Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

21.3" LCD Monitor Reviewed

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the hardware-to-lust-after dept.

SLDave wrote in to plug his review of the 21" NEC MultiSync LCD 2110, the monster LCD that lists for a scant $3800. The largest Apple screen is cheaper, and I'm not sure how I would feel about being forced into 1600x1200 all the time. And at the price of a decent used car? Update: 05/01 18:31 GMT by T : ARP has another idea, writing: "Here is a review of Samsung's 210T which is another 21.3" LCD. Not only is this cheaper than the NEC, but it also has DVI as well as RCA and S-video inputs that turn into a high-definition multimedia display."

7 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Your gettin' a Dell, dude by Latent+Heat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like Dell's got a 20" 1600 by 1200 for about $1600. No, I don't work for Dell, and yes, I would prefer a glass monitor because LCD's blow chunks when it comes to motion, although an LCD would be nice to stare at my source listings all day long.

  2. Repeating myself and others.... by blankmange · · Score: 3, Insightful

    $3800.00 for a monitor (that has limitations pointed out by the rest of /.) is ridiculous! No DVI, fixed resolution, plus it is an LCD (cannot match CRT/Trinitron for crisp text, motion, etc). I would love to see their sales projections on something like this. Granted, there will be that handful of geewhizzers who jump on this, but the rest of us can make a complete system with $3800.00... easily!

    --
    ...we are from the government - we are here to help...
    1. Re:Repeating myself and others.... by fyonn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      okay, no DVI was bloody silly, there should be at least 2 DVI-I ports but lcd's are fixed resolution, thats just a limitation of the system. A ferrari can costs hundreds of thousands of pounds but can't go off road reliably, why dammit, for that kinda money I expect the thing to fly!

      you see my point? they aren't trying to deceive anyone but it's well known that lcd's have a fixed resolution and tend to look ugly in any others.

      crisp text? I've yet to see a CRT with text as crisp as an LCD. each pixel is discrete so text is as crisp as can be. old lcd's were crap at motion, thats agreed but new lcd's can be extremely good. the fastest pixel refresh rate I've seen is 25msec. my screen refreshes at 35msec and I've played quake on it with no problems (apart from my gfx card struggling a bit at 1280x1024 :). the display seemed perfectly able to keep up.

      yes, it's expensive but it's also bloody big. there is a limited market but I'm sure it's not aimed at the consumer, but at business where they have the need and the money for these things. as time goes on these things will get even better and even cheaper but bleeding edge stuff always costs a packet.

      dave

  3. Re:Oooh! by nehril · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... 6400x4800 ... 1600x1200 is just barely enough
    I guess the nosegrease smeared across your monitor as you press your face against it to read gives you free anti-aliasing? Or perhaps the radiation will cook your eyeballs enough to give you free "anti-aliasing" ALL THE TIME??

    no offense, but I do like to keep my 19" monitor at a respectable distance, and 1600x1200 is just on the edge of overkill. Get a second monitor, or learn to use alt-tab!

  4. 1600x1200? by br0ken+by+design · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd like to have a 3200x2400+ 19" display. The thought of not needing to antialias
    anything because my screen is 150+ dpi makes me want to sp00ge.
    My main complaint against LCDs right now is that they aren't very high resolution for the
    price. I'm definately not going to drop $3k for a display that only does 1600x1200.

    But hey, I'm a rez freak...I run my 19" CRT at some odd resolution like 1920x1200[1]
    just to squeeze out a few extra horizontal pixels at a reasonable refresh rate.
    Why? Because information wants to be wide.

    :wq
    [1]Yes, the aspect ratio is screwed up. So I compress the image vertically, much like
    letterboxing a widescreen movie...works pretty well if you don't mind text being small.

    --
    One ring to rule them all. The (_O_) in Goatse.cx
  5. Might be worth the price by billh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I purchased an NEC MultiSync XP21 years and years ago. It was $2500 or so, way, WAAAAY out of my price range at the time. I thought at the time that not getting headaches and retaining my vision were worth the price.

    Well, they were. Although it is a little dimmer than it used to be, I still use the monitor daily, at a high refresh rate, and my vision is still what it used to be. The only time I get eyestrain is when I am forced to work on smaller monitors, or on a system with a low refresh rate.

    Sometimes things like this are worth the price.

  6. screen real estate... by bomb_number_20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe i'm missing something, but i don't really understand the logic behind purchasing a monitor like this. arguably, it's foot print is probably smaller (in terms of depth) and there may be some power saving issues (i wouldn't know) but, on the whole, it just doesn't make sense to me.

    I looked around at larger monitors for a long time- including LCDs, and the conclusion i came to is that it's just not worth it. for a quarter of the price of this monstrosity i can get two 17 inch monitors and a couple of nice video cards and run a dual display that gives me more screenspace. i just think it's a better solution.

    That's exactly what I did almost two years ago and i haven't regretted it since. i don't think i could ever go back to a single display at home- it would drive me nuts.

    --
    That's ok, Jesus likes me anyway.