Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:05 pm
by Jenk
I'm very much a don't fix what isn't broken kind of guy, but my last monitor broke in 2005 so I bought this Samsung SM930-BF (two days before Samsung announced the 940

)
As well as being a don't fix what isn't broken guy, I'm also obsessive that I
must have the absolute best that I can afford. For a couple of examples; I decided one day I wouldn't mind a graphics tablet.. not because I am a designer, or am even competent drawing a stick man, but 'just because' and instead of doing the sensible thing and buying a £50 or less jobby to see what I think of tablets, I bought the top of the range WACOM £350 jobby.
The Camera thread started by d11wtq - I've since been eyeing up the Canon DSLR EOS range.. cheapest is around £350 from what I can see (body only) .. to put into context, the only time I
ever take pictures is when someone else asks me to take theirs (which happens a lot.. hmm)
Anyway.. I'm blogging again. That's all for this episode of "What's in Jenk's life" next time we'll discuss cars and employment.

Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:55 pm
by Ollie Saunders
Long live blogging in the general discussion forum, I say.
And with that I'm going to tell you all that it's coming up to 3 in the morning here and I'm going to bed, nighty night everyone

Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:56 pm
by Kieran Huggins
I figure in our profession it makes sense to spend a premium on decent hardware. After all, we log (way?) more than a hundred hours a month using it!
I always spend a little extra on the pieces I interface with - good keyboard, mouse and monitor. Can you imagine being a programmer with a keyboard that makes your wrist hurt? It's just not worth it!
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:06 am
by matthijs
Kieran Huggins wrote:I figure in our profession it makes sense to spend a premium on decent hardware. After all, we log (way?) more than a hundred hours a month using it!
You mean, like 100 hrs a week.
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:10 am
by alex.barylski
I agree Kieran.
A solid keyboard, mouse and display are important...although I usually cheap out in other areas like CPU, memory, HDD, etc...
I really only need about a gig of space...and enough RAM to run smooth...I don't game or do graphics or music on my computer....it's strictly development and browsing so high performance isn't really an issue...plus I'm cheap

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:26 am
by Ree
I'm so glad I didn't have to purchase an LCD when I built my current PC. LCDs to me are still inferior to CRTs. Got myself a brand new Viewsonic P227f 21'' CRT when I built my current PC - games have never looked better. Unfortunately, it seems I will have to buy an LCD when I build a new PC in the future for Vista simply because you won't find a new CRT anywhere.
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:44 am
by Kieran Huggins
Hockey wrote:...I usually cheap out in other areas like CPU, memory, HDD, etc...
I'm especially agree on the CPU issue - I invested in dual XP1900+ about 3 or 4 years ago, and I still can't find a reason to upgrade. Even cheap-ass 3.06 GHz Celerons seem quite acceptable as far as processing goes, unless you do some REALLY heavy lifting.
I would however dump 1-2Gb of RAM into a system immediately.... but only because I use Adobe products.
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:37 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
Well, I'm a gamer, so I hit highs everywhere. I recently upgraded so I have an AMD Athlon64 X2 4800 and a GeForce 8800. It all rocks, and likely won't see serious stress until Vista is released and it starts crashes for unknown reasons... Until then I can play almost anything at a ludicrously high resolution...

. In a year or so, I'll be back to tweaking newer games no doubt to squeeze just a little bit more performance out of them.
I still use a CRT Monitor though, I may get an LCD but it will need to be have a high response time. Samsung seem to be the leaders of the moment. My 19" CRT though is quite satisfactory. I don't suppose there's anything wrong with leaving it in place, and going dual screen with a LCD anyway.
Only issue I have had is that the nForce 590 chipset needs a little nursing when installing Linux. Not the most stable even with the current kernel.
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:22 am
by Jenk
I'm a gamer, too. Have been using an XP2700+, 1GB RAM and a 9800Pro for the last 4 years (replaced 9800pro with 6600GT last year due to kaputski)
I've won tournaments on that thing. *pats*
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:09 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
My old system has around the same stats - I really loved the 6600GT because although it's no match for the 7900GT let alone the 8800GTX it's still capable of playing something like FEAR at a reasonable resolution and detail level. The only games it had real trouble with (in my case because my particular model had a low amount of VRAM) were Oblivion and Medieval: Total War 2 (esp. during a siege when dozens of "dead body" instances were visible in screen).
My own system just proves a CPU was far less important than RAM and Graphics Card. I think that has changed a bit recently though - when I was reading up on the 8800GTX reviews they noted the 8800 is so over powered that a current Intel Dual Core was unable to serve it data fast enough. It's possible future games using the massive boost the 8800 (and upcoming AMD/ATI card) gives graphics performance, might create problems if the CPU becomes a bottleneck. Hopefully games will bother to multithread as standard...
Back on LCDs, I found a local store selling Samsung 22inch Models. Everything else I could see paled in comparison. Do the LCD fanatics here know of any Samsung challengers we pitiful Irish on our small island nation with expensive import duties may not have seen just yet?
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:20 am
by Jenk
Dell, Apple, Belinea, BenQ, some of the NEC's.
It's more about which panels they use over who distributes them.
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:21 am
by feyd
The Dell's I'm currently running are getting cheap now:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/prod ... u=320-4335
They run games quite well and are extremely crisp.
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:15 pm
by AKA Panama Jack
Ree wrote:I'm so glad I didn't have to purchase an LCD when I built my current PC. LCDs to me are still inferior to CRTs. Got myself a brand new Viewsonic P227f 21'' CRT when I built my current PC - games have never looked better. Unfortunately, it seems I will have to buy an LCD when I build a new PC in the future for Vista simply because you won't find a new CRT anywhere.
I have to say that is completely wrong.

