Slashdot Mirror
Does Your LCD Play Catch-Up To Your Mouse?
Dishes of Ryan writes "I fell in love with the idea of an LCD monitor, so I ended up buying a nice, shiny Dell 2001FP. However, nowhere, and I mean *nowhere* did I read about LCDs having an input lag on them. For instance, if I scoot the mouse across the screen, there is a noticeable delay between when I move the mouse and when the cursor moves. To prove it to people, made a video showing exactly what I mean. You can almost forget being king of the hill on twitch FPS games like Unreal Tournament. Are there any other Slashdotters out there that are as annoyed as I am? What did you do?"
I wonder if it's the display that's lagging, or the video drivers? The last time I recall seeing an LCD display "lag" was back before the days of TFT screens, where your mouse would "submarine". (disappear while it was on the move)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Yes, this is called "response time" for LCDs. You just have to make sure that when you buy an LCD, its response time (along with other things like the ratio of angle view) should be one of the things you always check out before you open your checkbook.
Exactly. You get what you pay for. I have a 23" Cinema Display and it is flawles in regarding operation and even asthetic look.
Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
I'll second this. I'm running a Sumsung 193v flat panel bought at Sam's club, on an old dual PIII-800 with an NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 card.
No lag here, at all. And this stuff ain't exactly cutting-edge.
Did it occur to you that maybe you have a hardware problem with *your* system?
I just thought of something you might want to try. LCDs are a bit different than CRTs in that they are completely digital. Since the monitor is digital, it sometimes requires calibration when used with an analog connector. Check your manufacturers specs for the EXACT resolution AND refresh rate that they recommend. The monitor will run in other modes, but it supposedly won't do them as well.
:-)
Once you've set your resolution and refresh rate, be sure to use the auto-adjust button if your monitor has it. When I first got mine, I thought the picture looked like crap. Then I found the auto-adjust. With a push of a button, I suddenly saw the crispest text I'd ever seen in my life. Quite an improvement over CRT displays.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
That monitor is actually a BenQ monitor with Dell's name on it. It's a great monitor, and has a 16ms response time, so it shouldn't lag at all in normal use. You should try video drivers or maybe even the mouse itself. There simply is no reason a good monitor such as that one (congratulations on your purchase. That's the best cost to performance monitor out right now.) should show lag in a normal situation. I have used a 25ms LCD, and it doesn't lag in normal use. Call Dell after if driver's don't work.
It's the buffering in the driver.
Flat Panels *will* ghost and blur, however they do not lag.
What causes this is buffering of execution commands in the drivers, which makes some games at certain resolutions lag really really bad on input.
Change drivers, and it will usually go away.
driver then again he may have some app that is sucking his ram
I've used lots of LCDs, including plenty of DELL LCDs. The LCDs we've used at work were faded, and the colors looked awful after a copule of years. but I've never never seen any kind of lag like this in any kind of monitor.
My guess is that there is something wrong with the video drivers, or the mouse drivers, or some other part of his computer that's causing these problems.
I can't see the vid because the file is apperantly slashdotted.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
rtfa?
the lag is not coming from that.
hell, just read the damn blurb.
here's for the stubborn people:
two monitors, fed from the same computer. other one is some flatty dell and the other one is a crt. now, the movie is about doing something with the mouse that affects both screens, and happens at the same time in the video cards memory, and having observable(with a vid cam..) lag between the two monitors.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
in your wireless mouse!
but seriously,
check the batteries
http://www.vtnetworks.net/CrtLcdComparo.wmv
****But the FA _still_ doesn't say what kind of mouse is being used. The video might show what kind of mouse is being used, but it appears to be SlashDotted. :)****
the mouse used is irrelevant to the issue, the window moves on the crt before it does move on the lcd.
mouse lag can't cause that lag.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Site Mirror: Click here.
Video Only: Click here.
It displays Pascals triangle.
If I autoadjust while showing normal windows, the bitmap will usually still have fuzzy areas when I pull it up. If I autoadjust while the bitmap is being displayed, the monitor is able to lock onto it perfectly. The text looks noticeably better with a perfect lock, especially when using sub-pixel sampling on the fonts, which needs pixel-perfect alignment to work properly.
