Which LCD's do you reccomend for me? Samsung 172n any good?

[aphex]

Im looking to get back into a dual monitor setup and i currently have no monitors, so im starting from scratch,....

Which LCD's do you reccomend for my purposes?

1) Starting law school in 2 weeks and i need 2 monitors that display text and colors very well.
2) Im not as much concerned with games as I am with the actual clarity of the monitor, but I will play a few games from time to time (not often though)
3) VERY thin bezel. I want the two to be as seemless togeather as possible.
4) No need for integrated speakers, as i already have Klipsch 4.1's
5) DVI would be nice, but since 90% of the time Im doing text, im not sure if i have a true need for it.
6) PRICE, PRICE, PRICE

My first choice are two Samsung 172n's as Sams Club has them for $398 right now. I've also been looking at the Hitachi CML175, which has DVI but built in speakers which i dont need...

What do you reccomend?

 

[aphex]

bump

 

[Ken90630]

This may not be a whole lotta help to you, but I happen to have done TONS (metric tons it's felt like) of research on LCD monitors lately. Only prob is that I've been looking at 21"ers, not the smaller ones you're looking for.

In the 21" category, Sharp, Eizo Nanao (Eizo.com), Iiyama, Planar, Samsung and ViewSonic seemed to have the narrowest bezels, generally speaking (and they are pretty darn narrow at that -- they're nice). Whether or not that translates into their 17" models, I don't know. You'll have to log on to their sites & check 'em out. From a price standpoint, Samsung and ViewSonic will likely beat all but the junkiest, no-name monitors out there (CTX, KDS, and those types), and you're not likely to beat a Sam's Club price very often either. A quick check of PriceGrabber.com, BizRate.com and Pricewatch.com might be worth a few minutes though, just for peace of mind if nothing else.

From a clarity standpoint, any of these brands' mid- to upper-end models should give you very crisp text (LCDs are known for that). But there's one thing you definitely wanna do that many people don't know about: The ClearType feature in Windows XP is turned off by default, and you will need to go in and turn it on. Everyone who does raves about how much clearer text looks on their LCD. That may require a DVI signal however; I have to admit I'm not sure about that. You didn't say in your post which OS you're running, but I thought I'd mention that. (It's only in XP.)

Incidentally, there are a few vendors out there that offer student discounts. Might be worth a few dollars to find one.

Good luck. Promise us you're going to become an HONEST, ETHICAL lawyer. If you're not intending to, this posting will self-destruct in five seconds.

 

[aphex]

Thanks a million for the info!!

Any idea as to the differences in the Samsung Models? I cant really find any solid info about the differences...

I.E.

What makes a 170n, 171n, and a 172n different? Is the 172n just the newest version?

Also, any idea as to the heirarchy?

172n ---> 174v ---> 172t -----> 173x

It just seems to bounce all over the place with no pattern

 

[superspacey]

My Dual Samsung 173T Setup 2
My Dual Samsung 173T Setup 1

The main reason I bought this lcd is because the bezel was so small, and the colours and text were so nice on DVI. I originally didn't use portrait mode so much, but now I just leave one permanently portrait -- its quite nice when reading long documents and doing word processing.

 

[Ken90630]

Yeah, "bounce all over the place with no pattern" is often the case with some of these companies and their model numbers. There's probably ONE guy in the whole company to whom the model numbering scheme makes sense -- you know, the guy responsible for them -- and the rest of us just scratch our heads and go, "Why can't they just ...?"

I'm not that familiar with Sammy's 17" line, but you might look here if you haven't already:

http://www.samsungusa.com/cgi-bin/nabc/product/b2c_product_subtype.jsp?eUser=&prod_path=%2fComputers+and+Related%2fMonitor%2fLCD+-+Digital&pageNum=1

