I don't really mind what they put inside as long as it delivers more-or-less the same viewing experience from model to model. Even if the monitors look different at default, they should be adjustable to be made to look nearly the same, IMO. Since I could not get these two to come even anywhere near close, I feel Sammy did a bit of a number on me. No dead pixels, but two LCDs that look very different...that sucks rocks when dual displays are becoming more the norm than the exception.
I think sammy is gong to miss a huge boat here too, because dual 1600x1200 really rocks for standard work that involves a mix of tasks. BTW, do those of you who are using dualies have any distance between your displays? At work, I have my PC between my two LCDs, so they is about a foot or so of space from screen edge to screen edge. At home, I have the two panels touching. I'm trying to see which I actually prefer (except that now I have that 19" WS at 1440 x 900 sitting in)....I think turning my head to look at the other screen may be less fatiguing over the long haul. Opinions? ---- Greg Sevart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A lot of monitor assemblers will even use different panels entirely over the > model's lifetime...different technologies (S-IPS to TN+, for example) and > different manufacturers (Samsung to AU Optronics, for example). > > Greg > > > -----Original Message----- - > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne Johnson > > > > At 04:52 09-27-2007, Anthony Q. Martin typed: > > >Well, if you ask me, two monitors of the same m/n should be expected > > >to look very similar out-of-the box assuming they have the same > > >default settings. If not, then that suggests some shoddy workmanship > > >or use of subpart parts. I guess I now know what I'm dealing with, > > huh? > > > > Could it be one is rev 1 & the other is rev 2 ? Can't count the # > > of times I've had similar issues with mombos that were supposedly the > > same.
