Samsung 950B 19" Monitor for $184 Shipped

Dogsbody

Senior member
Aug 26, 2001
218
0
76
I've been looking for an inexpensive 19" monitor, and this looks like the best deal I've found. It's available at Buy.com for $184.02 shipped. Any better deals out there?

Samsung 950B at Buy.com
 

progex

Member
Jul 20, 2002
170
0
0
My friend has this monitor and you get what you pay for.

Although it's under $200 for a 19"... The image quality is poor and the text was often fuzzy (which is a real annoyance to most).

It lacks high refresh rates and isn't flat-screen.

Other than that, at this price, it can't be beat.
 

KF

Golden Member
Dec 3, 1999
1,371
0
0
>lacks high refresh rates and isn't flat-screen.

Max Resolution - 1600 x 1200 / 68 Hz
Max Sync Rate (V x H) - 160 Hz x 85 kHz

Seems like decent refresh rates.



 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,130
1,606
126
68hz at 1600x1200 is not good for the eyes. Would be a decent monitor if it supported at least 75hz. Still a good deal if you want an inexpensive 19in i suppose
 

GuaGua

Member
Apr 29, 2002
27
0
0
Was $155 at Dell like 2 weeks ago. thread.
I feel sorry that I didn't pull the trigger and went for the EMS deal instead (they had this for $130 with free shipping at that time), which ended up with nothing of course.
I think you can find a better one with $180+. Good luck.
 

KF

Golden Member
Dec 3, 1999
1,371
0
0
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
68hz at 1600x1200 is not good for the eyes. Would be a decent monitor if it supported at least 75hz. Still a good deal if you want an inexpensive 19in i suppose

68hz is fine for the eyes. There are probably a few freaks in the US who can see flicker at 60Hz, but very few.
1600x1200 is not so good for the eyes. The fonts are too tiny to read and too ill-defined due to the dot pitch.

The question is why anyone would try to view 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor. It wouldn't improve the detail any.

To get a sharper picture, the easiest thing to do is to lower the refresh rate. The faster the refresh rate, the more bandwidth needed, making the picture smear more. Since 60Hz is invisible, there is no reason to go any higher. Too bad it won't go lower.

If people were genuinely disturbed by flicker, and by and large they aren't, they would demand phosphors with a longer persistance, which would be far more effective than higher frame rates.
 

kenja

Senior member
Sep 19, 2001
369
0
0
" There are probably a few freaks in the US who can see flicker at 60Hz, but very few."

I guess I'm special, 'cause 60Hz f*kkin kills me!

Seriously.
 

yodayoda

Platinum Member
Jan 8, 2001
2,958
0
86
hey, with refresh rates, the higher the better. i always heard the 75 Hz was a minimum for good refresh and 85 Hz was kick ass. between 60 and 75, you take your chances especially if you play games all day or program or look for hot deals =)
 

Jugernot

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,889
0
0

68hz is fine for the eyes. There are probably a few freaks in the US who can see flicker at 60Hz, but very few.
1600x1200 is not so good for the eyes. The fonts are too tiny to read and too ill-defined due to the dot pitch.

The question is why anyone would try to view 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor. It wouldn't improve the detail any.

To get a sharper picture, the easiest thing to do is to lower the refresh rate. The faster the refresh rate, the more bandwidth needed, making the picture smear more. Since 60Hz is invisible, there is no reason to go any higher. Too bad it won't go lower.

If people were genuinely disturbed by flicker, and by and large they aren't, they would demand phosphors with a longer persistance, which would be far more effective than higher frame rates.


You have got to be joking! 60Hz is unacceptable for most users.... What are you basing your post on? I setup computer for users on a daily basis and this is definitely one of the first changes that most users ask for. The other just don't know any better and when I show them they can use higher refresh rates, they love it.

BTW, 75 Hz is definitely the lowest setting that is acceptable to me.
 

kenja

Senior member
Sep 19, 2001
369
0
0
From the top link, googled: VESA refresh rate

"An older refresh rate standard, developed by the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA Local Bus), was only 60 Hz. This refresh rate caused the display's image to flicker causing eye fatigue and headaches in users. A new standard set the refresh rate to 75 Hz. It is believed that 70 Hz or higher eliminates the flicker. When purchasing a monitor, look for a refresh rate of 75 to 85 Hz. "

I never run at less than 85 Hz. I like 100 Hz even better, but this might be somewhat psychological.

 

acenuts

Member
Dec 5, 2000
103
0
0
You must have bad eyes if you think 60 hz is decent. 60-75 hz u can definitely see it flicker. 85 hz is the standard for flicker-free and 100 is preferred for hq games.
 

KF

Golden Member
Dec 3, 1999
1,371
0
0
>You have got to be joking! 60Hz is unacceptable for most users.... What are you basing your post on?

