Hi guys, I always wondered what could be better.

I mean for example:

http://x-kom.pl/index.php?show_prod=27828 http://www1.dealtime.co.uk/xPO-LG-W2600HP

http://www.komputronik.pl/TV_/ ... sung_A551/pelny,id,55812/

(those are just examples, and i know it is in polish, but I want You just to see what i'm talking about :P)

Both of them have similar prizes (around 500GBP/561EUR/740$), yet the TV has much bigger screen. Which one should be better for a pc and LFS? The TV has bigger screen so I would be able to use wider fov, right?
Does the tv has worse screen than the monitor?

(i'm not buying exacly them, i'm just curious... well... for the future :P)

Usually TV's have shittier picture, but biggers are better for little resolution. Like, i tryed GTA IV on my 17" LCD @ 800x600 ... The picture was horrible ... Tryed same resolution on TV and i can tell that picture was better.

Monitors are made for excact resolutions or somethning, TV's are for ... watching TV with big screen. But HD/MI TV's are worth to buy.

I didnt look at the pictures/links but i suggest u to buy monitor ...

Match your screen to your requirements.

If you sit 3 meters away from the screen and play games/watch movies, the bigger screen is better.

If you (like me) sit 50cm away from the monitor, and require desktop real-estate, a higher resolution smaller screen is better.

I would never use a TV screen for everyday PC use. There are people who do, I wouldn't.

But it is quite suprising for me. There are even 32"(FULL HD) tv's for the prize of 26"(TN!) monitors. Usually TV's(I suppose so) are using rather good screens so You could watch from more extreme angles than TN monitors, so why they are so cheap? You get more for the same? I don't get it(forget about the fact how far away would You like to sit), just pure facts. Why? Yeah... tv has a little smaller resolution but still, it's a bigger screen so it should cost more?(yet it costs the same, and offers better angles propably?)

Nah most TVs still use TNs, I would guess a 32" full HD panel doesn't cost much more to make than a 24", perhaps less even.

Quote from pb32000 :

Nah most TVs still use TNs, I would guess a 32" full HD panel doesn't cost much more to make than a 24", perhaps less even.

Eh? Just by looking at the screen in the showrooms you'll notice that most TVs DON'T use TN - test it, if the image doesn't get dark when you watch it from a higher or lower angle, it's no TN... Those which do use TN are the cheaper, completely unknown brands... LG.Philips has IPS panels, Samsung PVA ones and AUOptronics has usually cheap(ly) copies of one of those two and those three share about 2/3 of the whole panel market...

Quote from bbman :

Eh? Just by looking at the screen in the showrooms you'll notice that most TVs DON'T use TN - test it, if the image doesn't get dark when you watch it from a higher or lower angle, it's no TN... Those which do use TN are the cheaper, completely unknown brands... LG.Philips has IPS panels, Samsung PVA ones and AUOptronics has usually cheap(ly) copies of one of those two and those three share about 2/3 of the whole panel market...

Good point, I did make a crude assumption. Not sure how they are so cheap then compared to monitors. My current HP LP2465 cost more than most 32" TVs I've only ever owned non-TN panels other than well back in the day when a 17" TN cost several hundreds of £s.

Maybe simply they are so cheap because they are TVs... that's all. You pay so much for some 26", 24"(and 30" especially) monitors because they are considered "luxury" in pc world by their producers, yet TV's cost so little beacuse today who would buy 32" tv for 2000euro or more? Here I can see how cheap LCD could be(and they can propably be even cheaper). 26" LCD Monitor should cost 300euro with a good non-TN screen! If I can buy much bigger TV for similar prize with better screen... then there is something wrong with prizes?

tv for fun stuff but i use a monitor, its more close together and doesnt make your eyes travel ft..