Cheapest 19" Lcd 16ms only 279!!!!

S

Spike

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 7, 2004
Messages
350
Wow what a deal!!! i myself have the 19"acer and its a great monitor any way you look at it but for the price thisone looks even better. it has a 16ms response time and after a $50 rebait it is only 279!!! you can find it here.
 
Tiger has a real bad track record for honoring rebates. Still a good price though.
 
Me and one of my friends have both bought tons of stuff from tigerdirect and never had any trouble with them. i havent bought anything with a rebate yet so i wouldnt know about that part but ive only had good experiances with them... my only qualm with them so far is their shipping costs a ton unless you live around florida.
 
the diagonal screen size should be 19" if it says 19" (unlike these darn wireless routers, 54 Mbps my ass, that is false advertising, bastards) So at least the advertised screen size is the actual screen size (same goes for these dam hard drives too!, false advertisng)
 
also anyone have any pics of the acer 19" like on a desk or something
 
This one looks really nice on paper.
170 view angle, 700:1 contrast.

Anyone here ever seen or used one of these?
 
I don't know about that brand but I have the Acer 1912b and it's awesome! Bright, automatic auto-adjust (you do not have to press the button), fast response time and great build quality. Only bad thing is no DVI, but it doesn't bother me that much for the price. I got it for $320, shipped from "the egg."

As for the rebate, I'm 1 for 2 from tigerdirect so far. Got my $50 rebate for the 17" Adveau LCD monitor but still waiting for my $50 rebate from Seagate. Checked online and it said, "Your rebate is valid. Please allow up to 30 days to receive your rebate" with "Check Issue Date: 01-20-2005." I'm hoping to get it sometime next week. Good luck everyone.
 
I just received a $100 rebate for the Asus A8V Deluxe and AMD 64 2400+ combo at Halloween. They sent the rebate, it just took awhile.
 
I have the Acer one you asked about.

Excellent monitor. I have no complaints and haven't noticed any ghosting. I play Counterstrike regularly and love to watch ma DVDs on that baby!
 
Can ya show me a pic of your lcd on your desktop or next to something for scale.... and see how they look
thanks
chad
 
Like some of you mentioned I am also looking at that Acer 19 inch flat LCD monitor at the Egg and I'm a newb when it comes to Monitors so what is DVI and why is it bad that the Acer does not have it? BTW I game if it matters.
 
Cryphy said:
What about ths one, im looking for a good 19" cheap as possible, around 300
is this bezel 19" and the lcd 17.9 or what
i know on crts thats how it is
but everywheres says 19" viewable
hmm
ACER AL1912b
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-009-022&depa=0
Click to expand...

Actually what they refer to on CRT's is that the TUBE is 19", however the actual viewable area is only 17 Inches usually. That said, all LCD's advertise sizes that are equivablent to what the viewing size is, since a 19"panel has a 19" viewable area, and doesn't have the issues CRT's have.
 
Cryphy said:
also anyone have any pics of the acer 19" like on a desk or something
Click to expand...
I am using the acer rite now. Its a great monitor i play lots of games (Doom 3, Hl2, Farcry, and Ut2k4 All max specs) I have had no ghosting or visual tearing what so ever. I sadly dont have a digital camera but ill see if one of my friends can come over wednesday with his.
 
Elijah said:
the diagonal screen size should be 19" if it says 19" (unlike these darn wireless routers, 54 Mbps my ass, that is false advertising, bastards) So at least the advertised screen size is the actual screen size (same goes for these dam hard drives too!, false advertisng)
Click to expand...

Remember on networking equipment that you get 1/8th th theoretical max in everyday use so 54*0.125=6.75mb, which while more than enough for internet/gaming use suxors for file transfer.
 
Warriorprophet said:
Remember on networking equipment that you get 1/8th the theoretical max.
Click to expand...

Say what?

netxfer-ftp-001.gif
 
Wow a lot of misinformation here.

Ok, first off on the monitor size thing. Its diagnol size, from one corner to the other corner. LCD is always going to appear larger than the CRT. On CRT you typically subtract 1" (not 2") from the size. So a 19" monitor will typically have 18" or 18.1" viewable. And thats shown in the advertisement. This is because (as previously mentioned) the actual TUBE is 19" but the casing around it to hold the tube has to cover part of it up. On an LCD if you get 19" its actually 19" viewable. So for instance, a 17" monitor might be 15.9" or 16.1" viewable, but a 15" LCD has all 15" viewable. So a typical LCD will have 1" inch viewable than the same size advertised CRT. So this 19" LCD will be even larger viewable area than a 19" crt monitor.