15 years of personally staring at computer monitors and terminals.

50 years of TV.
Ever watch TV? 60Hz field, 30 Hz frame rate. People have been watching TV for 50 years, long before computers became a mass market. What consumer is demanding 85Hz to reduce eye fatigue? They aren't. They put the frame rate at 60Hz many years ago to put it well beyond perceptibility. They didn't make the rate that high because it was needed. They did it because it was convenient. It avoided a traveling ripple that would go down the screen due to the 60Hz power supply hum if the picture was not also 60Hz. ( In Europe the have 50Hz AC and 50Hz TV.) They reduced the bandwidth needed by interlacing and sending a frame (every other line) at 30Hz. By reducing the pixel rate, they doubled the sharpness of the picture for a given transmitted bandwidth.

100 years of movies.
Ever see a motion picture? 24hz frame rate. 24 Hz. Yet we are to believe 85Hz is required for computer monitors. Far from finding 24Hz intolerable, the pros are developing video recorders for film production that use 24Hz because people perceive the usual 60Hz as unpleasant and want that "film look". Geez! What about all that horrible eye fatigue that nobody can bare?!

There is no physiological phenomenon whereby subliminal flicker can cause eye fatigue. There is as much basis for the nonsense that is spred about high refresh rates as there is a scientific basis for believing Friday the thirteenth is unlucky. You can get eye fatigue from reading a book, which has no frame rate (infinite) and no flicker. (People who read often do.) Why all of sudden would people not get eye fatigue because you up the frame rate? It is superstitious nonsense.

I never saw the flicker when I used to use 800x600 and 1024x 768 on the old VGA standard 13" monitors that dropped well below 60Hz. However I could pick it up at times if I looked off to the side. It didn't bother me at all. Why would it? How could it? It disappeared when I looked at the screen. The people that it bothers are the weirdo's, the kind of people who claim their ears get sore from listening to speakers unless the frequency response goes to 30KHz (few people over 20, and no rock fans, can here past 15KHz).

(The flicker that I used to see with my eyes averted was at rate I could almost count, and must have something to do with the micro eye movements or an interaction with the visual system. I can't count to 30 in a second.)

The picture does change as the frame rate goes up. It gets brighter. That is one of those psycho-physical illusions that gives people the impression that the picture is better in an side-by-side comparison or A_B comparison. I think it is something like when you campare two sets of speaker quickly and the slightly louder set always sounds better. Salesmen use to use this trick to sell expensive HIFI stuff.

I've about had it with people who keep on repeating the superstitions and claim there is something wrong with me if I can't see it. No, there is something wrong with you when you claim to see things you really can't. The emperor has no clothes.

As I said before, a long persistance phosphor can do more than a high refresh rate ever can.

By pushing your monitor and video card to the limit, you are getting a blurier picture. No way around it. Maybe people prefer a blurier picture? Less eye fatigue, no doubt.

If you want to oberve the flicker of any monitor, even if it is doing 200 Hz, just wave your finger in front of a bright screen and you will see your finger jerking and blipping. Since you can ALWAYS SEE IT in this circumstance, why would going from 60Hz to 200Hz then reduce eye fatigue? It wouldn't. Something like this will happen when you move your eyes or your head, only your visual system processes it differently because it knows you are moving, and filters it, just as it fliters the real, non-CRT-world when you move. That is always present.

Sorry to be abrasive, but this screwy fetish with refresh rate has gone way too far. 68Hz is terrible, but 75Hz is OK? Come on!
 

kazamobah

Senior member
Aug 4, 2001
325
0
0
I have this monitor and like others said, you get what you pay for. Even with it's short comings, it is still a lot better than my old 17 inch monitor that jittered and overheated frequently.

50 years of TV.
Ever watch TV? 60Hz field, 30 Hz frame rate. People have been watching TV for 50 years, long before computers became a mass market. What consumer is demanding 85Hz to reduce eye fatigue?
I heard the flicker is not noticeable on TV because the picture is moving most of the time. I confirmed this by turning on a info channel with a still image and saw flickering.

I can see flickering on a monitor running at 60Hz right away. If I bump up the refresh rate to 70 Hz, it looks fine to me. Some people claim they can still see a flicker at 70 Hz, but I can't. So they must be crazy, right?