I have a shortcut to this image on my systems because I have a KVM switch, so I need to autoadjust a lot. No two systems have the exact same video timings.
It's also a Dell, so what can you expect? "Dude, you're going to Hell!"
That Dell monitor is probably a rebadged Samsung or LG.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
LCD TVs and Response Time Response time is basically the amount of time it takes for a liquid crystal cell to go from active (black) to inactive (white) and back to active (black) again.
From the article on the Dell LCD:
Response Time: 16ms (Typical)
I think the problem is something else. Perhaps a bad batch of controller cards? *shrug*
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I have a Dell 2001FP and I have not had any such problems with it at all. In fact, I was given the title Jäger Captain Red at a recent lan party while using it to lead my team to victory in Unreal Tournament.
with a bit of mild C knowledge about the equivalence between // this next line seems weird.
// looks like a fancy way of saying c=0,
// unless r is 0.
:)
condition ? expression1 : expression2;
and
if (condition)
expression1;
else
expression2:
you can decipher it to a reasonable degree:
#include <stdio.h>
main(void)
{
int c=0;
int r=0;
for(r=32;r;)
{
if(++c>31)
{
c=!r--;
printf("\n");
}
else
{
if(c<r)
printf(" ");
else
if(~c&r)
printf(" `");
else
printf(" #");
}
}
}
Looks weird, but it does work, prints out a giant text triangle. it's a little small to be a root kit
ashridah
The usual problem with LCDs with respect to gaming is the response time. You're talking about bleed from pixel to pixel in the horizontal dimension. What about bleed from pixel to the same pixel in successive frames? The physical mechanism emitting photons takes time to react when you change the input signal. If the diode doesn't stop transmitting instantly -- and they don't -- then frame #2 has a lot of the pattern of light from frame #1 mixed into it. This is the effect that people sometimes describe as "ghosting" or "mouse trails".
It used to be quite common for even a good LCD panel to have a response time around 25-30 ms. This is adequate for non-HDTV -- it works out to around 30-40 frames per second -- or most 2D office apps, but HDTV/movie viewers and gamers would be unhappy. You really need to get down to perhaps 12 ms or less for these applications. The world is currently awaiting the arrival of 8ms LCDs, while CRT displays have response times less than 1ms.
As with any technology, newer and more expensive stuff has made some improvements. But LCDs really aren't up to the response time of CRT yet. And faster response time currently still costs on viewing angle and contrast.
Videophiles will also tend to prefer CRTs for their better contrast and color purity.
Of course, CRTs can't come close to LCDs for power consumption, bulk, or weight.
The manufacturer of my monitor clearly states that I should use 75Hz at 1280x1024. (I have a Rad-7s.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
UT2004 specifically has two options:
1: Smooth Mouse
2: Reduce Mouse Lag
The normal usage of USB mice should be fine without lag, but when the computer is using all of its resources, USB doesn't get updated as quickly as it should, thus causing the mouse lag.
PS/2 mice have better access to Windows resources and the mouse position gets updated properly and on time.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
Most LCDs only use the analog pins anyway so it won't matter what pin you plug it into however...
if you have two, could it be that for some odd reason the video card has decided to needs a second interrupt and that one is being shared with the mouse? That would cause a nasty delay that might be noticed.
However, I have no problems with any kind of lag. This includes all video connections.
It's not just a triangle It's a reasonable representation of a fractal pattern.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Yes, but the major manufacturers make panels at a lot of different quality levels. With a customer as large as Dell, they may even make special models to specific specs. So, the fact that the screen might have been made by a company which is known for making good displays doesn't necessarily tell you anything. The Dell specs could have been something along the lines of "Give us the cheapest display you can that still looks good when you're reading the spec sheet."
This space unintentionally left unblank.
sub-pixel sampling on fonts does not work very good at all unless you use a DVI connector for your LCD. I changed from a VGA to a DVI connector on my LCD panel at work and the difference is astounding. I'm still amazed that 90% of consumers are completely oblivious to this difference. Not to single you out specifically, but I'm tired of the average consumer being ignorant of the differences between video connection standards.
BTW, companies now make excellent DVI/USB KVM switches, so there is no execuse to use a VGA connection on a LCD panel anymore.
