24" Widescreen CRT (FW900) From Ebay arrived,Comments.

SH1 said:
Wow...someone got very lucky....
Click to expand...
Not as lucky as the bastard that scored a brand new one for around $500ish shipped total a couple months ago ;)

On a related note, i'm still debating over whether i should become a FW900 owner myself. A local repair shop refurbished a bunch of off-leases recently, and is willing to let me cherry pick an FW900 (out of a few dozen) for around $190, they'll even double the warranty to 60 days. I'm doubting that i'll get that "wow" factor from an extra 3 inches of screen real estate. I tend to sit close to my current screens and 20" viewable seems pretty darn immersive to me already, and i already have several immaculate high end 21" and 22" CRT's.

Is there anything someone can say to convince this fencesitter to make up his mind one way or the other? I normally don't hem and haw so much, but i am with the FW900 for some reason :confused: (normally not a positive sign for me!)

At the rate i'm headed i'll probably pass on it, just don't like the idea that i may be missing out on something really nice.
 
I moved to the FW900 from my trusty Viewsonic P810, a 21" CRT. Like you said, it's basically 3 inches wider. Still, I found the difference to be worth the price (I paid $145). From average web surfing to games, the wider viewing field is very welcomed. While it may be 3 inches, it seems like more when you're actually sitting in front of it. Also, I don't know what resolution your 21 and 22's go to but the P810 had 1600x1200 as it's max so I can get my desktop to a much higher resolution now.

It's ultimately up to you but I personally felt it was worth it.
 
The only annoyances I have found so far are getting the geometry correct and the fact that text isnt as sharp as my LCD. The latter is expected and ok since I bought this monitor for gaming, not surfing the web or reading. The former is incredibly annoying, and I still cant get it perfect.
 
meatflower said:
I moved to the FW900 from my trusty Viewsonic P810, a 21" CRT. Like you said, it's basically 3 inches wider. Still, I found the difference to be worth the price (I paid $145). From average web surfing to games, the wider viewing field is very welcomed. While it may be 3 inches, it seems like more when you're actually sitting in front of it. Also, I don't know what resolution your 21 and 22's go to but the P810 had 1600x1200 as it's max so I can get my desktop to a much higher resolution now.

It's ultimately up to you but I personally felt it was worth it.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the honest assesment, it's going to keep me agonizing a bit longer :p

But yea, most of my current screens go up to 2048x1536 @ 80hz (you don't want to know how many pristine jumbo CRT's i've recently acquired, they were so darn cheap!...really cheap!)
 
Opopono said:
The only annoyances I have found so far are getting the geometry correct and the fact that text isnt as sharp as my LCD. The latter is expected and ok since I bought this monitor for gaming, not surfing the web or reading. The former is incredibly annoying, and I still cant get it perfect.
Click to expand...

From what I have read, the only real way to get near-perfect uniform geometry is through WinDAS where you can manipulate the convergence in individual zones of the screen. Although, that just sounds very complicated to do.
 
I got lucky because the geometry on my FW900 has been near perfect since day one, Wish I could say the same about my XBR960 CRT...
 
I'm saying bye bye to this thread. Been reading it since the start. A lot of info here on CRT montors, just not for the 90pounder I have grown to love.
Ive had 3 of these monitors. But its time to move on for me *cry*
My last one is up for sale.
 
I am kinda moving on myself to an LCD.. But I won't be selling mine.. I hope maybe eventually I can get another brightness reduction done on it and maybe get a desk that can handle having this and an LCD on it so I can have 2304x1440 plus 1920x1200 dual desktop.. That would just kick ass. :)
 
Still love my FW900. Lugged it downstairs with some help to the new computer area (half of the master bedroom) as the new baby is getting my computer room :(

I have absolutely no interest in a big LCD. Love the FW900.
 
l0x said:
I'm saying bye bye to this thread. Been reading it since the start. A lot of info here on CRT montors, just not for the 90pounder I have grown to love.
Ive had 3 of these monitors. But its time to move on for me *cry*
My last one is up for sale.
Click to expand...

Damn, thats too bad.

I just bought mine two weeks ago. Played STALKER for the first time on my 8800GTX in 1900x1200. It is freaking sick how nice it looks. IMHO, this is sooo much better than what I was looking at on my Dell LCD (2001FP).

If we can get all this Vista refresh rate stuff worked out (60Hz sucks) I will be in heaven.
 
I have a Compaq P1610, which is the re-badged version of the 1st generation Sony. I am in Sunnyvale, California. Anyone interested in buying it from me ? Please make offer. Thanks.
 
So most of you game at resolution lower than 1920x1200, but you need a big screen, correct ?

