What operating system do you use?

Originally Posted by Homosexual

I've been using Windows XP for years, but at this point I'd almost rather be using Mac-anything.

Indeed, having the same OS is b-b-b-boring. Getting a bit bored of XP, despite customizing it to hell.

Originally Posted by Danger

The monitor, although could be looking nicer (I bought it just as 24" monitors became mainstream), eats less power than any Apple monitor on the market (like, when I says less, I mean 1/4 to 1/10 of the power usage), has just as wide of a color gamut, doesn't dither (unlike some Mac monitors), and only has two wires, which I can disguise perfectly.

the LED backlit monitors are pretty competative in terms of their power consumption. If there's any extra power draw relative to others it would be due to the fact that IPS panels suck more power... that said IPS panels also have the best image quality...

TN crap is crap though, shame on apple for using more and more TNs.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

the LED backlit monitors are pretty competative in terms of their power consumption. If there's any extra power draw relative to others it would be due to the fact that IPS panels suck more power... that said IPS panels also have the best image quality...

TN crap is crap though, shame on apple for using more and more TNs.

It eats five times the power compared to my monitor (checked), has the exact same color gamut, and the same backlit strength (I have mine on about 50% and it's great). The image quality is flawless due to it being DVI and I have zero dead pixels - and this monitor is old compared to the newer 24" models.

I use Mac OS X Snow Leopard. ^^

Originally Posted by Danger

It eats five times the power compared to my monitor (checked), has the exact same color gamut, and the same backlit strength (I have mine on about 50% and it's great). The image quality is flawless due to it being DVI and I have zero dead pixels - and this monitor is old compared to the newer 24" models.

that still doesn't add up. A low end TN panel might draw 30W or so. a higend SIPS might draw around 50W... don't tell me that a smaller sized LCD is drawing 150W. Maybe if it were a plasma, maybe if it were 60 inches in size... not anything in the sub 30" range though...

just checked: max power draw of 212W
wow, WTF... That said LEDs themselves have LOWER power draws and the panels used in monitors don't exactly vary THAT much, everyone has the same suppliers.
that said those displays they have DO include a speaker and a webcamera... did you have the speakers on? speakers tend to draw...

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

that still doesn't add up. A low end TN panel might draw 30W or so. a higend SIPS might draw around 50W... don't tell me that a smaller sized LCD is drawing 150W. Maybe if it were a plasma, maybe if it were 60 inches in size... not anything in the sub 30" range though...

just checked: max power draw of 212W
wow, WTF... That said LEDs themselves have LOWER power draws and the panels used in monitors don't exactly vary THAT much, everyone has the same suppliers.
that said those displays they have DO include a speaker and a webcamera... did you have the speakers on? speakers tend to draw...

My monitor has speakers, so does Apple Cinema Display ones. My power consumption is still a fifth.

and I still don't see how that adds up. I could possibly understand a 100% difference, but a 500% difference is just out there.

Hilarity at Wikipedia's Windows 7 page!

Awww! It'd gone before I even finished screen-capping it!

I currently use Vista, but will definitely use 7 in my next build.

Originally Posted by River Zora

Hilarity at Wikipedia's Windows 7 page!

Awww! It'd gone before I even finished screen-capping it!

D: What'd it say!?

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

and I still don't see how that adds up. I could possibly understand a 100% difference, but a 500% difference is just out there.

I don't know, I just go by the papers. I doubt a camera and speakers make such a large difference as 670% here if the monitor actually was power-effective.

Originally Posted by Danger

I don't know, I just go by the papers. I doubt a camera and speakers make such a large difference as 670% here if the monitor actually was power-effective.

you do realize that the two monitors aren't directly comparable, right?

the acer uses a **** TN panel in it.

it's like saying a $6000 honda accord is vastly superior to a Ferrari due to lowerfuel useage... it's true but the more efficient one is a piece of crap when it omes to performance and use. TN panels can only display 262144 colors by defintion. They use 6bit panels. SIPS panels can display 16,777,216 colors. Also TNs have horrible for viewing angles.

the only real downside SIPS has vs TN is higher power draw, a purple tinge, and slightly slower real world response times and drawing mroe power.


here have a good read
http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides...anel-types.php

7, gentoo

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

you do realize that the two monitors aren't directly comparable, right?

the acer uses a **** TN panel in it.

Hm. The site must be bull****ting with me then if it says "Color depth = 24-bit".

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

it's like saying a $6000 honda accord is vastly superior to a Ferrari due to lowerfuel useage...

No, it's like saying a Ferrari with a seventh of the fuel usage for a fifth of the price is just as good as the Ferrari around the block that has a shinier body paint, costs five times more, and eats seven times more fuel.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

it's true but the more efficient one is a piece of crap when it omes to performance and use. TN panels can only display 262144 colors by defintion. They use 6bit panels. SIPS panels can display 16,777,216 colors. Also TNs have horrible for viewing angles.