Next: wireless network speeds.
an 802.11b network with theoretical 11mbps speeds, hits about 6mbps on average. Note that network speeds are quoted in bits per second, not bytes. So if you want mega BYTES, divide by 8. A normal 802.11g network with theoretical 54mbps speeds has up to around 30mbps max sustained throughput. A speedboosted one (they used to say its theoretically 108mbps, but now they dont say much about theoretical on speedboosted stuff) has about 45mbps max sustained. There's tests on the internet that show this, for example a detailed comparison was run on toms hardware on one of thier wireless articles about the linksys wrt54gs and stuff.
Now with a wired network on 10/100 cards, you really should get pretty close to 100mbps max. If its a good quality brand that didn't cheap out on the components, and if you have good wire, and if you have good enough computer components (hard drive/cpu, etc) to keep up with that speed. 100 divided by 8 is 12.5 megabytes/sec. The latest fastest SATA 74 gig raptor has from about 50 megabytes/sec up to about 70 megs/sec (depends if you are on outer or inner tracks). So that could easily handle it.
But if you are still running the WD1200JB (the 8 meg cache western digital 120 gig) drives, like I am, those rates are more like 13 megs-14 megs sustained which would have a much tougher time of keeping up with that top speed of network card.
Here's a few links to check out about tested hard drive speeds
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200201/20020124WD1200JB_2.html
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200407/20040729revisit_2.html

Finally hard drives. All manufactures say on the box, gigabyte is counted as 1,000,000,000 bytes. That number is EXACTLY 1 billion, or 10^9. They say it on thier website with the specs. If you look at most advertisements like dell catalog you will find it there. Its no secret how they count the hard drive space. Its not false advertising since they almost always clearly say how they count megs or gigs. I think there was a class action lawsuit about this a number of years ago, same as there was with complaints about 19" CRT monitors not showing the full 19" viewable so now all monitors state the viewable size if its smaller in the ads.

However, traditionally, all operating systems and most other storage devices (like RAM0 are more properly counted in powers of 2. You buy half a meg of memory and its 512 megs. 512 is 2^9 or 1 gig is 1024 megs, 2^10. One kbyte is 1024, one megabyte is 1024x1024, one gigabyte is 1024^3. So in reality you'd need 1,073,741,824 bytes to make up what is a "true" gigabyte. Its roughly 7% differance. So on a 100 gig drive, you have about 7% less, or 7 gigs less than the "true" method of counting bytes. Note that this doesn't count the overheard from formatting, so it might be a little larger differance after you finish formatting.

I've gotten into arguments before with computer science professors about how large a kbyte is. Its not 1000 bytes, its 1024 bytes, at least traditionally.

Anyway, hopefully that clears up some of the things people have mentioned :)
 
kleptophobiac said:
Say what?

[IMhttp://www.mstcforum.com/uploads/images/netxfer-ftp-001.gif[/IM
Click to expand...

"network utilization" is computed by checking the amount of time that your network connection is idle [1-(% of idle time)]. Meaning, how much usable bandwidth is wasted because there's nothing to send. Note the "usable bandwidth", this factors out protocol and link overhead. Thus, you can get 100% utilization, but you're not going to see anywhere near 100 mbps on the connection.

That said, the usable bandwidth on an ethernet link is nowhere near 1/8th. IIRC, if you're getting around 80-90% of the theoretical max, you're right about where you should be.
 
Devistater said:
. . . I've gotten into arguments before with computer science professors about how large a kbyte is. Its not 1000 bytes, its 1024 bytes, at least traditionally.

Anyway, hopefully that clears up some of the things people have mentioned :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, except the 1024 bytes thing being 1 Kilobyte - kinda' fubar's the metric thing altogether. Hehe - been dealing with that since I got my first "1 Gig" Monster Hard Drive from CDC for about 2 grand in the 80's. Damn - starting to be a while back now. Am I remembering correctly? Hehehe
 
This is why OSes and apps need to use GiB and MiB and KiB instead of GB and MB and KB. Would help clarify things...
 
Sandman said:
That said, the usable bandwidth on an ethernet link is nowhere near 1/8th. IIRC, if you're getting around 80-90% of the theoretical max, you're right about where you should be.
Click to expand...

I also included the actual transfer rate to point out that I was getting 11.1 MB/s which is 88% of theoretical speed.

He made the comment as if it applied to all networking equipment, so I just posted the picture to point out the validity of such a blanket statement.
 
>>so is this a good monitor?

