Need a new Monitor. Recommendations?

I've been using a 22" CRT monitor that has run flawless for 8 years, then today it's gone flaky and shuts off intermittently. I may try to get it repaired, I like it that much. But I probably need a replacement.

Are LCD monitors now up to the fine resolution of a good glass monitor? I want one that will show photos with good detail right down to the last - well never mind. Good detail.

What should I be looking for?

Any specific recommendations?

Chris out of my league but this may help.

http://www.cnet.com.au/tags/0,239034281,220089968o-1s-10r,00.htm

People still use CRTs?

Yes GB. Just a few months ago I traded in my 21" Panasonic monitor for two 19" flat screens. They had a hard time convincing me to give up the 21", but I have to admit, I've adjusted well.
I think CRT's are multiplying in my basement. For servers I have running at home but normally remote desktop to there is no reason to spend cash on a flat screen for them. I only use the monitor on them once every few months. CRT does fine.

the newer flat panels have fine resolution, they weigh less, take up less desk space, generate less waste heat, and use less electricity to run -- which doesn't mean much in a home situation, but made a difference in the electric bills at work when we went from 160 dual CRT workstations to LCD.

I found that you are going to pay a lot of a single high res LCD Monitor. They are very expensive.

You may want to consider adding a new video card that supports two monitors. It may be the cheaper way to get the screen real estate.

I have this 22" LCD from Dell on my office workstation. It was part of my new system a couple weeks ago, but it is available a la carte. It is going for $339 right now, and the picture is absolutely fantastic, I would definitely recommend it.

That Dell sounds good. It seems to set the standard at that price point.

Is 22" the new standard size? And what resolution do you run these? At maximum claimed resolution, or is there a lower res that is optimum?

Two 8.5x11 pages of text on one 22" is the biggest application I can think of. I don't think I need dual monitors, but what am I overlooking?

Prices sure are more reasonable than the last time I shopped a monitor. The Mitsubishi was 3x the price of this modern Dell.

I gotta get something. This 1024x768 monitor I took off my kids old college pc is already driving me nuts!

California said:

That Dell sounds good. It seems to set the standard at that price point.

Is 22" the new standard size? And what resolution do you run these? At maximum claimed resolution, or is there a lower res that is optimum?

Two 8.5x11 pages of text on one 22" is the biggest application I can think of. I don't think I need dual monitors, but what am I overlooking?

Prices sure are more reasonable than the last time I shopped a monitor. The Mitsubishi was 3x the price of this modern Dell.

I gotta get something. This 1024x768 monitor I took off my kids old college pc is already driving me nuts!

Click to expand...

The 22" Dell is 1680x1050. In general, all LCD monitors look best at their native resolution.

Personally, I have two monitors, and absolutely love it. (Unfortunately, not two of these)

Ok, I'm up and running. Costco had the 24 inch Samsung 245BW for $399.99.

I had spent an afternoon reading and comparing online, starting from Dave's suggestion.

But what a hassle! I haven't had a fight with hardware like this since the days of networking Win 3.0. The one downside I noted in reviews was crappy documentation and hairpulling install. That didn't scare me (at the time); BTDT, generally won. But this one has me baffled.

Frozen early in Boot, black screen.

Reinstalled using latest display and motherboard vid drivers, same freeze.

Sis (moboard) download site was down for some reason so I finally got a current version of their vid drivers off MajorGeeks, after considerable searching. Everybody else wants you to pay them for years-outdated versions.

Much tinkering. Then the best it will do is some huge bogus 1024 x 768 icons that you have to scroll off the edge of the screen to see all of them.

So I bought a cheap AGP card (eGforce FX5500, Nvidia based) to replace the 16mb motherboard vid. I thought going from vga to DVI would help. Not much.

More instant freeze at poweron. The mobo manual had said to leave the vid mode and AGP defaults alone, but that was wrong. It needed 'boot from AGP' to get past the first flicker of the kb lights.

Ok, it's running. But the best I can get out of it is 1600 x 1200 then a bogus 1920 x 1200 which is the same as 1600 x 1200 except you have to scroll right to find the taskbar clock etc. The monitor's On Screen Display shows 1200 x 1600 in both of these modes. People look fat (wide) in both modes.

