Bigger does not mean better. A 42" LCD is bigger, but may have worse resolutions and other specs compared to a 20" LCD. This is because the 42" is intended for use with a home theater system, where as a 20" LCD is intended to be used with a regular PC. Important specs to look for (in order of importance):

• Resolution. 4:3 and 5:4 aspect ratios are becoming more difficult to find since the push to manufacturer wide-screen (16:9), but 4:3 and 5:4 are much better for gaming since currently a small portion of games supports wide-screen without skewing images. Also, video cards have a tougher time with wide-screen due to the additional performance required to render all the pixels (more pixels = more rendering). If you're not into gaming, then it won't matter too much. For good gaming resolutions, most smaller monitors will do 1280x1024 (5:4) these days, which is good. 1600x1200 (4:3) is the next step up. For widescreen, 1680x1050 (16:9) is becoming popular for 20" or so LCDs. Home theater monitors (which you won't want for a PC) will be listed as something like 1080i or 720p, but the resolutions are really similar to 16:9 aspect ratios and much lower than computer monitors.
  
  
• Contrast ratio. This measures how well distinguished the colors will be, and is a measurement of the luminosity difference between black and white. The higher the first number in this ratio (provided the second number is 1), the better the color reproduction. This is shown as 600:1 and typically varies from 200:1 to 2000:1. Most newer, quality monitors will be at least 600:1, with only the best between 1000:1 and 2000:1. There is a measurement for this as "native" and "enhanced", "extrapolated", or "DC". If the latter, typically halving the number will get the actual spec, but sometimes it will be down to one third.
  
  
• Response time. All LCDs were originally sold with horrible response times like 24 or 26ms. Today, these numbers typically range from 2ms to 16ms. Shoot for 8ms or better to get reasonable video playback and decent gaming experience. 4ms or 2ms is great for gaming. There is no standard for this measurement, so read the fine print here. 2ms GTG may be identical to 8ms average. GTG means the response time it take to change one shade of gray to another shade of gray. Typically, the response time should measure time it take to change between 50% gray and either pure black or pure white.
  
  
• Display colors. This is actually more important than we may be lead to believe. The specs for 16.7 million colors and 16.2 million colors are very different, but not just because of the number. Try to get 16.7 million color displays whenever possible for the most accurate color.
  
  
• 16.7 million color displays are the equation of 256 colors per primary colors (RGB), or specifically 8-bit values for Red, Green, and Blue.
  
  
• 16.2 million color displays are the equation of 64 colors per primary colors (RGB), or specifically 6-bit values for Red, Green, and Blue. This gives a number in the thousands (instead of millions), but LCD manufacturers will apply 'dithering' to each pixel (using nearby pixels) to trick your eyes into seeing more shades than are actually shown.

See how important this is, especially if you want bright, vivid colors? 16.2 million color displays look washed-out compared to 16.7 million color displays.

• Refresh rate. This is typically 60 to 75Hz for most LCDs. Cheaper LCDs might only be able to do up to 60Hz, but try to get 75Hz since it will be easier on your eyes for longer periods of use, especially with fluorescent lighting.
  
  
• Inputs. If your monitor will two or more inputs, then it will probably be able to switch sources on the fly. This means you an hook up two PCs to the same monitor (or a PC and another device). If you want or need this, try to find a monitor that can toggle inputs with a single button. Toggling inputs through an OSD (on screen display) could become annoying if you need to do this frequently. Newer monitors will have DVI (digital), older monitors will have VGA (analog), some have both, some have two DVIs, and only one or two brand new monitors will have a display port connection (future-proofing). Generally, if you stick with DVI, you're fairly safe. Match this to your PC. If you don't have DVI on your PC, I'd suggest getting a monitor with both a VGA and DVI port so you can upgrade later.
  
  
• Brightness. This is really the least of your concerns unless you're working under extremely bright fluorescent lighting. Even then, a spec 300 cd/m2 will be more than enough. Typically 250 cd/m2 is fine, but top-end models can hit 400 cd/m2 and above. I have a 350 cd/m2 and a 250 cd/m2 monitor side by side for my home PC and I never notice the difference, because I don't turn up the brightness more than 50% anyways.
  
