Buying new LCD monitor - help?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bob Petruska, Jan 21, 2008.

  1. Bob Petruska

    Bob Petruska Guest

    I hope that this is the correct group to post these questions as I need help
    in understanding what is the best monitor out there for my needs.

    First, I'm using a 17" Sony 200PS CRT multiscan that has served me well for
    many years. The screen image is an excellent match to my printouts. I know
    that this monitor is slowing dying in regards to brightness and that is
    expected for a CRT.

    I have studied countless hours the last 2 months all the available LCD
    monitor reviews out there with the pluses and minuses.

    Here's what I'm looking for....

    1. 22 inch, non-gloss screen

    2. Great photo color (92% gamaut)

    3. Sharp text.

    4. Action blur is not a concern as I'm not a gamer.


    I'm confused on font size versus screen resolution. I currently use the 800
    x 600 resolution on my 17" on my CRT. I'm happy with the font size that I
    see reading text surfing these forums.

    My question is that if I buy say the Lenovo 22" with 1920 x 1200 resolution,
    what will be the size of the text fonts in native resolution as compared to
    my current Sony 17" CRT at 800 x 600?

    I also currently have a tv tuner card and can display a 2 x 3 inch window on
    the upper right corner of the crt monitor with the tv picture with excellent
    image quality. I can expand this tv window at will to give a larger window
    as required without affecting IQ much. Can the LCD monitor do this also
    without affecting the tv image quality much as the window size is changed?

    I guess i'm really cionfused on this LCD resolution stuff. It doesn't seem
    that you can change resolution on an LCD from it's native resolution to
    adjust font size without having blurry fonts, where the CRT doesn't have
    this issue.

    So what monitors should I be looking at and has anyone had any experience
    with this new Lenovo L200X which seems to have very good reviews?
    Bob Petruska, Jan 21, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bob Petruska

    John Navas Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:09:18 -0500, "Bob Petruska"
    <> wrote in
    <>:

    >I'm confused on font size versus screen resolution. I currently use the 800
    >x 600 resolution on my 17" on my CRT. I'm happy with the font size that I
    >see reading text surfing these forums.
    >
    >My question is that if I buy say the Lenovo 22" with 1920 x 1200 resolution,
    >what will be the size of the text fonts in native resolution as compared to
    >my current Sony 17" CRT at 800 x 600?


    You need to set the dots per inch correctly in Windows for fonts to be
    scaled to proper size.

    >I also currently have a tv tuner card and can display a 2 x 3 inch window on
    >the upper right corner of the crt monitor with the tv picture with excellent
    >image quality. I can expand this tv window at will to give a larger window
    >as required without affecting IQ much. Can the LCD monitor do this also
    >without affecting the tv image quality much as the window size is changed?


    Yes -- this is just a function of the video card.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jan 21, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bob Petruska

    Bob Petruska Guest

    John,

    Thanks for the reply!

    I'm still confused as I thought you can't change the dots per inch in
    windows without generating blurry fonts? If you are saying that you must
    match the windows dpi to the LCD resolution then I understand. If that's
    the case then what size would be the 1920 x 1200 LCD, 22 inch screen fonts
    as compared to the 800 x 600, 17 inch CRT fonts?



    "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:09:18 -0500, "Bob Petruska"
    > <> wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    >>I'm confused on font size versus screen resolution. I currently use the
    >>800
    >>x 600 resolution on my 17" on my CRT. I'm happy with the font size that I
    >>see reading text surfing these forums.
    >>
    >>My question is that if I buy say the Lenovo 22" with 1920 x 1200
    >>resolution,
    >>what will be the size of the text fonts in native resolution as compared
    >>to
    >>my current Sony 17" CRT at 800 x 600?

    >
    > You need to set the dots per inch correctly in Windows for fonts to be
    > scaled to proper size.
    >
    >>I also currently have a tv tuner card and can display a 2 x 3 inch window
    >>on
    >>the upper right corner of the crt monitor with the tv picture with
    >>excellent
    >>image quality. I can expand this tv window at will to give a larger window
    >>as required without affecting IQ much. Can the LCD monitor do this also
    >>without affecting the tv image quality much as the window size is changed?