Every one's unique and have their own tolerance. Maybe you can't see it, but others can.
 

avacado

Junior Member
Aug 8, 2002
16
0
0
I got the 96B from Office Depot with a price match to PC Connection. Price after taxes was $177. I bought it in the store. And the manager wasnt willing to work with coupons. So you can possiblly get it cheaper online.
 

gwells

Member
Aug 6, 2002
38
0
0
sorry to say that i can see the difference too. there's a reason that monitor manuals often say that the monitor can run at higher resolution (with lower refresh rates), but they *recommend* a lower than maximum resolution (with a higher, generally 75hz) refresh rate.

remember, just because it doesn't bother you personally doesn't mean that it isn't noticable by other people. a sample of 1 is a poor sample.
 

joe678

Platinum Member
Jun 12, 2001
2,407
0
71
this monitor is great for the price...my friend has 2 of them, great quality no problems whatsoever....
 

MattyMo

Junior Member
Jan 23, 2002
3
0
0
I just got one of these from Staples about a month ago, and can't complain, it's bright, crisp and I run at 1280x1024 at 60Hz. I would run at 75Hz, but I have an older 17" Mitsubishi next to it and they are about 1 Hz off in dual display at "75Hz". Therefore, I get an annoying line moving up one of the screens, due to the mismatch. At 60 they are closer. I PM'ed from Dell to Staples, applied a 30 off 150 and ended up with it for $151 shipped to my door. I am perty darn happy! Dell's price went back up to 199, and staples went up as well, This buy.com deal, I think will make me get a matching one! (for about 155 shipped! yay!)


On the 60hz vs other debate:
Once you throw a lot of backlighting or ambient light with your computer monitors, they also run at 60Hz (in the US) and can conflict and confuse your eyes and cause some flicker. At work I have big overhead flourescents and 60Hz monitors just flicker. Blech! Also, the difference between watching TV at 60Hz and a comptuer monitor, is that a TV is usually at least 6 feet away from your eyeballs. A computer monitor is a foot or two. You go ahead and watch your tv at 2 feet away and tell me you don't get a headache!

 

Dogsbody

Senior member
Aug 26, 2001
218
0
76
Thanks for all the input. I went ahead and ordered one of these. It's for a friends system and he didn't want to spend a lot of money. It will be run at 1280x1024 @ 75 Hz, so I don't think flicker will be a problem. For the record, I do notice flicker at 60Hz. Anything @ 75 or above looks good to me though. I don't play a lot of games, if I did I might need a higher refresh rate.
 

KF

Golden Member
Dec 3, 1999
1,371
0
0
> Also, the difference between watching TV at 60Hz and a comptuer monitor, is that a TV is usually at least 6 feet away from your eyeballs. A computer monitor is a foot or two. You go ahead and watch your tv at 2 feet away and tell me you don't get a headache!

The distance would not make a difference for flicker rate. Most likely TV tubes have a longer persistance phospher than recent computer monitors. Monitor manufactures could possibly have reduced the persistance of the phosphors to avoid interference with the next frame when you go to a higher refresh rate. Having the picture still persist when the next one is being rendered would only blur and confuse the picture. The net result would be that if you go to a higher refresh rate monitor, the flicker would be more pronounced.

I can see how flickering lights could cause additional difficulties for the visual system. The lights could be lighting up while the screen is dark, and besides fading out the picture, cause a beating effect of the average brightness at a low frequency, making it difficult for your eyes to adjust. People who operate under flickering lights also have to deal with flicker even when no computer monitor is present.

I arrange the lighting so that it does not illuminate the face of the monitor directlly. I don't see how people can stand it if they do otherwise.

I usually view TV on a 30 year old 7 inch black and white portable. I view it from about 18". Otherwise I can't make anything out. I don't get headaches from TV. Why would I? Probably no one in the US does. (While I don't get headaches from TV, I do get sick to my stomach. It happens when Peter Jennings or Dan Rather show up. )

BTW, I do see flicker on my monitor under the following circumstances: The monitor is very bright, with a lot of white background, and I do not focus on the monitor, as when if I look away from it, or I stare past it, unfocused, as if looking into the distance. It is intermitant, but I would guestimate the rate at about 3Hz. It is still present when I bump up the refresh rate from the normal 60Hz I set it at. It disappears when I focus on something on the screen. It is not annoying or distracting, and causes no discomfort or fatigue whatever. I am so used to it I barely know it exists. That is they way it is for almost 100% of the population. They say if you go to Europe and watch their 50Hz TV, it seems to flicker until you get used to it.

The actual function of the frame rate is to fuse separate pictures into the percption of continuous motion, and that happens at 15Hz. But at 15Hz people still experience flicker. It didn't bother anyone when the movies were 16fps, but it did get movies the nickname of "flickers". So the movies boosted the frame rate to 24, at the same time they went to talkies, at which rate there is no perception of flicker. Just because there is no flicker, does not mean people cannot see the effect of higher frame rates. They can, and easily. The difference between 30 and 24 causes a definate increase in the "realness" of the appearance, and this increases well beyond 30 fps. However people dislike that effect. They do not like paying for movies and have it look like TV.


