Posted 11/11/2009 at 11:08:30am

I'm really disappointed by this article. MaximumPC passed up a good opportunity to dig into these things and expose how crappy LCDs have become by their commodification. Also, it neglects to mention H-IPS, S-PVA, and S-MVA/A-MVA/P-MVA.

Almost all of these (I didn't look at every review) are crappy 6-bit TN panel at 1920x1080, and I'm sure several of them are based off the same panel. It would've been useful if on the spec-sheet for each monitor you listed the panel type and which specific panel the monitor was based on.

I suspect for a few of those you wouldn't be able to though, because manufacturers can get away with playing the panel lottery and stick consumers with anything ranging from a decent screen to something awful depending on your luck of the draw (or lack thereof).

I'll also take this time to piss and moan yet again about the continually reducing pixel density of screens and the deceptive screen sizes that result from the move to 16:9 panels from 16:10 panels. Reviews like this could point out the total screen surface area as a more accurate size measurement for comparing monitors to each other. That way people who have a 22" 16:10 LCD don't see a 23.6" 16:9 LCD and buy it thinking they're getting something noticeably bigger. It's actually smaller.

Additionally, pixel densities have been falling as these screens have been getting larger. Instead of coming up with higher resolutions for bigger monitors, a lot of screens don't break 1920 pixels wide until they hit the 30" mark. I want to see 2176x1360 and 2304x1440 as stepping stones to 2560x1600.

Dear LCD makers: Please make me a 25-27" monitor with a minimum pixel density of 108 pixels per inch (preferably in the 115 ppi range), on a S-IPS/H-IPS panel at 16:10 ratio with dynamic LED backlighting. I will buy it yesterday. Thank you.

Posted 05/12/2009 at 11:21:35pm

Did someone forget to inform the people behind this that people with a Home Theater PC might have, I don't know, a HOME THEATER with a receiver?  Even supposing that I could replace the Blu-Ray and DVD playback capabilities of set-top boxes, I'm still going to have at the very least a DVR/Cable/Satellite box, and perhaps a gaming console or 3.  If I have a surround sound setup, you better believe I'm connecting that to the receiver.

 At which point, all of the time and resources AMD spent on this proprietary and ultimately useless internal amplifier is for naught.

 It's sad, and on top of that, this platform addresses none of my current concerns with HTPC platforms, which are mainly size, energy consumption, and content handling.  Blu-ray on PC is an abomination. I remember when PCs were actually preferable to set-top DVD players because of the initial price/performance gap. PCs have never been preferable, and due to draconian DRM BS, probably never will be.