    >
    > Yes -- this is just a function of the video card.
    >
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > John Navas
    > Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
    Bob Petruska, Jan 21, 2008
    #3
  4. Bob Petruska

    John Navas Guest

    You match the Windows DPI to the actual screen DPI.
    The fonts are then scaled automatically, and are sharp if scalable.
    Divide the screen resolution by the appropriate dimension (not 22",
    which is the diagonal) to find the actual DPI.
    I'm guessing the LCD will be about 96 DPI,
    whereas your monitor is about 72 DPI.

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:51:16 -0500, "Bob Petruska"
    <> wrote in
    <>:

    >I'm still confused as I thought you can't change the dots per inch in
    >windows without generating blurry fonts? If you are saying that you must
    >match the windows dpi to the LCD resolution then I understand. If that's
    >the case then what size would be the 1920 x 1200 LCD, 22 inch screen fonts
    >as compared to the 800 x 600, 17 inch CRT fonts?


    >"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:09:18 -0500, "Bob Petruska"
    >> <> wrote in
    >> <>:
    >>
    >>>I'm confused on font size versus screen resolution. I currently use the
    >>>800
    >>>x 600 resolution on my 17" on my CRT. I'm happy with the font size that I
    >>>see reading text surfing these forums.
    >>>
    >>>My question is that if I buy say the Lenovo 22" with 1920 x 1200
    >>>resolution,
    >>>what will be the size of the text fonts in native resolution as compared
    >>>to
    >>>my current Sony 17" CRT at 800 x 600?

    >>
    >> You need to set the dots per inch correctly in Windows for fonts to be
    >> scaled to proper size.
    >>
    >>>I also currently have a tv tuner card and can display a 2 x 3 inch window
    >>>on
    >>>the upper right corner of the crt monitor with the tv picture with
    >>>excellent
    >>>image quality. I can expand this tv window at will to give a larger window
    >>>as required without affecting IQ much. Can the LCD monitor do this also
    >>>without affecting the tv image quality much as the window size is changed?

    >>
    >> Yes -- this is just a function of the video card.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Best regards,
    >> John Navas
    >> Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

    >


    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jan 21, 2008
    #4
  5. Bob Petruska

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "Bob Petruska" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I hope that this is the correct group to post these questions as I need
    >help in understanding what is the best monitor out there for my needs.
    >
    > First, I'm using a 17" Sony 200PS CRT multiscan that has served me well
    > for many years. The screen image is an excellent match to my printouts. I
    > know that this monitor is slowing dying in regards to brightness and that
    > is expected for a CRT.
    >
    > I have studied countless hours the last 2 months all the available LCD
    > monitor reviews out there with the pluses and minuses.
    >
    > Here's what I'm looking for....
    >
    > 1. 22 inch, non-gloss screen


    Don't do it. All the 22" screens are TN type, which is the lowest quality
    image. Either move to a 20" or a 24" screen and look for a S-IPS panel type.
    Look at this:

    http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/lcd-panel-types.php

    Then at this:

    http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php?title=Master_Monitors_List

    If you're going to use this for photo editing, be sure to steer clear of TN
    panels. They stink. BTW, that 22" Gateway screen that's listed as a PVA
    panel is a mistake...

    >
    > 2. Great photo color (92% gamaut)


    That'll cost you...

    >
    > 3. Sharp text.


    They're all sharp as long as you run them in native resolution.

    >
    > 4. Action blur is not a concern as I'm not a gamer.
    >
    >
    > I'm confused on font size versus screen resolution. I currently use the
    > 800 x 600 resolution on my 17" on my CRT. I'm happy with the font size
    > that I see reading text surfing these forums.
    >
    > My question is that if I buy say the Lenovo 22" with 1920 x 1200
    > resolution, what will be the size of the text fonts in native resolution
    > as compared to my current Sony 17" CRT at 800 x 600?


    Check the dot pitch of your Sony, and see if the new monitor is close. Dot
    pitch determines how "big" the text is. Beyond that, you can change the
    resolution and slightly soften the text.

