24" monitor decision

[ibiris]

I decided to do a bit of hunting on the internet for a larger monitor to replace my 19" non-widescreen Hyundai L90D+. Not knowing a great deal about recent models, I spent some time reading reviews and opinions in threads on various motherboards.
The Hyundai has never caused me any problems and I have no complaint with it. This doesn't mean to say that there arn't problems such as backlight bleeding and ghosting - it's just that I have never noticed or haven't looked for it.

In short... I decided that the Dell 2407WFP-HC was the model for me. It all sounded good, ultrasharp and with the fancy High Colour bit - not to mention integrated usb ports and a card reader. All the reviews made it out to be very good and it seemed to perform well in all aspects (gaming, web browsing, video watching etc... which is what I need it for).
Unfortunately, I ended up stumbling upon a thread on the Dell forums which has shown that a great deal of people have found terrible ghosting on the display (which can be seen on this youtube video: YouTube - Dell 2407WFP-HC Ghosting). It's so bad in fact that Dell have allowed people to return the screens for a full refund - and they don't seem to be selling it from the Dell website anymore.

My hunt went on and I heard good things about the E248WFP... but unfortunately that isn't an ultrasharp monitor. Plus, altho not essential, it only has DVI&VGA inputs and no integrated card reader or usb hub.

I am now stuck as to what decision to make. I don't want to splash out on the 2407WFP-HC and then be disappointed by terrible ghosting. But at the same time I don't want to purchase an inadequate monitor.

A decision on what I do isn't urgent as I'll have to wait until the 5th of Jan when I go back home to measure the space it will be going in. If it's too small i'll be back to square one anyway... but i'd like to get an idea of what I want before hand.

Any recommendations or advice would be much appreciated - either for one of these displays or a completely different one. One thing I don't want from it is speakers, as I don't need them. And the only essential is a DVI input - card readers or usb ports are only a bonus.

I'm wondering how much I would notice the ghosting on the 2407, because if others have noticed any on the L90D+ and I haven't, then will it be that much of an issue for me?

Thanks in advance.


Edit: Any opinions on the Hyundai W241D-PVA would also be good - i've decided to throw that spanner in the works ;-)

[Hottentot]

Here is a good link:
AnandTech - The LCD Thread

Its very much a case of horses for courses, in that you need to pick a screen for the task you mainly expect to use it for.

The 26" NEC I use is mainly for photography but is a pretty good all rounder.

I tried a 22" TN panel but the colours were terrible. However if it would have been OK for gaming and internet browsing.

[Ciber]

Personally I would say get either a samsung or dell. If you're worried about issues with the dell screen, then samsung would seem to be the way to go to me.

[hibby]

Work out the postage cost of returning the monitor under the Distant Sales Regulations and whether you're prepared to pay that for testing the Dell and returning it if you don't like it. The retailer is obliged to refund everything you paid in the contract (including delivery to you) - and can only make you liable for the return postage if they explicitly state it in their Terms and Conditions.

The very cheeky but perfectly legal way to test equipment, you can even ignore all the Terms and Conditions stating that the items must be returned unopened/saleable condition. The DSR says that you have to be able to test the equipment to make sure it's what you were expecting, which of course means opening the box and ripping into any sealed plastic bags found inside.

I've yet to work out if, with the Dell monitor, you can get away with returning it as "faulty", in which case you can return it for a full refund including delivery costs in both directions.

[Madafwo]

Work out the postage cost of returning the monitor under the Distant Sales Regulations and whether you're prepared to pay that for testing the Dell and returning it if you don't like it. The retailer is obliged to refund everything you paid in the contract (including delivery to you) - and can only make you liable for the return postage if they explicitly state it in their Terms and Conditions.

The very cheeky but perfectly legal way to test equipment, you can even ignore all the Terms and Conditions stating that the items must be returned unopened/saleable condition. The DSR says that you have to be able to test the equipment to make sure it's what you were expecting, which of course means opening the box and ripping into any sealed plastic bags found inside.

I've yet to work out if, with the Dell monitor, you can get away with returning it as "faulty", in which case you can return it for a full refund including delivery costs in both directions.

Not strictly true.

You are entitled to return the goods and have the money refunded, this does not included the original carriage costs as this is a service you have paid for and if the item was delivered then this service has been carried out and therefore isn't covered under the DSR's and most probably wont be refunded.