Yeah, and for 50$ more I could find one with IPS panels. I just pulled upon the first monitor I could see.
And honestly, I can't say that "TN has horrible viewing angles" if mine is TN - I can see it just fine almost vertically (a bit gray but nothing big), instead of lots of purple.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

the only real downside SIPS has vs TN is higher power draw, a purple tinge, and slightly slower real world response times and drawing mroe power.

This "drawing more power" would not be a con if it wasn't for this con being seven times as much power... but most likely that's just the Apple Tax.

Originally Posted by Danger

Hm. The site must be bull****ting with me then if it says "Color depth = 24-bit".

TNpanels use color dithering to simulate 24bit color(rapidly switching between two colors) in a technique known as dithering.

Yeah, and for 50$ more I could find one with IPS panels. I just pulled upon the first monitor I could see.
And honestly, I can't say that "TN has horrible viewing angles" if mine is TN - I can see it just fine almost vertically (a bit gray but nothing big), instead of lots of purple.

the lots of purple isn't noticeable unless you have an entirely black screen and are intentionally looking for it. The viewing angles sure as hell are. I've got a Dell 2005FPW(SIPS based) and a Dell 207WFP(TN based) and the difference is very noticeable in color reproduction and viewing angles. I've had instances where I've had duplicate content on both monitors and if I stand up instead of sitting down, the image isn't discernible on the right monitor. Furthermore, when calibrated for ACCURATE color representation, the TN panel can't compete. in order to view every shade of color on the chart below I have to significantly lower the brightness/contrast settings of the TN panel to the point where it's noticeably darker despite having a stronger backlight than the older SIPS monitor to it's side.

http://www.photofriday.com/calibrate.php
also the difference is usually around DOUBLE, not just $50.

This "drawing more power" would not be a con if it wasn't for this con being seven times as much power... but most likely that's just the Apple Tax.

A typical SIPS panel draws around 50W, a TN draws around 30. Yes there's a significant power tax. It typically isn't 700%.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

TNpanels use color dithering to simulate 24bit color(rapidly switching between two colors) in a technique known as dithering.

Yeah, I know that, I just don't understand why such an otherwise reliable site would write it like that.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

the lots of purple isn't noticeable unless you have an entirely black screen and are intentionally looking for it. The viewing angles sure as hell are. I've got a Dell 2005FPW(SIPS based) and a Dell 207WFP(TN based) and the difference is very noticeable in color reproduction and viewing angles. I've had instances where I've had duplicate content on both monitors and if I stand up instead of sitting down, the image isn't discernible on the right monitor. Furthermore, when calibrated for ACCURATE color representation, the TN panel can't compete. in order to view every shade of color on the chart below I have to significantly lower the brightness/contrast settings of the TN panel to the point where it's noticeably darker despite having a stronger backlight than the older SIPS monitor to it's side.

Then that must mean my current cheap-ass monitor isn't TN, because I have no viewing angle problems. :/
The only problems I have with it is that I'm using D-Sub to VGA to DVI, really.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

http://www.photofriday.com/calibrate.php
also the difference is usually around DOUBLE, not just $50.

Any IPS, not specifically SIPS, and either way it'll be half the cost or less of the Apple monitor

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

A typical SIPS panel draws around 50W, a TN draws around 30. Yes there's a significant power tax. It typically isn't 500%.

God bless Apple.
I don't mind the 30 to 50 jump, but an 500 to 214014589328957325 jump isn't plausible

Originally Posted by Danger

Then that must mean my current cheap-ass monitor isn't TN, because I have no viewing angle problems. :/

possibly, that said I didn't notice the viewing angles so much until I got a SECOND monitor and compared side by side. That said it's the VERTICLE viewing angles which suck the most. try standing up...

Any IPS, not specifically SIPS, and either way it'll be half the cost or less of the Apple monitor

sips tends to get quoted the most. I'd say that HIPS is generally better from what I hear, and eIPS is good enough(it's inferior but cheaper and only around a 40% markup vs. a TN panel)

compare/contrast the price of an EIPS panel and a Tn
http://accessories.dell.com/sna/prod...1&sku=320-7825

http://accessories.dell.com/sna/prod...1&sku=320-0942

God bless Apple.
I don't mind the 30 to 50 jump, but an 500 to 214014589328957325 jump isn't plausible

everyone knows apple marks up their products. $$$ I still have no idea where the other 170W came from though.

I use...

Windows 7 Ultimate
Windows Vista Ultimate
Windows XP Home Edition
Ubuntu Linux 9.04
MAC OS X Snow Leopard

I use all those on a 600 GB Hard Drive.

Windows XP can play a lot of old computer games (some of my favorite games fall into that catergory)

Plus my new Vista laptop doesn't like me much

I have Vista on my laptop (not my choice of course), XP on my main home computer and Leopard OS X.6 on my Mac.
Leopard seems the most polished and well...just damn sublime to use, followed by XP and Vista...well. We all know Vista.