I figure a CRT will do all resolutions fine but LCD is restricted to just one native resolution, and a Dell 24inch will force you all to play at 1920x1200, requiring a very expensive video card.

I am currently using an HP w2007 LCD, 20 inch, glossy screen. I surf web more than playing games, and I am into picture editing. For me and my lifestyle, I prefer things that are light.

Bought my Compaq p1610 for megabucks years ago, still trying to justify if I should keep it or I should sell for very little. :-(. But i do need to unload the heavy things.
 
GreenMonkey said:
Still love my FW900. Lugged it downstairs with some help to the new computer area (half of the master bedroom) as the new baby is getting my computer room :(

I have absolutely no interest in a big LCD. Love the FW900.
Click to expand...
+1.....tried the LCD route....tried quite a few actually.always come back to my FW900...

Maybe one day they will build an LCD that compares, but as of today, I haven't found one.
 
Crosshairs said:
+1.....tried the LCD route....tried quite a few actually.always come back to my FW900...

Maybe one day they will build an LCD that compares, but as of today, I haven't found one.
Click to expand...


Have you tried those with Glossy Screen ? They look just as vivid as an CRT monitor.
 
adobian said:
Have you tried those with Glossy Screen ? They look just as vivid as an CRT monitor.
Click to expand...

vivid is only one piece of the puzzle for me....its kinda like putting makeup on an ugly chick....

adobian said:
I surf web more than playing games, and I am into picture editing.
Click to expand...


Thats why an LCD works fine for you...I also have an LCD for my web surfing..I still haven't found one that is OK for me for gaming
 
Mathesar and others who have ordered from "ruminahui2" via eBay: Have any of you closely inspected the screen of your monitor(s) with a flashlight, searching for scratches/dints etc.?

Most of the eBay auctions I see for used GDM-FW900s advertise the screens of the units as being in "perfect condition." I have already had one bad experience with a used CPD-G520P from eBay that looked as though it had been dragged through the street with a pickup truck.

Unfortunately, "perfect condition" seems to be subjective. :rolleyes:
 
I got one from the same guy.. While the bezel has scrapes and scratches galore, glass of the screen itself is flawless.
 
60Hz in vista is terrible. :mad:

at 1600 x 1200 the monitor tab shows 50Hz to 100Hz

at 1920 x 1200 the monitor tab show only 60hz

at 1920 x 1440 the tab shows 50 to 100hz

at 2048 x 1536 the tab shows 50hz to 100hz (50, 60, 70, 75, 85, 100).
2048 x 1536 is the maximum resolution that shows for the monitor.
It does not show 2048x1280 or 2304x1440 at all.

So I can use essentially non-widescreen modes at above 60Hz but not at 1920x 1200, an 2304x1440 isn't even listed. :(

I tried messing with powerstrip a bit but the advanced timings button is greyed out. I'm not sure if this is a problem with vista too.
 
elvn said:
60Hz in vista is terrible. :mad:

at 1600 x 1200 the monitor tab shows 50Hz to 100Hz

at 1920 x 1200 the monitor tab show only 60hz

at 1920 x 1440 the tab shows 50 to 100hz

at 2048 x 1536 the tab shows 50hz to 100hz (50, 60, 70, 75, 85, 100).
2048 x 1536 is the maximum resolution that shows for the monitor.
It does not show 2048x1280 or 2304x1440 at all.

So I can use essentially non-widescreen modes at above 60Hz but not at 1920x 1200, an 2304x1440 isn't even listed. :(

I tried messing with powerstrip a bit but the advanced timings button is greyed out. I'm not sure if this is a problem with vista too.
Click to expand...

Maybe try a BNC cable or something else that won't let Vista identify the monitor electronically. Then manually tell Vista that it's another monitor that has the settings you want. (Unless Vista goes into some kind or "protective" safe mode or something. I haven't tried it as I still have XP for now...)
 
I think my HP A7217A is dying:(

Its lost alot of its brightness over the last couple of days and the whites are slowly getting a red hue to them.
I still have a samsung 997df I can use in replacement but I dont think I can get my hands on another one of these bad boys

RIP HP A7217A I barely knew ye:(
 
I recently picked up a used/defective FW900. I was hoping that it might be repairable.

When the unit is powered on, the LED on the front panel turns green, and the monitor makes four (4) short "buzzing" or "clicking" noises. While it is making these noises, nothing is displayed on the screen and the green light remains on. (When I peak inside the casing, I can see a light that flashes during each buzz/click.) After the noises stop, the green light remains on.

Any ideas?
 