    >
    > I also currently have a tv tuner card and can display a 2 x 3 inch window
    > on the upper right corner of the crt monitor with the tv picture with
    > excellent image quality. I can expand this tv window at will to give a
    > larger window as required without affecting IQ much. Can the LCD monitor
    > do this also without affecting the tv image quality much as the window
    > size is changed?
    >
    > I guess i'm really cionfused on this LCD resolution stuff. It doesn't seem
    > that you can change resolution on an LCD from it's native resolution to
    > adjust font size without having blurry fonts, where the CRT doesn't have
    > this issue.


    LCDs do not "re-res" as well as CRTs, but they're way ahead of what they
    were. Don't worry about it.

    >
    > So what monitors should I be looking at and has anyone had any experience
    > with this new Lenovo L200X which seems to have very good reviews?


    I've tried several, and really like the HP 2065. Pretty low price, nice
    image, and no shiny surface. The best I've ever used are the high-end NEC
    models, like the 2490. If budget were not a concern, I'd bet the NEC.
    Kinon O'Cann, Jan 21, 2008
    #5
  6. Bob Petruska

    Bob Petruska Guest

    Kinon,

    Thanks for the reply!

    Those two links are very valuable to me also.


    One item, the new Lenovo, L220X, 22 inch monitor, is a S-PVA panel. So
    there is some hope for this LCD monitor to be a decent one. I can see that
    I most likely will want a S-IPS for the photo editing.

    I will check the NECs.


    The more I read and discuss LCD monitors the more I like my CRT as there
    there are really no flaws with it besides the smaller 17 inch screen. It
    has variable resolution without blurring the text, extremely little
    staircasing on diagonals, very sharp text, black blacks, no motion blur,
    uniform lighting (no back lighting bleed through), etc. etc. But I guess
    it's time to advance and learn to live with the eventual death of the CRT.
    I just don't want to make an expensive mistake going to a high end LCD
    monitor and not liking it as much as the CRT.




    "Kinon O'Cann" <> wrote in message
    news:UW6lj.5543$5h6.3706@trndny09...
    >
    > "Bob Petruska" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I hope that this is the correct group to post these questions as I need
    >>help in understanding what is the best monitor out there for my needs.
    >>
    >> First, I'm using a 17" Sony 200PS CRT multiscan that has served me well
    >> for many years. The screen image is an excellent match to my printouts. I
    >> know that this monitor is slowing dying in regards to brightness and that
    >> is expected for a CRT.
    >>
    >> I have studied countless hours the last 2 months all the available LCD
    >> monitor reviews out there with the pluses and minuses.
    >>
    >> Here's what I'm looking for....
    >>
    >> 1. 22 inch, non-gloss screen

    >
    > Don't do it. All the 22" screens are TN type, which is the lowest quality
    > image. Either move to a 20" or a 24" screen and look for a S-IPS panel
    > type. Look at this:
    >
    > http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/lcd-panel-types.php
    >
    > Then at this:
    >
    > http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php?title=Master_Monitors_List
    >
    > If you're going to use this for photo editing, be sure to steer clear of
    > TN panels. They stink. BTW, that 22" Gateway screen that's listed as a PVA
    > panel is a mistake...
    >
    >>
    >> 2. Great photo color (92% gamaut)

    >
    > That'll cost you...
    >
    >>
    >> 3. Sharp text.

    >
    > They're all sharp as long as you run them in native resolution.
    >
    >>
    >> 4. Action blur is not a concern as I'm not a gamer.
    >>
    >>
    >> I'm confused on font size versus screen resolution. I currently use the
    >> 800 x 600 resolution on my 17" on my CRT. I'm happy with the font size
    >> that I see reading text surfing these forums.
    >>
    >> My question is that if I buy say the Lenovo 22" with 1920 x 1200
    >> resolution, what will be the size of the text fonts in native resolution
    >> as compared to my current Sony 17" CRT at 800 x 600?

