AW2310 vs GD245HQ (GD235HQ)
  5 / 5    
[quote name='rkuo' post='1000430' date='Feb 12 2010, 11:05 PM']Because 100Hz causes perceptible flicker. 110Hz might for some folks as well, but it works well for me. And yes, it helps because the monitor has slightly more time to get and keep the correct frame up before transitioning to the next frame.[/quote]

If my math is right, 120 Hz is equivalent to 8.3 ms. If the AW monitor has a response time of 3 ms, then each frame should still be displayed for 5.3 ms assuming ideal conditions (6.3 ms with Acer). That should still be plenty, if plenty is a good word to describe something that lasts 5-6 thousands of a second.
Drop to 110 Hz, and AW has now almost 6.1 ms while Acer has 7.1 ms to display a frame (again, assuming all at once pixel transition). If my understanding of what's happening here is correct, then using AW at 110 Hz should be equivalent to using Acer at 120 Hz, extinction-wise.

In your 600 fps video both monitors have a response of 3ms, yet AW fares better than Samsung (or maybe it's just my wishful thinking), why?
Also, the fact that the image is present on the screen for so little time, suggests -as you pointed out - that the "fill in" time is actually worse than the response time (and almost equal to the effective time the frame should be on screen).
However, we shouldn't forget 600 fps is not infinite capture speed. Your sampling rate is not all that great, i.e. (8.3 - 3) / 1.6 ~ 3. So it's very likely that you miss the very start of the frame and the very moment it dies out. But that aside, I think what you did is very representative and you should do the same thing with Acer, if you have the time.

All things put together, it seems (to me) that the fill-in time (don't know the actuall word for it) is more important that the response time, what do you guys think?
[quote name='rkuo' post='1000430' date='Feb 12 2010, 11:05 PM']Because 100Hz causes perceptible flicker. 110Hz might for some folks as well, but it works well for me. And yes, it helps because the monitor has slightly more time to get and keep the correct frame up before transitioning to the next frame.



If my math is right, 120 Hz is equivalent to 8.3 ms. If the AW monitor has a response time of 3 ms, then each frame should still be displayed for 5.3 ms assuming ideal conditions (6.3 ms with Acer). That should still be plenty, if plenty is a good word to describe something that lasts 5-6 thousands of a second.

Drop to 110 Hz, and AW has now almost 6.1 ms while Acer has 7.1 ms to display a frame (again, assuming all at once pixel transition). If my understanding of what's happening here is correct, then using AW at 110 Hz should be equivalent to using Acer at 120 Hz, extinction-wise.



In your 600 fps video both monitors have a response of 3ms, yet AW fares better than Samsung (or maybe it's just my wishful thinking), why?

Also, the fact that the image is present on the screen for so little time, suggests -as you pointed out - that the "fill in" time is actually worse than the response time (and almost equal to the effective time the frame should be on screen).

However, we shouldn't forget 600 fps is not infinite capture speed. Your sampling rate is not all that great, i.e. (8.3 - 3) / 1.6 ~ 3. So it's very likely that you miss the very start of the frame and the very moment it dies out. But that aside, I think what you did is very representative and you should do the same thing with Acer, if you have the time.



All things put together, it seems (to me) that the fill-in time (don't know the actuall word for it) is more important that the response time, what do you guys think?

#61
Posted 02/13/2010 11:21 AM   
I have my Acer's brightness cranked and 3D is playable but I would like things a bit brighter. This is in Team Fortress 2 and Zombie Panic. Guess I should test some other games.
I have my Acer's brightness cranked and 3D is playable but I would like things a bit brighter. This is in Team Fortress 2 and Zombie Panic. Guess I should test some other games.

Cooler Master Cosmos II | ASUS X99-Deluxe | Thermaltake Water 3.0 Extreme S | 5930k @ 4.5GHz | 32GB G.Skill Ripjaws V 3200MHz | SLI 1080 Ti's | Samsung 950 Pro NVMe M.2 SSD | Corsair AX1500i | 3DMark Fire Strike Ultra - 13,780 | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit | Samsung CHG90 Super Ultra Wide HDR Monitor

#62
Posted 02/14/2010 01:26 AM   
[quote name='abramburici' post='1000632' date='Feb 13 2010, 03:21 AM']If my math is right, 120 Hz is equivalent to 8.3 ms. If the AW monitor has a response time of 3 ms, then each frame should still be displayed for 5.3 ms assuming ideal conditions (6.3 ms with Acer). That should still be plenty, if plenty is a good word to describe something that lasts 5-6 thousands of a second.
Drop to 110 Hz, and AW has now almost 6.1 ms while Acer has 7.1 ms to display a frame (again, assuming all at once pixel transition). If my understanding of what's happening here is correct, then using AW at 110 Hz should be equivalent to using Acer at 120 Hz, extinction-wise.

