen any time soon. I apologize if my bringing up dead pixels was threadjacking.

 

[kmmatney]

I would have recommended a 19" CRT for your dad. The pixels are pretty small on a 17" LCD. They were too small for me at least, which is why I have a 19" LCD.