Lex Talionis

Well, I'm staring at my 17" Sony LCD flat panel as I type this.

Of course, I'm running a dual monitor setup, and keep web pages on my secondary monitor. My main monitor is a 21" Samsung CRT. I'm really fond of this setup.

If gaming is a concern, I would strongly suggest going for a large CRT over a flat panel. You'll get a larger screen and it works better for gaming.

There are three real issues with LCD panels for gaming:

1) Lack of refresh rate on some models. Some have serious 'ghosting' issues while gaming. This isn't as pronounced on newer models (like my Sony SDM-S72 LCD flat panel).

2) Resolution limitation. LCD panels have one native resolution, and anything else they run in is interpolated in some way. While newer models look better in an interpolated screen resolution than older models, it's still... well, distasteful (to me, at least).

3) Lack of subtlety in colors. LCD panels have much more vibrant (and generally more accurate) colors, but many (even the nicer ones) lack the ability to portray subtle colors as well as a CRT.

What I'm using:

Samsung 1100p+: ~$500
Sony SDM-S72: ~$500

If I had to pick one of them, I'd go for the CRT without a second thought. Not that I don't love the flat panel too, but it's just not as good (in my opinion) as a primary monitor (especially for gaming).

Autonemesis

I have a ViewSonic VX900, which is a 19" panel. It's great. It has something like a 25ms refresh, which is fast enough for about 50fps in games. The upper limit on how high your gaming FPS can go, is the bandwidth of the DVI cable and the resolution of the display. It works out that - pixel refresh aside - 1600x1200x32 bit color can go a maximum of about 60fps before hitting the maximum data rate that the Digital Video Interconnect can sustain. One of ViewSonic's largest panels is the VX2000, and it is already near this limit at 1600x1200, and a 20ms refresh.

The best thing you can do for games with a flat panel is to turn on the OpenGL or D3D option for "Sync to vertical refresh". This will limit the game to a frame rate that matches the refresh rate of the display, typically 60hz for a flat panel. That eliminates "shearning" effects that appear when the game is updating faster than the display can keep up with.

The Other Michael

I think starting with Win98 you could add a second video card, and run a monitor off of each one. You specify which you want as the primary (where the dialog/error boxes pop up).

I tried that with two different cards but had some conflicts, so I bought the Matrox 400 card which has dual vido outputs from a single card. It is rated more for business graphics than gaming, but I don't game so for web/email/CAD etc it works just fine. Running two identical graphics cards would probably be pretty safe.

You can stretch the desktop across both monitors - I'll typically have email full screen in one and web browser in the other, or maybe IE up with my html program so I can check changes to the web page easily. Or two full Word docs up for cut and paste, etc etc. The Matrox card comes with some software that I've not really explored, but you can do things like have a window open on one monitor, and a zoomed in/out version of the window on the other monitor, which would probably be really handy for graphics work.

Two 17" monitors are cheap these days. My first Nanao was about a grand years ago when I got it (it was typically the high-end Editors choice in the magazines), and when I picked up another one a few years ago it was a discontinued model for about $300. The on-screen area of the two 17's is, I think, more than a 21". They do take up a lot of space on the desk though, which is the main reason why I'd want to go to LCDs.

I was told that the instructor of a class I took a few weeks back has four monitors set up on his PC - I could see how that could be pretty useful too (if you really did a lot of multitasking stuff).

cheers,
Michael

Yggdrasill

After looking at some websites, I am most definitely getting dual monitors for my new computer. I have a spare 17" CRT from an old computer that I'm going to use, now I just have to figure out the graphics cards. I get the impression that you can't pick graphics cards at random. Is it probable that using a Radeon 9600 pro card and a Geforce 2 ultra card would work? (In XP pro)

NonHomogenized

You can use dual monitors with just the 9600 Pro. If you don't have a monitor which uses the DVI, if the 9600 pro is like my 9700 pro, it comes with a dvi-to-vga(?) plug.

However, if you don't already own the 9600 pro, get the 9500 pro. The 9600 pro has a higher clock and all, but the 9500 pro has 8 pixel pipelines (as opposed to the 4 on the 9600 pro), and the higher clock just doesn't quite make up the difference. In the reviews I've seen, the 9500 pro just performs better.

Yggdrasill

I also noticed that the 9500 pro tested better, but the company I was going to order the computer from didn't have the 9500 pro. Now I have decided that I might as well buy the components seperately and build it myself, so I'm going with the 9500 pro.

Isn't it funny how computers tend to get bigger if you plan it over a extended period of time?

Stiletto One

AH HAH! COMPUTER GEEK STUFF! (I'm a big computer geek, btw)

Yggdrasil: No, it's not funny. It's a fact of life.

Anyway, a note on dual monitors: the 'primary' monitor will be the one with hardware acceleration on stuff, so you'll probably want to arrange your desk with the primary monitor centered for gaming purposes. Of course, if you don't game, then you may as well set up a horizontal span (it'll make sense when you fiddle with your computer; I'm pretty sure that ATi HydraVision supports something analogous to nVidia's nView Horizontal Span) so that you can run pretty 3d OpenGL screen savers across both monitors.

www.reallyslick.com
Some stuff to check out.

Loren Pechtel

I've got LCD's because I can handle more desktop that way--1280x1024 works for me on a 19" LCD, but I need a 21" crt for it to be comfortable, and 3 21" CRT's aren't going to fit! (This is a work machine--that which makes it easier to use translates into more work done and thus justifies spending more.)

Speed is a very definite issue. Simply scrolling a webpage the difference is very obvious although I can't read scrolling text very well anyway so it's not a problem for me.
I have no problem with games on it, but I play strategy games, not first person shooters. I would not be very inclined to play a FPS on a LCD--I'd have left one screen a CRT.

I have a minor objection with my Viewsonic--it takes about as long to power up as a CRT would. My Sharp comes up *MUCH* faster.

Loren Pechtel

In general you lose about 1" off a CRT to dead space. The better ones lose slightly less than the cheaper ones. Look carefully at the specs and you'll see another number of the viewable dimension.

As for space--I've put a couple in at the office for this very reason--desk situations for which CRT's were a problem, especially when I tried to put two of them there.

Loren Pechtel

If you're a gamer you won't care. If you do serious work with your machine you'll never understand how you lived with one after you've experienced two (or more--I've got 3). I've seen a website discussing the logistics of it, I've never seen anything arguing for why.

Basically it comes down to being able to have things side by side instead of on top of each other. If you find yourself selecting windows simply to bring them to the foreground then you're a candidate for a multi-monitor setup.