In your 600 fps video both monitors have a response of 3ms, yet AW fares better than Samsung (or maybe it's just my wishful thinking), why?
Also, the fact that the image is present on the screen for so little time, suggests -as you pointed out - that the "fill in" time is actually worse than the response time (and almost equal to the effective time the frame should be on screen).
However, we shouldn't forget 600 fps is not infinite capture speed. Your sampling rate is not all that great, i.e. (8.3 - 3) / 1.6 ~ 3. So it's very likely that you miss the very start of the frame and the very moment it dies out. But that aside, I think what you did is very representative and you should do the same thing with Acer, if you have the time.

All things put together, it seems (to me) that the fill-in time (don't know the actuall word for it) is more important that the response time, what do you guys think?[/quote]I'm not sure we can count on the 2ms vs 3ms specs being accurate. Kinda throws everything out the window. There are lot more things that need to be measured and told to us by the manufacturer for us to be able to determine the performance of these monitors via specs ... and the specs would have to be truthful. I'd love to be able to test the Acer out but I don't have one and am not planning on buying one. =) high speed cams are becoming more widespread tho so anyone else could do this testing with the right equipment.
[quote name='abramburici' post='1000632' date='Feb 13 2010, 03:21 AM']If my math is right, 120 Hz is equivalent to 8.3 ms. If the AW monitor has a response time of 3 ms, then each frame should still be displayed for 5.3 ms assuming ideal conditions (6.3 ms with Acer). That should still be plenty, if plenty is a good word to describe something that lasts 5-6 thousands of a second.

Drop to 110 Hz, and AW has now almost 6.1 ms while Acer has 7.1 ms to display a frame (again, assuming all at once pixel transition). If my understanding of what's happening here is correct, then using AW at 110 Hz should be equivalent to using Acer at 120 Hz, extinction-wise.



In your 600 fps video both monitors have a response of 3ms, yet AW fares better than Samsung (or maybe it's just my wishful thinking), why?

Also, the fact that the image is present on the screen for so little time, suggests -as you pointed out - that the "fill in" time is actually worse than the response time (and almost equal to the effective time the frame should be on screen).

However, we shouldn't forget 600 fps is not infinite capture speed. Your sampling rate is not all that great, i.e. (8.3 - 3) / 1.6 ~ 3. So it's very likely that you miss the very start of the frame and the very moment it dies out. But that aside, I think what you did is very representative and you should do the same thing with Acer, if you have the time.



All things put together, it seems (to me) that the fill-in time (don't know the actuall word for it) is more important that the response time, what do you guys think?I'm not sure we can count on the 2ms vs 3ms specs being accurate. Kinda throws everything out the window. There are lot more things that need to be measured and told to us by the manufacturer for us to be able to determine the performance of these monitors via specs ... and the specs would have to be truthful. I'd love to be able to test the Acer out but I don't have one and am not planning on buying one. =) high speed cams are becoming more widespread tho so anyone else could do this testing with the right equipment.

#63
Posted 02/14/2010 02:12 AM   
[quote name='rkuo' post='1000974' date='Feb 13 2010, 08:12 PM']I'm not sure we can count on the 2ms vs 3ms specs being accurate. Kinda throws everything out the window. There are lot more things that need to be measured and told to us by the manufacturer for us to be able to determine the performance of these monitors via specs ... and the specs would have to be truthful. I'd love to be able to test the Acer out but I don't have one and am not planning on buying one. =) high speed cams are becoming more widespread tho so anyone else could do this testing with the right equipment.[/quote]

Well you can be sure the 2 and 3 ms spec is a grey to grey measurement which is misleading ...

From wikipedia (cause we know everything on wikipedia is accurate :P)

Response time is the amount of time a pixel in an LCD monitor takes to go from black to white and back to black again. It is measured in milliseconds (ms). Lower numbers mean faster transitions and therefore fewer visible image artifacts.