Hey guys, I'm looking to buy a variant of the 24" sony

I've heard that past a certain year (after 2003?) the adjustable pots were replaced by an eeprom chip that becomes corrupted over time and makes the focus re-adjustment impossible without flashing the eeprom.

Does this apply to all variants (such as HP) of the 24" crt moniot manufactured after 2003?
 
I installed vista onto my old pc that I have plugged into the first input on the FW900. Its a direct vga to vga connection. The refresh rates all show up, and the resolutions up to 2048x1280 (still not showing 2304x1440 though. It must be a limitation of the bnc cables not allowing vista to identify the monitor correctly. This is contrary to the suggestion SH1 gave but he was definitely on the right track and pointed me in the right direction. Now I may put my main pc on the vga cable and the old pc on the bnc cable since its not as important as my main computer having a high refresh rate.

edit: 2048 x 1280 is limited to 16bit color for some reason, and as I said 2304x1440 is not even an option. I am able to get 60Hz to 85hz refresh at 1920x1200 in 32bit color which is what I want. It is limited to the vga input. The bnc input is stuck at 60hz for 16:10 resolutions for some reason.
 
Dunan said:
I think my HP A7217A is dying:(

Its lost alot of its brightness over the last couple of days and the whites are slowly getting a red hue to them.
I still have a samsung 997df I can use in replacement but I dont think I can get my hands on another one of these bad boys

RIP HP A7217A I barely knew ye:(
Click to expand...

Hmmm make sure none of your color settings have changed, and that your vga cable is plugged in snugly. Also make sure none of the video card desktop color correction settings have been changed.

That's just weird because the problem I have with mine is that it just keeps getting brighter, and brighter and brighter!
 
gr33dy said:
I have already had one bad experience with a used CPD-G520P from eBay that looked as though it had been dragged through the street with a pickup truck.
Click to expand...
I have one of these! it's a FW900 wanna trade ?... that's my luck with a FW900 back in 2005 off eBay
 
UrielDagda said:
Hmmm make sure none of your color settings have changed, and that your vga cable is plugged in snugly. Also make sure none of the video card desktop color correction settings have been changed.

That's just weird because the problem I have with mine is that it just keeps getting brighter, and brighter and brighter!
Click to expand...

No, nothing has changed in the settings :(
It flickers a red hue back and forth quickly sometimes on the desktop. even the BIOS screen letters are red sometimes. I have to try another monitor to determine if its the monitor or video card. its completely random and happens at any time:(
 
elvn said:
I installed vista onto my old pc that I have plugged into the first input on the FW900. Its a direct vga to vga connection. The refresh rates all show up, and the resolutions up to 2048x1280 (still not showing 2304x1440 though. It must be a limitation of the bnc cables not allowing vista to identify the monitor correctly. This is contrary to the suggestion SH1 gave but he was definitely on the right track and pointed me in the right direction. Now I may put my main pc on the vga cable and the old pc on the bnc cable since its not as important as my main computer having a high refresh rate.

edit: 2048 x 1280 is limited to 16bit color for some reason, and as I said 2304x1440 is not even an option. I am able to get 60Hz to 85hz refresh at 1920x1200 in 32bit color which is what I want. It is limited to the vga input. The bnc input is stuck at 60hz for 16:10 resolutions for some reason.
Click to expand...

Any way you connect this monitor, if you are running Vista, you're boned on the hz front. It is well known that Vista has a "lock" on refresh rates for whatever reason. Myself and others continue to look for a solution, and there is at least a note in current Vista nVidia drivers that it will be fixed in a future release.
 
3-zero-3 said:
Any way you connect this monitor, if you are running Vista, you're boned on the hz front. It is well known that Vista has a "lock" on refresh rates for whatever reason. Myself and others continue to look for a solution, and there is at least a note in current Vista nVidia drivers that it will be fixed in a future release.
Click to expand...

Weird, Vista recognized my FW900 and I was running 1920 x 1200 @ 85hz

I'm back on XP running the same thing...
 
No problems with Vista / ATI x850 with newest driver pack off their site.
I have the FW-900 INF file installed, but ATI control panal still didn't recognize the INF.
I disabled the option to read resolution / timing from the DCC? profile and that gave me all the refresh/resolutions except for a few of the extreme high ones. (2304x1440) is missing I think
 
Blazestorm said:
Weird, Vista recognized my FW900 and I was running 1920 x 1200 @ 85hz

I'm back on XP running the same thing...
Click to expand...

Whaaa? OMG, so you would be very unique to say the least. I installed the drivers from the XP inf, it recognizes it and a bunch of resolutions. 19x 12 is stuck at 60. This is not a problem unique to this monitor either.
 
