Best Display for Trading?

T

top_step

I expect to be buying a new computer soon and usually start with the display and build from that. I've been using a 17" CRT for years and recently checked out several LCDs of 17-18" and a few laptops at some local stores. I've heard for years that LCDs are better for the eyes, cause less eye strain after long hours of use and are very sharp and bright. I was rather disappointed. Most of the stores did not have the displays set up properly including Gateway but even after much adjustment and setting clear type on, I felt the graphics suffered a jaggy appearance and the text was still not sharp enough. The one exception was a Toshiba Satellite 5105 with UXGA display which was really sharp and reasonably bright. I was not able to check out graphics on that display. I always use reading glasses with the computer so text size is not a big problem. I use eSignal software which has excellent control of font and line sizes which also helps. I'm not a gamer so I don't think the response rate is a big factor in the selection. The trick it seems to me is to get the pixel pitch down to below 0.26 (maybe well below) and keep the contrast and brightness up.

Putting the issues of reliability, upgradability, cost, portability and so on aside for the moment and focusing just on display quality for long hours of use, what do you folks prefer for trading screens (not games)? The displays I'm most interested in in no particular order:
Viewsonic P95F CRT at 1600X1200 @ 87 Hz 0.25-0.27 DP
Dell 2000FP 20" LCD at 1600X1200 DVI-D 0.255 DP
Dell UXGA laptop 15" at 1600X1200 0.19 DP
Planar CT1905S 19" LCD at 1600X1200 0.242 DP

If I had to choose right this moment I'd take the Planar 19" but the specs are not quite so good as the others on contrast ratio and brightness. What do you folks think?
 
Quote from topstep:

I expect to be buying a new computer soon and usually start with the display and build from that. I've been using a 17" CRT for years and recently checked out several LCDs of 17-18" and a few laptops at some local stores. I've heard for years that LCDs are better for the eyes, cause less eye strain after long hours of use and are very sharp and bright. I was rather disappointed. Most of the stores did not have the displays set up properly including Gateway but even after much adjustment and setting clear type on, I felt the graphics suffered a jaggy appearance and the text was still not sharp enough. The one exception was a Toshiba Satellite 5105 with UXGA display which was really sharp and reasonably bright. I was not able to check out graphics on that display. I always use reading glasses with the computer so text size is not a big problem. I use eSignal software which has excellent control of font and line sizes which also helps. I'm not a gamer so I don't think the response rate is a big factor in the selection. The trick it seems to me is to get the pixel pitch down to below 0.26 (maybe well below) and keep the contrast and brightness up.

Putting the issues of reliability, upgradability, cost, portability and so on aside for the moment and focusing just on display quality for long hours of use, what do you folks prefer for trading screens (not games)? The displays I'm most interested in in no particular order:
Viewsonic P95F CRT at 1600X1200 @ 87 Hz 0.25-0.27 DP
Dell 2000FP 20" LCD at 1600X1200 DVI-D 0.255 DP
Dell UXGA laptop 15" at 1600X1200 0.19 DP
Planar CT1905S 19" LCD at 1600X1200 0.242 DP

If I had to choose right this moment I'd take the Planar 19" but the specs are not quite so good as the others on contrast ratio and brightness. What do you folks think?
More...

Geeh, why do you make such a big deal of this?
 
I don't suppose it's any bigger deal than choosing a certain motherboard, AMD vs. Intel processor, 2 monitors vs. 10 or anything else that folks bring up on this list. I consider ergonomics to be important and choosing a bad display can cause splitting headaches, eye problems and tiredness after long hours of use. Then again maybe I'm just fussy. A high quality display is also the most expensive part of the system perhaps more than 50% of the total cost even with just one monitor.

I also do not have the opportunity to personally view most of these monitors so the "winner" will be bought sight unseen.

I hope that answers your question.
 
Quote from topstep:

I don't suppose it's any bigger deal than choosing a certain motherboard, AMD vs. Intel processor, 2 monitors vs. 10 or anything else that folks bring up on this list. I consider ergonomics to be important and choosing a bad display can cause splitting headaches, eye problems and tiredness after long hours of use. Then again maybe I'm just fussy. A high quality display is also the most expensive part of the system perhaps more than 50% of the total cost even with just one monitor.

I also do not have the opportunity to personally view most of these monitors so the "winner" will be bought sight unseen.

I hope that answers your question.
More...

I can assure you that you won't get splitting headaches of watching a monitor of any well-known manufacturer ( or cause eye problems and tiredness), the market will take care of that in its own fashion. when i startted trading i thought that i needed the latest and fastest equipment, only to find out that 2 things imo really matter: a fast internet connection and enougn video- and internal memory.
 
Another advice: don't buy the top-end equipment, it's generally overpriced, you'll find much more value in the low- and mid-price segment . developments in PC-equipment are so fast, that specs that are top-rate now will be midrange in six months. The workstation i bought one year ago, can now be bought at the same specs for less then 50% of its price i.e.
 
i love samsung syncmaster; almost as good as eizo, but a fair chunk less money. and, best buy / circuit city / etc. are now stocking them (they weren't when i got my first syncmaster, i now have 2).

i know some on here like viewsonic, but i used to do tech support on a trading floor, and those things were TERRIBLE.

granted, that was a few years ago...
 
I too have found that it can be just as economical to purchase two 17" to 19" monitors as opposed to one 21". In fact, I have vowed to never have another workstation that does not have a dual card in it. I feared it would be clunky and found instead that a dual card works effortlessly.

Currently, I am running a dual View Sonic 19" display with a AGP Typhoon card on a XP workstation, 512MB, XP 1800+ CPU. I use MBTrading's software powered by an eSignal feed. The cost of the card and monitors was round $2K. LCD's in my opinion are better. They are easier on the eyes (mine anyway) they have a truly flat screen and utilize every millimeter of display area.

One thing I have never figured out, not having been on a trading floor or in a brokerage with a four monitor setup - is how one can stack the monitor. I have found no commercial accessory that allows you to add a flat screen monitor to perch over the top of another monitor.

Scott
 
I just bought a viewsonic Vx900 19in. and I think its great. No dead pixels, a 600:1 contrast ratio and fast response times. I overpaid a little since prices have gone down and you can get one for around 800-850 from a respectable online store.
 
All of the computer systems including even the laptops have dual monitor capability and I will also be using my older computer for trade entry so that would make 3. The main advantage to the 19" and 20" LCD is that the quality of the displays is higher. The dot pitch is lower and contrast is higher. If they made a 17" UXGA desktop LCD then I probably would not have started this thread. Most of the desktop LCDs to my eye looked very poor particularly for graphics. I may take the advice of going with a cheaper system and using a 19" CRT but I really am a bit cramped for space especially if I wind up going with 3 monitors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top