Your criticism of the review is BOGUS BS. And, to top it off you as much as admit it in your commentary.

I reviewed this particular LCD for two reasons: 1. it had a price point many readers have indicated they cannot afford going above, and 2. it does have a larger color gamut than typical home/office models in the same price category.

You cannot accurately adjust color you cannot actually see on-screen, so the color gamut is crucial. That the Viewsonic is compromised in other dimensions to achieve this combination of low price and large color gamut was acknowledged in the review, as you indicated in your remarks.

Finally the only solution you offer is to spend more money for an LCD display. But for those who are many who don't have more money to spend, it is no solution. So then maybe the Viewsonic is a good compromise??????

Your review gives no perspective, and really, all your saying is the Viewsonic should be a consideration. Yes, I agree.

The unfortunate situation is that the marketplace has moved to poor performing, large format wide screen LCD monitors at cheaper prices. While I understand the need for lower cost, the competition between manufacturers and a perceived need for larger screens has pushed them to inferior technology.

The more we as consumers know about the technology the more informed our decisions and the more we will want better products. Products which do not sacrifice performance and usability for numbers that look good on brochures.

A 104% colour gamut means nothing if I can't match them to standards that work in a printing environment. I think you will be and are fighting an uphill battle with calibrating this new breed of monitor.

I will be sad when my NEC IPS panel dies, because I have less choices now and it's all because people/manufacturers want/push bigger and faster.

I have no problem boycotting crappy camera's, so I have no problem boycotting crappy monitors. That's my two cents.

Obviously Mr. Gearhead although you inform yourself of the specifications you ignore the market's facts of life. There would be no LCD displays at all for computers if the market for flatscreen TV's did not support it. The LCD screen technology is entirely driven by the TV market, and LCD displays for computers is a very minor derivative. The one company that adds significantly to the value of the LCD performance for computer graphics is Eizo, and its products demand premium prices only a small percentage of computer user can and want to afford.

There is no problem calibrating and profiling even very modest home/office LCD displays if the essential adjustment facilities are included, and usually are.

I appreciate your concerns and exercising well considered discrimination is something everyone can benefit from. I just find your perspective in large part disconnected from reality. Just reading and being aware of specifications does not necessarily accomplish a comprehensive understanding of all that is involved.

What the?!?

I don't really pay attention to specs, at least those written on PR material. Manufacturers long ago gave up giving real information about anything useful in their ads.

I think you have that LCD thing backwards. The technology of LCD TV's was derived from LCD monitors for PC use. Early PC LCD's used something similar to what LCD TV's are using now.

You will not find any TV that can give you the sharpness and resolution of a PC LCD, and it's not just the dot pitch.

The research goes first into PC monitors, because they know they can sell them to PC users. Computer users need sharp colour accurate monitors, because that is what they have been using even with CRTs.

I mean what's with the pricing of LCD TV's compared to Monitors? Why does a 24" LCD Monitor cost above $600 when I can get a 32" TV for less then $500?

While the money is probably in the TV market, the technology and advancement is in the PC market. Though it is valid that the moneys earned from TV sales are bringing down the prices of PC monitors.

Anyways, thanks for the chats. You have won and I will not come back to the shutterbug forums.

It's become obvious to me that I will not find any community here.

Bye

"While the money is probably in the TV market, the technology and advancement is in the PC market."

The prime manufacturers of LCD display screens for both computers and TV's is the same. The factories are so costly and big even Sony has partnered with Samsung recently to build one of the multi-billion dollars facilities. The TV and computer display screens are made by just a few companies large enough to afford the R&D costs as well as the billions for screen production facilities. Many more companies buy the screens and produce the electonics and backlight as well as the furniture. Then even more companies buy OEM from them, label and market LCD's for different market segments.

It is just like the digital camera business, only a few companies make imaging sensors, but many more companies make digital cameras with those sensor chips.

You are correct LCD's appeared earliest in computer displays, but that was largely because the production cost in the beginning was so high a premium computer display was the only market open to such a high price point.

Sorry you don't like it here, it's not FaceBook.