You have the legal right to inspect the goods, this doesn't mean use it for a week and return it if you dont like it, if you haven't taken reasonable care of the item then the retailer doesn't have to refund it so it is always adviseable to take good care of it.

You also have to take into consideration what happens to these monitors, the retailer has to sell them on, so if you have destroyed all the internal packaging by "opening the box and ripping into any sealed plastic bags found inside" then what happens if you recieve this item, I can only assume you'd phone the company you bought the monitor from kicking off saying you've recieved a used item when it could have been returned under the DSR's that you have brought up but because the person who had it didn't take resonable care of it and it was restocked under the DSR's the company now can't sell it.

In this situation it's a £400ish monitor and now you can see why some of the PC retailers have gone under in recent times when they can have high value items like this doing nothing because someone didn't take resonable care of the items, and more importantly didn't take resonable time in understanding the regulations designed to protect themselves and the companies that sell the items.

Sorry about my little rant there but it just annoys me that some people can be so blind to some things.

I think the main reason why Dell aren't listing the 2407 on their site any more is because they may well be introducing a 2408 version at CES maybe? A lot of poeple are liking the 2407 in all it's forms, although peronally I would have minded getting one of the origninals and not the HC versions.

[Main]

ilibris, I was in the same position as you a few months ago so I'll recount my research and reasons for my final choice.

I found that 24" widescreens seem to be split into 4 categories [with examples in brackets]:

1) 'cheap', single VGA connection £200-250 [Acer AL2416WB]
2) 'normal' VGA + DVI £250-£350 [Samsung SM-245B]
3) 'super' VGA + DVI + component (some also HDMI) £350-450(or more!) [Hyundai W240D, W241D]
4) 'uber' VGA + DVI + component + s-video + composite (+ HDMI on BenQ models) £420-600 [Dell FP2407 and BenQ FP241W varients]

So you pay more for something that's more useful... I myself like the idea of having a monitor that I can use with all the current video connectors, so I went for one of the 'uber' ones. The other reason that was most of the 'super' monitors either cost £350 or £450 when I was looking...so the models up looked better value in some cases. The choice, realistically, was between the Dell FP2407 and the BenQ FP241W - I settled on the latter. Some said it has better image quality, and it has an additional HDMI port. It also doesn't have large number of users complaining about a major ghosting issue.

In your case, as in mine, decide what you absolutely must have and you'll cut down your options by quite a way, so if you truely don't want any more than VGA + DVI you won't have to spend as much.


I can't form any opinions on the Hyundai model you picked out (though it does sit in the 'super' category, yet costs the same as the Dell and Benq 'uber' models...), but I'll give you a run down of my experience of using my BenQ, the not so well known 2407 alternative:

Mini BenQ FP241W review
First thoughts were "my god I'm blind!" Insanely bright to start with but that can be changed. There are also profiles for when that brightness is a good thing. Build quality is good and it feels sturdy. It isn't a looker by any means with that big grey bezel. Not that I care when gaming or watching videos with that much screen... The side of the panel buttons are a bit annoying. The menu is a bit on the slow side, but everything is there. 'Dynamic Contrast' is weird, like in-monitor HDR. There is some very minor ghosting that I've only seen on the cursor (I have to really look for it) and it can be reduced further by tweaking overdrive settings in CCC over DVI or HDMI. Never been a problem in games/videos.

Only major issue has been something bizarre that happened over that last few days... It seemed to develop an area of backlight bleed across the bottom...which grew a day later...then faded....and is now gone... I can only assume it didn't like me not using it for about 2 days straight.

[hibby]

Apologies to ibiris for the thread hijack. We should probably take this to a new thread if this part of the discussion is to continue.

Madafwo - sorry if I was a unclear about the condition it should be returned in, I was relying on people applying common sense and yours has kicked in. However, whilst you shouldn't be causing damage to the product itself, any damage of the packaging that is required to test the product is fair game. The DSRs are written for consumer protection, and don't take into account whether the product can be resold as new after they have been returned. Maybe this will cause complaints to go up the chain to manufacturers so they stop using sealed plastic bags when a twist-tie or piece of sticky tape does the job and makes unpacking easier and less destructive.

You are entitled to return the goods and have the money refunded, this does not included the original carriage costs as this is a service you have paid for and if the item was delivered then this service has been carried out and therefore isn't covered under the DSR's and most probably wont be refunded.