For some reason, all of my games ran like crap after picking up the display... Game after game simply ran like a slug after the LCD was added to the mix and I couldn't figure out what the problem was.
I finally noticed that if I took my hand off the mouse, things ran smoother.. After some trial and error I discovered my first generation optical Intellimouse Explorer didn't like the USB hub on the Dell monitor (I plugged it into the 2001FP's USB ports to add some slack on the mouse cable). While the problems were not readily apparent on the 2D apps, they were incredibly apparent in the games.
So after moving the mouse back to the PC's main USB ports, everything improved dramatically. It gave me an excuse to pick up that new fancy Logitech laser deal.
www.lonseidman.com
You can probably do the same thing with Gimp, but it's not immediately obvious to me how to do it.
my university recently purchased something like 8 new labs filled with these monitors, and I havent noticed any sort of the lag mentioned in the article. at home i use a samsung syncmaster 172N and i dont notice any of that either. I think it's best to have the monitor exchanged...
fyi, the new school computers run P4 2.8C and my home computer runs P4 3.0C -- but i doubt this has anything to do with my "lack" of lag...
my blog
Since everyone is skeptical, I would like to chime in and say that I'm having the exact same problem (same Dell monitor, too). Perhaps the addition of my specs will shed some light on the culprit.
So far I've tried two different video card setups (both MacOS X on a dual 1GHz g4 power mac). The first was the GeForce 4MX card that shipped with the computer. I was using analog output to analog monitor input. Thinking the lag could be the result of analog to digital conversion, I purchased the ATI Radeon 9000 with digital output.
I'm currently using the digital video output to digital monitor input. The problem is still there. Both cards are AGP, and I never experienced a lag before buying the Dell.
Hopefully this helps. If I've left out something important, let me know.
It displays Pascals triangle.
No it doesn't. It's not Pascal's triangle. It's Sierpinski's triangle. Pascal's triangle is such that the ith row gives the binomial coefficients for the expansion of (a+b)^i. Sierpinski's triangle is a made by drawing a triangle and recursively joining the midpoints of its sides. Pascal's triangle is chiefly an algebraic entity. Sierpinski's triangle is chiefly a geometric/fractal entity.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Note that ',' '?' and ':' are all sequence points.
The C standard does not require ":" to be a sequence point. The "a?b:c" construct only contains one obligatory sequence point, on the "?". It may have more, but that's unspecified (NOT undefined, which would be much worse)
This was a big problem with passive matrix screens. I've had old-school (black and white) PowerBooks that did this, and my first ThinkPad (365X) did this too.
However, I have *zero* problems with this on any active-matrix screens I've ever worked with. ThinkPad 600E: lovely, crisp screen, no lag, cursor right there where you want it. PowerBook G3: the most awesome LCD I've ever seen this side of a Cinema Display. I even have a cheapy Taiwanese 15" LCD panel, Envision is the brand, and it's splendid. No lag, no lost cursors, nice and crisp.
That sort of thing shouldn't happen with a modern TFT active matrix screen. There is something very wrong with it.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Change the 32 and 31 in your sig to 64 and 63 to get the next level of the Sierpinski triangle. This assumes your display is at least 128 characters wide. Mine is 132, so no problem there.
For Windows users, Windows will easily bring up such an image on the desktop; it's under Display Properties, Background, Pattern, 50% Gray, (at least under Win2k).
Megane said:
> I'll bet the monitor in question is connected
> with a VGA plug
And Zorilla responded:
> That Dell monitor is probably a rebadged Samsung
> or LG.
Megane,
I have one of the Dell 2001FPs connected via a VGA cable (it's on a machine that doesn't get used for much gaming so it's connected to a slightly older video card) and I haven't notice a lag when moving the mouse (although I'm in front of my Hercules right now, so I can't actually test to see if the Dell shows the symptoms displayed in his video).
Zorilla,
You're partially correct. The Dell 2001FP contains a LG.Philips LM201U04 panel. The rest of the monitor is Dell designed; although not Dell built.
It's 5:4, the "ideal" ratio. Kind of nice, actually. (but then I'm a photographer, and 4:3 is unnatural to me: 5:4 is normal, though there's that fiddling small format stuff that's all 3:2)
Lots of displays are 1280x1024...it's SXGA. I have a Dell LCD in that size at the office, and the pixels are square.
