Yes, I meant to say DVI input.

There is 1920x1200 for DVI, WUXGA which is very nice.

I thin kDVI looks much cleaner on LCD. I have a Dell 2001FP and I run it via DVI with an ATi FireGL x1 and it looks really sharp much much better than my 21in FD trinitron monitor. And LCD is much easier on the eyes.

 

Yes, believe it or not it's a limitation that many folks run into. I first discovered the problem when trying to hide all of the cables / audio / tuner equipment for a plasma install on a wall.

The only advantage I can think of for DVI is the quicker resolution adjustments for LCD monitors. In terms of video quality, it's a lot like the 5.1 vs DTS argument. I can't tell a damn bit of difference.

I do agree with iatacs19 when he says an LCD is easier on the eyes -- especially when reading text. On the other hand, even the best LCD's are not quite up to par with CRT's when gaming.

 

I don't do much gaming

 

I have to agree with Steve. I can't tell the difference between the DVI and the VGA inputs on my Samsung 191t.

Maybe it's just me. My eyes are fine but I actually prefer the 480 interlaced picture over the 480 progressive DVD mode on my plasma setup. I think the expensive DVD player was a waste of money. I expected a big change but I didn't get that. Same goes for the DVI monitor.

 

You are correct Steve. Not sure when it comes to gaming/PC use but currently in the medical imaging world there is no advantage for one over the other except component cost. A good filtered/shielded 6ft VGA cable costs about $2 on OEM market.

I am seeing specs that progress towards DVI only though. Probably just because most high-end LCDs will have DVI inputs only pretty soon.

 

Today Apple came out with a 30" Cinema Display. Works on Mac and PC. 2560x1600 O_O Can't dual display it though.