Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #5350 > unrolled thread

Monitors

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Monitors Steve <tinker123@gmail.com> - 2012-05-20 05:52 -0700
    Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-05-20 17:29 +0200
      Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-05-20 15:35 +0000
        Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-01 17:17 +0000
          Re: Monitors Patrick <Patrick@none.com> - 2012-06-01 18:58 +0000
            Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-01 19:09 +0000
              Re: Monitors Patrick <0001patrick@gmail.com> - 2012-06-01 23:35 +0000
              Re: Monitors Patrick <0001patrick@gmail.com> - 2012-06-01 23:47 +0000
            Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-01 15:11 -0400
              Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-06-03 19:00 +0200
                Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-03 14:01 -0400
                  Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-06-03 23:10 +0200
                    Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-03 19:06 -0400
          Re: Monitors Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2012-06-02 04:51 +0000
            Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-02 05:36 +0000
            Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-02 10:41 +0100
            Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-04 14:27 +0000
              Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-04 17:23 +0200
                Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-04 15:31 +0000
                  Re: Monitors David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-06-05 09:14 +0200
                    Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-05 15:46 +0000
                Re: Monitors J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-06-04 15:41 +0000
                  Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-04 18:27 +0200
                    Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-04 17:00 +0000
                    Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-04 14:14 -0400
                    Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-04 18:17 +0000
                      Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-04 18:58 +0000
                      Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-04 16:33 -0400
                        Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-04 21:17 +0000
                      Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-04 20:52 +0000
          Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-02 12:36 +0000
            Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-06-02 11:59 -0400
              Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-02 17:34 +0000
                Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-06-02 15:40 -0400
                Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-02 23:45 +0100
                  Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-03 00:46 +0200
                    Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-02 23:52 +0100
                      Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-03 00:54 +0200
                        Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-03 00:08 +0100
                          Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-03 02:52 +0000
                            Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-03 13:08 +0100
                              Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-03 13:10 +0000
                                Re: Monitors Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2012-06-03 09:57 -0400
                                  Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-03 14:25 +0000
                          Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-03 10:05 +0200
                            Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-06-03 08:00 -0400
                            Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-03 18:16 +0000
      Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-05-24 11:10 -0400
        Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-05-24 19:32 +0200
          Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-05-25 20:09 -0400
            Re: Monitors J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-05-26 09:35 +0000
              Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-05-26 08:07 -0400
                Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-05-26 19:49 +0200
              Re: Monitors Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> - 2012-05-26 16:42 +0000
    Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-05-26 00:32 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#5471

notbob wrote:
> On 2012-06-02, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Hardly relevant in the context of
>> "My problem is my ancient hardware"
> 
> Even less relevant in the context of my financial resources.
> 
you vatn even afor $30?

> The old card still works.  The old monitor doesn't.
> 
> nb
> 


-- 
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5474

On 2012-06-03, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> you vatn even afor $30?

Ummm... until next month, yes, I am.  Is that a problem for you?

nb

-- 
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5475

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, notbob wrote:

> On 2012-06-03, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> you vatn even afor $30?
>
> Ummm... until next month, yes, I am.  Is that a problem for you?
>
You're not seeing any scrap computers lying around?  I actually have a 
fair collection of somewhat exotic video cards because I have pulled them 
out of computers I've seen lying on the sidewalk (along with the RAM and 
drives).  SOme of them are recent enough to have DVI connectors on them, 
and at least one of them seems to be one of those gamer video cards 
(albeit an older generation) since it even has its own fan.

The sad part is, the stores that sell donated used items are much less 
likely to take this sort of thing, and people are now being more careful 
about what they throw out, so last week when they had a collection of 
unwanted electronic devices, organized by the city, likely all kinds of 
neat stuff was handed in, and chances are good it will just get stripped 
down for gold and such.

    Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5476

On 2012-06-03, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:

> You're not seeing any scrap computers lying around?  

No.  I'm not.  

I now live in a pretty rural area, the high CO Rockies.  Nothing at
all like the SFBA from which I moved.  Here, ppl try and sell old junk
fer outlandish prices, thinking they are still worth something.  By
time they realize they're gonna hafta PAY to dispose of this refuse,
it's no longer in the little rural paper want-ads.  Fergit curbs!  Far
and few between.  Besides, I'm not in the mkt fer taking on a whole
box or system fer a sgl card.  I already have about $50 in disposal
fees rusting under my deck.  Again, not like SFBA, where one place
took in anything with a resistor in it, for free.

