Wilbri Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I plan to upgrade my monitor and would welcome some advice regarding selection. I am aware of the optical health concerns regarding the viewing of TV and computer screens and therefore seek your advice, Presently running a 17" Samsung CRT. Plan to upgrade to a 23' HD. 1920x1080 resolution, 5ms, 30,000:1DC LCD monitor. Coupled with this is the selection of background color. I have always used black (model space) and never noticed any one using any different. Is there a preference and if so why? look forward to receiving some input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Is this a "LCD HDTV" or an actual LCD Monitor? That sounds like a cheap monitor. That size of monitor should support higher resolutions than that. As for the drawing background, I use black in both model and paper space. Only way to have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbri Posted March 9, 2010 Author Share Posted March 9, 2010 Thank you for your reply. Just the response I was hoping for. Relatively cheap in my country. What do you suggest that I should be looking at, without having to spend a fortune? Are there a preferred makes? This is an LG. Also interested in the best rectangular dimensions to suite AutoCad. Not particularly interested in something that is too long and narrow as this would obviously not serve the purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 too long and narrow has nothing to do with it. The native resolution will create the image accurately. I would go with a 1920x1200 res monitor, it should be much more at all and you're gaining much more screen real estate. If budget is an issue then yes, obviously just get the absolute best that your budget will allow which is always the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I just switched froma 21" CRT to a 25" widescreen LCD and at first it did seem a bit unusual by now I find I've grown quite accustomed to it. I prefer a dark black background. In the past when shopping for CRTs I would first check the blackness of the background as on some CRTs it turned out to be "lighter". The LCD I'm using now has a no problem displaying "black" the way I like to see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Hughes Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I just updated to dual 23" widescreens at the resolution you mention. I notice a litlle bit of "stair stepping" in the linework (I do mostly 3d). My understanding is this is related to anti-aliasing and I've not gotten to the bottom of it as yet. I have not had an opportunity to test the effect on renderings. Originally I started with a gray background but now I prefer white but that is obviously personal preference. The reason for my color choice is: I find it easier on the eyes. Most all of my other programs I use have a white background (spreadsheets, documents, etc). The thing about white is you would likely need to adjust the colors of the objects you create. In my case when opening certain files created with my original grey I use a lisp file to convert to my current color scheme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankman Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I just updated to dual 23" widescreens at the resolution you mention. I notice a little bit of "stair stepping" in the linework (I do mostly 3d). My understanding is this is related to anti-aliasing and I've not gotten to the bottom of it as yet. I have not had an opportunity to test the effect on renderings. Originally I started with a gray background but now I prefer white but that is obviously personal preference. The reason for my color choice is: I find it easier on the eyes. Most all of my other programs I use have a white background (spreadsheets, documents, etc). The thing about white is you would likely need to adjust the colors of the objects you create. In my case when opening certain files created with my original grey I use a lisp file to convert to my current color scheme. Switched from a 22" ViewSonic CRT graphics monitor, I miss it. My LCD/TV isn't the best but, 36" wall mounted tilt 'n swivel, sure saved a lot of desk real estate. The monitor does picture by picture as well as picture in picture. Nice enough for me however, a dual monitor setup is much (that's MUCH) nicer. All my work is 2D, plan and elevation views. I just looked at a dual screen setup, 23"'ers. Beautiful. Nice desk mount too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbri Posted March 10, 2010 Author Share Posted March 10, 2010 Many thanks for your contributions Gents Thank you David for re-locating this topic to the correct area. Looks like it would be advisable to do some homework and legwork prior to acquiring my new monitor. Your comments are most welcome as they will assist me in obtaining the right thing first time. Having purchased my just existing monitor I was advised that should have gone for a .14 DPI for AutoCad whereas this is a .28 DPI, must upsetting, but it works just fine. Further input would be welcome. In 2005 I went back to school, and one of the courses I undertook was Computer Architecture. At that time our lecturer informed us that although LCD was considered the way to go, CRT still provided the best resolution at the time thus my reason for going CRT. Obviously there have been some advancements in LCD. Further comments on this subject are welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Power consumption, weight and the amount of desk space a CRT takes up are three good reasons to switch in and of themselves. Until I got my LCD I never knew I had so much room on my desk! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbri Posted March 11, 2010 Author Share Posted March 11, 2010 Yes I believe power consumption to be one of the prime reasons for changing to LCD. The saved space is definitely another reason, as my working surface tends to become rather cluttered at times. I would love to be able to mount a TV monitor on the wall thus saving additional space. Unfortunately LCD monitors are relatively new and very "in" this country and therefore costs are high by comparison with computer monitors where the prices are becoming more acceptable by the day. I am talking 23" to 25' here as the larger monitors are as expensive as the TV screens. I contacted a local PC hardware supplier today regarding a better resolution monitor. Yes they are available at very little additional cost but their technical adviser recommends that install a graphics card to obtain the advantage. My previous PC was equipped with a graphics card which I removed for trial purposes and found no noticible difference in resolution on AutoCad, so when acquiring my current PC I excluded a graphics card. Is a graphic card necessary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Is a graphic card necessary? More than likely, no. Try it first. If you can't reach the monitor's native resolution THEN go get a video card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbri Posted March 11, 2010 Author Share Posted March 11, 2010 Many thanks My feeling exactly, provided of course the motherboard is of good quality/reputation and has on-board graphics I would imagine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzframpton Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 It MIGHT be simply too high. You should be able to check the specs with a little research online about the computer you have. If it's a custom build then find out what videocard you have in there or which video chipset is on the motherboard. Find it online and see the max supported resolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbri Posted March 11, 2010 Author Share Posted March 11, 2010 Thank you for the advice, will do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbri Posted March 16, 2010 Author Share Posted March 16, 2010 I have just received something of interest from Daily AutoCad. This regards the choice of graphics card. Screen shot attached Anyone like to comment? graphics card.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Well I find myself in disagreement with StykmaN on this one. If you have the choice always get a system with a dedicated graphics card unless you plan on retiring, writing your life's story, playing Mine Sweeper and dashing off a couple of emails to sister Phoebe and son Jack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbri Posted March 17, 2010 Author Share Posted March 17, 2010 I am happy to settle for adding a graphics card, but cannot justify the need to go big, as I am not a gamer. I have attached copies of motherboard/graphics card/RAM combo for information. Comment: My previous PC (2003 model) was a Pentuim 4 - 775 socket system equipped with a Nividia Geoforce MX/MX400 Card. The client machine I am presently using is a similar model with no graphics card. In comparing screen resolution, I could detect no difference between the two. This is possibly due to my graphics card being bottom of the range? Did not know much about hardware in those days Looking forward to your comments. I do not seem to be able to upload more than one attachment. My Motherboard is an ASUS P5Q SE2 Turbo - IP45 chip, and the RAM is a Corsair 2GB DDR2-1066 graphics card.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Gamers and heavy CAD users tend to have the same needs thus similar equipment requirements as well. There are graphics cards geared toward both groups of users. However, some gamer-specific cards do equally well in the CAD world they just don't cost as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbri Posted March 17, 2010 Author Share Posted March 17, 2010 Thank you ReMark Firstly I inadvertently included the incorrect card in my last send, so attach the one originally intended. 256MB - other 128. I am not quite sure what you mean regarding reasonably priced gaming cards. The supplier I use lists a range of 74 cards ranging in price,the most expensive being approx. 16 times the one I have attached. What I am specifically looking for is the most reasonably priced card to serve my purpose without going overboard. (PCIE 512MB DDR-2.) Is there something else I should be looking for in terms of specification? I presently can't afford to go much above the price listed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 In the U.S. a reasonably priced gaming card might cost between $150 and $200. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.