Where is Dells 22" ultrasharp?

[imported_elwood]

I could've sworn Dell used to sell a 22" ultrasharp? Whats the deal? Did they discontinue it or they never had one?

22" is the most common size LCD monitor at the moment, isnt it? Anyone have any idea why Dell doesnt have a 22" ultrasharp?

 

[intogamer]

22" are kinda the value size for LCDs

 

[mercanucaribe]

22" LCDs suck. They're TN, and 6 bit color.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
22" LCDs suck. They're TN, and 6 bit color.

you're being too nice LCD's in general suck. I find TN's to be about the same as better ones. I had a Gateway 24" and my GF has a Westinghouse 22" I honestly couldn't stand either.

I'd rather get a 22" and save a lot of money over a 24" which will only look slightly better and cost A LOT more.

I recently bought 3 21" CRT's for $20 bucks each, so hopefully I'll never have to touch another LCD again

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: QueBert
I recently bought 3 21" CRT's for $20 bucks each, so hopefully I'll never have to touch another LCD again

HA! I love hearing about short sighted stupidity. Your CRTs have a "quality" lifetime of 3-4 years depending on use. You may want to spend some time reading about the future of display technologies.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: QueBert
I recently bought 3 21" CRT's for $20 bucks each, so hopefully I'll never have to touch another LCD again

HA! I love hearing about short sighted stupidity. Your CRTs have a "quality" lifetime of 3-4 years depending on use. You may want to spend some time reading about the future of display technologies.

huh? my 15" CRT I had when I was a teen lasted me 6 years. I had a 17" that lasted close to 8. These 21"'s I bought were new in the box, so even if I only get 4 years out of them, that's 12 years. The future stuff sounds great, OLED comes to mind, but until I can get something that displays accurate colors (LCD's dont) has good blacks, and I can run in any resolution I please with no side effects. I see no reason to downgrade from CRT to LCD. The space saving thing means nothing to me

as for the energy you save, I figured since my LCD was close to $700 out the door and my CRT's were $20 each, I could never possibly save any money on energy.

I will upgrade when there's a new monitor technology out that bests CRT's in the fields I'm concerned with.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: QueBert
I recently bought 3 21" CRT's for $20 bucks each, so hopefully I'll never have to touch another LCD again

HA! I love hearing about short sighted stupidity. Your CRTs have a "quality" lifetime of 3-4 years depending on use. You may want to spend some time reading about the future of display technologies.

huh? my 15" CRT I had when I was a teen lasted me 6 years. I had a 17" that lasted close to 8. These 21"'s I bought were new in the box, so even if I only get 4 years out of them, that's 12 years. The future stuff sounds great, OLED comes to mind, but until I can get something that displays accurate colors (LCD's dont) has good blacks, and I can run in any resolution I please with no side effects. I see no reason to downgrade from CRT to LCD. The space saving thing means nothing to me

as for the energy you save, I figured since my LCD was close to $700 out the door and my CRT's were $20 each, I could never possibly save any money on energy.

I will upgrade when there's a new monitor technology out that bests CRT's in the fields I'm concerned with.

Read my post. I bolded the important part.

 

[LS20]

LCDs bested CRTs YEARS ago

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: QueBert
I recently bought 3 21" CRT's for $20 bucks each, so hopefully I'll never have to touch another LCD again

HA! I love hearing about short sighted stupidity. Your CRTs have a "quality" lifetime of 3-4 years depending on use. You may want to spend some time reading about the future of display technologies.

huh? my 15" CRT I had when I was a teen lasted me 6 years. I had a 17" that lasted close to 8. These 21"'s I bought were new in the box, so even if I only get 4 years out of them, that's 12 years. The future stuff sounds great, OLED comes to mind, but until I can get something that displays accurate colors (LCD's dont) has good blacks, and I can run in any resolution I please with no side effects. I see no reason to downgrade from CRT to LCD. The space saving thing means nothing to me

as for the energy you save, I figured since my LCD was close to $700 out the door and my CRT's were $20 each, I could never possibly save any money on energy.

I will upgrade when there's a new monitor technology out that bests CRT's in the fields I'm concerned with.

Your CRTs dont get darker? The CRTs i use to own always got darker after about 3-4 years to the point where watching movies or playing games on it sucked. and how about pics of your set up.