Older monitors with long response times would create a smear or blur pattern around moving objects, making them unacceptable for moving video. Long response times can be annoying to a viewer depending on the type of data being displayed and how rapidly the image is changing or moving. Many current LCD monitor models have improved to the point that this is rarely seen.

A figure of 8 to 16 ms for rise + fall times is typical. The response time was traditionally recorded at the full black > white transition which became the ISO standard for this specification on LCDs. Grey transitions are far more common in practice but in terms of pixel latency, they remained significantly behind the ISO transition. In recent years there have been a wide range of Response Time Compensation (RTC) / overdrive technologies introduced which have allowed panel manufacturers to significantly reduce grey transitions. Response times are now commonly quoted in "G2G" (alternately "GTG," meaning: "grey-to-grey") or "GLRT" (meaning: "Gray Level Response Time") figures and specs of 6ms, 4ms and 2ms G2G are widely available. There are various names used for RTC technologies, and these vary from one manufacturer to another. Terms such as ClearMotiv (Viewsonic), AMA (BenQ), MagicSpeed (Samsung) and ODC (LG/Philips) are widely used to identify RTC enabled displays.

In comparison, a CRT displaying a picture with an update frequency of 60 to 80 Hz could be said to have a response time of 12.5 ms and upwards. However, as the picture is updated completely (and virtually instantly) each time the electron beam passes over the screen, CRTs do not have the same problems with smearing or ghosting. The same is true for plasma displays (however, older CRTs and plasma displays can have problems with flicker).

LCD screens with a high response time value are often unsuitable to play fast paced computer games. A response time of <16ms is sufficient for video-gaming, and the difference between response times once below 10ms begin to become imperceptible due to limitations of the human eye.

The pixel response time is often confused with the LCD input lag which adds another form of latency to pictures displayed by LCD screens. An LCD screen with high response time and significant input lag will not give satisfactory results when playing fast paced computer games or performing fast high accuracy operations on the screen (e.g. CAD). Manufacturers only state the response time of their displays and do not inform customers of the input lag value.

To address input lag, some modern televisions will offer some sort of "gaming mode" where the TV passes the signal through with minimal processing to minimize any potential image lag.
[quote name='rkuo' post='1000974' date='Feb 13 2010, 08:12 PM']I'm not sure we can count on the 2ms vs 3ms specs being accurate. Kinda throws everything out the window. There are lot more things that need to be measured and told to us by the manufacturer for us to be able to determine the performance of these monitors via specs ... and the specs would have to be truthful. I'd love to be able to test the Acer out but I don't have one and am not planning on buying one. =) high speed cams are becoming more widespread tho so anyone else could do this testing with the right equipment.



Well you can be sure the 2 and 3 ms spec is a grey to grey measurement which is misleading ...



From wikipedia (cause we know everything on wikipedia is accurate :P)



Response time is the amount of time a pixel in an LCD monitor takes to go from black to white and back to black again. It is measured in milliseconds (ms). Lower numbers mean faster transitions and therefore fewer visible image artifacts.



Older monitors with long response times would create a smear or blur pattern around moving objects, making them unacceptable for moving video. Long response times can be annoying to a viewer depending on the type of data being displayed and how rapidly the image is changing or moving. Many current LCD monitor models have improved to the point that this is rarely seen.



A figure of 8 to 16 ms for rise + fall times is typical. The response time was traditionally recorded at the full black > white transition which became the ISO standard for this specification on LCDs. Grey transitions are far more common in practice but in terms of pixel latency, they remained significantly behind the ISO transition. In recent years there have been a wide range of Response Time Compensation (RTC) / overdrive technologies introduced which have allowed panel manufacturers to significantly reduce grey transitions. Response times are now commonly quoted in "G2G" (alternately "GTG," meaning: "grey-to-grey") or "GLRT" (meaning: "Gray Level Response Time") figures and specs of 6ms, 4ms and 2ms G2G are widely available. There are various names used for RTC technologies, and these vary from one manufacturer to another. Terms such as ClearMotiv (Viewsonic), AMA (BenQ), MagicSpeed (Samsung) and ODC (LG/Philips) are widely used to identify RTC enabled displays.



In comparison, a CRT displaying a picture with an update frequency of 60 to 80 Hz could be said to have a response time of 12.5 ms and upwards. However, as the picture is updated completely (and virtually instantly) each time the electron beam passes over the screen, CRTs do not have the same problems with smearing or ghosting. The same is true for plasma displays (however, older CRTs and plasma displays can have problems with flicker).



LCD screens with a high response time value are often unsuitable to play fast paced computer games. A response time of <16ms is sufficient for video-gaming, and the difference between response times once below 10ms begin to become imperceptible due to limitations of the human eye.



The pixel response time is often confused with the LCD input lag which adds another form of latency to pictures displayed by LCD screens. An LCD screen with high response time and significant input lag will not give satisfactory results when playing fast paced computer games or performing fast high accuracy operations on the screen (e.g. CAD). Manufacturers only state the response time of their displays and do not inform customers of the input lag value.



To address input lag, some modern televisions will offer some sort of "gaming mode" where the TV passes the signal through with minimal processing to minimize any potential image lag.

#64
Posted 02/15/2010 02:01 AM   
I recently received my Acer GD235HZ (American Model#), and wanted to share my experiences.


This monitor absolutely requires calibration before it begins to shine. Initially, I felt that I'd made a bad choice, but after some tweaking, I can finally say I'm happy with the decision. So, by section:

Color Accuracy:
The monitor driver comes with an .icm, or you can use professional tools to calibrate the monitor. Once calibrated, the accuracy is quite high for a non-professional monitor. In fact, when viewing photos of myself, I was disturbed at just how well the monitor can display natural imperfections in skin tone. I have my color temps set to "User" as the other color temp presets demonstrate considerable temperature bias.

Black/White Contrast & Brightness:
Black contrast was only acceptable... until I discovered the "ACM" option. Once activated, the backlight bleeding was substantially reduced, by 40% at least - and, black tones became easier to distinguish by about 20%. Further, white contrast was augmented, almost painfully so. I had to reduce the monitor brightness to 20, and contrast to 10, then activate the ACM so as not to hurt my eyes. For gaming, you'll want higher numbers, but for everyday work, B20/C10/+ACM is fine.

Viewing Angles:
As good as you're going to get with a TN monitor. Colors are slightly darker at top than they are at bottom.

Readability:
Text is sharp. That is all.

CCFL Warm-up:
Warm-up to full brightness is very quick, roughly 10 to 20 seconds depending on ambient room temperature.

Hardware:
The stand is a stand, non-adjustable. It's easy to dis-assemble. M'eh.

Miscellaneous:
1. The monitor is not 120Hz capable across all resolutions in 2D. If you switch to anything out of non-native, the refresh rate will drop to 75Hz. I haven't found a work around for this, nor do I know if one exists.
2. Zero bad pixels


Overall, I'm very happy now. Once it is night, I will post pictures of the monitor with and without ACM as the difference between the two is quite drastic.


***
Update
***

Having problems figuring out the nightshot ability of my camera. I'll post once I get some good shots.
I recently received my Acer GD235HZ (American Model#), and wanted to share my experiences.





This monitor absolutely requires calibration before it begins to shine. Initially, I felt that I'd made a bad choice, but after some tweaking, I can finally say I'm happy with the decision. So, by section:



Color Accuracy:

The monitor driver comes with an .icm, or you can use professional tools to calibrate the monitor. Once calibrated, the accuracy is quite high for a non-professional monitor. In fact, when viewing photos of myself, I was disturbed at just how well the monitor can display natural imperfections in skin tone. I have my color temps set to "User" as the other color temp presets demonstrate considerable temperature bias.



Black/White Contrast & Brightness:

Black contrast was only acceptable... until I discovered the "ACM" option. Once activated, the backlight bleeding was substantially reduced, by 40% at least - and, black tones became easier to distinguish by about 20%. Further, white contrast was augmented, almost painfully so. I had to reduce the monitor brightness to 20, and contrast to 10, then activate the ACM so as not to hurt my eyes. For gaming, you'll want higher numbers, but for everyday work, B20/C10/+ACM is fine.



Viewing Angles:

As good as you're going to get with a TN monitor. Colors are slightly darker at top than they are at bottom.



Readability:

Text is sharp. That is all.



CCFL Warm-up:

Warm-up to full brightness is very quick, roughly 10 to 20 seconds depending on ambient room temperature.



Hardware:

The stand is a stand, non-adjustable. It's easy to dis-assemble. M'eh.



Miscellaneous:

1. The monitor is not 120Hz capable across all resolutions in 2D. If you switch to anything out of non-native, the refresh rate will drop to 75Hz. I haven't found a work around for this, nor do I know if one exists.

2. Zero bad pixels





Overall, I'm very happy now. Once it is night, I will post pictures of the monitor with and without ACM as the difference between the two is quite drastic.





***

Update

***



Having problems figuring out the nightshot ability of my camera. I'll post once I get some good shots.

#65
Posted 02/21/2010 05:39 PM   
Thanks, Gekko. I'm buying AW then.
Thanks, Gekko. I'm buying AW then.

#66
Posted 02/23/2010 07:13 AM   
The only annoying thing about ACM on the Acer is that you have to manually re-enable it after any monitor adjustment.
The only annoying thing about ACM on the Acer is that you have to manually re-enable it after any monitor adjustment.

#67
Posted 02/23/2010 02:02 PM   
I've just bought the GD245HQ and found that everytime i start up a 3d game then bottom right of the screen (almost a quarter of it) in the game is lighter than the rest of the screen.

This does not happen when not in 3D mode, but it is very distracting.

Has anyone else noticed this? The monitor seems to go a lot brighter when going into 3D mode.

I'm hoping it is maybe a driver problem with 3D vision - I dont understand why it doesnt happen on anything else i.e. movies, normal games
I've just bought the GD245HQ and found that everytime i start up a 3d game then bottom right of the screen (almost a quarter of it) in the game is lighter than the rest of the screen.



This does not happen when not in 3D mode, but it is very distracting.



Has anyone else noticed this? The monitor seems to go a lot brighter when going into 3D mode.



I'm hoping it is maybe a driver problem with 3D vision - I dont understand why it doesnt happen on anything else i.e. movies, normal games

#68
Posted 02/23/2010 08:55 PM   
I am no technical expert when it comes to LCD technology, but I wonder if it could be some flaw in the monitor or glasses.

Could you take a picture of the monitor in 3D (not through the glasses though) so we can see how it looks? Basically what I am getting at or would like clairified. You say it is there in 3D but not in 2D so it doesn’t sound like extreme backlight bleed. If you don’t see it when the monitor is in 3D but you aren’t looking through the glasses would lead me to think it could be one of two things. One, the monitor is having a scanning issues and that corner of the screen is getting out of sync with the glasses. … or … Two, the glasses have and issue when the LCDs in the lenses cut on and part of it isn’t darkening up the way it should. Although this you would notice as not being the monitor as the light spot would follow wherever you had your head facing essentially.
I am no technical expert when it comes to LCD technology, but I wonder if it could be some flaw in the monitor or glasses.



Could you take a picture of the monitor in 3D (not through the glasses though) so we can see how it looks? Basically what I am getting at or would like clairified. You say it is there in 3D but not in 2D so it doesn’t sound like extreme backlight bleed. If you don’t see it when the monitor is in 3D but you aren’t looking through the glasses would lead me to think it could be one of two things. One, the monitor is having a scanning issues and that corner of the screen is getting out of sync with the glasses. … or … Two, the glasses have and issue when the LCDs in the lenses cut on and part of it isn’t darkening up the way it should. Although this you would notice as not being the monitor as the light spot would follow wherever you had your head facing essentially.

#69
Posted 02/23/2010 10:00 PM   
Well I used to have the samsung 2233RZ and it was not present on that one. It kinda become unnoticeable once you start playing a game its more when it loads and menus show etc.

The worst game for it is Avatar, to be honest AVP2 did not show it and Left 3 Dead 2 only show it a little.

It's definately not the glasses as when i view without them when it is in 3D mode you can see it.

I will take some pics tomorrow.
Well I used to have the samsung 2233RZ and it was not present on that one. It kinda become unnoticeable once you start playing a game its more when it loads and menus show etc.



The worst game for it is Avatar, to be honest AVP2 did not show it and Left 3 Dead 2 only show it a little.



It's definately not the glasses as when i view without them when it is in 3D mode you can see it.



I will take some pics tomorrow.

#70
Posted 02/23/2010 10:06 PM   
[quote name='TheDynamo' post='1006857' date='Feb 23 2010, 03:55 PM']I've just bought the GD245HQ and found that everytime i start up a 3d game then bottom right of the screen (almost a quarter of it) in the game is lighter than the rest of the screen.

This does not happen when not in 3D mode, but it is very distracting.

Has anyone else noticed this? The monitor seems to go a lot brighter when going into 3D mode.

I'm hoping it is maybe a driver problem with 3D vision - I dont understand why it doesnt happen on anything else i.e. movies, normal games[/quote]

I get that as well on the same model. I'm thinking (wondering?) if it's to up the brightness as to offset how everything looks darker through the shutter glasses.
[quote name='TheDynamo' post='1006857' date='Feb 23 2010, 03:55 PM']I've just bought the GD245HQ and found that everytime i start up a 3d game then bottom right of the screen (almost a quarter of it) in the game is lighter than the rest of the screen.



This does not happen when not in 3D mode, but it is very distracting.



Has anyone else noticed this? The monitor seems to go a lot brighter when going into 3D mode.



I'm hoping it is maybe a driver problem with 3D vision - I dont understand why it doesnt happen on anything else i.e. movies, normal games



I get that as well on the same model. I'm thinking (wondering?) if it's to up the brightness as to offset how everything looks darker through the shutter glasses.

#71
Posted 02/23/2010 10:12 PM   
which of these monitors is 120hz hdmi output?
which of these monitors is 120hz hdmi output?

#72
Posted 02/28/2010 01:39 AM   
I couldn't get the night shots of the backlight bleeding, but I DID get shots of the input lag vs CRT @ 1920x1080p/60Hz. The answer: 32ms of lag (see attached grabs). I wouldn't have bothered with the test, but I noticed a significant drop in my Human Benchmark scores, and decided it needed further research. I couldn't get my CRT monitor to run @ 120Hz, but my HB scores were the same on the Acer in both 60Hz and 120Hz so I have no reason to believe that refresh rate will have any improvement on lag.

***Edit***

For your reference, I was running the CRT in clone mode, attached to the secondary output of the video card.
I couldn't get the night shots of the backlight bleeding, but I DID get shots of the input lag vs CRT @ 1920x1080p/60Hz. The answer: 32ms of lag (see attached grabs). I wouldn't have bothered with the test, but I noticed a significant drop in my Human Benchmark scores, and decided it needed further research. I couldn't get my CRT monitor to run @ 120Hz, but my HB scores were the same on the Acer in both 60Hz and 120Hz so I have no reason to believe that refresh rate will have any improvement on lag.



***Edit***



For your reference, I was running the CRT in clone mode, attached to the secondary output of the video card.

#73
Posted 03/06/2010 07:34 PM   
I'm tempted to get the Alienware AW2310. Dell is running a sale on the now for $50 off. I currently have a 37" Westinghouse LVM-37w3 that I use as my computer monitor. It's definitely great gaming with 37", and I know I'm going to miss the large screen size. Hmmm.. what to do.. what to do...
I'm tempted to get the Alienware AW2310. Dell is running a sale on the now for $50 off. I currently have a 37" Westinghouse LVM-37w3 that I use as my computer monitor. It's definitely great gaming with 37", and I know I'm going to miss the large screen size. Hmmm.. what to do.. what to do...

#74
Posted 04/13/2010 04:57 AM   
[quote name='KidMojo' post='1038927' date='Apr 13 2010, 12:57 AM']I'm tempted to get the Alienware AW2310. Dell is running a sale on the now for $50 off. I currently have a 37" Westinghouse LVM-37w3 that I use as my computer monitor. It's definitely great gaming with 37", and I know I'm going to miss the large screen size. Hmmm.. what to do.. what to do...[/quote]

Thought about that too (you can see my previous reply above), oredered then waited and waited and eventually cancelled the order at Dell. Decided to get Acer H5360, and that must be the best decision I've made for a while.
[quote name='KidMojo' post='1038927' date='Apr 13 2010, 12:57 AM']I'm tempted to get the Alienware AW2310. Dell is running a sale on the now for $50 off. I currently have a 37" Westinghouse LVM-37w3 that I use as my computer monitor. It's definitely great gaming with 37", and I know I'm going to miss the large screen size. Hmmm.. what to do.. what to do...



Thought about that too (you can see my previous reply above), oredered then waited and waited and eventually cancelled the order at Dell. Decided to get Acer H5360, and that must be the best decision I've made for a while.

#75
Posted 04/14/2010 07:11 PM   
  5 / 5    
Scroll To Top