Regarding the above, please correct me if I'm wrong. I've read the DSRs here, and I believe from paragraph 14.1 that the entire contract should be refunded. Seeing as the delivery cost is usually included in the same contract as the purchase, rather than as a separate service agreement, I'm assuming that it would be a requirement for that cost to be included in the refund.

Yes, my previous post could be seen as incitement to abuse of the system, and I apologise for that. Personally I have not used the scheme I laid out, and I would only do it where reviews can't replace a hands-on opinion - such as buying a monitor.

[Madafwo]

Again sorry for the thread hijack, there wont be much more to say on this.

Most retailers will clearly state that carriage charges are not refundable and that it is a seprate contract which is why carriage costs aren't refunded under the DSR's.

The reason I think I took such a stance is because I work for a company that deals with the DSR's on a daily basis and it can get to me when people mis-understand them or only quote part of it. You will generally find that companies are quite lenient with the DSR's and if people do abuse them then they will remove that element of leniency and stick to them to the letter which is a bad thing for the consumer in the end.

Back on topic I would have to throw my hat into the BenQ monitor ring, supposedly very very good, 1:1 pixel mapping, more connections than you can throw a stick at and good reviews to boot.

[jonathan_phang]

I would say the first thing is to let us know the budget you are on, which basically dictates which of the 4 categories Main suggested you will be looking into, then we can suggest more alternatives.

Also - what do you want to use it for? I have a samsung 245B and the main reason was for screen size and resolution, as I use it for gaming mostly, and surfing. The colours could be better, but I dont really do photography work so its not so important to me. It doesnt do 1:1 mapping, which bothered me until I realised that most stuff now can play in widescreen anyway.

Here are some of the lower cost (Relative to other 24") alternatives:

Iiyama which rated well in Custom PCs recent 24" roundup

My Samsung 245B

Also seen this in one of the other sub-forums:
Overclcokers - please, no flaming of me!!!

Oh - btw I thought that the Dell ghosting problem was prevalent on the 2407 normal models, but even on them, the rev A04 seemed to sort them out. To be honest, if you want to find errors, then you will. I just want to play games, and I love my 245B (though under £200 for the Acer seems like SUCH a good deal. I know its VGA, but at native, I never notice the difference - and yes, i tested both DVI/VGA on mine).

As with all of this, its quite subjective really...

[music]

Hi ibiris,

on avforums there has been quite a few threads disucssing this very issue. I am awaiting some feedabck from a couple of users on exactly this issue as I am also totally undecided between the two Dell machines you mention.

It is not clear to me whether ghosting would affect DVD playback etc. Nor is it clear to me whether I would in fact notice any real difference between the more expensive HC version and the cheaper E248WFP when sitting directly in front of my monitor

[music]

--- sorry posted before I'd finished ....

What I wanted to say is will you keep me informed of any more info you get. I can point you to the avforums threads if it helps. I was going to order a Dell through PCBuyIt because they are the only people who (as far as I know) have a zero dead pixel policy.

[music]

oh and one more thing ...

there is a new Gateway 24" monitor arund wwhich some people are raving about.
Also note that the Rev A04 does not apply to the HC version - asthere have been no revisions to that model yet.

[]EGG[]

The Dell 2407FPW-HC is a great monitor, really pleased with mine and the quality is second to none and I've used a lot of different TFT's in my time. I think the reported 'ghosting problems' are wildly exagerrated and I think if you used one for a few hours then you'd buy one.

[ibiris]

Just an update... although there is just (and i mean just) enough room for a 24" monitor in the space i intend to put it, i've decided to go for 22". I can save about 100 odd quid and only lose a small amount of screen space.
Just gonna go for one of the Samsung 226BW's and not splash out too much. If I end up buying a house anytime in the next couple of years i'll probably end up buying a massive telling and wiring the computer into that anyway so for now this will do me :-) Still gonna be better than the 4:3 19" I have now anyway!

[smellybumlove]

spanner in the works....

i got a acer 24'', it has hdmi inputs and a res of 1920x1200 cost me 220 and its bloody lovely.

i think its a p24w or something similar

[Saracen]

Not strictly true.

You are entitled to return the goods and have the money refunded, this does not included the original carriage costs as this is a service you have paid for and if the item was delivered then this service has been carried out and therefore isn't covered under the DSR's and most probably wont be refunded.

That's what a lot of retailers would have you believe, but according to the Office of Fair Trading (which, incidentally, is one of the organisations charged with enforcing the DSR), that is NOT the case.

