[superlarry]

Hoping to buy a new mac for college (yes, i'm a young 'un), I'm wondering about my most important college-computer need: gaming. My prior experience with LCD's has led me down a path of disapointment in regards to blurriness during any kind of movement. I can only assume it's improved, but on a trip to CompUSA the other day I saw some PC's running Unreal Tournament, one on a CRT and another on an LCD. In short, the LCD was terrible! It was total blurriness at every move. How do Apple's LCD's stand up to this? Should a growing UT fan steer clear of them?
(assuming I'll even be able to afford the monster)
;c)
If anyone knows, I guess I'd be lookin' at a 15 or 17 inch model. Thanks a bunch!

[Jsnuff1]

from my personal experience i cant say that there is much diffrence between an LCD and CRT in gaming, i do belive that CRT are still better in this area but LCD are catching up, try asking this in the gaming forum too

[Phoible]

I expected the worst when I bought my new iBook, but I have been pleasantly surprised. Games seem to work pretty well (no appreciable blurring), and DVD movies are also pretty good (maybe a little dark, but a desktop LCD is twice as bright as a laptop). I recall seeing complaints in reviews of the original ACD, but I guess that Apple may have fixed those problems.

[olePigeon]

There's a pretty big difference between Laptop LCDs and the Cinema/Studio LCD.

Your starndard Active Matrix display on a Laptop uses normal Liquid Crystal. The Cinmea display uses Plasma liquid crystal. The picture is much sharper, supports full 32-bit color [your average laptop LCD can only display 65k colors, even if you set the colors to 32-bit ("millions.")], and doesn't experience the blurriness usually associated with LCD screens.

Plasma LCDs aren't used in Laptops because they require too much power to operate.

I would suggest you go down to your local computer store and check out the Mac section. A lot of the time they have the Quake III demo loaded on it. Try it out and judge for yourself. I have a fealing you'll be in for a surprise.

oP

[FERRO]

iBook has Active Matrix - Crisp & Clear - No Trails - in 1024x768

Notice at lower res - 800x600 gets real blurry

[ 07-22-2001: Message edited by: FERRO ]

[Herr Newton]

Actually you don't know what the hell you're talking about:

� All current Apple displays are active matrix LCD, not plasma.

� There is no such thing as a "Plasma LCD" - LCD and Plasma are completely different technologies with completely different target markets.

� Apple's LCDs are 32-bit.

� Blurriness is associated with analog LCDs: Apple's current lineup is all digital, rendering pixel blur moot.

� Plasmas aren't used in laptops because they run far too hot and have extremely coarse pixel resolution when viewed at normal working distance.

Originally posted by olePigeon:
<STRONG>There's a pretty big difference between Laptop LCDs and the Cinema/Studio LCD.

Your starndard Active Matrix display on a Laptop uses normal Liquid Crystal. The Cinmea display uses Plasma liquid crystal. The picture is much sharper, supports full 32-bit color [your average laptop LCD can only display 65k colors, even if you set the colors to 32-bit ("millions.")], and doesn't experience the blurriness usually associated with LCD screens.

Plasma LCDs aren't used in Laptops because they require too much power to operate.

I would suggest you go down to your local computer store and check out the Mac section. A lot of the time they have the Quake III demo loaded on it. Try it out and judge for yourself. I have a fealing you'll be in for a surprise.

oP</STRONG>

[ 07-22-2001: Message edited by: Herr Newton ]

Originally posted by Herr Newton:
� Blurriness is associated with analog LCDs: Apple's current lineup is all digital, rendering pixel blur moot.
[ 07-22-2001: Message edited by: Herr Newton ][/QB]

Sorry, but you are wrong on that point. Analog vs. digital LCD's has nothing to
do with blurriness. The blur is due to the time it takes to change the state of
LCD pixels. It has nothing to do with the I/O technology (analog vs. digital).

That said, CRT's are still better for fast paced games although LCD's are
now almost as good and are generally better for anything else.

- Just Me.

[JLannoo]

I love my Cube, but if your going to be gaming like you mentioned. I suggest picking up or building a low cost PC to use as a gaming rig along side your Mac. You will get much more gaming Horsepower and a much larger selction of games, It would be worth it for Tribes 2 alone

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by FERRO:
<STRONG>iBook has Active Matrix - Crisp & Clear - No Trails - in 1024x768

Notice at lower res - 800x600 gets real blurry

[ 07-22-2001: Message edited by: FERRO ]</STRONG>

This will be true of any LCD screen. Unlike CRTs, LCDs do not support multiple resolutions. They have one native resolution (1024x768 in the case of the iBook and probably most other screens as well). When you switch it to another resolution it is still in 1024x768, it just simulates a lower resolution by desplaying "bigger" pixels.

