Which is better? 19" or 20" LCD display?

[Muse]

I'm shopping for a large LCD display, which I'll use "all purpose", including web browsing, email and development. At the moment I'm thinking of the Samsung 191T (or the Dell 1900fp, really the same monitor without the 90 degree rotation), or the Dell 2000fp. I'm also considering the Planar 191M, which I hear may be the better choice in a 19 inch LCD for text display: Thread

The 191T and 1900fp, 19 inch viewable LCD's, have native resolution of 1280 x 1024, and as I understand it you really do want to use the native resolution on an LCD. The 2000fp is a 20 inch viewable display and has native resolution of 1600 x 1200. Ergonomics is the issue, not money. I'm right now using a 20" viewable CRT, a pretty nice NEC FP2141SB, but find that the recommended 1600 x 1200 at 85 Hz makes text too tiny for long term comfortable use, and I find myself at 1280 x 1024 most of the time. Of course, an LCD is going to be a lot sharper, so maybe I'd find the 2000fp acceptable with it's 1600 x 1200 resolution.

I do a LOT of reading at my display, which I figure I'll do mostly with my LCD. I'll probably use my CRT display more for movies and games. What do you folks with experience think? Thanks!!

 

[nRollo]

Only rule of monitors: Quality being equal, bigger is always better.

"Which is better? 19" or 20" LCD display?"
I guess you'll have to decide if you can hack the 16X12

 

[BoomAM]

If youve done your research on LCD displays, then no doubt youve come accross the Hitachi 17" one. Now obviously this is too small for your needs, but the do a "20 version as well, that should suit your needs well.
Heres a copy and paste off the website i found it on, Overclockers UK

Hitachi CML200UXWB 20" TFT Monitor (MO-002-HI)
Ideal for the most demanding of corporate desktop and video applications, the CML200UXWB provides UXGA (1600 x 1200) resolution, DVI-D and D-Sub inputs, a 170 degree viewing angle and a 500:1 contrast ratio.

- Viewable Image Size 20.1"
- 1600 x 1200 resolution
- Display Area 408 x 306 mm
- Response Time tr: 15ms + tf: 10ms typ.
- Viewing Angle 170º H x 170º V
- Removeable speakers complete with stands
- Complete with comprehensive 3 year on-site warranty.

Hope this helps.

 

[davidkay]

If i were you i'd wait for the Samsung Models. I eventually got to find out the latest model specs from a friend who works for a distributor. He phoned up Samsung people for me.

192N, 192T (thin version) and 202N!

Specs are planned as being between 700:1 or 800:1 contrast with a nice 17ms response. They are due out in April/May and will be 600, 650 and 700 retail (in British Pounds)

Then later on in the year the 193N, 193T and 203T are planned with responses of 12ms!

I've seen the Samsung 172T running and the colour definitions are outstanding!

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Only rule of monitors: Quality being equal, bigger is always better.

"Which is better? 19" or 20" LCD display?"
I guess you'll have to decide if you can hack the 16X12

That's what's hard to know without at least seeing them. I saw the Samsung 191T at Best Buy back in Dec. but didn't get a chance to check it out. I guess I could go and see if I can have another look at it. But they won't have a 20" to compare it with. I wanted to get opinions from people who have used both 20" and 19" LCDs, native res 1600 x 1200 and 1280 x 1024.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: davidkay
If i were you i'd wait for the Samsung Models. I eventually got to find out the latest model specs from a friend who works for a distributor. He phoned up Samsung people for me.

192N, 192T (thin version) and 202N!

Specs are planned as being between 700:1 or 800:1 contrast with a nice 17ms response. They are due out in April/May and will be 600, 650 and 700 retail (in British Pounds)

Then later on in the year the 193N, 193T and 203T are planned with responses of 12ms!

I've seen the Samsung 172T running and the colour definitions are outstanding!

Sounds like far better specs than what they're selling now. If that's true, I'll wait. Maybe those fast response times will level the field for those gamers who have issues with the current LCDs.

 

[davidkay]

yep. thats what i'm doing muse. i've wanted an LCD for a long time. Obviously if i wait for better things i'll be waiting forever. But i've always told myself i'll get one when more than 600:1 and < 20ms response on a 18 or 19" model. Personally i'm only cosidering the 192T or 192N.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: davidkay
yep. thats what i'm doing muse. i've wanted an LCD for a long time. Obviously if i wait for better things i'll be waiting forever. But i've always told myself i'll get one when more than 600:1 and < 20ms response on a 18 or 19" model. Personally i'm only cosidering the 192T or 192N.

You are looking at 19" because you prefer the res or because of the money?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Man if only LCD's were at most only 2x as expensive as "equal" CRTs... I remember paying almost $300 for my 19" CRT and thinking that was a lot of money and now I'm drooling over Samsung's 19" $800-900 LCDs...

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Man if only LCD's were at most only 2x as expensive as "equal" CRTs... I remember paying almost $300 for my 19" CRT and thinking that was a lot of money and now I'm drooling over Samsung's 19" $800-900 LCDs...

