User complaining about LCD monitor

[The Computer Valet]

I bought an Apple 17" CRT way back for $700.00.

Maybe that's not the best example.

[silencio]

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!

My Samsung SyncMaster 171v looks blurry at 70hz but not 72hz or 60hz. I have no idea why.

[CeeBee]

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.