A quick glance (sorry, I'm really busy this morning) revealed that the 172X has a 12ms pixel response time, which is smokin' fast for an LCD. This would help with gaming and motion video performance, obviously. Beware, however, as virtually every LCD on the market either performs well with color/text quality OR motion video quality -- there isn't an LCD on the planet that excels at both as far as I know (in comprehensive lab testing). So you have to prioritize, and good luck trying to ascertain from reviews or spec sheets how a given model is gonna do. Reviews on a single monitor are often inconsistent from one reviewer to another, and specs can be and often are measured differently by different companies. Justin Jaffe, the associate editor at CNET.com, told me in a personal e-mail [no, I'm not name-dropping] that he's seen performance all over the map on LCDs with 25ms response times, and some at that speed outperform monitors with supposed 16ms response times. There's just no standardized testing protocol that these mfgrs have to adhere to that will enable us consumers to be able to look at a spec sheet and be able to compare monitors accurately. As of today, you really have to try them out in person and see for yourself, and even then, you have to know what to look for.

You might just call Samsung USA (# is on their Website) and ask them your question about the differences between the monitors you list.

One thing to DEFINITELY get an answer on before you buy an LCD is the mfgr's (or store's) return policy regarding dead or stuck pixels (or returns if you just "change your mind"). Call the company's service department and DEMAND a definitive answer (sometimes they act like a politician and evade the question). Viewsonic's policy is terrible -- they'll allow 10[!] bad pixels on a 21" LCD before they'll replace it! -- whereas Planar's policy is that if you get a 21" of theirs with more than 2 bad pixels, they'll replace it. That's just a couple examples, and the numbers go down with smaller monitors. Like model numbers, pixel policies seem to be all over the map too among these companies. Generally speaking, the more dead pixels they'll allow before giving you a replacement, the cheaper the monitor will be for you to buy at the outset. If you're going for bottom dollar, be prepared to live with an LCD monitor that's got a few bad pixels 'cuz almost all of 'em have a few anyway. The more you spend, the better policy you get (generally speaking). If you get unlucky enough to get a monitor with 2 or 3 bad pixels near the center of the screen, it's gonna be rather annoying (and they rarely go away). If they company's policy is "5 or more" or whatever, you're gonna be outta luck. Best thing to do, of course, is hook one up in the store and check it before you buy it -- if the store will let you, that is.

Hope this helps.

Ken

PS: Inconsistent backlighting is reputed to be a problem sometimes with cheaper LCD monitors, particularly over time as the lamps dim a bit with age. And you don't wanna know what it costs to replace them. Just FYI.

 

[aphex]

Thanks guys for the great info and pics.....

Well, if i had to choose between video and color/text, text quality and color would far outweigh anything else.

I also called up Sams Club to see what their return policy was, and its 30 days, no questions asked & no restocking fee. So if i buy the 172n's there and i have a dead pixel or two in a bad spot, they'll be going right back for a swap. As for problems later down the road, i'll call samsung on monday.

Now, as for the link above to the pictures of the 173t's (w/DVI), would DVI make a signifant difference for the money?

I.E.

Samsung 172n - ($398) Analog Only
Samsung 173t - ($505) Digital & Analog

$200 difference since i plan on buying two of them. I just dont know if i really "need" the DVI. As i said above, 90%-95% of the time will be spent typing in word, viewing web pages and watching porn (j/k) Im not sure that i'll notice a $200 difference i guess, would I?

Lastly, Im running a ATI Radeon 9700 (with 1 DVI and 1 Analog), so i would have to upgrade my card as well if i went with dual DVI. Would the 9700 do a faily good job running two analog lcd's?

 

[aphex]

Youch, Samsung's Dead Pixel Policy

LINK

10!

 

[Ken90630]

See! You're rolling your eyes at my long posts, but you're glad I told 'ya, aren't 'ya? Huh? Huh?

Now, I don't know if you noticed or not, but that chart on the pixel policies is a year old. Things may have changed since then -- I'd call & ask. As you may or may not have figured out, one of the reasons Samsung and ViewSonic can sell their LCDs cheaper than some other companies is because panels that would otherwise be rejected on the factory floor due to too many bad pixels are instead just put in their monitors and sold. The less 'perfect' the panel has to be, the less it costs 'cuz the company doesn't have to eat the costs of the rejects. For people who don't mind some stuck/dead pixels, this is great; for those of us that do mind, well, we should probably buy a Planar or Eizo or Iiyama or something. Or, as I said, you can really score if you can try the monitor out in the store and get lucky with one that only has 1 or 2 bad pixels and they're not near the center.

