Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.

I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen that
should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic developers
would want.

I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say about
24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice but
how about the standard format too?

Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV or
otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've tested
the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it doesn't
compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like the wide
screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard format would be
better for me.

Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

BTW - I've e-mailed Philips, LG, Samsung, Viewsonic, BenQ and Sony to (not
whining) to find out if they have anything on the way that meets these
specs. I'll be sure to post back if I hear anything. Of course if enough
people were to e-mail them, they might realize the market niche is ready. I
understand they work together on some screens so asking each individually
certainly doesn't hurt.

http://www.feedback.philips.com/co [...] anguage=en

http://www.lgservice.com/gcsc/b2c/hpi/main

http://erms.samsungelectronics.com [...] PROD_ID=28

http://www.viewsonic.com/support/index.htm

http://esupport.sony.com/perl/emai [...] emplate=EN

http://www.benq.us/serviceandsuppo [...] 78&query=1

"boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>
> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen that
> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic developers
> would want.
>
> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say about
> 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
> but how about the standard format too?
>
> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it
> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
> format would be better for me.
>
> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

BTW - if any of you are thinking about this model, you are correct, it does
come close but the refresh rate is much too slow.

http://www.viewsonic.com/products/ [...] s/vp230mb/

"boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>
> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen that
> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic developers
> would want.
>
> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say about
> 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
> but how about the standard format too?
>
> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it
> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
> format would be better for me.
>
> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

http://www.necdisplay.com/products [...] fication=1

22" NEC/Mitsubishi monitor, 2048x1536 @ 85 Hz, back-busting 77-lb shipping
weight, $709

Now get off your soap box. :-)

Keep in mind the CRT tube contains a vacuum, so it becomes increasingly
difficult to make high-quality, flat displays at larger sizes, due to
atmospheric pressure.

And you'd be surprised how many gamers shell out $500 for a video card, but
keep a shitty 17" monitor and onboard sound... One thing I've discovered
over the years: not everyone thinks the way you do, even if it makes a world
of sense.

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>
> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen that
> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic developers
> would want.
>
> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say about
> 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
but
> how about the standard format too?
>
> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
or
> otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
tested
> the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it doesn't
> compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like the wide
> screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard format would
be
> better for me.
>
> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Thanks for your reply and the food for thought. This is a 20" viewable -
same as my current model - I'm hoping to find something with a bigger
viewable area.

"First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aKKdnUCft6eoOc_fRVn-sQ@rogers.com...
> http://www.necdisplay.com/products [...] fication=1
>
> 22" NEC/Mitsubishi monitor, 2048x1536 @ 85 Hz, back-busting 77-lb shipping
> weight, $709
>
> Now get off your soap box. :-)
>
> Keep in mind the CRT tube contains a vacuum, so it becomes increasingly
> difficult to make high-quality, flat displays at larger sizes, due to
> atmospheric pressure.
>
> And you'd be surprised how many gamers shell out $500 for a video card,
> but
> keep a shitty 17" monitor and onboard sound... One thing I've discovered
> over the years: not everyone thinks the way you do, even if it makes a
> world
> of sense.
>
> --
> "War is the continuation of politics by other means.
> It can therefore be said that politics is war without
> bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
>
>
> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>>
>> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
>> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen
>> that
>> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
>> developers
>> would want.
>>
>> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
>> about
>> 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
>> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
> but
>> how about the standard format too?
>>
>> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
> or
>> otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
> tested
>> the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it
>> doesn't
>> compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like the wide
>> screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard format would
> be
>> better for me.
>>
>> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
>> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>>
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:44:05 -0400, "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com>
waffled on about something:

>http://www.necdisplay.com/products/ProductDetail.cfm?Product=232&ClassificationFamily=1&Classification=1
>
>22" NEC/Mitsubishi monitor, 2048x1536 @ 85 Hz, back-busting 77-lb shipping
>weight, $709
>
>Now get off your soap box. :-)
>
>Keep in mind the CRT tube contains a vacuum, so it becomes increasingly
>difficult to make high-quality, flat displays at larger sizes, due to
>atmospheric pressure.
>
>And you'd be surprised how many gamers shell out $500 for a video card, but
>keep a shitty 17" monitor and onboard sound... One thing I've discovered
>over the years: not everyone thinks the way you do, even if it makes a world
>of sense.

Nice monitor, I have owned a 19" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro for a few
years now, and it's luuurvely, as long as you don't want to carry
anywhere!

Which is why I also have a Hitachi 17" CML174SX, purely for carting
round to friends for a bit of fragging.

D0d6y.
--
MUSHROOMS ARE THE OPIATE OF THE MOOSES

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

boe wrote:

> BTW - if any of you are thinking about this model, you are correct, it
> does come close but the refresh rate is much too slow.
>
>
http://www.viewsonic.com/products/ [...] s/vp230mb/
>
> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>>
>> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
>> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen
>> that
>> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
>> developers would want.
>>
>> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
>> about 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh -
>> 8ms or
>> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
>> but how about the standard format too?
>>
>> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
>> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
>> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it
>> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
>> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>> format would be better for me.
>>
>> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
>> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.