I bought my 17" Nanao in 1996 for $1000 and it was the best deal around on it. Then a 19" monitor of any quality was over $2000 and a 21" close to $3000. The same Samsung 19" you can get today for $800+ was $1100 almost a year ago.

 

[Shagga]

Originally posted by: davidkay
If i were you i'd wait for the Samsung Models. I eventually got to find out the latest model specs from a friend who works for a distributor. He phoned up Samsung people for me.

192N, 192T (thin version) and 202N!

Specs are planned as being between 700:1 or 800:1 contrast with a nice 17ms response. They are due out in April/May and will be 600, 650 and 700 retail (in British Pounds)

Then later on in the year the 193N, 193T and 203T are planned with responses of 12ms!

I've seen the Samsung 172T running and the colour definitions are outstanding!

I'll get one of these babies....excellent...

 

[davidkay]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: davidkay
yep. thats what i'm doing muse. i've wanted an LCD for a long time. Obviously if i wait for better things i'll be waiting forever. But i've always told myself i'll get one when more than 600:1 and < 20ms response on a 18 or 19" model. Personally i'm only cosidering the 192T or 192N.

You are looking at 19" because you prefer the res or because of the money?

Well i find 17" CRT's okay for my needs, but i always did think i should have bought a 19" CRT. On the LCD side i think a 20" would simply be too big for me. I think 19" would be just perfect. On your question on the resolution, i was kinda wondering that too. I never seen the two resolutions running on a 19" so i couldn't really say. I guess its just down to personal preference overall. If i were you i'd go into a shop and ask to see the two resolutions running.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: davidkay
If i were you i'd wait for the Samsung Models. I eventually got to find out the latest model specs from a friend who works for a distributor. He phoned up Samsung people for me.

192N, 192T (thin version) and 202N!

Specs are planned as being between 700:1 or 800:1 contrast with a nice 17ms response. They are due out in April/May and will be 600, 650 and 700 retail (in British Pounds)

Then later on in the year the 193N, 193T and 203T are planned with responses of 12ms!

I've seen the Samsung 172T running and the colour definitions are outstanding!

How many US dollars is 600, 650 and 700 British Pounds???

 

[davidkay]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: davidkay
If i were you i'd wait for the Samsung Models. I eventually got to find out the latest model specs from a friend who works for a distributor. He phoned up Samsung people for me.

192N, 192T (thin version) and 202N!

Specs are planned as being between 700:1 or 800:1 contrast with a nice 17ms response. They are due out in April/May and will be 600, 650 and 700 retail (in British Pounds)

Then later on in the year the 193N, 193T and 203T are planned with responses of 12ms!

I've seen the Samsung 172T running and the colour definitions are outstanding!

How many US dollars is 600, 650 and 700 British Pounds???

Just multiply by 1.5 (ish) for a proper conversion. Changes from 1.4 to 1.6 so just depends how strong the pound is

However, i wouldn't use that as a guide. Britain is called "Rip-Off Britain". Everything here is always more expensive! I find looking at monitor prices the $ equal, is about the same as the £ equal.

Anyway i'm trying to get hold of the spec sheets for the "2" revision range and maybe some pictures too. So if i get em i'm PM you with em or something

 

[Muse]

Just multiply by 1.5 (ish) for a proper conversion. Changes from 1.4 to 1.6 so just depends how strong the pound is

However, i wouldn't use that as a guide. Britain is called "Rip-Off Britain". Everything here is always more expensive! I find looking at monitor prices the $ equal, is about the same as the £ equal.

Anyway i'm trying to get hold of the spec sheets for the "2" revision range and maybe some pictures too. So if i get em i'm PM you with em or something

I'm waiting for sure. If and when you get those pictures and specs, by all means PM me! Thanks....

 

[Socio]

Actually if your going to watch DVD's or pipe HDTV to your Computer you want a wide screen like 24 not 20 inch like thiis one here:

SamSung LCD

Thats the one I am looking to get pretty soon.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Socio
Actually if your going to watch DVD's or pipe HDTV to your Computer you want a wide screen like 24 not 20 inch like thiis one here:

SamSung LCD

Thats the one I am looking to get pretty soon.

That does look a LOT better, however:
1. I've already bought my movie/games monitor - NEC FP2141SB 22" (20" viewable) CRT
2. That Samsung looks to be selling for over $4000

One of these days I'll get something for HDTV. Might be a tough choice. That Samsung looks very full featured. Wonder if it has a built in HDTV decoder. That would be nice.

 

[Mockmaw]

Just because a machine is is outputting at 1600x1200 resolution doesn't mean that text has to be small. In every OS that I've ever used, there's an option to increase the size of the text. So you can run at 1600x1200 with the text size of 1280x1024.. and you have the added benefit of an overall sharper display, crisper pictures, etc.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Mockmaw
Just because a machine is is outputting at 1600x1200 resolution doesn't mean that text has to be small. In every OS that I've ever used, there's an option to increase the size of the text. So you can run at 1600x1200 with the text size of 1280x1024.. and you have the added benefit of an overall sharper display, crisper pictures, etc.