Incidentally, I wouldn't return a monitor you buy at Sam's Club with just a couple bad pixels. Virtually any LCD you buy is gonna have at least 1 or 2. You could buy a half dozen of 'em, return 'em all, and find that the first one you bought was best!

I'd definitely look at Planar monitors if I were you. Their pixel policy is the best I know of (even better than Apple's), their quality is excellent, and they're pretty reasonably priced as well. I happened to talk to them on the phone a couple weeks ago too, and I was very impressed with their professionalism. Very nice folks to talk to. Last time I checked, monitorsdirect.com carried some of their LCDs.

As for the DVI issue, I haven't bought mine yet so I can't say from personal experience. What I've read though (and that's extensive) is that DVI really does make a pretty significant difference in image quality when it comes to graphics, definition, color accuracy & depth, that sort of thing. With text, I don't know. And as I said before, I don't know if the ClearType feature in Windows XP requires a DVI config (probably doesn't). Maybe one of the other guys can chime in with a definitive answer on that.

I think "analog" LCD is probably gonna go the way of the dinosaur before too long though, so I'd go with DVI if you can afford it. It may not matter today, but two years from now you could find yourself really wishing you'd gotten it.

Lastly, you could always keep your video card, buy 2 LCDs with DVI-I inputs (meaning it'll accept either a digital or analog signal from your computer), and run one monitor digitally and the other analog. If the monitor has a DVI-D input only, you can only run it with a digital DVI signal and you'd have to upgrade that video card to run two monitors that way. Whew ... got all that?

Gotta million things to do this weekend, so probably won't get back to this post soon. Good luck, mate!

 

[ponyo]

DVI makes everything crisper. It's especially important for sharp text. I wouldn't buy a LCD without DVI. Defeats the whole purpose.

As for Cleartype, it's a personal preference thing. Some people like it. Others don't. Cleartype actually makes text fuzzier IMO by making the lines thicker. But if you adjust Cleartype, you can make it look pretty good. I like it. Although LCD benefits from Cleartype the most, it also works on CRT. Effect is very subtle but you can definitely see it.

If you want sharp text, go for LCD w/ DVI. Dell 1800 or 1801FP is good choice for 18" and under.

 

[Dman877]

I have a 172n, great lcd. Works flawlessly in games (IMO of course). I had a 192n but it sucked hard in games, tons of ghosting, blurry image, was good in 2d though. I don't have a very critical eye when it comes to displays, I do have to run the 172nat 75hz not to get a headache from extended use on it though.

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: Naustica
DVI makes everything crisper. It's especially important for sharp text. I wouldn't buy a LCD without DVI. Defeats the whole purpose.

As for Cleartype, it's a personal preference thing. Some people like it. Others don't. Cleartype actually makes text fuzzier IMO by making the lines thicker. But if you adjust Cleartype, you can make it look pretty good. I like it. Although LCD benefits from Cleartype the most, it also works on CRT. Effect is very subtle but you can definitely see it.

If you want sharp text, go for LCD w/ DVI. Dell 1800 or 1801FP is good choice for 18" and under.

I just wish those boogers at dell would put her back on sale again.... I havent seen it on sale since around January....

Originally posted by: Dman877
I have a 172n, great lcd. Works flawlessly in games (IMO of course). I had a 192n but it sucked hard in games, tons of ghosting, blurry image, was good in 2d though. I don't have a very critical eye when it comes to displays, I do have to run the 172nat 75hz not to get a headache from extended use on it though.

Awesome, great to hear. Well i guess the only way i'll know if i like it is to buy one, i can always buy the second a little later...

 

[UNHDeadman]

i've recently e-mailed Samsung about their dead-pixel policy. Still at a sucky 10!!

 

[aphex]

Ran by the local CC (not the one i work at since im at my parents house) just to check a few things out....

Both 172n's on display had stuck pixels. One had a pixel stuck red, right in the middle on the left side of the screen, i thought i was going to cry....

Im gonna carefully think over my decision, and possibly just buy one 173t and hold off on the second for a little.....

