I need to get a new Monitor
My 15" at home just ain't cutting it.

I'm looking for High Quality/Clarity 21"+
To burn out my retinas.

Thing of it is... I don't understand all these numbers and monitor jargon/lingo.

Dotpitch - Ok.. so this is how many pixels are jammed onto the screen... lower the dotpitch... the more crammed in there they are.. the better the quality right. Sooo whats good/fair/poor.
Do I want like .21 or .22 or is .24 acceptable? I dunno.

What about Power i.e. Power - AC 110/220 V ± 10% ( 50/60 Hz )
That means nothing to me.

Refresh rates... yada... yada... what?

I was also looking at these Flat Screen LCD Doomijiggers... but they seem to have a higher DP and a higher Cost.

Any suggestions on a good monitor at a good cost?
http://www.buy.com/retail/computers/category.asp?loc=382

-Æ (Sorry about the whole... calling you a dork thing)

I was looking at this monitor... its pretty well acclaimed... but it only has a .24mm dP ..yet the reviews rave about quality.

http://www.buy.com/retail/computers/product.asp?sku=10311153&loc=382

(Confused Indefinately) 3A-

My 2¢.....

Do I want like .21 or .22 or is .24 acceptable? I dunno.
Not sure either. I'd say look at side-by-side reviews from PC mags to get an idea of what's good dp. Reputable brands should all be fairly similar.

Power - AC 110/220 V ± 10% ( 50/60 Hz )
As far as I know, standard US household supply is 110 volts at 60 Hz, so that's fine.

Refresh rates... yada... yada... what?
Refresh rate is how many times per second the scan lines hit each row of phosphors. The faster, the better. You might not think it matters, cos the human eye can't easily tell a flickering image above 30 Hz. But monitor scan rates of about 60Hz can still hurt your eyes at high resolutions (just to confuse things, I've used monitors at 60Hz without problems, but I think it had a slow luminated phosphor decay period). I understand you're a glasses guy like me, so don't make yourself any more blind than you have to. As a rule, I like a minimum of about 75 Hz. Check the monitor's list of acceptable refresh frequencies against your video card's frequencies too.

I was also looking at these Flat Screen LCD Doomijiggers... but they seem to have a higher DP and a higher Cost.
Cathode ray tube vs LCD screen, an old argument.... Well, LCDs look sexy and are constantly getting better, but the purists will tell you that a tube monitor always wins for image and colour quality. Publishers and DTP-ers etc will never say "any old shade of blue is good enough for me", so they have traditionally steered clear of LCD. From a more general point of view, you also have to remember that while a CRT monitor can change resolution, an LCD is fixed at one resolution. If you have an 832x624 pixel LCD screen, you will always have an 832x624 pixel LCD screen. Only CRT can change resolution. (Some systems will let an LCD emulate a different resolution, but it needs a custom raster filter and the image comes out at considerably reduced quality).

hi resolution

low dot pitch

CRT vs LCD, depends on what you want to use them for.

Most designers will stick with the CRTs as will the gamers due to faster refresh rates. Don't want that lag in screen movement to get you fragged

I'm using a Viewsonic VA520 (http://www.viewsonic.com/products/lcd_va520.htm) LCD screen.
http://www.viewsonic.com/images/IMG_va520_lrg.jpg
It's a 15" but for some reason it seems a lot bigger when you're using it..

It's less wear and tear on my eyes. It only goes as high as 1024x768, but that's all I need.

As for the color, I see absolutely no difference whatsoever, and I do not get any lag in screen movement. Newer LCD's like mine do not have this problem.

This is what you need (http://www.apple.com/displays/acd22/)

Originally posted by Swappy
This is what you need (http://www.apple.com/displays/acd22/) Ooo yeeeeaaaaahhhh!!! Me likey! If only they weren't so damn expensive!

Whoa...Apple is taking marketting bull**** to new levels. First the Photoshop benchmark/lie, second the Imac = Supercomputer...lie. Now...this.