    >
    > Check the dot pitch of your Sony, and see if the new monitor is close. Dot
    > pitch determines how "big" the text is. Beyond that, you can change the
    > resolution and slightly soften the text.
    >
    >>
    >> I also currently have a tv tuner card and can display a 2 x 3 inch window
    >> on the upper right corner of the crt monitor with the tv picture with
    >> excellent image quality. I can expand this tv window at will to give a
    >> larger window as required without affecting IQ much. Can the LCD monitor
    >> do this also without affecting the tv image quality much as the window
    >> size is changed?
    >>
    >> I guess i'm really cionfused on this LCD resolution stuff. It doesn't
    >> seem that you can change resolution on an LCD from it's native resolution
    >> to adjust font size without having blurry fonts, where the CRT doesn't
    >> have this issue.

    >
    > LCDs do not "re-res" as well as CRTs, but they're way ahead of what they
    > were. Don't worry about it.
    >
    >>
    >> So what monitors should I be looking at and has anyone had any experience
    >> with this new Lenovo L200X which seems to have very good reviews?

    >
    > I've tried several, and really like the HP 2065. Pretty low price, nice
    > image, and no shiny surface. The best I've ever used are the high-end NEC
    > models, like the 2490. If budget were not a concern, I'd bet the NEC.
    Bob Petruska, Jan 21, 2008
    #6
  7. Bob Petruska

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "Bob Petruska" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Kinon,
    >
    > Thanks for the reply!
    >
    > Those two links are very valuable to me also.
    >
    >
    > One item, the new Lenovo, L220X, 22 inch monitor, is a S-PVA panel. So
    > there is some hope for this LCD monitor to be a decent one. I can see
    > that I most likely will want a S-IPS for the photo editing.


    Good news! I wasn't aware of that one.

    >
    > I will check the NECs.


    Bring your wallet... :)

    >
    >
    > The more I read and discuss LCD monitors the more I like my CRT as there
    > there are really no flaws with it besides the smaller 17 inch screen. It
    > has variable resolution without blurring the text, extremely little
    > staircasing on diagonals, very sharp text, black blacks, no motion blur,
    > uniform lighting (no back lighting bleed through), etc. etc. But I guess
    > it's time to advance and learn to live with the eventual death of the CRT.
    > I just don't want to make an expensive mistake going to a high end LCD
    > monitor and not liking it as much as the CRT.


    CRTs, once calibrated, will have higher image quality. But finding one of
    decent size that I could afford was simply impossible. I gave up. In my
    current job, I get to play with tons of hardware, and have found no
    disadvantages (in reality) of using a high quality LCD for photo editing
    work. But you've got to calibrate! I use a combination of Color Eyes Display
    Pro and a DTP94 colorimeter. Killer combo. Not cheap, but it works great.

    Just keep in mind that LCDs do have a different look, but once calibrated
    can product the full tonal range. I love my HP 2065...
    Kinon O'Cann, Jan 22, 2008
    #7
  8. Bob Petruska

    flambe Guest

    Font size is adjustable if too small at the LCD panel native resolution.
    You are going to have difficulty going from a CRT to anything other than a
    super expensive dedicated graphics LCD if you are very critical about
    getting color managed WYSIWYG results.
    My impression is that LCD panels, which need to be run at default
    brightness, are far brighter than the reflective surface of high gloss
    paper. Hence prints look dark, although they may not be, if you examine them
    immediately after looking at the LCD panel.
    The Spyder 2 device, which I use, does not fully account for the brightness
    of my Samsung LCD panel although the program says calibration is perfect.
    Colors are a good match but not brightness and contrast.
    For my personal workflow I have found that I need to make arbitrary
    adjustments, determined with a test strip type procedure, to images just
    prior to printing. I never had to do this with my beloved CRTs.
    It is plain too bad that no manufacturer still offers high quality CRTS for
    image processing. This is also a big issue in HD television as all base line
    measurements are derived from CRTS and CRTs are not even used anymore in HD
    production.
    flambe, Jan 22, 2008
    #8
  9. "Bob Petruska" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > The more I read and discuss LCD monitors the more I like my CRT as there
    > there are really no flaws with it besides the smaller 17 inch screen. It
    > has variable resolution without blurring the text, extremely little
    > staircasing on diagonals, very sharp text, black blacks, no motion blur,
    > uniform lighting (no back lighting bleed through), etc. etc. But I guess
    > it's time to advance and learn to live with the eventual death of the CRT.
    > I just don't want to make an expensive mistake going to a high end LCD
    > monitor and not liking it as much as the CRT.