You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
Is the person reporting the problem using a wireless mouse and keyboard? I had a similar problem when using one. Seems that the 900 mhz freq on the kbd and mouse was fighting with my cordless telephone. It seemed like lag or some big CPU hog. Moved the mouse close to the transmitter and voila, everything normal.
No. You are confused. USB mice have faster *sampling rates* by default than PS/2 mice. However, since PS/2 mice already sample at 60 Hz, any benefit from the increased sampling rate is marginal (what use is sampling the mouse more frequently than your monitor displays frames?). The *response time* is different. It's the difference between bandwidth and latency. USB mice have higher bandwidth but higher latency as well because more processing is involved in sampling the mouse. I imagine the difference is negligable in most cases, however in my case either the USB hardware or driver is low quality, causing a noticable delay in mouse movement.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
The mouse isn't where the difference is; the difference is what happens to the signal inside the computer. For PS/2, the signal gets processed in a tiny bit of hardware, then goes straight to the CPU via its own high-priority interrupt, and gets handed to the mouse driver. For USB, the signal must be wrapped in the USB protocol, must wait for the shared USB line to be clear to send, gets processed in a larger bit of hardware, then goes to the CPU in an interrupt shared with every other USB device on the system and possibly other things besides, then goes through the USB driver's protocol stack, and only then gets sent to the mouse driver. There are a lot more opportunities to introduce latency in a USB signal.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
The following sequence seems to do the trick w/ GIMP 1.2.x:
That should get you a checkerboard pattern on a 1-pixel increment. I haven't seen what this does for an LCD monitor's ability to fine tune an analog signal (since I don't own such a display), but I think it's the pattern you're using. It's the same fill pattern the old monochrome Macs used for their desktops. LOTS of edges to sync on, on every line! :-)
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
I just don't get it. This is the most basic thing you check with the LCD display.
Some people out there still look for higher vertical refresh rate at LCD. *sigh*
Common features:
Diagonal
Color quality/reliablity [1]
GFX input capablity. (VGA/DVI/S-Video etc)
No missing (dark) pixels.
Important with CRT:
Maximum resolution
Maximum Vertical refresh rate at resolution you most frequently use.[2]
Image sharpness
Black pitch [3]
Flatscreen/Trinitron(cyllinder)/Sphere screen.
Important with LCD:
Default (non-interpolated) resolution [4]
<b>Pixel switch-on time</b> (display lag)
Pixel switch-off time (ghosts)
Vieving polarization angle[5]
Maximum brightness
Working temperature range
backlight LED lifetime [6]
[1] These ARE different. LCDs have sugar-sweet beautiful colors, that can't be repeated in print, that's why LCDs are the worst choice for a graphician, while your average end user will enjoy the more-than-lifelike graphics immensely
[2] On CRT image at 25HZ hurts your eyes badly. On LCD you can freely read books at 25HZ, the refresh rate doesn't mean cycles between switching the image on and off, but between changes to constant content.
[3] Is black really black or just a shade of grey?
[4] LCDs have one fixed resolution at which they look great, all the other resolutions suck as computer output pixels don't match display pixels.
[5] If you don't look straight ahead at the screen, some colors just go dark on some screens.
[6] LCD doesn't shine. LCD switches half-transparent pixels on and off, masking the white backlight LEDs off. Without backlight you'll see hardly anything. It's the backlight that eats up most of your batteries too. And it's the LEDs that die first if the screen doesn't get broken/scratched etc first.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Since you're posting a wmv (which is bad attitude) I can't watch it. But from your description I'd say that's very strange indeed.
/., do please have the common decency to use a video format that's open and free for all to watch. Thank you.
I guess you're using Windows XP. It could be that the Monitor specs/drivers are changed automatically when you switch back and forth and that the one for that LCD causes the lag. Monitors are Plug and Play too, so that's very likely. I'd say you do the Knoppix test some others have recommended already. It could also be an USB Hub in the Monitor (again, don't know if you have one because you've posted a wmv) that causes trouble (interference) via the USB port when the panel is on, thus distorting and lagging the mouse signal.
Those are my two guesses.