Also, I'm in a weird place, right now.  Fixed income, IRS breathing
down my neck fer some missed filing, and paying way too much of my own
income to care for my alzheimer mom.  Notta lotta spare change at this
moment.  Things will eventually change for the better, but for now I'm
jes happy I have a new monitor, old card or not.  ;)

nb

-- 
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5469

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> 
>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> notbob wrote:
>>>>>> On 2012-06-02, TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed -
>>>>>>> 170 horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using
>>>>>>> Mageia 1 and more recently, Mageia 2.
>>>>>> My problem is my ancient hardware, specifially on old VGA TNT vid
>>>>>> card.  The Acer does VGA, and will give me 1920x1080, but it loses
>>>>>> functionality at that res w/o DVI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I may take a look at Mageia, it already having zoneminder installed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nb
>>>>>>
>>>>> video cards are cheaper than monitors
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Not always.
>>> The cheapest video car which will certainly drive that scale of monitor
>>> is certainly cheaper than a monitor of that resolution.
>>>
>> 
>> Thats right.
>> On the other hand, there are video cards out there (mostly for gamers)
>> which cost more than the rest of the computer
> Hardly relevant in the context of
> "My problem is my ancient hardware"
> 

It is relevant to the claim of "video cards are cheaper than monitors"

While this  is mostly true, it is still wrong. Because it isn't always true

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5470

On 06/03/2012 04:05 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> video cards are cheaper than monitors
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not always.
>>>> The cheapest video car which will certainly drive that scale of monitor
>>>> is certainly cheaper than a monitor of that resolution.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thats right.
>>> On the other hand, there are video cards out there (mostly for gamers)
>>> which cost more than the rest of the computer
>> Hardly relevant in the context of
>> "My problem is my ancient hardware"
>>
>
> It is relevant to the claim of "video cards are cheaper than monitors"
>
> While this  is mostly true, it is still wrong. Because it isn't always true

All generalizations are false, even this one.

TJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5480

On 2012-06-03, Peter K??hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Peter K??hlmann wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Peter K??hlmann wrote:
>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> notbob wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2012-06-02, TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed -
>>>>>>>> 170 horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using
>>>>>>>> Mageia 1 and more recently, Mageia 2.
>>>>>>> My problem is my ancient hardware, specifially on old VGA TNT vid
>>>>>>> card.  The Acer does VGA, and will give me 1920x1080, but it loses
>>>>>>> functionality at that res w/o DVI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I may take a look at Mageia, it already having zoneminder installed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> video cards are cheaper than monitors
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not always.
>>>> The cheapest video car which will certainly drive that scale of monitor
>>>> is certainly cheaper than a monitor of that resolution.
>>>>
>>> 
>>> Thats right.
>>> On the other hand, there are video cards out there (mostly for gamers)
>>> which cost more than the rest of the computer
>> Hardly relevant in the context of
>> "My problem is my ancient hardware"
>> 
>
> It is relevant to the claim of "video cards are cheaper than monitors"
>
> While this  is mostly true, it is still wrong. Because it isn't always true

Would you apply the same reasoning to the statement that "cars are
cheaper than Penthouse apartments in New York" even if I could find you
a 4 million dollar car and a 2 million dollar penthouse apparement? A
statement that is mostly true, is mostly true, not wrong ( he never
said "all video cards are always cheaper than any monitor"). 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5412

On 05/20/2012 11:29 AM, David Brown wrote:
>
> I don't think I've seen monitors with poor viewing angles for many
> years. There are possibly a few that give slightly distorted colours at
> extreme angles, but any reasonable monitor will be fine at any sensible
> viewing angle.
>
> There are some differences between monitors. In particular, monitors
> with very high pixel count and designed for accurate static views are
> often IPS screens - they give the best picture for desktop use,
> programming, graphics, etc., but they are poorer for games or other
> fast-moving graphics. They are normally fine for TV/video, but opinions
> vary.
>
> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try
> them out and look at the pictures, and buy a screen that you are sure
> does the best job for your use. A good monitor will outlast the computer
> - it's worth making a good investment.

+1 on the viewing test. But while looking, don't pass up refurbished 
monitors, recent models that were returned for various reasons, checked 
out, and put back up for sale at a much lower price. Best Buy wouldn't 
be happy about this, but I looked at various monitors in their store, 
mostly to choose what size I wanted, then came home and bought a 
refurbished model from Overstock.com at nearly half the price.
>
> For my own use, I am very happy with the Dell IPS screen I have.

For my use, I've been happy with two separate Samsung monitors, both 
widescreen, one 20" 1600x900, the other 23" 1920 x 1080. Both were 
purchased as refurbished, and both work perfectly. I just sat here and 
checked the view angle on the 23-incher by swinging my chair, and it was 
fine even at what I would consider an extreme angle.

TJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5414

On 24/05/12 17:10, TJ wrote:
> On 05/20/2012 11:29 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> I don't think I've seen monitors with poor viewing angles for many
>> years. There are possibly a few that give slightly distorted colours at
>> extreme angles, but any reasonable monitor will be fine at any sensible
>> viewing angle.
>>
>> There are some differences between monitors. In particular, monitors
>> with very high pixel count and designed for accurate static views are
>> often IPS screens - they give the best picture for desktop use,
>> programming, graphics, etc., but they are poorer for games or other
>> fast-moving graphics. They are normally fine for TV/video, but opinions
>> vary.
>>
>> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try
>> them out and look at the pictures, and buy a screen that you are sure
>> does the best job for your use. A good monitor will outlast the computer
>> - it's worth making a good investment.
>
> +1 on the viewing test. But while looking, don't pass up refurbished
> monitors, recent models that were returned for various reasons, checked
> out, and put back up for sale at a much lower price. Best Buy wouldn't
> be happy about this, but I looked at various monitors in their store,
> mostly to choose what size I wanted, then came home and bought a
> refurbished model from Overstock.com at nearly half the price.

It's not just "Best Buy" who would not be happy about that - it's an 
attitude that is destroying shops around the western world.  It's pure 
theft of service, totally thoughtless, selfish, and self-destructive.

If you want to look at or buy re-furbished or second hand monitors, 
that's absolutely great.  But don't steal the time and resources of 
other suppliers if you have no intention of buying from them.

>>
>> For my own use, I am very happy with the Dell IPS screen I have.
>
> For my use, I've been happy with two separate Samsung monitors, both
> widescreen, one 20" 1600x900, the other 23" 1920 x 1080. Both were
> purchased as refurbished, and both work perfectly. I just sat here and
> checked the view angle on the 23-incher by swinging my chair, and it was
> fine even at what I would consider an extreme angle.
>
> TJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5418

On 05/24/2012 01:32 PM, David Brown wrote:
>
> It's not just "Best Buy" who would not be happy about that - it's an
> attitude that is destroying shops around the western world. It's pure
> theft of service, totally thoughtless, selfish, and self-destructive.
>
> If you want to look at or buy re-furbished or second hand monitors,
> that's absolutely great. But don't steal the time and resources of other
> suppliers if you have no intention of buying from them.
>

Got it. "Window shopping," something that's been going on for as long as 
there's been stores, is theft. Browsing a store's merchandise, when you 
don't know for sure if you will find something to buy, is thoughtless - 
unless you actually buy something. Better you stay away from the store 
altogether if you aren't sure you'll find something to buy.

I thank you for your input. All this time, when people browse through my 
shop without buying anything, I didn't realize I was being "destroyed." 
I thought it was just that they thought they could get a better deal 
someplace else, that maybe another time they would want what I have. 50 
years in retail, and I learn something new every day.

Next time somebody tries that at my place, I'll have to collar them, 
explain the facts of business, and hold them until they buy something. 
No doubt they'll appreciate the education and come back again and again.

TJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5424

On Friday, May 25th, 2012, at 20:09:53h -0400, TJ advised:

> Better you stay away from the store altogether if you aren't
> sure you'll find something to buy.

Most retail stores do *not* take this attitude.

A person is more likely to buy something in a store if they
vist the store than if they never visit the store.

FNAC even ran a TV commercial a number of years ago reinforcing
their policy that visitors to the store are under no obligation
to buy and that they may read the books in situ without buying
them.

The clincher of the commercial was when the young boy featured
finally made his first purchase of a book.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5425

On 05/26/2012 05:35 AM, J G Miller wrote:
> On Friday, May 25th, 2012, at 20:09:53h -0400, TJ advised:
>
>> Better you stay away from the store altogether if you aren't
>> sure you'll find something to buy.
>
> Most retail stores do *not* take this attitude.
>
> A person is more likely to buy something in a store if they
> vist the store than if they never visit the store.
>
> FNAC even ran a TV commercial a number of years ago reinforcing
> their policy that visitors to the store are under no obligation
> to buy and that they may read the books in situ without buying
> them.
>
> The clincher of the commercial was when the young boy featured
> finally made his first purchase of a book.

I know. Retail 101. Like I said, I have 50 years of retail experience. 
And yes, I've been through times when I didn't know if I could keep 
going, as well as times when it looked like I couldn't do anything 
wrong. But in those times when I didn't do so well, I *never* thought it 
was the customers' fault, for any reason. It was almost always mine.