It seems like a pretty decent model, and at this price, even without the rebate factored in, its a tempting deal. I was looking at buying a new flatpanel sometime soon and this may just be the deal I wasn't expecting to find.

Has anyone ordered one? I'd love to see a picture of an actual unit instead of just the product pics on the website.
 
The LCD only has VGA which is a MAJOR bummer especially for 19". I guess you get what you pay for.
 
I have used sceptre monitors before and they are not particularly good in my experience. Of the 3 that I have used, 2 had problems with inconsistent colors (especially darks) near the edges. Also, it was hard to get their color to look good, despite time spent with manual adjustments.
 
I've gotten into arguments before with computer science professors about how large a kbyte is. Its not 1000 bytes, its 1024 bytes, at least traditionally.
Click to expand...
That goes to show you the dangers of arguing language with anyone, especially professors. When I was in graduate school (c. 1980s), a KByte was 1024 bytes, and a kbyte was 1000 bytes. That distinction, while esthetically pleasing, didn't hold up well against case-changing programs and careless proofreaders.

I've heard people argue that kbytes meant 1024 and kilobytes 1000...and I've heard people argue just the opposite. I've heard people argue that a Megabyte was 1,048,576 bytes, but a Megabit was 1,000,000 bits....a distinction that seems even more prone to error and confusion.

Language is a tricky, evolving creature, and making absolute unequivocal statements about meaning and semantics is rarely possible. As important as differentiating between 1000 and 1024 is on technical terms, the linguistic troubles of having the "kilo" prefix change meaning by context will, I believe, eventually outweight it. So I'd bet that forty years from now, a kilobyte will be 1000 bytes in everyone's dictionary. And 1024 bytes? It'll be a different term entirely.
 
masher said:
So I'd bet that forty years from now, a kilobyte will be 1000 bytes in everyone's dictionary. And 1024 bytes? It'll be a different term entirely.
Click to expand...
There are moves to do something like that. I think they want to call 1024 a kibibyte or some such. I dont recall the exact terms but there's a small minority that wants to do that. But I think its going to be like the metric system, there's been numerous attempts to move the USA into metric and all have failed.
 
Anybody have any opinions of the quality of some of the other brands that they have? With the $50 rebate some of the other 19" LCDs are still very tempting, and the Famous Brand has DVI.
 
I checked out to see what I could find about this panel on other websites, and pricegrabber.com seems to firmly believe it's a 25 ms panel. The fact that you can't find much about it on too many websites makes me wonder about it.

I'm very tempted but also very skeptical. I don't think I'll get this one just because of the lack of people who have one / have even heard of the company.
 
I got this monitor from New Egg 2 weeks ago. Excellent monitor. No dead pixels and/or ghosting. :cool:
 
Devistater said:
100 divided by 8 is 12.5 megabytes/sec. The latest fastest SATA 74 gig raptor has from about 50 megabytes/sec up to about 70 megs/sec (depends if you are on outer or inner tracks). So that could easily handle it.
But if you are still running the WD1200JB (the 8 meg cache western digital 120 gig) drives, like I am, those rates are more like 13 megs-14 megs sustained which would have a much tougher time of keeping up with that top speed of network card.
Here's a few links to check out about tested hard drive speeds
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200201/20020124WD1200JB_2.html
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200407/20040729revisit_2.html
Click to expand...

I don't believe this was mentioned yet, but you did a nice job correcting a lot of misinformation, but any recent 7200 rpm drive should sustain transfer rates far above 14megs, double that number and it should still be on the low side! I think you would need to look at 5400 rpm drives to find anything that would even begin to struggle with with keeping a 100 meg ethernet transfer maxed. You're right on with everything else though! :cool:
 
I broke down and ordered one of these late last week and it is on its way to me as I type this.

I've never owned a Sceptre monitor before but a few of my friends have in the past. Their experiences have been about average, which is to say, they didn't have any problems but it wasn't anything to write home about, either.

For the price I could honestly care less if it only has a VGA input. Were I using it as my primary monitor I would want DVI, but my Dell 2000FP doesn't need to be replaced anytime soon. As it is I think this one will be excellent for my secondary system which has been using an older KDS 15" flatpanel that I bought back in 2002 for (gasp) $430. At the very least the higher resolution, bigger screen and lower response time will be a nice upgrade.

Once I get it connected and have tested it for a bit I'll post here... the rebate is good through the end of the month, and some may still be interested in the deal.

Has anyone else ordered one?
 
anyone got updates on this monitor its 305.99 shipped now
whatcha guys think
 
i have the 19" acer and i know its good. it is also about 300 bucks on newegg.... i have only had good experiances with it so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top