 

[lenjack]

I just got a 172N yesterday at Sam's. It has no dead pixels. It's my first LCD and I'm getting used to the new appearance. It seems to be perfect.

 

[Dman877]

Originally posted by: lenjack
I just got a 172N yesterday at Sam's. It has no dead pixels. It's my first LCD and I'm getting used to the new appearance. It seems to be perfect.

Good to hear. I switched from a low-end 19 inch crt to the 172n, it took some getting used to but I love it now. It's not any better or worse I don't think, just different (and much smaller/lighter obviously).

 

[SUOrangeman]

Sorry to jump in late, but my dual Dell 1800FP + dual-DVI GF4 Ti4600 has served me well over the last year. I hope it continues to do so for a very, very long time.

-SUO

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Naustica
DVI makes everything crisper. It's especially important for sharp text. I wouldn't buy a LCD without DVI. Defeats the whole purpose.

As for Cleartype, it's a personal preference thing. Some people like it. Others don't. Cleartype actually makes text fuzzier IMO by making the lines thicker. But if you adjust Cleartype, you can make it look pretty good. I like it. Although LCD benefits from Cleartype the most, it also works on CRT. Effect is very subtle but you can definitely see it.

If you want sharp text, go for LCD w/ DVI. Dell 1800 or 1801FP is good choice for 18" and under.

LCD without DVI can be pretty crisp. One of mine doesn't use DVI, and it's not obvious that it could be sharper. I'm sure there is a difference, but just between different shades of crispness.

Isn't cleartype just anti-aliasing? My first computer, an Acorn, had that 10 years ago. That was a great machine.

 

[Ken90630]

Hey, All,

I'm curious: Doesn't the small screen of a 17" monitor drive you nuts? Don't take this question the wrong way -- I'm not meaning to sound sarcastic or snobby or anything. I'm serious. Doesn't having to constantly use the side & bottom scroll bars to see 'adequate' (a relative term, I know) page content bother you? I'm annoyed by any monitor smaller than a 21"er, for that reason.

Unless you're running at an ultra-high res that makes everything so small that everything fits on screen without having to use the scroll bars, what do you do? I personally can't really run at a res higher than 1280 x 1024 or 1600 x 1200 without everything being too small to read effectively (and I have good eyesight).

Just curious if I'm missing something here or if using the scroll bars all the time just annoys me more than it does others. (Incidentally, I'm not a gamer, so that doesn't play a role in my thought process here.) Cost considerations aside, is there any particular reason to get a 17" monitor rather than a 19"er or 21"er?

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: Ken90630
Hey, All,

I'm curious: Doesn't the small screen of a 17" monitor drive you nuts? Don't take this question the wrong way -- I'm not meaning to sound sarcastic or snobby or anything. I'm serious. Doesn't having to constantly use the side & bottom scroll bars to see 'adequate' (a relative term, I know) page content bother you? I'm annoyed by any monitor smaller than a 21"er, for that reason.

Unless you're running at an ultra-high res that makes everything so small that everything fits on screen without having to use the scroll bars, what do you do? I personally can't really run at a res higher than 1280 x 1024 or 1600 x 1200 without everything being too small to read effectively (and I have good eyesight).

Just curious if I'm missing something here or if using the scroll bars all the time just annoys me more than it does others. (Incidentally, I'm not a gamer, so that doesn't play a role in my thought process here.) Cost considerations aside, is there any particular reason to get a 17" monitor rather than a 19"er or 21"er?

Short of price, none that i can thing of.

Im rethinking myself, and i may get a higher quality 19" LCD as opposed to two mediocre 17" lcds.... ARGH! I DUNNO!!!

 

[Ken90630]

"Aargh!" indeed. I hear 'ya. Maddening, isn't it?

Now two 19" LCDs might be sweet. That's what credit cards are for, isn't it? Ha ha.

You could always buy the one 19"er now and add another later when your budget can handle it. I've postponed my LCD monitor purchases for now until I can afford the set-up that I'm really gonna be happy with for awhile.

Let us know what monitor you get and how you like it.

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: Ken90630
"Aargh!" indeed. I hear 'ya. Maddening, isn't it?

