The display is the most important part of any computer.

The display is the most important part of a computer

  • Yes, it usually is

    Votes: 94 63.9%

  • No, some other part is most important

    Votes: 53 36.1%
  • Total voters
    147
I'm shallow HAL .. if it doesn't look pretty (display, not bling) I don't care whats on the inside. In games the look of the motion is most important to me (least blur/smearing), in apps and desktop its the ppi, desktop real-estate, color and uniformity. I do use some basic 1080p tn's at desks though from time to time. Its fine for basic desktop stuff.

Adblock plus , noscript, and flash blocker (flash replaced by a 'play button' so it doesn't auto-load).. avoids most spyware. Also a few other app's blacklister/immunization features are similar to adblock's filter list feature.

.I know old people who grab non-prescription bifocal plastic glasses to read the paper. They don't even care about their actual eyesight let alone a monitor. I have no interest in what they care about in a computer monitor, tv, or the pc itself. It has no bearing. Average person prob likes jerry springer, court tv, and jackass among other things. Idiocracy doesn't come into consideration at all when I am deciding what is important in hardware. Again it comes down to the question's interpretation -- most important part of any computer *you* use? - or the most important part of any computer on the planet? I'm sure the OS is pretty important for computers that control utilities, power generation, military applications, etc, if you consider the OS a "part".
 
Fast machine on a monitor that sucks is much better than a slow machine that sucks with an awesome monitor.
 
If the question actually refers to one's PC and not "any computer", I would think that yes, the quality of one's interface to the computer, e.g., display, keyboard, mouse, speakers, is of paramount importance. And is relatively more of a constant, whereas what needs to be within the case will depend even more greatly on one's particular requirements....
 
bilnfon said:
Fast machine on a monitor that sucks is much better than a slow machine that sucks with an awesome monitor.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you're doing. If you're just watching movie or doing some light art work, having a slow pc may not matter as much.
 
While my monitor is important, there's no flawless display out there (well, unless you can have a FW900 or some other CRT but I can't) and you have to pick which defects bother you the least (uniformity, pixel response time, input lag, gamma shift etc.).

In the end I don't even put much money into it because I feel it's wasted money and I know it will get replaced long before it breaks. This is totally unlike with audio gear where you can easily get great stuff without any bothering flaws and I for one consider it a long term investment.

I also have a poor eyesight and good ears so obviously this has a huge effect on my choice.

So I get a barely acceptable display (by my standards, nothing apart from CRTs is more than "barely acceptable") with a great PC and great audio gear. Until we start to see good monitors (OLED?) or some 120hz IPS, I don't expect to change my habits.
 
i went from a 19 inch lcd 12 ms monitor to a 23.6 inch 2 ms lcd led monitor and from vga to dvi and id say, i should done it long time ago
 
I said no. I consider the PSU to be the most "important" part. Other than that, I consider choosing the right display to be very important. Immersion is a big deal for me when I play video games. Also, I tend to keep a display around for years. For me its worth getting a really nice one.
 
Minimum threshold and relative improvement are the deciding factors, and they'll forever be the hand-wringing decision they seem to be.

I built my GF's brother a computer some time ago: q9550, 4850x2 2GB w/ hardware to complement. I let him buy the display and he cheaped out and bought a 19" no name 768pixel lcd for $70. After about a year I got him an 2412m and took his old pos monitor away from him and never asked what the outcome was. After reading this post, I called him up and asked him what he thought about it and he said he missed out on a lot using the 19," and wouldn't make that mistake again. His main points were size and clarity. This guy doesn't know much about computers, more or less the average console gamer / p2p junkie, internet bum.

Whatever game you're playing, the appreciable difference a monitor makes is undeniable. However, minimum threshold is my determining factor. I think even manufacturers realize this with the likes of SSD caching being relevant, or intel adopting usb 3.0 against their grand plan, and other offerings that help bridge the price/performance gaps.

I think the real question is: What are steps and categories of monitor progression?

Progression can be just as important as having the best from the outset. Why don't we have a 120hz progression thread instead of just, "What's the best 120hz moniotr?" Or suggestions like going to a 2nd monitor before you go higher than 24." Suggestions and observations of upgrade paths would be very helpful.
 
Last edited:
Its important but to say its the most important can vary from person to person.

I consider the monitor somewhat separate because I usually change/upgrade them at different times and intervals. If I had my rig setup already then what monitor I choose is real important at that point.

But if I'm going to get a computer and monitor at the time then I'm probably going more emphasis on the components themselves then the monitor. So in that instance the monitor is somewhat the least important part imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top