[iCartman]

Herr Newton set the facts straight from the other BS. I game on an Sony 18" LCD and it's decent. My only bitch is that the colors are washed out compared to CRT's (makes a difference in eye candy games like UT) and I need to run games at 1280x1024 for maximum clarity (GeForce3 helps with this resolution).

[Herr Newton]

My bad... I was stuck on analog when I wanted to say "passive matrix".

Originally posted by &lt;Just Me.&gt;:
<STRONG>Sorry, but you are wrong on that point. Analog vs. digital LCD's has nothing to
do with blurriness. The blur is due to the time it takes to change the state of
LCD pixels. It has nothing to do with the I/O technology (analog vs. digital).
- Just Me.</STRONG>

[slipjack]

Recently, I've started using a Pismo 400 and I've found the LCD on that to be crisper, cleaner, and easier to stare at than my ViewSonic 17" flat CRT. Now, I couldn't tell you much about gaming, but at least for 2D design, the LCD rocks. Lately, I've been running the 17 as a second monitor for my 'book just for the pallets. I'm tempted to get a 15 or 17 LCD and go all TFT.

How bad are these tracking problems with games. The DVD of das boot didn't seem to have bluring problems much, but maybe there is something about extreme motion that LCDs have problems with... hmm.

[JBL]

The blur is due to the time it takes to change the state of LCD pixels.

Where can one find specs on how quickly LCD displays change state (or whatever the equivalent of phosphor rise and decay times are for LCDs)?

all the current Apple LCDs are top notch and beautiful.

I have used each extensively. (the 17 inch for several hours at MW unfortunately )

gaming is great on all of them. older Apple LCDs DID have a problem with not keeping up with games but I'm glad to say that is completely gone.

one thing I would reccomend is getting a card that can keep up with the native resolution. that means either a radeon or Geforce 3 IMO.

But even the "emulated" resolutions are that bad anymore on the new displays

[sMACk]

I game extensively on a Cinema Display and I can assure you that you will prefer a LCD to CRT. Why? The LCDs are brighter, have much better contrast and most importantly are much easier on the eyes. After a night of gaming on a CRT I used to wake up with puffy tired eyes, a gaming hang-over. Not so with the LCD. Is the redraw as fast as CRT? Not on paper but I play Quake 3 all the time and hardly notice the difference, the benefits far outweight that issue. gl.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Herr Newton:
<STRONG>Actually you don't know what the hell you're talking about:

� All current Apple displays are active matrix LCD, not plasma.
</STRONG>

You are correct. I was reading an article on the Cinema display and it was comparing the quality to a Sony Plasma screen. I made the assumption they were comparing two like technologies.

[Dogma]

Just don't get the 17" Studio TFT. It looks really nice, but it suffers from a severe prone-ness to burn in. I've seen at least six so far with a noticeable burn after only a couple of months use, whereas my own 22" Cinema and 15" are fine. The Cinema is on 24/7 and hasn't had any burn-in after 6 months plus. If you go for the 17" use a screen saver!

Also the resolution on the 17" isn't supported by most games and is quite annoying to have the black bands. This isn't so bad on the Cinema as it has a larger ppi anyway so the same res. will apppear larger than on the 17". Also some stuff like TR:Last Revelation etc. actually support the 22" CInema's resolution - which really is a beautiful thing to see!

[olePigeon]

That certainly is odd. Exact same technology in all three.

I'm wondering if they're driving the 17" with too much power.

oP

[Dogma]

The 17" doesn't look like the same kind of display material as the 22" as Apple claim. The colour variance is closer to that of the 15" and I have a sneaking suspicion that they're shipping a few with a cheaper TFT screen rather than what they say.

This is Apple after all - the same guys who put a 5400rpm Hard Drive in the new G4's (733 anyway). How much are they actually saving with all these specification-cuts? Is it enough to balnce the bad publicity it could cause?

[Euphrates]

Are you guys talking about the same 17inch LCD that I just payed 1K for?!

[cube-dude]

Originally posted:
<STRONG>. . . try asking this in the gaming forum too</STRONG>

Or in Peripherals where this LCD discussion belongs. Transferring there . . .