    Do what I do - run both and extend the "desktop" to
    both using a dual-head video card. I have a new 24"
    Acer LCD (1920x1200, and with some obvious color
    errors though it is a PVA type acording to a web page
    listing) and an old Sony 17" 200ES (run at 1024x768).
    I can easily shift the image I'm working on over to the
    CRT for color checking (well, maybe not all that easily,
    since for available space reasons, the CRT screen is
    stuck behind my right elbow...;-). BTW, the local used
    computer store sells nice CRTs (17" and up) VERY
    cheaply, and Office Depot had some new 17s for $20
    after rebate - maybe it is time to stock up...;-)
    --
    David Ruether

    www.donferrario.com/ruether
    David Ruether, Jan 22, 2008
    #9
  10. Bob Petruska

    Bob Petruska Guest

    The more I read and research the better the CRT looks and I'm not going to
    buy an LCD monitor at this time. My main use is photo editing and even if I
    spend $2,000 on a high end LCD I don't think that I'm going to be as
    pleased as what I get with my CRT in the print matching the screen. My
    printouts currently match my screen colors perfectly except for blues and
    that's a known fact that they won't match. Also my CRT text is razor sharp
    and true black making for easy reading. Hopefully the industry will make
    displays better in the next year or so with new technologies; OLED and SED
    (thin CRT), and then I will make a choice.



    "flambe" <> wrote in message
    news:JZblj.813$...
    > Font size is adjustable if too small at the LCD panel native resolution.
    > You are going to have difficulty going from a CRT to anything other than a
    > super expensive dedicated graphics LCD if you are very critical about
    > getting color managed WYSIWYG results.
    > My impression is that LCD panels, which need to be run at default
    > brightness, are far brighter than the reflective surface of high gloss
    > paper. Hence prints look dark, although they may not be, if you examine
    > them immediately after looking at the LCD panel.
    > The Spyder 2 device, which I use, does not fully account for the
    > brightness of my Samsung LCD panel although the program says calibration
    > is perfect. Colors are a good match but not brightness and contrast.
    > For my personal workflow I have found that I need to make arbitrary
    > adjustments, determined with a test strip type procedure, to images just
    > prior to printing. I never had to do this with my beloved CRTs.
    > It is plain too bad that no manufacturer still offers high quality CRTS
    > for image processing. This is also a big issue in HD television as all
    > base line measurements are derived from CRTS and CRTs are not even used
    > anymore in HD production.
    >
    Bob Petruska, Jan 22, 2008
    #10
  11. Bob Petruska

    Bob Petruska Guest

    Dave,

    I guess I'm disappointed in LCDs as they are not going to be very good for
    photo editing from what I heard here and read. My old Sony will just need
    to hang around until they design and develop something better!

    I just may go to Office Depot and check out those 17" CRT units!


    In a way we just don't advance for the better much in this world anymore.

    I find film better than digital because of the better dynamic range.

    LCD/Plasma TVs with motion blur, grey blacks, dead/hot pixels, etc. are
    definitely not as good as CRT TV units.

    Internal combusion engines superior to hybrid and electric poweplants.


    Those guys that developed these items more than 60 years ago knew what was
    going to stay around and work very well!



    "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    news:47962b71$0$10977$...
    >
    > "Bob Petruska" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> The more I read and discuss LCD monitors the more I like my CRT as there
    >> there are really no flaws with it besides the smaller 17 inch screen. It
    >> has variable resolution without blurring the text, extremely little
    >> staircasing on diagonals, very sharp text, black blacks, no motion blur,
    >> uniform lighting (no back lighting bleed through), etc. etc. But I guess
    >> it's time to advance and learn to live with the eventual death of the
    >> CRT. I just don't want to make an expensive mistake going to a high end
    >> LCD monitor and not liking it as much as the CRT.