LCD's are like CRT's in that you have to look at the specifications.
My current 17 inch LCD is far superior to ANY CRT I have ever looked at and I am an avid gamer.

Here are a few pointers...
1. Make sure the LCD has a HIGH contrast ratio (500:1 or higher, 1000:1 is better 2000:1 is perfect), high luminance (450cd/m2 or higher) and a fast refresh rate (8-12ms the lower the better).
2. The LCD monitor should have a DVI connection. If you are using the standard D-15 analog connection the LCD can ghost and look fuzzy.
3. When at all possible run all applications at the LCD monitors NATIVE resolution. This is usually 1280x1024 for most 17 and 19 inch monitors. If you have to run the monitor at a lower resolution DO NOT let Windows scale the image. Let the monitor do it.
I switched to an LCD monitor over a year ago and I will NEVER go back to a CRT. The pictures are clearer, cleaner and colors more vibrant. The key is using the DVI connection and running at the monitors native resolution. Every pixel is a 1 to 1 representation of the 1280x1024 screen. If you are using an analog input for the LCD monitor the pixels will NEVER be 1 to 1 but approximations. An analog signal can never be pixel for pixel in representation. This is why it gives you a muddy or fuzzy looking image where thin lines are not distinct.
If you are going to buy an LCD monitor get one that has a DVI input. Most modern video cards have both DVI and analog outputs.
Using an LCD monitor on an analog output is like running a high performance engine on watered down gas. It will work but it runs poorly.
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:09 pm
by SorbP
AKA Panama Jack wrote:Ree wrote:I'm so glad I didn't have to purchase an LCD when I built my current PC. LCDs to me are still inferior to CRTs. Got myself a brand new Viewsonic P227f 21'' CRT when I built my current PC - games have never looked better. Unfortunately, it seems I will have to buy an LCD when I build a new PC in the future for Vista simply because you won't find a new CRT anywhere.
I have to say that is completely wrong.

LCD's are like CRT's in that you have to look at the specifications.
My current 17 inch LCD is far superior to ANY CRT I have ever looked at and I am an avid gamer.

Here are a few pointers...
1. Make sure the LCD has a HIGH contrast ratio (500:1 or higher, 1000:1 is better 2000:1 is perfect), high luminance (450cd/m2 or higher) and a fast refresh rate (8-12ms the lower the better).
2. The LCD monitor should have a DVI connection. If you are using the standard D-15 analog connection the LCD can ghost and look fuzzy.
3. When at all possible run all applications at the LCD monitors NATIVE resolution. This is usually 1280x1024 for most 17 and 19 inch monitors. If you have to run the monitor at a lower resolution DO NOT let Windows scale the image. Let the monitor do it.
I switched to an LCD monitor over a year ago and I will NEVER go back to a CRT. The pictures are clearer, cleaner and colors more vibrant. The key is using the DVI connection and running at the monitors native resolution. Every pixel is a 1 to 1 representation of the 1280x1024 screen. If you are using an analog input for the LCD monitor the pixels will NEVER be 1 to 1 but approximations. An analog signal can never be pixel for pixel in representation. This is why it gives you a muddy or fuzzy looking image where thin lines are not distinct.
If you are going to buy an LCD monitor get one that has a DVI input. Most modern video cards have both DVI and analog outputs.
Using an LCD monitor on an analog output is like running a high performance engine on watered down gas. It will work but it runs poorly.
Your missing hte whole porblem with gaiming and LCD's, its refreshrate, and i'm not talking a bout Responsetime of the LCD-crystals no i'm talking about the fact that LCD's are generaly limited to a maximum of 75hz. meaning that they will never be able to display more than 75 frames per second, thus making games like UT2004 and QUAKE3, choppy and well unplayable on a competing level.
Therefore LCD has a looooong way to go before they will replace a good CRT for gaiming.
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:16 pm
by AKA Panama Jack
That is so bogus and has been disproved so often it is surprising this misinformation is still going around.
My 17 inch LCD is currently running at 60hz refresh and I have a 19 inch CRT that can go as high as 120hz at 1280x1024 (that's a rarity amoung CRTs).
Running UT2004, BF2, AOE3, Homeworld 2, Fear, Oblivion, etc. on BOTH gives the SAME FRAME RATE as I don't have the VSYNC enabled for the video card drivers. There is absolutely no difference in the frame rates and no choppy video on either monitor.
In UT2004 I get an average of 130 FPS ON BOTH MONITORS!!! No gamer will EVER enable the VSYNC on their video card because that means you can never have a higher frame rate than the monitors refresh rate. Most CRTs cannot hit 200+hz refresh rates as many games can have 200-300 fps with the new high end video cards.
The LCD gives a far better picture with better colors and a brighter more vibrant image during game play.
Also, you will find that most CRTs have almost the SAME vertical refresh rate as an LCD at the same resolution. So that blows your assumption out of the water. Most 17 & 19 inch CRTs at a resolution of 1280x1024 have a refresh rate of 65hz.
My 17 inch LCD can go upto 75hz at that resolution. Heck, my LCD can use a higher vertical refresh than most CRTs at the same resolution.
Like I said, you have been misinformed.