Take a look at a Mitsubishi XC-3725C.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I'm not sure if you were joking or not but in case anyone takes this post
seriously,

This is a TV pretending to be a monitor - low refresh rate max 64kHz(it
doesn't say at what resolution) and low resolution 1280 x 1024
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news2ucqf0akn@news2.newsguy.com...
> boe wrote:
>
>> BTW - if any of you are thinking about this model, you are correct, it
>> does come close but the refresh rate is much too slow.
>>
>>
> http://www.viewsonic.com/products/ [...] s/vp230mb/
>>
>> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>>> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>>>
>>> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
>>> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen
>>> that
>>> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>>> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
>>> developers would want.
>>>
>>> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
>>> about 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh -
>>> 8ms or
>>> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
>>> but how about the standard format too?
>>>
>>> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV
>>> HDTV
>>> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
>>> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice,
>>> it
>>> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
>>> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>>> format would be better for me.
>>>
>>> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
>>> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>
> Take a look at a Mitsubishi XC-3725C.
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

boe wrote:

> I'm not sure if you were joking or not but in case anyone takes this post
> seriously,
>
> This is a TV pretending to be a monitor - low refresh rate max 64kHz(it
> doesn't say at what resolution) and low resolution 1280 x 1024

Find another 37" direct-view CRT that does 1280x1024. That's hardly a "TV
pretending to be a monitor", it's a purpose made monitor that when new cost
about ten grand and still rents out for $300/day. It's not even a product
of the consumer division of Mitsubishi, it's a product of the same division
that made all their other monitors.

And when did 1280x1024 become "low resolution"?

Sorry, but if you want a large direct-view CRT that is designed as a
computer monitor that's _it_. There was also a 34" but nobody seems to
have any of those anymore.

If you don't like your choices then the only thing you're going to be able
to do about it is build your own. If you think that there's a real market
there then get some venture capital and _fill_ it and get rich. If you
don't think there's a real market there then why would the display
manufacturers want to be bothered with a market that even you admit doesn't
exist? And if you say you don't want to be rich, that's a cop-out.

> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news2ucqf0akn@news2.newsguy.com...
>> boe wrote:
>>
>>> BTW - if any of you are thinking about this model, you are correct, it
>>> does come close but the refresh rate is much too slow.
>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.viewsonic.com/products/ [...] s/vp230mb/
>>>
>>> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>>>> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>>>>
>>>> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
>>>> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen
>>>> that
>>>> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>>>> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
>>>> developers would want.
>>>>
>>>> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
>>>> about 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh -
>>>> 8ms or
>>>> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
>>>> but how about the standard format too?
>>>>
>>>> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV
>>>> HDTV
>>>> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
>>>> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice,
>>>> it
>>>> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
>>>> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>>>> format would be better for me.
>>>>
>>>> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
>>>> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>>
>> Take a look at a Mitsubishi XC-3725C.
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I certainly have nothing against being rich although developing the
technology for such a screen is a tad out of my skill set. I do believe
the know how does exist and I do believe I'm not the only one who wants it.
Just one of my clients is a gaming company and they would order 20 if they
existed. Now not every company is in the gaming industry but I have an AV
client as well who would order these if they could. Seeing as I am just one
person with a few small accounts, I would imagine there are much bigger
companies that would like such screens as well.

I do believe that such a niche exists just as much as a niche for big screen
TVs exists although bigscreen HDTVs haven't been around 10 years ago in the
US doen't mean there wasn't a niche to be filled.

I consider anything at a size of 21" or larger only capable of 1280 as being
too low of a resolution. 1280 is fine for a 17" monitor but leaves
something to be desired on a larger screen capable of benefiting from
greater detail. A 20" high definition TV doesn't really benefit from being
high def as much as a 60".

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news2ujro1k20@news2.newsguy.com...
> boe wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if you were joking or not but in case anyone takes this post
>> seriously,
>>
>> This is a TV pretending to be a monitor - low refresh rate max 64kHz(it
>> doesn't say at what resolution) and low resolution 1280 x 1024
>
> Find another 37" direct-view CRT that does 1280x1024. That's hardly a "TV
> pretending to be a monitor", it's a purpose made monitor that when new
> cost
> about ten grand and still rents out for $300/day. It's not even a product
> of the consumer division of Mitsubishi, it's a product of the same
> division
> that made all their other monitors.
>
> And when did 1280x1024 become "low resolution"?
>
> Sorry, but if you want a large direct-view CRT that is designed as a
> computer monitor that's _it_. There was also a 34" but nobody seems to
> have any of those anymore.
>
> If you don't like your choices then the only thing you're going to be able
> to do about it is build your own. If you think that there's a real market
> there then get some venture capital and _fill_ it and get rich. If you
> don't think there's a real market there then why would the display
> manufacturers want to be bothered with a market that even you admit
> doesn't
> exist? And if you say you don't want to be rich, that's a cop-out.
>
>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news2ucqf0akn@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> boe wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW - if any of you are thinking about this model, you are correct, it
>>>> does come close but the refresh rate is much too slow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> http://www.viewsonic.com/products/ [...] s/vp230mb/
>>>>
>>>> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>>>>> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers -
>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
>>>>> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen
>>>>> that
>>>>> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>>>>> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
>>>>> developers would want.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
>>>>> about 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast
>>>>> refresh -
>>>>> 8ms or
>>>>> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are
>>>>> nice
>>>>> but how about the standard format too?
>>>>>
>>>>> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV
>>>>> HDTV
>>>>> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that
>>>>> I've
>>>>> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice,
>>>>> it
>>>>> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would
>>>>> like
>>>>> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>>>>> format would be better for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
>>>>> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>>>
>>> Take a look at a Mitsubishi XC-3725C.
>>>
>>> --
>>> --John
>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

