> Im using an L1710B as well.
Absolutely awesome TFT's. Getting really good write ups too!
> Yeah a decent quality TFT is always going to be better than a CRT but
> I'd need quite a lot of money to afford a TFT which does the same
> resolution as my CRTs without masses of lag.
> In fact I'm not even sure if that's true.. when you talk TFT money,
> CRTs become extremely, extremely good.
Although I still slightly off Robs resolution (2560 x 1024) I'm quite happy with my TFT Twins: Both 17" LG L1710B's. Response time of 16ms which makes it great for gaming, and awesome colour management. Though I have to agree with rob on cost... My set up would cost just short of £800, you could do the same in CRT's for about a thrid of the cost.
From here I can monitor my Internet connection, winamp, irc, a couple of MSN conversations, my last 4 E-mails, the status of all my disk drives and of course, my web browser, all without altering a single thing. With X-Mouse I can even do most of it without having to raise the window. It's not essential but it's bloody efficient.
> Rob, to you any monitor that doesn't do 1600x1200 at 85hz is crap.
Now that's not true. This monitor does 75Hz.
But yes I do want a decent resolution from my monitor, especially when paying a lot of money for it. Desktop realestate is incredibly valuable, especially when you get used to it. I will never buy another monitor that does less than 1600.
Even with that argument aside, you still pay a lot more with TFTs. I still hold the opinion that a TFT is worth getting if you can pay a bit of money for it.
Looking at a few monitor specs, viewable size of a 17" seems to be between 15.7 and 16, making a 15" tft a fairly viable alternative.