If you order goods to be delivered, then the delivery "service" is part and parcel of the order and not a separate item. As such, when you cancel under the DSR, any refund must be the FULL amount of the order, and to quote the OFT, that includes ....

the whole amount, including deposit, advance payment and outbound delivery charges

If the service is entirely separate (like an add-on service contract) then yes, there are separate rules governing when cancellation can take place, particularly in relation to after the service has commenced but, according to the OFT, that is not the case when the service is merely delivery of the goods. The ONLY deduction that can be made, in that situation, is the direct cost of recovering the goods from the consumer, if they do not return them at their own cost and even then, only if that term is in the contract (which it nearly always is, at least with a retailer that's even half-awake.)

Ultimately, of course, it's not for the OFT (or the DTI, who have similar guidance) to determine whether delivery costs must be refunded or not. That is the preserve of the court that ends up with the case, the courts being the final arbiter of what the law means. But it seems likely that the opinion of the OFT and DTI would be likely to be persuasive, and not likely to be inconsistent with the intent of the Regs.

You have the legal right to inspect the goods, this doesn't mean use it for a week and return it if you dont like it, if you haven't taken reasonable care of the item then the retailer doesn't have to refund it so it is always adviseable to take good care of it.

Nope. The retailer does NOT have the right to not issue a refund. He is breaking the law if he does that, and that applies regardless of the state of the returned goods or even if they are never returned at all. The refund is required "as soon as possible" after notification of cancellation, and in any event within 30 days.

However, the consumer does have a duty of care over the goods, to take "reasonable care" of them. What that means isn't defined, though the retailer can include what he considers the definition to be in the contract. If, however, that definition seeks to impose conditions beyond the "reasonable care" statutory duty of the DSR, then it would be subject to challenge under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs. Again, it's ultimately for a court to decide whether those terms were unfair or not, in the light of the DSR duty. If the consumer fails to take "reasonable care" of the goods, that would give the retailer the right to seek redress against the consumer in court, but it doesn't give the retailer the right to withhold that refund. The onus is the other way round - it's not for the consumer to have to take action to get the refund, it's for the retailer to take action if the consumer breaches their duty to take "reasonable care" of the goods.

You also have to take into consideration what happens to these monitors, the retailer has to sell them on, so if you have destroyed all the internal packaging by "opening the box and ripping into any sealed plastic bags found inside" then what happens if you recieve this item, I can only assume you'd phone the company you bought the monitor from kicking off saying you've recieved a used item when it could have been returned under the DSR's that you have brought up but because the person who had it didn't take resonable care of it and it was restocked under the DSR's the company now can't sell it.

In this situation it's a £400ish monitor and now you can see why some of the PC retailers have gone under in recent times when they can have high value items like this doing nothing because someone didn't take resonable care of the items, and more importantly didn't take resonable time in understanding the regulations designed to protect themselves and the companies that sell the items.

We're back to what "reasonable care" means.

Again, the written opinion of the OFT is that the consumer .....

must be given reasonable opportunity to examine the goods you [the retailer] supply. This will mean that in appropriate cases, they are entitled to remove goods from their packaging and to try them out, providing they take reasonable care of them.

So .... in the context of packaging, it comes down to what "reasonable care" means, or rather, what the court decides it means. But whether plastic bags are "ripped open", or neatly opened with a scalpel or by carefully peeling back sealing tape, they're still opened, and the retailer faces the same potential problem if they then ship those goods as new goods to another consumer, the only difference being that if bags are neatly opened and resealed, they stand a better chance of getting away with it.

I agree that it seems harsh that new goods can be turned into second-hand goods by a consumer that then uses the DSR to return them, but the intent of the DSR is to give the consumer the same ability to examine and inspect goods as if they were in a shop. And, in a shop, the consumer can ask, for instance, for a monitor to be opened and powered up so as to be inspected for dead pixels. The shop, of course, could refuse to do so, but if they do, the consumer then has the ability to walk away and the shop haven't sold the monitor. So .... giving the consumer the ability to conduct such an inspection gives them the right to check out the goods ion that same way. The retailer can always decline to supply goods by distance methods and to just run a shop. But if they do decide to operate via a distance method, then the fact is that legislation is specifically intended to give the consumer this level of protection, and that that will sometimes mean they end up with returned goods is merely a cost of doing business. Distance sellers don't face the same level of costs that shops face in many areas, and this is one area where they face a potential cost that non-distance sellers don't. It's a risk and a cost of doing business that just has to be borne.