    >
    > Do what I do - run both and extend the "desktop" to
    > both using a dual-head video card. I have a new 24"
    > Acer LCD (1920x1200, and with some obvious color
    > errors though it is a PVA type acording to a web page
    > listing) and an old Sony 17" 200ES (run at 1024x768).
    > I can easily shift the image I'm working on over to the
    > CRT for color checking (well, maybe not all that easily,
    > since for available space reasons, the CRT screen is
    > stuck behind my right elbow...;-). BTW, the local used
    > computer store sells nice CRTs (17" and up) VERY
    > cheaply, and Office Depot had some new 17s for $20
    > after rebate - maybe it is time to stock up...;-)
    > --
    > David Ruether
    >
    > www.donferrario.com/ruether
    >
    >
    >
    Bob Petruska, Jan 22, 2008
    #11
  12. Bob Petruska

    John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:26:15 -0500, "Bob Petruska"
    <> wrote in
    <>:

    >In a way we just don't advance for the better much in this world anymore.
    >
    >I find film better than digital because of the better dynamic range.


    Exposure range of slide film: about 5 stops
    Exposure range of negative film: about 8 stops
    Exposure range of digital: about 10 stops with a good imager
    <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/>

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jan 22, 2008
    #12
  13. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    John Navas
    <>], who wrote in article <>:
    > Exposure range of slide film: about 5 stops
    > Exposure range of negative film: about 8 stops
    > Exposure range of digital: about 10 stops with a good imager
    > <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/>


    One should keep in mind that the discussion of film on this page is
    more or less BS. Roger measures noise on 6.2um x 6.2um squares of film,
    and thinks that what he measures is related to dynamic range.

    It is not,
    Ilya
    Ilya Zakharevich, Jan 22, 2008
    #13
  14. Bob Petruska

    John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:57:47 +0000 (UTC), Ilya Zakharevich
    <> wrote in <fn5osr$1g9k$>:

    >[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    >John Navas
    ><>], who wrote in article <>:
    >> Exposure range of slide film: about 5 stops
    >> Exposure range of negative film: about 8 stops
    >> Exposure range of digital: about 10 stops with a good imager
    >> <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/>

    >
    >One should keep in mind that the discussion of film on this page is
    >more or less BS. Roger measures noise on 6.2um x 6.2um squares of film,
    >and thinks that what he measures is related to dynamic range.
    >
    >It is not,


    Those are in fact commonly accepted values.

    I'm done with you on this too.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jan 22, 2008
    #14
  15. Bob Petruska

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "Bob Petruska" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Dave,
    >
    > I guess I'm disappointed in LCDs as they are not going to be very good for
    > photo editing from what I heard here and read. My old Sony will just need
    > to hang around until they design and develop something better!
    >
    > I just may go to Office Depot and check out those 17" CRT units!
    >
    >
    > In a way we just don't advance for the better much in this world anymore.
    >
    > I find film better than digital because of the better dynamic range.
    >
    > LCD/Plasma TVs with motion blur, grey blacks, dead/hot pixels, etc. are
    > definitely not as good as CRT TV units.
    >
    > Internal combusion engines superior to hybrid and electric poweplants.
    >
    >
    > Those guys that developed these items more than 60 years ago knew what was
    > going to stay around and work very well!


    Don't give up on LCDs for photoediting until you've actually see a
    calibrated S-IPS display. They are really, really nice...
    Kinon O'Cann, Jan 22, 2008
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    662
  2. Village

    Buying a new monitor, two to choose from

    Village, Nov 30, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    317
    Plato
    Dec 2, 2005
  3. Jerry

    Buying an LCD Monitor

    Jerry, Sep 20, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    379
    Jerry
    Oct 7, 2006
  4. BILL
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    252
    Dave Taylor
    Apr 2, 2005
  5. Trash Fish

    Need to buy new LCD monitor - help please

    Trash Fish, Aug 4, 2008, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    349
Loading...

Share This Page