And once again, if you think it's a good idea to post stuff like this on
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Umm. The pixels on a LCD are always perfectly square. What you mean is that if you used the 1280x1024 mode on a standard 4:3 CRT, the image would be slightly distorted.
And the mode caught on because it's the largest mode using standard pixel numbers that fits into a 4MB framebuffer at a depth of 24 bits. It's been a standard for a lot of Unix workstations (which used fixed frequency 5:4 CRT monitors for this).
Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
It isn't valid in C89 (ANSI C), because main must either take no parameters, or take one of type (int) and one of type (char **). However, ANSI C compilers are allowed to silently compile this program (and perhaps fail at runtime).
Calling a function without prototype assumes the function was declared as:
int f();
(NOT int f(...) as another poster mentioned, this isn't even a valid declaration as there must be at least one non-variadic parameter)
which means that the number and type of the parameters are not yet known, and it is undefined behaviour if any call to f doesn't match[%] the actual definition of f(), wherever that might be.
Calling a variadic function without prototype is specifically undefined behaviour (for example, many compilers use a different calling convention for variadic functions to non-variadic functions, as another poster mentioned).
However if the convention is the same (eg. gcc on IA32) then it's likely to work correctly. (But still non-portable, obviously).
[%] The number of arguments must be the same, and they must have the same types after the default argument promotions: float->double, and (integer-type-smaller-than-int)->int, (other-types)->(stay-the-same)
If you got the sort of random flickering I got, then don't worry. This is because the monitor isn't precisely sync'ed to the pixel clock of the display card. Doesn't happen on DVI systems where it's an all-digital connection. What you're seeing is effectively a close-up of a moiré pattern between the two slightly-different scan rates. Although it's ugly as sin, it'll do no harm to your monitor. If you auto-recalibrate the monitor with the black-and-white pixel image tiled to fill the screen, you should see this problem reduced to almost nothing, as the monitor resyncs. If your monitor doesn't auto-calibrate, and you have to tweak by hand, remember that the goal state is one in which all the black and white pixels are visible at once, with no bands of all-black or all-white. For the best results, you *must* do this in the monitor's native resolution - anything higher won't work as it's downscaled, and anything lower will produce an inferior result due to scaling (assuming your monitor is set to scale the image - should be OK if not!). Incidentally, if there are any Windows users out there with nVidia graphics cards, you might be interested to know that their current drivers include a calibration screen for LCD panels which is ideal for this, and includes other items such as large colour blocks for the monitor to calibrate to. It leads to quite an improvement!
-- What goes up must come down. Ask any SysAdmin.
I use two different Philips LCD monitors - both using the analog inputs, and I have no such problems. In fact, I play (and do moderately well for a middle aged guy with two kids and little time to practice) CounterStrike online with no problems.
This guy's definately just got a defective monitor or one made with ancient/sub-par parts.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I'm at work right now, and I have two Dell 2001FPs running dual-monitor. I was able to replicate *exactly* what's shown in the video--when dragging a window that spans both displays, the window moves faster on the primary display (on the left) than on the secondary display (on the right).
It's not the monitor. It's not CRT vs. LCD. It looks like that's the way Windows deals with multi-monitors.
I humbly suggest that the article submitter swap his displays and use the LCD as primary, and see if the CRT then displays the lag. Bet you dollars to donuts that it will.
If you're running games at the native resolution of your display (1600x1200), the most probable reason for the lag you're seeing is that your video card simply can't keep up. It takes a pretty beefy video card to push that many pixels per frame. Try cutting the resolution to 800x600 and see if your results improve.
Another thing to try would be toggling the "vertical sync" option in your video card's advanced properties. This option specifies whether your video card synchronizes frames with the monitor's refresh. Your CRT probably refreshed at 100Hz, and your LCD is probably just 60Hz, so vertical sync could be slowing you down even if you haven't increased your display resolution.
Two ways to check if it's really your monitor:
1- Do you see the same lag when you're entering text from the keyboard? If the text appears right away, you can't really blame the monitor. Do you have a USB mouse? I've seen USB mouse lag on my CRT.
2- Hook up a projector while the monitor is still attached. Are the two screens in sync?
-M
If you happen to drive your CRT at 60Hz, then this means a refresh period of about 16.7ms, or a screen update delay of on average slightly more than 8 milliseconds.