 

[Duddy]

I can't look at a CRT for 2 minutes before my eyes start to water up and turn red.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: QueBert
I recently bought 3 21" CRT's for $20 bucks each, so hopefully I'll never have to touch another LCD again

HA! I love hearing about short sighted stupidity. Your CRTs have a "quality" lifetime of 3-4 years depending on use. You may want to spend some time reading about the future of display technologies.

You might be stupid too. Those lifetime specs are usually based on 8-12hours per day. Hardly the usage a home monitor sees. Still that is usually the half brightness mark and as long as you didn't overboost it you should be able to up the brightness and get another 3-4 years out of it easy.

I have a really deep desk and a 21" Sony GDM-500 series monitor, I bought an identical one for my office even though they supply 21" LCD's.

The color and resolution (1600x1200) on the Sony is untouchable. Plus when I am coding an application I can test various screen resolutions and have them non-fuzzy.

For most though the LCD is the smarter choice.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
22" LCDs suck. They're TN, and 6 bit color.

you're being too nice LCD's in general suck. I find TN's to be about the same as better ones. I had a Gateway 24" and my GF has a Westinghouse 22" I honestly couldn't stand either.

I'd rather get a 22" and save a lot of money over a 24" which will only look slightly better and cost A LOT more.

I recently bought 3 21" CRT's for $20 bucks each, so hopefully I'll never have to touch another LCD again

The only thing I don't like about my 24" Dell is the matte coating- I'd rather have the "glossy" stuff. What did you not like about your Gateway??

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
The only thing I don't like about my 24" Dell is the matte coating- I'd rather have the "glossy" stuff. What did you not like about your Gateway??

The glossy is VERY sexay at a glance, but in my room, it is a nightmare. When I still had my CRT, I had to turn the desk to face perpendicular to the wall so that the room lamp, windows, reflections wouldn't make me go blind. Before I did that, I used a cardboard sheet as a 'hood'; only covered half the screen and fell off all the time...what a nightmare that was for 5+ years... Recently saw a 22" HP with glossy screen at Costco, looked amazing! But right then and there, the glare was already present. The anti-glare coating is kinda weird looking on my 2407 if I focus on it, but I'll take it any day over glossy.

As for CRTs themselves, I can't stand them anymore. My college labs use them and my eyes start burning after twenty or so minutes. It doesn't help that the chairs are tied down so I have to sit up close. And let's not forget the 'tards that like messing with the screen settings...

 

[Bateluer]

I have a hard time using CRTs after using LCDs for years now. So much easier on the eyes. Fortunately, we just replaced all our CRTs at work with LCDs. Unfortunately, the local college hasn't replaced all their displays with LCDs yet.

 

[alkemyst]

proper refresh rate is needed on a CRT...I run 85Hz+. At 60-75Hz is where many get fatigue.

I code at 1600x1200 all day sometimes....then come home to the same monitor for a few hours here. My eyes are fine.

I am interested in either a 24" Widescreen CRT or LCD though as I would like a bigger monitor than 21"

 

[QueBert]

I wonder about people who say CRT's are harder on their eyes, I ran my 24" LCD next to this 21" CRT I just got, and except for brightness the CRT was much sharper looking, text wasn't quite as good but everything else was so much better looking it wasn't even fair. I guess some people like the over brightness of an LCD? But I prefer the lower brightness of my CRT looks far more natural *shrug*

And just in case the CRT's I bought last week don't all work, or all last I picked up 2 more @ $20 each. 5 monitors for 100 bucks. Don't care they're not the latest technology

Vinyl isn't either but it still sounds better than CD's

 

[vadp]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
proper refresh rate is needed on a CRT...I run 85Hz+. At 60-75Hz is where many get fatigue.

85 Hz refresh helps but still, LCD's are so much easier on eyes regardless of the refresh rate.
You might think otherwise but 99.9% of users will NEVER go back to CRTs.
Are you trying to prove something?

 

[vadp]

Originally posted by: QueBert
Vinyl isn't either but it still sounds better than CD's

Yea, sure! LOL

 

[xtknight]

They used to have the E227WFP (based on Chi Mei Optoelectronics 22")...looks like it's a goner. It wasn't very good anyway, though. It was never an UltraSharp. It was part of their value line, I believe.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: vadp

Originally posted by: alkemyst
proper refresh rate is needed on a CRT...I run 85Hz+. At 60-75Hz is where many get fatigue.

