poly: LCD and Monitors (was: Emerging technology)

At 04:01 PM 1/7/98 -0800, Damien R. Sullivan wrote:
>Apropos the monitors/LCD debate, a friend is getting a new monitor:
>
>"445Xpro: .21 dot pitch, 1800x1440 NI at 80Hz, $1400 or so (including
>shipping, which adds up for a 70lb item like this one).
>It can also do 1600x1200 at 95Hz, or 1280x1024 at 114Hz.
>
>I've heard people claim that they actually prefer 100 or 120
>to 80 (and of course find 70 totally unacceptable). I don't
>know if I believe that.

It makes a *big* difference if you use computers for many hours at a time.
The higher the refresh rate, the more hours per day you can stare at the
monitor in general. For people like me, who spend at least 10 hours a day
looking at monitors, I strongly recommend 80Hz or higher. 10 hours at 60Hz
and my vision is ruined by the end of the day (activities like reading are
difficult after this). 70Hz is a lot better, but is still hard on the eyes
after a long day. Somewhere around 90-100Hz the exact refresh rate stops
mattering for most purposes IMO.

>Maybe the LCD threat is causing change.

LCDs are good, but there are better display technologies (although not as
mature). Plasma displays, for example, are similar to LCDs, but are
brighter and don't exhibit the directional characteristics of LCDs. I
think the price drop is due primarily to the cutthroat economics of
commodity computer products. Even tiny, incremental improvements are
extremely important to manufacturers in a market where profits are razor thin.

-James Rogers
 jamesr@best.com
Received on Thu Jan 8 06:12:34 1998