"I disabled the option to read resolution / timing from the DCC"

I think that's what the BNC cables do physically. (At least some of them...)

I think I had to add 2304x1440 manually. Guess that isn't an option with Vista, at least with nVidia so far from what people here are saying...
 
Yup, its on its way to the grave, stuck with a red hue in the lettering, even in the BIOS. other monitors are fine.

I will miss ye, 'ol HP, you had the best picture i have ever seen on a monitor, and your blacks are second to NONE.:(



:(
 
I might be able to get one which is manufatured in 2000 for like 50 Euro. shall I go for it?

does this monitor has "image restoration" function?

Mike
 
Dunan said:
Yup, its on its way to the grave, stuck with a red hue in the lettering, even in the BIOS. other monitors are fine.

I will miss ye, 'ol HP, you had the best picture i have ever seen on a monitor, and your blacks are second to NONE.:(



:(
Click to expand...

quoting myself thats a first!

I found a place that repairs them!
Woot!

mike82y said:
I might be able to get one which is manufatured in 2000 for like 50 Euro. shall I go for it?

does this monitor has "image restoration" function?

Mike
Click to expand...

yea it has the image restoration feature
 
Well like I said on the vga input I can run 1920x1200 at 85Hz which is the resolution and refresh I want in vista so I will just put the pc I use the most on that input.

The highest rez 2304x1440 is not listed. I will also have to swap my main multimedia/gaming rig with its 7600gt onto the vga input to make sure its not video card dependent. The old pc on the vga input which is showing the 1920x1200 @ 85Hz in vista has an old geforce2 on it.
 
I put my 7600gt on the vga input. It shows up as hp A7217A. Refresh rates listed for 1920x1200 are 50Hz, 60Hz and 85Hz.

2304x1440 resolution is listed with a refresh rate of 79Hz.

I'm not sure if any of my powerstrip settings carried over, or if it picked up the FW900 xp driver I had previously installed when it was connected via the BNC cables. I'm happy with the high refresh rates and resolutions available this way in vista now though so this will do.
 
Vista 60Hz Fix. . .

Blazestorm said:
Weird, Vista recognized my FW900 and I was running 1920 x 1200 @ 85hz

I'm back on XP running the same thing...
Click to expand...
I was able to add 1680x1050 at 85hz by going into registry. . . I imagine you could do the same for 1920x1200. . . but for the purposes of this thread, I'm going to write about 1680x1050 since that's what I worked with. . . because I too don't recall having trouble with 1920x1200 once I just installed the built-in FW900 driver that comes with Vista.

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Video\{GID}\0000\NV_Modes

(keep in mind that GID will vary from user to user)

You'll see something like the following:

{*}S 720x480=1;720x576=8032;320x200 320x240 400x300 480x360 512x384 640x400=F;SHV 1920x1080x32 1920x1200x32 1920x1440 2048x1536=1F;640x480 800x600 848x480 960x600 1024x768x8,16 1088x612x8,16=1FFF;1600x1024x32 1600x1200x32 1920x1080x8,16 1920x1200x8,16=3F;1280x720x32 1280x768x32 1280x800x32 1280x960x32 1280x1024x32 1360x768x32 1600x900x8,16=3FF;1600x900x32 1600x1024x8,16 1600x1200x8,16=7F;
Click to expand...
There's a guide to understanding this gibberish here (PDF)

However, if memory serves (I went back to XP so I can no longer check my registry), I added 1680x1050 to the second group (the one that ends in =F) and I was then able to select 85Hz for a refresh rate for 1680x1050 where it was locked at 60hz before.

Finally, the FW900 driver built into Vista should allow for 85Hz for 1920x1200. Those are really the only two resolutions I prefer (1920 for games, 1680 for desktop). All the games I tried made use of the higher refresh rates.

Edit: Duh. Obviously this is for nv cards only. :)

Edit: Actually, trying to remember, I think I may have just added my own custom entry and refresh rate after the *S in the beginning that said: 1680x1050=1DF; which should then allow the choosing of 144, 140, 120, 85, 75, 72, 70, and 60. But, of course, only a few of those will work. Looking at the manual linked above, you might also try 1680x1050=2B if you prefer 1680x1050 to be able to run at 100Hz.
 
I called the place that repairs them and they gave me some neat info:

The movie company that made “300” bought 40 of our units because “these are the only units able to portray the color accuracy we needed for the movie”

And that pixar, lucasarts and ILM uses these units for their 3D rendering scenes

In other words, what we have is THE top of the line best CRT ever made!!

pretty awesome!

must find another one:D

*salivates*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top