Printable View
A user her got her boss to buy a new ViewSonic 17'' LCD monitor. She just wants to be cool like the CEO's secretary me thinks. Anyway she's now complaining that it's blurry and giving her a headache.
They've always done that to me until I put Win XP on my laptop and used that "clear type" or whatever it's called. It makes text look a lot better. Is there an equivalent utility that can be used on Win 2k? Any settings changes that can be made?
Yeah, give her a CRT monitor! :DQuote:
Originally posted by Darkstar
Is there an equivalent utility that can be used on Win 2k? Any settings changes that can be made?
Make sure the monitor is being run at it's optimal resolution, if it's run at something else the image will be stretched to fit the screen and the image will not be as clear.
There is no clear type built into win2000 and Microsoft has said that they are not going to add it. LCD monitors always look their best at their native resolution which for a 17 inch lcd is probably something like 1280x1024. Most people find the icons too small at that resolution so the change it to 1024x768 or 800x600 which looks somewhat poor because the lcd is operating outside its native resolution. You can try switching back to native resolution and going into Appearance and choosing something like Windows Standard large or extra large. You can also try using a video card with dvi-out, assuming the monitor has a dvi input.
Its probably a refresh rate problem, there was a problem with the refresh rate being stuck at like 60hz I think in Win2k. Look for that fix. It might be at 3dfiles.com
Anyways, LCD suck in my opinion, its just another product to promote and on top of that it takes away some cost on the S/H of a large monitor. I would check refresh rate ,and set it up to run a fixed setting of like 1024 x 768 @ 77hz.
this is one reason why I dont even think about getting FLat panels screens.. now if it was the mac flat panel, then the user wouldnt complain but tis $3000 for the biggest one :eek:
but actually samsung has a really nice one out very clear and the refresh rate is there for gaming.. it only cost $800 for the 19 inch
It has been my experience that LCD monitors will display text at their best only when using its "default" resolution, like techs suggested.
For 15" LCD monitors, it is usually 1024x768. You may have to tinker around to get just the right display on your 17", but start from 1024 and go higher for starters.
As for the refresh rate, LCD screens don't operate on the same assumptions as CRTs do, so 60Hz may be just fine for your screen, but don't expect that running at 85-100Hz will improve the overall quality.
Agreed with the above about resolution, however I disagree with raising the refresh rate. I was always under the impression that lower was better, but went ahead and looked for an alternate more creditable source for this issue. I found this from the trailing Hitachi article:
Hitachi Flat Panel Display TechnologyQuote:
Image Resolution and Refresh Rate
Flat panel displays use a matrix of cells that are set up on a grid. Unlike CRTs, which have 1800 or more physical pixels, for example: All 15" panels are 1024 physical pixels wide and 768 pixels high. This is why all vendors of flat panel displays suggest using the 1024 x 768 resolution exclusively for 15" panels. This is called the monitors native resolution. By the same token, the best resolution for 17 and 18" panels is 1280 x 1024.
You will also notice that, unlike CRTs, manufactures of LCD monitors recommend using a lower refresh rate ; 60 or 70 Hz; The reason for lower refresh rates in LCDs is because the liquid crystal molecules damper flicker and higher refresh rates are not as important.
Thanks for the tips. I will check her resolution. I also think my boss had her crank-up the refresh rate which probably made it worse.
I agree as I prefer a good CRT any day. I would never give-up my Samsung 955df, unless it was maybe for a 21''...
You absolutely have to run the LCD at the optimal resolution, otherwise it will look blurry.
Go see a modern laptop in any computer store and change the resolution in Windows to 640x480. Watch the blur commence.
Sucks, really, but that's the nature of the device.
m
just remembereda bout a user who insited that her lcd monitor was broken because of faulty electrical wiring nearby. I checked her machine, and the refresh rate was cranked up big style. She insisted this was to make it run faster, and that the electrical trunking wasn't 'shielded' properly. To save the arguament, I got our maintence ppl to check the supply - all fine, which wiped the gloat off her face. When I turned the refresh rate back down to default, she started to realise that the PC Know-How For Lamers should be binned
Yep. I have learned something new. I think optimal for this monitor is 1280x960 or so. Setting it at that makes it look better, but it's still a little blurry and lines that are really close together show this the most. I told her that was the limitation of the technology and she had better buy a helmet because life sucks. She understood.
Still and all, imo, LCD monitors are overrated and the only real benefit I see is the space they save on your desk. Well, that and maybe the fact they don't shoot radiation into the back of your head like CRTs do.
thanks y'all!
BTW most Viewsonic(probably all) 17in lcd should be run at 1280x1024 for optimum resolution. Max 75hz refresh rate when used thru an anolog output. Also, they usually have a fine tune/sharpness control.
Yeah, I think you're right, in general. I think they are a wee-bit sharper than most (all?) CRTs, though.Quote:
Originally posted by Darkstar Still and all, imo, LCD monitors are overrated and the only real benefit I see is the space they save on your desk.[/B]
m
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of flat panels either. They did make one very substantial contribution to the IT world however... they drove the prices of CRT's WAY down. Anyone remember how much a good 17" + CRT went for before LCD's became prevalent?
I bought an Apple 17" CRT way back for $700.00.
Maybe that's not the best example.
My Samsung SyncMaster 171v looks blurry at 70hz but not 72hz or 60hz. I have no idea why.Quote:
Originally posted by Darkstar
Yep. I have learned something new. I think optimal for this monitor is 1280x960 or so. Setting it at that makes it look better, but it's still a little blurry and lines that are really close together show this the most. I told her that was the limitation of the technology and she had better buy a helmet because life sucks. She understood.
Still and all, imo, LCD monitors are overrated and the only real benefit I see is the space they save on your desk. Well, that and maybe the fact they don't shoot radiation into the back of your head like CRTs do.
thanks y'all!
LCD monitors have a "native" resolution - that is given by how may pixels are physicaly present on it. While the eye might see (and distinguish) details better at some resolutions (this is given by the size of the display), LCD monitors will ONLY display the best image when it is sent at the native resolution (then each pixel your computer sends will perfectly match a pixel of the display). A 17" monitor will probably have a native resolution of 1600x1200 or 1280x1024. Look at the specifications.
The higher refresh rate-the better (less flicker for your eyes).
Try to run 1024x768 @ 60Hz for a day and a headache is guaranteed.
The refresh rate has nothing to do with the quality if you're using a digital output. Analog signals tend to degrade when being transmitted (attenuation, reflection, interference) and you might get a better quality at lower refresh rates. However if you have a good monitor (with a good cable) and a good video card this degradation should not occur within the normal operating range.