OK, this works in all applications I use and it works at many if not most websites but in my experience there are a LOT of websites where increasing the text size in IE6 does NOT increase the tiny text. You are SOL if you want to increase it UNLESS you change resolutions. For instance, Microsoft.com for a lot of stuff. Try, for instance, this page. You may not mind how small the picture is of Bill Gates, but you might be squinting to read the text, even at maximum text size (which has no effect). Or try this page. I defy you to read this page in its entirety on your 2000fp at 1600 x 1200. If you can read the whole thing comfortably, all the way to the bottom and say it was certainly not too small for comfort, by all means tell me. On my 22" NEC FP2141SB it's a serious strain. I doubt that a 20" LCD would display that page adequately. It's even tough at 1280 x 1024 for me.

 

[Auric]

I mentioned this recently, but the thing that has prevented me from getting an LCD, besides the performance issues is lack of a nice standard resolution of 1280x960. 1280x1024 is distorted and 1600x1200 requires too much oomph for gaming. What up wid dat? It is time to abandon such cludgy legacy things as crazy aspect ratios.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Man if only LCD's were at most only 2x as expensive as "equal" CRTs... I remember paying almost $300 for my 19" CRT and thinking that was a lot of money and now I'm drooling over Samsung's 19" $800-900 LCDs...

I bought my 17" Nanao in 1996 for $1000 and it was the best deal around on it. Then a 19" monitor of any quality was over $2000 and a 21" close to $3000. The same Samsung 19" you can get today for $800+ was $1100 almost a year ago.

Yeah, well back then LCD's weren't very practical parts to purchase. Today they are more than practical and therefor the price is a little to intimidating for my taste. Fork over $900 rather than $300 for what will just end up being saved desk space? Not a very attractive point about LCDs, especially when $600 will buy you a decent system to go along with your $300 CRT. In 1996 the fastest computers already cost around $2000-3000 anyway, I guess throwing on an LCD then wasn't too shabby of an idea as back then you bought a computer to last you more than a year or a few months like I and I'm sure many of us do here. Heck, I still have my 300MHz PII system I paid around $4300 for...

 

[heliomphalodon]

Originally posted by: Auric
I mentioned this recently, but the thing that has prevented me from getting an LCD, besides the performance issues is lack of a nice standard resolution of 1280x960. 1280x1024 is distorted and 1600x1200 requires too much oomph for gaming. What up wid dat? It is time to abandon such cludgy legacy things as crazy aspect ratios.

Clue me in -- what is sacred about the 4:3 aspect ratio?
It's just a leftover from television -- I would say that it is the "cludgy legacy thing".

 

[Auric]

4:3 and 16:9 are sacred because that's what games and video use. I remember reading that 1280x1024 is a left-over from bygone days of green-screen terminals or something. I have never heard of anyone needing it for anything if given the option of 1280x960. Unfortunately LCD makers are not giving us the option for some queer reason like silly outdated standards.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Auric
I mentioned this recently, but the thing that has prevented me from getting an LCD, besides the performance issues is lack of a nice standard resolution of 1280x960. 1280x1024 is distorted and 1600x1200 requires too much oomph for gaming. What up wid dat? It is time to abandon such cludgy legacy things as crazy aspect ratios.

Hmm. I didn't even know that. 1280 x 1024 has looked OK to me - using it right now. Distorted reality if looked at long enough looks normal. Hey, I've been living upside down for years and it looks right side up! Whatsa big deal?? Yeah, I'm kidding but not entirely. So, what happens when you view at 1280 x 1024? Things get stretched vertically? That's what I'm assuming here. BTW, 1280/1024 = 1.25 and 4/3 = 1.33.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Man if only LCD's were at most only 2x as expensive as "equal" CRTs... I remember paying almost $300 for my 19" CRT and thinking that was a lot of money and now I'm drooling over Samsung's 19" $800-900 LCDs...

I bought my 17" Nanao in 1996 for $1000 and it was the best deal around on it. Then a 19" monitor of any quality was over $2000 and a 21" close to $3000. The same Samsung 19" you can get today for $800+ was $1100 almost a year ago.

Yeah, well back then LCD's weren't very practical parts to purchase. Today they are more than practical and therefor the price is a little to intimidating for my taste. Fork over $900 rather than $300 for what will just end up being saved desk space? Not a very attractive point about LCDs, especially when $600 will buy you a decent system to go along with your $300 CRT. In 1996 the fastest computers already cost around $2000-3000 anyway, I guess throwing on an LCD then wasn't too shabby of an idea as back then you bought a computer to last you more than a year or a few months like I and I'm sure many of us do here. Heck, I still have my 300MHz PII system I paid around $4300 for...

I wasn't talking about LCDs. I was talking about CRTs exclusively when talking about the scene in 1996. Right now, LCDs are attractive from the aspect of saving space but to me the big attraction is the sharpness, in particular the sharpness of text. I've never owned an LCD but I had the opportunity to use a nice laptop at work a few times and I was blown away and I was right then in the market for an LCD. That was around 2-3 years ago.