Managers of stores that aren't doing so well come up with all kinds of 
excuses for it - anything that they can blame on somebody else. But the 
fact is, if your shop isn't doing well, it's because you *aren't* 
providing something your potential customers want. It can be price, 
value, quality, attitude, service, any or all of them - or something 
else. But if the retailer doesn't provide it, it's not the potential 
customer's fault if the retailer goes out of business.

TJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5427

On 26/05/12 14:07, TJ wrote:
> On 05/26/2012 05:35 AM, J G Miller wrote:
>> On Friday, May 25th, 2012, at 20:09:53h -0400, TJ advised:
>>
>>> Better you stay away from the store altogether if you aren't
>>> sure you'll find something to buy.
>>
>> Most retail stores do *not* take this attitude.
>>
>> A person is more likely to buy something in a store if they
>> vist the store than if they never visit the store.
>>
>> FNAC even ran a TV commercial a number of years ago reinforcing
>> their policy that visitors to the store are under no obligation
>> to buy and that they may read the books in situ without buying
>> them.
>>
>> The clincher of the commercial was when the young boy featured
>> finally made his first purchase of a book.
>
> I know. Retail 101. Like I said, I have 50 years of retail experience.
> And yes, I've been through times when I didn't know if I could keep
> going, as well as times when it looked like I couldn't do anything
> wrong. But in those times when I didn't do so well, I *never* thought it
> was the customers' fault, for any reason. It was almost always mine.
>
> Managers of stores that aren't doing so well come up with all kinds of
> excuses for it - anything that they can blame on somebody else. But the
> fact is, if your shop isn't doing well, it's because you *aren't*
> providing something your potential customers want. It can be price,
> value, quality, attitude, service, any or all of them - or something
> else. But if the retailer doesn't provide it, it's not the potential
> customer's fault if the retailer goes out of business.
>
> TJ

You might have 50 years of retail experience, but you /do/ still have 
something to learn.  Far less than most people, of course, but if you 
think you know it all, you have misunderstood a lot.

Your specific recommendation was to visit the shop to make use of their 
time, resources, stock, staff time, etc., with /no/ intention of buying. 
  That's very different from window shopping, or just looking around for 
something of interest, or on the chance of buying something.

If you have been working for 50 years in retail, you know it is a 
percentage game.  A certain percentage of people visiting the shop will 
buy things, and a certain percentage of what they pay will end up as 
profit at the end of the day.  Your job as a shopkeeper is to match this 
up so that the averaged profit justifies the cost of having the shop, 
stock and staff.  Sometimes it's fine with zero chance of buying, or 
with zero (or even negative) profit - if it increases the chance of that 
customer buying something else in the future, it's a win overall.

But if someone that has a zero chance of buying, and is specifically 
aiming at finding information in order to buy from a competitor, 
especially an on-line shop, you lose out.  If it is a "normal" customer 
looking for a monitor, who doesn't find out they want, that's okay - 
they'll see other things of interest, and maybe they'll buy at the time, 
maybe they'll come back in the future.  (Or, as you say, maybe the 
service, price, etc., mean the shop doesn't deserve the custom.)  But 
for a customer planning on doing their purchase from the cheapest 
internet site they can find, all the ideas they get from /your/ shop go 
to the competitor.


This effect is a huge problem for some types of shop, especially for 
small and independent retailers.  /Real/ bookshops are disappearing 
fast, as are record, CD and DVD shops.  Stand-alone computer shops 
(rather than combined service/sale shops) also suffer from this problem 
- the result is that to cut costs to compete, they often cut quality and 
service.

You can say this is changing society, rather than the fault of the 
customers.  And you can say that resisting it - by buying in the shops 
you look in, and paying more for better service - will just be a drop in 
the ocean.  But society is made up as the sum of such drops - and it is 
in the long-term interest of everyone to protect real-world shops.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5426

On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:35:23 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:
> On Friday, May 25th, 2012, at 20:09:53h -0400, TJ advised:
>
>> Better you stay away from the store altogether if you aren't
>> sure you'll find something to buy.
>
> Most retail stores do *not* take this attitude.
>
> A person is more likely to buy something in a store if they
> vist the store than if they never visit the store.

A person is more likely to buy something in a store if they are 
treated cordially, professionally, and sense competence in the staff.
Not likely to happen at the Best Buy in this town....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5419

On 2012-05-20, Steve <tinker123@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking about getting a new monitor for a Linux box.

I jes bought an Acer S230HL from Walmart ($170) fer my Slackware box.  My
first non-CRT.  Worth every cent and I'll never go back to CRT.  23"
extended width, VGA able, brilliant everything.  If it will work on my
ancient P4 w/ nvidia TNT2, should work on yers.  

nb

-- 
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web