Color and sharpness are excellent; it's a keeper if I can tame it. I had read about some downside to big TFT screens (viewing angle) but I don't see a problem.

I'm stumped on switching to the highest resolution. Any advice? I've downloaded and installed all the latest drivers, and I've tried every combination in the display and graphics card's manuals (and all the monitor-button choices). What next?

California said:

Is 22" the new standard size? And what resolution do you run these? At maximum claimed resolution, or is there a lower res that is optimum?

Click to expand...

Mine is configured for 1920x1200

Gatorboy said:

Mine is configured for 1920x1200

Click to expand...

GB, what do you see when you hit the Menu button on the bezel and go down to Information?

Mine says:

Digital
74.9khz 60hz PP
1600x1200

for either 1920x1200 or 1600x1200 selected in Properties/Settings.

For the higher res, the video card seems to be sending a 1920x1200 signal since in that mode I need to scroll the screen to see it all. Apparently the monitor isn't switching modes when requested.

Do you know of an online group where people talk about this stuff? Thanks!

Ok, when you run out of troubleshooting steps it has to be a hardware problem.

I looked and found this monitor's carton had been re-taped twice since the factory seal. Bah! I took it back to Costco.

This time I pulled my new monitor from a string of sequential serial numbers. The bad one was numbered far different from their current stock.

This new one responds when the card tells it to switch modes and it doesn't hang the pc under any circumstances. So it wasn't a case of me misinterpreting bad setup instructions, rather, they had sold me junk.

Finally - I'm up and running properly.

This photo didn't copy half the colors, but they are all there. Photos look gorgeous on its screen, and of course the added width is nice.

I think the old monitor started cutting out because the cathair that has fallen into it over the years reached some critical level. I don't know what else is in there but it sounds like a lot of small junk moving around when I rolled it upside down. I'll vacuum it out, then put it on the pc the kids use when they come home.

As the photo shows, dual huge monitors is a little over the top. I don't think I would ever have an application for that much display.

Update, if anyone is following this drama. Maybe this will be helpful to someone else.

I discovered I couldn't get the panel's native 1920x1200 resolution in digital, only analog, using the display cards I had tried. Both those cards had maximum 1600x1200 digital and then used analog for their higher resolutions.

I took back the EVGA FX5500 (Nvidia based) and the VisionTek ATI Radeon 2400 Pro video cards.

I got an ATI Radeon X1050 card. (AGP). $80 before $10 mail rebate.

I got just the card drivers from ATI's site and used only that. I chose to not install their big suite of applications that the install CD would have forced on me. This decision was based on advice from a gamer's forum. I may try them later.

Results: Now everything works as it should. The monitor's display shows it is running 1920 x 1200 x 60hz Digital, which I couldn't attain on the other two cards.

I think the video card problem is solved.

California said:

Ok, I'm up and running. Costco had the 24 inch Samsung 245BW for $399.99.

Click to expand...

I just noticed this thread. I have the Samsung 245T. I don't have a clue what the difference between that monitor and yours is, but I do like it. My 19" was "needed" by my daughter so I just grabbed what a tech guy at a huge account of mine recommended. It's running at 1680X1050 right now. I just couldn't see the text at the 1920X1200 setting. To be honest, I may change that because I never like to wear my glasses and the text is a wee bit small for my old eyes. I've been told to try 1280X800 for us optically challenged old farts. Anyone using that resolution?

Your 245T is the pro display. I think mine is TFT like a laptop, and yours is something better. Yours should have better color accuracy for editing photos, and you can view the screen from a wider angle per what I've read. Mine looks excellent to me, but I don't have any experience to compare it to, and I wasn't going to spend over $400.

I have been playing around with the Windows Display Resolutions to see the fonts at a decent size etc.

Rt click on the desktop, then Properties/Settings/Advanced. I was running 125% on my last monitor, and went to Custom DPI 130% for this one. It looks good but I'm going to experiment some more.

if you've ever noticed a problem with eye fatigue after a few hours on the machine, it might be that 60hz refresh rate. change it to 72 or 75 and you'll notice a big difference.

I was running the glass monitor at 85hz refresh rate, but this flat-panel's manual says to set it up 60hz only.

I just now set it to 75, but I'm not sure that actually changed anything.

Will it hurt this one to run it faster?