85 Hz refresh helps but still, LCD's are so much easier on eyes regardless of the refresh rate.
You might think otherwise but 99.9% of users will NEVER go back to CRTs.
Are you trying to prove something?

I don't agree, I've used plenty and even at the lowest settings LCD's are way too bright for my liking. My eyes are much more bothered by brightness then refresh rates. Of course not everyone is the same, personally I will never touch another LCD unless it's at work, side by side I know my CRT has a far better picture isn't IQ what it's all about?

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: vadp

Originally posted by: alkemyst
proper refresh rate is needed on a CRT...I run 85Hz+. At 60-75Hz is where many get fatigue.

85 Hz refresh helps but still, LCD's are so much easier on eyes regardless of the refresh rate.
You might think otherwise but 99.9% of users will NEVER go back to CRTs.
Are you trying to prove something?

I don't agree, I've used plenty and even at the lowest settings LCD's are way too bright for my liking. My eyes are much more bothered by brightness then refresh rates. Of course not everyone is the same, personally I will never touch another LCD unless it's at work, side by side I know my CRT has a far better picture isn't IQ what it's all about?

I'm the same way. Brightness hurts my eyes much more than CRT refresh rate, and at 100hz on my 22", I'm not having any problems with my eyes.

I still can't stand all but the best of LCDs, and by the time I'm looking at those, the price is too high for my taste. Thankfully, prices are going down, so maybe sometime soon I can pick up a good one and replace my 2nd CRT for dual monitor goodness.

 

[QueBert]

I wouldn't mind having an LCD for a 2nd monitor, but it would always be just that a 2nd monitor, I don't care if I fall into the .1% of people who went LCD and ran back to CRT. I would actually even put up with some slight eye strain to get the superior IQ. Lucky for me I can sit infront of my PC for 10 hours with a few short breaks and my eyes don't even start to bother me *shrug*

Now I just gotta come up with 300 bucks so I can order me a Sony 24" Widescreen CRT, I will truly be in Heaven then!

 

[endrithius]

Vinyl isn't either but it still sounds better than CD's

Vinyl = crackly noisy sound. However true analogue is what they have that cd's dont.

Nyquist theory states that in order to accurately reproduce the sound you're recording you must use at least 2x the highest frequency - most people can only hear around 20khz so they use 44.1 on cds and other standard digital media - the thought being that obviously thats more than 20khz so it will capture all the sound. Unfortunately this is not true. Hence why I record at AT LEAST 96k or 192k. The words "mirror image" come to mind. Much clearer and cleaner than vinyl.


While I agree that analogue is still the best - 99.9% of all people will not hear a difference. And even less will have the opportunity to hear better due to their equipment/listening environment.

If this is a forum to learn from - lets keep it to factual information vs opinions.

 

[QueBert]

ok, allow me to rephrase what I said, Vinyl has a more natural sound where digital (CD) sounds flat and compressed. My ears are far from that of an audiophile but when I throw a jazz record on my turntable the sound is different than a CD.

guess it's like CRT vs LCD, some love one some love the other. But I believe anyone with ears could hear a difference between vinyl and cd's on a decent system. Which they preferred would be a toss up. I'd imagine the ones who picked CD's over Vinyl would be the same who claim LCD is superior to CRT

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: endrithius

Vinyl isn't either but it still sounds better than CD's

Vinyl = crackly noisy sound. However true analogue is what they have that cd's dont.

Nyquist theory states that in order to accurately reproduce the sound you're recording you must use at least 2x the highest frequency - most people can only hear around 20khz so they use 44.1 on cds and other standard digital media - the thought being that obviously thats more than 20khz so it will capture all the sound. Unfortunately this is not true. Hence why I record at AT LEAST 96k or 192k. The words "mirror image" come to mind. Much clearer and cleaner than vinyl.


While I agree that analogue is still the best - 99.9% of all people will not hear a difference. And even less will have the opportunity to hear better due to their equipment/listening environment.

If this is a forum to learn from - lets keep it to factual information vs opinions.

It's just most CD's are over compressed and normalized. Blue Note has some CD's that really shine and sound way better than analog.

The thing of why people tout analog isn't so much that it's better anymore, it's just the selections they want are not available in any decent package.