  
• Brand name. NEC and Samsung are among the best performers, but also are very expensive. You do get what you pay for. Sony, Dell, and some Planar models are also great, but don't match the top NEC and Samsung monitors for specs sometimes. With these top-end brands, you'll get all the bells and whistles or fully-adjustable stands, easy cable management, and for some, built-in USB hubs, etc. I love the control feel and layout for Samsung monitors, but I hate the ones for NEC. Still, my primary monitor is an NEC due to its performance, reliability, and overall good reproduction of colors. My NEC has one stuck pixel, but it doesn't bother me. I have an older 17" Samsung monitor (low-end model for Samsung) that I absolutely love. It's not high on specs (due to the fact I use it to build and troubleshoot PCs), but it has an amazing picture with accurate colors, as well as easy controls and an auto adjust feature that performs better than I've seen on any other brand.
  
  Good mid-range brands are Acer and LG. They seem to balance performance and price quite well, along with great reliability and extremely low ratio of perfect monitors compared to those with dead/stuck pixels. My workplace purchased a little under a dozen of these at one time, and then a few here and there after that, and none of them had dead pixels. All them have been working great. Never had a dead pixel on any of them.
  
  ViewSonic is a mixed bag. Sometimes you'll get a great monitor from them (certain models), and sometimes you'll get an awful one.
  
  Cheaper brands such as Hanns-G, BenQ, Sceptre are ok, but they seriously lack the performance and features of top-end brands. Most of these have horrid stands (ie: tilt-only, no height adjustment or swivel), no extra frills, and washed-out colors. Still, they're nice for a cheap monitor that just does the job. If you're looking for a cheap 19" or 20" widescreen, these are good for the price, and typically don't have much of a problem with dead pixels. I've used a 19" BenQ for a our church's projector system, and two 20.1" widescreen BenQ monitors for work (I write a lot of code, so I wanted a lot of screen real-estate for cheap). I also have a 19" BenQ to use as a second monitor for my home PC.
  
  Avoid Westinghouse like the plague (horrid reliability and bad ratio of perfect monitors to ones with dead/stuck pixels). The same goes for generic or otherwise unknown brands sold by places like Walmart.
  

Throughout 2007, I've been finding quite a few good articles that point out some of the major issues with Vista and Microsoft. I couldn't possibly save them all because publications such as eWeek have at least a blurb about Vista every week. Instead, I've been saving all of those published in traditionally Windows-focused magazines. I've clipped quite a few good ones from Computer Power User" (CPU) magazine, "Maximum PC" magazine, and "PC Magazine".

After saving these articles for a while, I needed to find a way to share these with co-workers and friends. Web sites are a saturated medium, and I'd rather have the original articles shown instead of just scanned in as images. Then something struck me. We have many interns at my workplace who are currently attending Penn State University, and they sometimes have to create presentations using old-school foam-board. They shell out $50 or so for a professionally printed foam-board, but I knew it wouldn't be hard to affix stencil letters for a professional look. Besides, I have plenty of these old-school sheets of stick-on letters that I never use.

So, the "Vista Board of Shame" was born!



(Edit: Christopher Null's lead-in blurb is shown above).

I want to send out a big thanks to all of the editors and analysts who wrote the articles and quotes I've used. This includes Chris Pirillo, Pete Loshin, John C. Dvorak, Alex St. John, Sascha Segan, Tom Halfhill, James Turner, "Sadie the Watchdog", James Turner, and Christopher Null. I want to also thank all of the magazines who've published their articles, as I listed at the top of this entry.



But what use is it picking apart one of the worst operating systems in the world unless you offer solutions and alternatives? Of course, this is a perfect opportunity to help spread the word of Linux, and specifically Ubuntu. And instead of just letting people know about Ubuntu, why not hand out CDs for Ubuntu 7.10?

At least a couple of my co-workers will be heading into the Christmas season this year with serious interests in trying Ubuntu. Even others may now be a little more aware of the issues with Vista and know that there are easy, powerful alternatives.

Here's a screen cap of my typical day at work, coding in a language I dispise (VB), on a platform I'm growing weary of (Microsoft Windows), at an office where I feel a little more "stuck" each day. To look on the bright side, I am lucky to have such a flexible environment, with a great boss, and friendly, respectful co-workers. I am also able to use my own PC hardware, and I can look forward to using ubuntu within Microsoft Virtual PC 2007. So I am still a happy software engineer.





I've been lazy in getting my MO_Modbase application rolled out, so if you're looking for that, sorry for the delay. I promise I'll get it done before the end of the year!