It so happens that LCD screens are normally run at 60 Hz or so. Therefore, they indeed have an 8 millisecond "input lag". No surprises here. In addition to this delay, there is the pixel reaction time which is currently at least 12ms. So on average there is at least a 20ms lag between mouse movements and pointer updates. It is physically impossible for a human being to "see" this delay in such a small-area change as a mouse pointer. You are kidding yourself.
My 23" Cinema Display has zero problems. My 15" Powerbook works great as well, both separate and when used attached to the CD. Go Apple!
in bed.
So, of course, it got opened.
Specifically, I was curious about the fact that I was able to plug the thing directly into my (very) old graphics card which was built before there were such things as desk top flat screens, and actually have it work.
The signal being output by a graphics card is designed to be understandable by the average computer CRT. --Which, (when I've opened those in the past), don't contain a whole lot of extra electronics beyond on-off switches and very basic control systems. That is, with a standard CRT, the signal from the graphics card in my compy pretty much feeds directly into the electron gun and magnetics control system of the CRT monitor with very little intermediary electronics in between. All the really clever electronics is done by the graphics card back in the tower case.
So. .
Since TFT monitors work on a radically different principal than CRT technology, this means that the output signal from my old graphics card, (which I'm guessing is analog), must be translated into a very different type of signal which can be interpreted by the TFT screen electronics, which I am guessing is a digital signal.
This would mean. .
The original image dreamed up by the computer is digital, then converted to analog by the graphics card so that the CRT can apply it, and then because there is no CRT, it is converted back again into a digital signal for the TFT.
Oh yeah. Now that's efficiency!
And it worried me, actually. When I was shopping for my flatscreen, I was bugging sales people, "So are you SURE I don't need some kind of proprietary graphics card to run this thing? If that's the case, then I'm no going to get a flatscreen. I need a GOOD graphics card. Not some hunk of standardized junk made by the flatscreen manufacturer!"
The sales guys always just shook their heads. "No sir. You just plug it in."
"Oh. .
But what do you know? I plugged it in, and no problem. It worked like a charm. So, like I said, I had to open it up.
When unscrewed and pulled apart, voila! Unlike the guts of a standard CRT, there before me inisde the TFT was a whole LOT of extra circuit board and chip set confusion sitting between the monitor cable plug and the flexi-cable which feeds into the actual screen system. So there is some serious signal in interpretation going on! --And none of it, I imagine, would be industry standard; each CRT to TFT signal converter is probably designed and built by whoever happens to be making the flatscreen. This extra engineering necessity provides a whole pile of room to make bad decisions and crappy electronics.
My guess is that this is where the lag you are experiencing is coming from.
For my part, I was fortunate in that Samsung did the job well. I ended up with a system which works invisibly, with no perceivable lag between any input and screen output. Perhaps you can sell your screen off on Ebay and get a better monitor.
Of course, the problem may be something else entirely, but that's my two cents. Hope it helped!
-FL
You'll notice on timothy's stories a lot more abuse of the "overrated" moderation. Posts moderated as "overrated" never get meta-moderated, so this is the abuse of choice for the less-than-scrupulous editors.
I've been posting on Slashdot for a long time, and I still love the site. I really wish they'd finally crack down on abuse by editors and clean out list of $RTBL'd users.
It still burns me up that I've lost moderation privileges for modding up stuff that the editor on duty modded down. As this thread demonstrates, a lot of us that have contributed to Slashdot over the years have gotten screwed.
Taco, if you're listening, please do something about this dammit!
"Most LCDs are laggier than CRTs"
no actually they're not. i have had a dual head video card with VGA cables for years. one crt and one LCD. i just enabled the mirroring thing so that both monitors display the same image and i will tell you 100% confidence that this DOES NOT happen on my monitor.
conclusion, its a software or specific hardware problem on your monitor. also, where i work we have easily 100+ LCD screens. i have never noticed any perceivable lag on any of the machines, albiet i dont do alot of FPS gaming at work.
"I've seen the same lag on every LCD I've ever seen or used, although the problem is not as great as this one."
then how come SO MANY PEOPLE including myself, that use LCD's and CRT's daily, have never noticed it? ever.
my suggestion is to RMA the damn monitor and try another of the same model.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...