California said:

I took back the EVGA FX5500 (Nvidia based) and the VisionTek ATI Radeon 2400 Pro video cards.

I got an ATI Radeon X1050 card. (AGP). $80 before $10 mail rebate.

Click to expand...

I would look more at something like the NVidia 8600GT or 8800GT. Higher perfomance cards...

RNE228 said:

I would look more at something like the NVidia 8600GT or 8800GT. Higher perfomance cards...

Click to expand...

I wonder if I need higher performance.

Trying to get my first two cards running, I read their manufacturer's internal forums and Usenet's ATI newsgroup. A major point I saw repeated: any modern card is more than fast enough to portray 2-dimensional media. The cpu etc is what limits sending data to the screen. I read that premium video cards add value *only* for 3-dimensional media, with its complex shading and subject motion. I'm not chasing dragons down tunnels; I don't own any program that would use the 3-dimensional capability of a good card.

So as I understand it, the specification I'm trying to buy is the cheapest card that will drive this monitor at it's native 1920x1200x60hz Digital resolution.

Another specification, #2, is to use my existing 250 watt power supply.

And #3, compatible with my 2005 bios.

I spent an hour on the phone with tech support for the VisionTek ATI Radeon 2400 Pro card, attempting various alternatives. He finally told me my pc failed criteria #2 and 3, so take their card back for refund.

I also read in Nvidia's internal support forum that no Nvidia card has 1920x1200 Digital resolution, at least among their reasonable price cards.

Fry's told me a card to run this oversize monitor in digital mode would start around $175, so my experiments leading to this $70 card seem to have found the optimum solution.

What feature or performance improvements would I see with a more expensive card?

California said:

I wonder if I need higher performance.

Click to expand...

Those cards would overwhelm your power supply. If you did have a larger PS, they would easily meet the resolution requirements you need. And, they would support dual monitors.

A GeForce 7300GT has the resolution you need, and is moderately priced. I have used them with 250 and 300w PS. 250W PS would be bare minimum though...

http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce_7300.html
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121021

A GeForce 7300GT has the resolution you need, and is moderately priced. I have used them with 250 and 300w PS. 250W PS would be bare minimum

Click to expand...

Oops, I left off criterion #4: It has to be AGP. Ok, your comments sent me back to the drawing board.

I wonder how much difference there is between the ATI X1050 card I bought, and a 7300 based card.

The X1050 already supports dual monitors and has the digital resolutions I need.

I made a comparison of specifications on Newegg. You are right, the 7300 looks a little better.
ATI X1050: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814103033
EVGA7300: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130100

Advantages of the 7300 are:
380 mhz clock, 8 pixel pipes vs: 325mhz 4 pipes
ram 512mb GDDR2 vs 256mb DDR

Are those significant advantages for my 2-d use?

Memory interface 128 bit, ramdac 400 mhz, and cost, both cards identical.

Disadvantages: several owner's reviews said they had to upgrade their power supplies for EVGA's 7300. My PS (250w) works fine running two hd's, two optical drives, 1.5gb ram, and this X1050 card. I may be at its limit.

Will there be a notable performance advantage in upgrading to that EVGA 7300 card? What would I see?

California said:

Oops, I left off criterion #4: It has to be AGP. Ok, your comments sent me back to the drawing board.

I wonder how much difference there is between the ATI X1050 card I bought, and a 7300 based card.

Click to expand...

I misunderstood. Reread the whole thread... I thought this ATI X1050 was not completely working either. Since it is working, I wouldn't change. Sorry for getting ahead of myself

Your system is really loaded for 250W supply. Anything more would really stretch it.

RNE, thanks! I appreciate your thoughtful advice. Now I wish I had considered the EVGA7300 card initially.

The range of cards I considered was whatever I saw at the local Fry's. Then everything I read on their vendor's sites claimed they all were best - but the ones under $100 didn't list maximum digital resolution. I discovered after installing them that the two inexpensive cards I started with, provided only analog output for monitors larger than 22 inch.

In normal Fry's fashion, their salesmen had first promised those cards would drive a 24 inch monitor, then when I went back, they said for this special application I needed a >$175 card and a new 400watt PS.

Since the system is running properly now with the X1050 card, I think (hope) this project is completed.