Now two 19" LCDs might be sweet. That's what credit cards are for, isn't it? Ha ha.

You could always buy the one 19"er now and add another later when your budget can handle it. I've postponed my LCD monitor purchases for now until I can afford the set-up that I'm really gonna be happy with for awhile.

Let us know what monitor you get and how you like it.

My only concern with the buy one now buy one later is that im a freak about symmerty, and if i wait 5-6 months, the same model may not be available

I checked out the 17" Samsung 172n today again at sams club and it has a very impressive image, even considering the signal had been split 6 times. The colors were very vibrant and bright, much more so than the other lcd's around it. I even adjusted all of them myself to check to make sure it wasnt a setting different, but it wasnt.

Argh!!

What do you think of BenQ's... Specifically the FP951?

 

[Ken90630]

My only concern with the buy one now buy one later is that im a freak about symmerty, and if i wait 5-6 months, the same model may not be available

Yeah, that's always a possibility. Although unless the model you buy is being discontinued right now or right after you buy it, chances are you'll still be able to fine one 5-6 months from now. I've bought things over the Web that had been "discontinued" for quite some time. Sometimes it takes quite awhile for some stores to sell out their inventories. But who knows ....

Funny -- BenQ is about the only LCD maker whose products I don't know much about. When I was doing all my exhaustive research recently, I didn't look at their monitors hardly at all. I think it was because they don't make a 20" LCD, or if they do, they only make one or something and I didn't like it. I remember I took them out of consideration right at the beginning, but I can't recall exactly why.

I clicked over to their Web site a minute ago to look at the FP951, but there isn't much info on it (not even a picture). The contrast ratio spec is very high, but I wouldn't put a lot of stock in that -- that's one of many specs that can easily be manipulated (doesn't mean the ratio is bad, it just means it may not be as spectacular as the spec makes it look). It may or may not look any better than an LCD monitor with, say, a 400:1 contrast ratio or something.

I do know BenQs have been reviewed a number of times by various computer sites/magazines, and they generally rate decently -- not poorly, not spectacularly. I usually just glance at those reviews, however, 'cuz they're always on smaller monitors than I'd ever have a use for. I wouldn't have any idea about any new products they may have. Maybe do a Google search for "BenQ FP951 review" and see if anything comes up. Or buy one and return it if you don't like it.

If you really wanna dive deep into this stuff like I did recently, the best way to get an idea of how a monitor might perform is to determine what actual LCD panel it has in it. There are only, I think, 5 or 6 LCD panel manufactures in the world right now, and these monitor companies buy panels from these manufacturers and put them in their own branded monitors. Sony and Dell, for example, don't manufacture LCD panels -- they buy them from a panel mfgr and put them in their monitors. Ditto most of the other companies. There's AU Optronics, Samsung, Fujitsu, Hydis, LG/Philips, Sharp, and I think one other that actually make the panels (forgive me -- it's late, I'm tired, and I don't guarantee total recall here as I'm typing this).

What you really have to do is find out what LCD panel is in the monitor you're interested in, then research that panel's attributes/faults. There was an "LCD monitor roundup" or "shootout" or something like that here on Anandtech.com not too long ago that talked about the various panels in detail (although I think they were 17"ers). Click on the "video" tab on the home page and you'll find it. There was also some similar info on Tomshardware.com awhile back, but I remember thinking the article was a bit weird (they'd say how great a panel was in its intro, then kinda 'trash' it later on in testing). You'll probably have to call BenQ and ask which panel they're using in the FP951.

Gotta cut this off & get some sleep. Hope this helps.

 

[welst10]

Benq (formerly Acer Peripherals Inc) is the parent company of AU optronics. So FP951 is most likely an AUO panel. If you don't care about games, your options are wide open. You have many 17" and 19"s to choose from. For me, I do a lot of gaming, so I'm looking for a good 17" (as all 19" except samsung 193P are 25ms). Right now I'm considering Acer AL1715bm which uses Hydis 20ms panel, but it only has analog input.

 

[aphex]

So i went to a local computer store (CBWarehouse.com) to check out what they had....

Came across this (Picture 1 and Picture 2)

I think two 17"s are they way to go.....