Do all 19" 8ms sub-$300 lcds suck?

[dr.kevin]

despite all the positive newegg user reviews, it seems like all 19" 8ms lcd's suck. They all say "good picture, etc etc", but they have sucky viewing angles and other things

Does anyone own a 19" jack-of-all-trades lcd with dvi at this price range?

 

[Lt.Doomsday]

Staples

Acer AL1916

$250 bucks but after rebates total price came to $199.

 

[TheGoat Eater]

No the Viewsonic VA1912wb is an amazing gaming widescreen monitor it - it looks good in games and is cheap - like $269 at the egg. All I can say is BF2 looked great on it - but now I stepped up to a 21" widescreen Samsung (215tw) same panel as the Gateway WS.

 

[catalyst11]

Staples Acer AL1916 $250 bucks but after rebates total price came to $199.

It should be $150 after EZ Rebate with the 12% Customer Appreciation Coupon and $30 off $150 Instore Coupon. I bought 2, neither are for me, although I'm using one right now. It looks good to me but this is my first LCD. I had a 19" CRT but then recently ordered a Dell 5150 w/2007WFP. I decided to sell the 2007WFP before I even opened it and am getting a 1907FP. I'm hoping the 1907FP is at least as good as this Acer because I really like it. I had to have the monitor match the system, that's why I didn't just buy a couple Acer's for myself and run duals.

D

 

[JAW]

Couldn't find it on their website, any chance you could PM me with the details on that deal?

 

[Rogue4mula]

No the Viewsonic VA1912wb is an amazing gaming widescreen monitor it - it looks good in games and is cheap - like $269 at the egg. All I can say is BF2 looked great on it - but now I stepped up to a 21" widescreen Samsung (215tw) same panel as the Gateway WS.

I have this same monitor at work... the colors are definately not impressive. But, you get what you pay for.

 

[dr.kevin]

the colors are definately not impressive.

exactly my point.

these monitors I'm talking about once had a $500 price tag when they first came out.
I would think that this price would command high quality, but they only do one thing well e.g playing games while sitting directly in front of screen. But try to play a movie, and the quality sucks.

all these 19" lcd's can't seem to do more than one thing well.

 

[Flying Fox]

I am blaming this sad state of LCD affairs on the gamers who just want "fast response!", "low ms!", and drive the manufacturers to just boost that side of the equation and cut every other corner. Between 6-bit colour, viewing angles and backlight issues, I really wonder if there are really that many gamers that use LCDs, compared to the general public, who can benefit more from better colour and viewing angles?

Same deal with the GHz war.

 

[Eagle156]

I don't understand why people care about viewing angles so much. Do you jump up and down in your chair and then run around the room with your wireless mouse to check email? It's a computer monitor not a TV.

 

[KoMiT]

I don't understand why people care about viewing angles so much. Do you jump up and down in your chair and then run around the room with your wireless mouse to check email? It's a computer monitor not a TV.

True that.

 

[Snowdog]

I don't understand why people care about viewing angles so much. Do you jump up and down in your chair and then run around the room with your wireless mouse to check email? It's a computer monitor not a TV.

With a widescreen you don't even have to move and viewing angles become an issue. They were really bad on my Dell 2405. That was one of the main reasons I sold it.

The viewing angles were so bad, each eye would see a different level of brightness on the sides of the screen. This makes a strange glare/phony 3d effect.

I think a better title might be. Do all LCDs suck?

I am looking into an IPS screen next because the have the best viewing angles and if that doesn't work out, I will get a new CRT.

 

[dr.kevin]

what about lcd tv's?
don't they require high response times and wide viewing angles?

is a 17" lcd tv panel superior to a 17" computer lcd?

 

[Martel]

I am blaming this sad state of LCD affairs on the gamers who just want "fast response!", "low ms!", and drive the manufacturers to just boost that side of the equation and cut every other corner. Between 6-bit colour, viewing angles and backlight issues, I really wonder if there are really that many gamers that use LCDs, compared to the general public, who can benefit more from better colour and viewing angles?

Same deal with the GHz war.

QFT.

I was looking to get a 19inch LCD, but after looking around I've decided to go for a lower end 20 inch. For around the same money as a 1280x1024, 6bit TN 19 inch with overdrive problems and a 2-4ms response I can get a 20 inch MVA panel with 8bit colour, 1680x1050 resolution and a slightly slower 8ms response time.

The age of the all around 19 inch is dead, whilst larger panels still focus on the more balanced user. The larger models may be safe for a while, as the millisecond fiends aren't gonna wanna play at the lower fps that a high res would cause.

 

[Flying Fox]

I was looking to get a 19inch LCD, but after looking around I've decided to go for a lower end 20 inch. For around the same money as a 1280x1024, 6bit TN 19 inch with overdrive problems and a 2-4ms response I can get a 20 inch MVA panel with 8bit colour, 1680x1050 resolution and a slightly slower 8ms response time.

The age of the all around 19 inch is dead, whilst larger panels still focus on the more balanced user. The larger models may be safe for a while, as the millisecond fiends aren't gonna wanna play at the lower fps that a high res would cause.

Not anymore. Look at the flood of posts about the Dell 2007s (FP and WFP).

 

[Martel]

Not anymore. Look at the flood of posts about the Dell 2007s (FP and WFP).

That's just a f*** up, I wouldn't put that down to it being a gamers (or otherwise focused) monitor. If I was selling to gamers I wouldn't advertise the 16ms response time for black to white, GtG would make the numbers far more appealing.