 

In_Ur_Face

Member
Oct 10, 1999
184
0
0
180!!!! though Dell; 15% off and free shipping!!1

Sub-total $198.95

Discounts -$29.84

Shipping1 $35.00

Shipping
Discount1 -$35.00

Tax1 $11.84

Total Price1 $180.95
 

KF

Golden Member
Dec 3, 1999
1,371
0
0
> can see flickering on a monitor running at 60Hz right away. If I bump up the refresh rate to 70 Hz, it looks fine to me. Some people claim they can >still see a flicker at 70 Hz, but I can't. So they must be crazy, right?
>
>Every one's unique and have their own tolerance. Maybe you can't see it, but others can.

Am I crazy because I spoke up for a change, instead of just lurking while the perceptual elite escalate their claims ever more ridiculously?

Suppose I see flicker. Does it mean my eyes get fatigued? Does everything you can possibly detect cause eye fatigue? Why would it?

I once worked with a person who would only watch black and white TV. She said color TV hurt her eyes. Her eyes would get sore. In view of this, maybe everyone in the US ought to switch to black and white monitors because it hurts their eyes. Maybe VESA, or whatever standards organization, should issue a standard demanding that all monitors should henceforth be black and white. Color hurts your eyes. Who wants to hurt their eyes?

But... but... People have been watching color TV for 40 years... Color movies used to be a great attraction for the movies before color TV. People loved it.

Doesn't mean a thing. People look at TV from 6 feet away; movies even further. Computer monitors are much closer. Color hurts your eyes. If your eyes were any good, color would hurt your eyes too, so STFU.

I am looking at my monitor right now. I definately see color. D*mn. My eyes must be getting sore. Why didn't anybody tell me! I would have gotten a B&W monitor.

Since this refresh rate stuff got to be a huge thing (at least a couple of years) I set my monitor down to 60 instead of letting Win98se set it where ever it wanted. I wanted check it out myself to see what the effect would be. The effect is nothing.

This video card doesn't go below 60Hz, but I have an ATI card in a computer downstairs that can, so I fired it up yesterday to try it. I tried 56Hz. I tried 47Hz interlaced. I tried 43Hz interlaced. No flicker. Too bad it doesn't mean anything. My eyes are probably getting fatigued even though I don't know it.



 

Synnyster

Member
Jul 30, 2002
49
0
0
I'm gonna have to agree with KF. I've never had a problem with refresh rates. All my monitors have a 60Hz refresh rate. I have a Compaq P900 at 1600X1200 that can go as high as 85Hz. I've fiddled with the settings and if I go higher than 60Hz the text actually gets fuzzier! This refresh rate thing is just like frames per second for your vid card. After a certain point, your eye just can't tell. So don't buy into the hype.
 

gwells

Member
Aug 6, 2002
38
0
0
i guess we'll have to agree to disagree. some of us can see it, others can't. if it doesn't bother you, that's great. i'm not gonna change your mind and you're not gonna change mine. you can get away with less expensive monitors. for those of us who flicker rate does bother, higher refresh rates make a difference. espcecially when dealing with times when there are large areas of white space (like word processing or page layout screens). c'est la vie.
 

KF

Golden Member
Dec 3, 1999
1,371
0
0
>remember, just because it doesn't bother you personally doesn't mean that it isn't noticable by other people. a sample of 1 is a poor sample.
I agree that some things bother other people that don't bother me. There are things about monitors that bother me. Refresh rate is not one of them. They could set it down to 45 for all I care.

I usually just let this stuff go. Its like watching people discuss bio-rythms and weegee boards. But yesterday I got a bug up my butt.


> there's a reason that monitor manuals often say that the monitor can run at higher resolution (with lower refresh rates), but they *recommend* a lower than maximum resolution (with a higher, generally 75hz) refresh rate.

Yes there is. It is because when you set the pixel density higher than the dot pitch, the effect is counter-productive. Usually the monitor manufacturers will include a resolution over the visual limitations because it impresses people. Remember, it takes a group of three phosphors to produce one full color pixel, and the pixels are not coincident with the phosphor group to start with. Thus you can get some groups of three illuminated partly by one pixel and partly by another. When you approach the dot pitch, this will be as often true as not.

Whenever you set your monitor to its limits, you are pushing the bandwidth limitations, and making the picture blury. Blury is usually bad, but not always. It can be like anti-aliasing. Some people prefer blurry, especally for photos. Others demand square, perfectly defined edges on their pixels, as the only truely correct rendition, regardless of how rotten it looks. When it gets blury enough, you no longer see the scan lines; they blend together. Maybe it is this lack of scan lines which people prefer, and may reduce eye fatigue. Maybe the average person with poor focus doesn't see the lines and doesn't get fatigue.

 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |