Asus PW191 LCD Review 176
Tom's Hardware has quite the flattering review of one of the latest LCDs coming from Asus, the Asus PW191. From the review: "I won't mince words. The PW191 is the handsomest monitor I've ever seen. It's true that people's tastes vary, but no one can deny that the Asus designers have talent. While a lot of their competitors are using a white Macintosh look for lack of better ideas, Asus is innovating, offering designs that are both personal and novel. And they've applied that know-how to good effect in designing the PW191. The monitor's lines are superb, and the choice of colors is elegant and restrained."
So tempting (Score:5, Informative)
But I'm lazy. So I'll just point out that they laud the design, but not the performance, and the review is not quite as gushing as the slashdot summary suggests.
Tell me about it! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I've seen that too. (Score:2)
Yeah, but... (Score:2)
I say, BFD. The monitor isn't ugly, but it looks exactly the same as every other flatpanel monitor I've seen except a) its black, and b) its based is burnished metal. I admit that there isn't really much room for artsy design in monitors, the function has fixed the form pretty severely, but are people really
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:2)
I think it's ugly.
You sir, stand corrected!
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:2)
Re:So tempting (Score:2)
Re:So tempting (Score:2)
*wonders if anyone really believes he doesnt know about ACness*
Re:So tempting (Score:2)
Re:So tempting (Score:2)
Re:So tempting (Score:2)
Re:So tempting (Score:2)
Do they make one (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Do they make one (Score:2)
Thankfully, I rarely use either; I normally have the whole lot piped through my stereo amp and into a pair of 16-inch-tall speaker cabs, or use a decent pair of headphones.
heh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:heh... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What's with the pheedo link? (Score:5, Insightful)
Weird...
- Andrew
Re:What's with the pheedo link? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's with the pheedo link? (Score:3, Interesting)
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 09:51:07 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.54 (Ubuntu)
X-Powered-By: PHP/5.0.5-2pheedo1.1
Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=e775b0954ac069d8a92b7f4de89cd184; path=/; domain=pheedo.com
Expires: Thu, 19 Nov 1981 08:52:00 GMT
Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, post-check=0, pre-check=0
Pragma: no-cache
Location: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/04/21/asus_pw191_ lcd/ [tomshardware.com]
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/ht
Re:What's with the pheedo link? (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure CmdrTaco went over this in one of Slashdot's Meta-Threads. Maybe someone can find the specific post(s).
Re:What's with the pheedo link? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.tomshardware.com/site/rss.html [tomshardware.com] will get you to http://www.pheedo.com/f/toms_hardware [pheedo.com]
Pheedo is probably Tom's Hardware RSS feed service provider.
As far as on Slashdot, I'm not so sure if linking 3rd party news feed rather than direct link is allowed or not. CmdTaco can vertify this, but I see why not, as far as I can tell, this is service used by Tom's Hardware for RSS feed.
Those fat borders are ugly. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Those fat borders are ugly. (Score:2)
Give me a Samsung Syncmaster over this any day:
Pics [tomshw.it], Pics [tomshw.it], Pics [speci.hu], Pics [synnex.com], Pics [samsung.ch].
Not only does it look so much better, the panel also gives excellent contrast, brightness and response, plus the screen can be rotated 90 degrees...
This high rate of slashvertisements is getting really annoying.
Re:Those fat borders are ugly. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Those fat borders are ugly. (Score:2)
1 - Their wide screen displays were either too expensive ($2000+) or too crappy (low contrast ratios, narrow and assimetric view angles);
2 - They removed the OSD controls from newer displays in favor of software.
Since I was looking for a wide screen monitor with high contrast ratio, the widest possible view angle, a reasonable AVERAGE response time, and the best possible color accuracy, I ended up choosing an HP F105 instead of
Re:Those fat borders are ugly. (Score:2)
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=107
Those panels are removable. Among other things, they are there to reduce the psychological affect of adjacent colors of surrounding objects possibly distorting the percieved colors.
Re:Those fat borders are ugly. (Score:2)
Those fat borders have SPEAKERS (Score:2)
Re:Those fat borders have SPEAKERS (Score:2)
Uhh you LIKE that look?! (Score:5, Interesting)
The black plastic, beyond looking cheap, also has sharp edges which is very old fashioned... As is the polished base... The thing looks like a late 80's television...
I wouldn't buy that monitor just because of the way it looks. Dell, Apple and some of ViewSonic's range look far more attractive. As do some of the other monitors in Acer's range.
Re:Uhh you LIKE that look?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Great! Then it will be in style again right after the rounded-white-plastic look that Apple revived from the 1970's will seem old (Apple already has gotten past the 1960's big bold colors and flowers look).
Re:Uhh you LIKE that look?! (Score:2)
It had a wooden border around the screen that was massive. You could also jump around ontop of the thing without hurting it. It's a shame my parents tossed it instead of replacing the CRT.
Re:Uhh you LIKE that look?! (Score:2)
Re:Uhh you LIKE that look?! (Score:2)
But
It looks like a monitor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It looks like a monitor (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know about you, but do you know how much it bugs me went I you have to look at a monitor's restrained lines all day long?
Just the other day I was telling my coworker that I would pay good money for a monitor with a form that is innovating, offering designs that are both personal and novel.
Re:It looks like a monitor (Score:2)
I don't think it looks like every other monitor, in fact, I haven't seen any other monitor that has a stand that looks like that. The machined metal look on the stand is the thing that I almost never see.
Re:It looks like a monitor (Score:2)
Ugly (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice selective quoting (Score:5, Informative)
Asus has decided to follow the trend and use a panel with an optical filter. That was a mistake. Despite the manufacturer's claims on its Website that the reflectivity of the optical filter is especially low, when viewing a dark picture, the LCD panel is as reflective as the gloss-finished shell.
As always with panels that use filters, the colours are showy. They're well saturated, but imprecise, as our calibrator test shows...
The colour rendering was far from being ideal. Frankly, I can't understand why LCD manufacturers insist on using these filters when the results are always so mediocre...
Asus didn't use overdrive technology for this panel. The result is that it's not really a contender as far as responsiveness is concerned... It's no catastrophe, but this kind of latency takes us back a year or so...
I was waiting to see how the PW191 would perform screening movies. And sad to say, video noise was still much too evident. A lot of sparkling was visible. Note that Asus offers a sharpness adjustment (which is rare on an LCD monitor) that lets you soften the focus slightly. That helped a little, but the sparkling didn't disappear completely... We hate to harp on this issue, but the optical filter means that you'll have to watch your movies in total darkness, especially if the film tends to be dark (e.g. Sin City or The Matrix).
And finally, from the conclusion:
The finish is exceptional. It's probably the best-looking monitor available on the market today. And beyond the good looks, the picture is very sharp and the colours are very good in video games. In itself, the PW191 is a good product, but it's obvious that the panel was poorly chosen. It's slower than its competitors, yet doesn't solve the video-noise problems that plague them.
So, it's a good monitor, apart from the LCD panel. Forgive me if I don't rush out to get one... (Or am I completely out of touch and all LCD monitors are this bad?)
Re:Nice selective quoting (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nice selective quoting (Score:2)
Re:Nice selective quoting (Score:2)
Re:Nice selective quoting (Score:2)
23" Apple Cinema Display [apple.com]: Depth: 7.3 inches (not counting stand: 1.5 inches); Weight: 15.5 pounds
Sony GDM-FW900 22.5" CRT [superwarehouse.com]: Depth: 10.6 inches; Weight: 92.6 pounds
Depth and weight. My current computer table, with all the music equipment I have on it, would not support an extra 77 pounds of monitor. Neither would my back, when I feel like reconfiguring things.
There's also the sharpness advantage of LCDs. The very best CRTs aren't too b
Re:Nice selective quoting (Score:2)
And this is why I I say bullshit - I'm reading your post from approximately 15 feet from my 21" monitor at 20486x1536 and I can read your text perfectly and with razor-sharp clarity. I can BARELY do that with a 19" LCD at 1280x1024 at the same distance, thanks to Microsoft's ClearType technology. Those
Re:Nice selective quoting (Score:2)
Clear type doesn't sacrifice sharpness unless it is improperly set. I hate Cleartype because it turns the edges of text into a rainbow, so I just turn it
Re:Nice selective quoting (Score:2)
Umm, if pixels are so small, why do I see them in almost every LCD screen or LCD projection I look at without having to really strain my eyes? My boyfriend just got up and stared hard at my CRT and said "I can see pixels" but he had to get within 3-4 inches of my CRT to even see it. I can see the pixels in most LCD screens from FEET away, easily, even moreso on LCD projectors.
Re:Nice selective quoting (Score:2)
That's the point.
You can't see the edges of the pixels on your CRT because the CRT is blurry.
Assuming your 21" monitor is a 4:3 monitor, and (typically for 21" CRTs) that the diagonal of its viewable area is 19.7", the linear size of one pixel at 2048x1536 is roughly 0.195 mm. I have never seen a CRT with a dot pitch under .22 mm, and most are between .25 and .2
Re:Nice selective quoting (Score:2)
The fact I can see the pixels clearly is NOT a sign the monitor is sharp, especially when I'm feet away, and I can see RED BLUE AND GREEN individually - white on an LCD IS N
Re:Nice selective quoting (Score:2)
This made me curious, and I did some research:
Re:Nice selective quoting (Score:2)
Re:Nice selective quoting (Score:2)
I wasn't aware of these. Viewsonic's best has .20 mm [viewsonic.com] dot pitch, which will *nearly* accommodate 2048x1536. Despite extensive Google searching I can't find anything smaller, including SGI whose lone remaining CRT has .25 mm dot pitch. I'd be curious to see data for specific
Viewsonic VX924 (Score:2)
Re:Nice selective quoting (Score:2)
I found there were a host of wierd artifacts that no one ever mentions.
Basically part of the problem is brightness, at about 5 time CRT brightness, so I cranked the backlight to it's lowest setting. Still too bright, adjusted further in graphics card adjustments. Now it look
Re:Nice selective quoting (Score:2)
Re:Nice selective quoting (Score:2)
Re:Nice selective quoting (Score:2)
The thing you need to understand is that most buyers don't understand concerns about color accuracy, if it looks better to their untrained eye, then the picture quality must be better. If they see an image that looks vibrant, they will chose that over an image that is accurate. This is especially the case with TVs. Many monitors and TVs are set at 9300K or higher because phosphors (in both CRTs and LCD backlights) are more efficient at the blue end of the spectrum, and thus, bri
Form Over Function (Score:1)
If you don't mind a 'traditional' look (Score:2, Informative)
Re:If you don't mind a 'traditional' look (Score:2)
Re:If you don't mind a 'traditional' look (Score:2)
The 930BF doesn't perform. I sit close enough to my monitor that I could notice a difference in contrast between the middle and bottom of the display. The reason for this is the poor viewing angle (+/- 170 I think) and 700:1 contrast ratio. Admittedly, 700:1 is better than the cheap deals you usually see from companies like ASUS, but you still lose the difference between light gray and white.
I ended up returning the monitor and getting a Dell for about $50 more that had a viewing
Bezezzel..zzz (Score:1)
Re:Bezezzel..zzz & multiple monitors (Score:2)
yay, a silver base (Score:4, Insightful)
The real question: is this slashvertisment for Toms Hardware or for Asus? Or for both?
Form over Function (Score:5, Insightful)
ScuttleMonkey, you can get away with this shit, but that doesn't mean we are going to eat it. I gradually get to the point of almost subscribing, and then another stunt like this comes along.
Re:Form over Function (Score:2)
So, if you dont want SM's stories, vote with your mouse...
prefs [slashdot.org]
Re:Form over Function (Score:2)
Wow, that was an interesting review (Score:5, Funny)
interesting and informative [next page]
review I have ever read on [next page]
any site!
Widescreen Resolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a lovely display, running local applications in the natural resolution (1440 x 900) is a pleasure to the eyes and having the extra width is nice, however he spends approximately 50% of his day using VNC onto machines with 1280*1024 displays.
This wasn't a problem before because he could just full screen it, now all I hear is muffled cursing because the screen no longer fits.
Its amusing really, and proves sometimes higher sounding specs really aren't all they are cracked up to be.
Nice try, no cigar (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd already seen this article. It is a minor piece of no great interest and pretty well tells the reader not to buy the monitor anyway because Asus have put a crap screen inside a very nice case.
Links in summaries should include their [domain] (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as we're going that far, perhaps the summaries should also be moderated...
Re:Nice try, no cigar (Score:3, Insightful)
It's interesting how links in the comments have their domain listed right next to them, to foil this sort of thing, but links in the stories do not.
The assumption must have been that a Slashdot editor wouldn't do something like route links through a middleman. Bad assumption, it would appear...
Re:Nice try, no cigar (Score:2)
Criticisms (Score:3, Interesting)
Two things that are noticeable within the first second:
- The base is exceptionally shiny, bear in mind that this is something that you are designed to stare at for hours on end, shiny is a big no-no. There are consumer reports of people patching up the tiny little chrome Apple symbol on Apple's screens because they reflect light and distract. This thing will likely be much worse.
- The bezel around the screen is amazingly thick - it may be because it houses speakers - but considering these are only 19" screens, and all of the noise being made recently about dual monitors ("30% Performance increase" etc. etc.), these look like very poor performers when it comes to using more than one together. That bezel x 2 must be over a couple inches thick.
Why do reviews suck so bad? (Score:3)
But this one is even worse: "We rate the unit's suitability for gaming on a scale of one to five for FPS, RTS or RPG titles" and again "Here again we use a five-point rating system." But where are these numbers? First page? No. Last page? No. Where referenced? No. Not anywhere that I could find.
Tom's site is just not really worth it anymore.
The Conclusion (Score:2)
The Confusion (Score:2)
Ummm... why would the 20" version fix any of the aforementioned problems?
Unless they use a different LCD with higher quality/response times, they'll just be offering the same crap... but bigger.
Re:The Conclusion (Score:2)
6 bit color? (Score:2, Informative)
Beware of the advertising trick! (Score:2)
Quite the flattering review indeed (Score:2)
Durability? (Score:2)
Connect the Dots (Score:2)
If you like this, be sure to also check out (Score:2)
* 800:1 contrast.
* 1680x1050 resolution.
* 176 degree viewing angles.
Higher contrast, size, resolution, viewing angles -- precisely what you want in the thing you'll be staring at for the next few years.
Asus is innovating? (Score:2)
- VESA compliance (so I can remove the desk mount and SUSPEND them over my desk on a custom mount)
- a resolution at LEAST as high as 1920x1440
- VGA and DVI capability, S-video would be a nice to have
- I'l
Get the 30" Dell instead (Score:2)
The 24" Dell is regarded as the best of the best, but it's the monitory you'll encounter in your day jobs as soon as you get jobs. You don't want to pay for the same thing at home that you get at your day jobs. You want to pay for something better and that only leaves the 30" Dell.
Only 2 resellers h
Re:Acer LCDs (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Acer LCDs (Score:1)
Re:Dear Asus fan boy, (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Dear Asus fan boy, (Score:2)
What'll be your next assertion
No worries though, I'm sure the ABA (Apple Boy Army) will mod you up anyway.
Re:Dear Asus fan boy, (Score:2, Offtopic)
You, sir, are a mind reader!
Halle Berry married an overrated entertainer - Brad Pitt married an overrated entertainer
Halle Berry is hot - Brad Pitt is hot (according to females and gay people)
Halle Berry shows breasts in crap movie - Brad Pitt shows.. well, he's always topless in any movie
Halle Berry gets an award - Brad Pitt gets Angelina Jolie (that BASTARD!)
The assertion has been made. Watch out! Halle Berry will marry a man with ado
Re:Res is still lower than my laptop. (Score:2)
Re:Res is still lower than my laptop. (Score:2)
Also, there isn't much of a point to the 19" LCDs, being that they have the same resolution as the 17" LCDs, just larger pixels.
Re:Res is still lower than my laptop. (Score:2)
Re:But . . . (Score:3, Funny)
Re:But . . . (Score:2)
Re:Low resolution in 19" LCDs (Score:2)
If I could change one thing on the monitor, it'd be the cables that came with it. You'd think that for a $600 USD monito
Re:"white Macintosh look" (?) (Score:2)
Only if you choose to ignore the iMacs.
http://www.apple.com/imac/ [apple.com]