boe wrote:

> I certainly have nothing against being rich although developing the
> technology for such a screen is a tad out of my skill set.

You don't have to develop the technology, just find out how big an order you
have to place with Sony or whoever to get them to make a tube to your
specification--you can hire designers to do the chassis design--once you've
got the costs worked up then go to the venture capitalists, place the order
etc.

The hard part is going to be convincing the venture capitalists that you can
actually sell the number of monitors you have to build to absorb the
minimum buy on the tubes at the price you need to charge to recoup the
startup costs.

> I do believe
> the know how does exist and I do believe I'm not the only one who wants
> it.

So we have two people who _say_ they want it. How much would you pay?

> Just one of my clients is a gaming company and they would order 20 if
> they
> existed.

At what price? And why would they want 20 displays that were _not_ typical
of what their customers would be using?

> Now not every company is in the gaming industry but I have an AV
> client as well who would order these if they could.

At what price? What kind of "AV" are they doing that would make it
desirable for them to use a different type of monitor from the mainstream?

> Seeing as I am just
> one person with a few small accounts, I would imagine there are much
> bigger companies that would like such screens as well.

At what price?

> I do believe that such a niche exists just as much as a niche for big
> screen TVs exists although bigscreen HDTVs haven't been around 10 years
> ago in the US doen't mean there wasn't a niche to be filled.

There was no niche for HDTVs ten years ago because there was no HDTV
content. However there were most assuredly big (measured in _feet_, not
_inches_) screen displays available that could handle HD content. Further,
those were CRTs. They cost more than a fair sized house, but they _were_
available.

> I consider anything at a size of 21" or larger only capable of 1280 as
> being
> too low of a resolution. 1280 is fine for a 17" monitor but leaves
> something to be desired on a larger screen capable of benefiting from
> greater detail. A 20" high definition TV doesn't really benefit from
> being high def as much as a 60".

Depends on how close you sit.

I'm sure that it is technologically possible to make a 1000 foot CRT with a
resolution of 4 million x 3 million. That is not why they don't exist in
the market. The reason they don't exist in the market is that the market
for them is too small for anyone to be able to manufacture them at a price
that any significant number of potential purchasers is willing to pay.

> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news2ujro1k20@news2.newsguy.com...
>> boe wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure if you were joking or not but in case anyone takes this
>>> post seriously,
>>>
>>> This is a TV pretending to be a monitor - low refresh rate max 64kHz(it
>>> doesn't say at what resolution) and low resolution 1280 x 1024
>>
>> Find another 37" direct-view CRT that does 1280x1024. That's hardly a
>> "TV pretending to be a monitor", it's a purpose made monitor that when
>> new cost
>> about ten grand and still rents out for $300/day. It's not even a
>> product of the consumer division of Mitsubishi, it's a product of the
>> same division
>> that made all their other monitors.
>>
>> And when did 1280x1024 become "low resolution"?
>>
>> Sorry, but if you want a large direct-view CRT that is designed as a
>> computer monitor that's _it_. There was also a 34" but nobody seems to
>> have any of those anymore.
>>
>> If you don't like your choices then the only thing you're going to be
>> able
>> to do about it is build your own. If you think that there's a real
>> market
>> there then get some venture capital and _fill_ it and get rich. If you
>> don't think there's a real market there then why would the display
>> manufacturers want to be bothered with a market that even you admit
>> doesn't
>> exist? And if you say you don't want to be rich, that's a cop-out.
>>
>>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news2ucqf0akn@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>> boe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BTW - if any of you are thinking about this model, you are correct, it
>>>>> does come close but the refresh rate is much too slow.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://www.viewsonic.com/products/ [...] s/vp230mb/
>>>>>
>>>>> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>>>>>> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers -
>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they
>>>>>> will replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a
>>>>>> screen that
>>>>>> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>>>>>> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
>>>>>> developers would want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
>>>>>> about 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast
>>>>>> refresh -
>>>>>> 8ms or
>>>>>> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are
>>>>>> nice
>>>>>> but how about the standard format too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV
>>>>>> HDTV
>>>>>> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that
>>>>>> I've
>>>>>> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is
>>>>>> nice, it
>>>>>> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>>>>>> format would be better for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three
>>>>>> people started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>>>>
>>>> Take a look at a Mitsubishi XC-3725C.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --John
>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)