19" LCD Monitors
Four years ago, I bought two 15" monitors for $1,000. Then, two years ago, we got a great LCD monitor for $900. Now, 19" monitors that are very good can be had for $6-700. Amazing. Given I'm spending so much more time at home, it would be great to have a 19". Here's the analysis:
* "X-bit Labs":http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/response-4.html and "Part I":http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/response-3.html. They did a recent review. They like the Acer AL1911 and Benq FP991 as budget models and the NEC Multisync LCD1860NX (this is really a 18" monitor, so I'm guessing it is really the 1960NX and there is a typo). He actually didn't like the Samsung Syncmaster 191T or 192T, but did like the analog-only 192B. Go figure. I got 1760NX for my dad and it is really a great display FWIW.
* "Tom's Hardware":http://www.tomshardware.com/display/20030902/. They did a review as well in September. Slightly different results. They don't like the NEC 1980NX. It has accurate color, but was lousy for games. Like X-bit, they thought the Samsung Syncmaster 192B was a good low cost display and liked the Acer 1911 which has the same panel as the Sony SDM-93. They love the Sony SDM-93 and Ilyama AS4821DT is expensive and has the most accurate displays.
* "Designtechnica":http://reviews.designtechnica.com/reviews_subcat-52.html and "Envy News":http://www.envynews.com/index.php?ID=597. They have done a series of reviews. Really like the Samsung 191T and 191T+ respectively, but didn't do a detailed comparison in either case.
* "PC World":http://pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,112913,pg,1,00.asp makes a decent attempt to stay current, but for instance their latest reviews are from September as a roundup. They also don't post test data on their site, but they do say they didn't like the Benq "992":http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,113157,00.asp much. Scores were average. But they did like the NEC "1960NX":http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,113168,pg,1,00.asp saying its images were pretty good. But again, no scores.
I also surfed the "old" usual suspects, C|Net, PCmag.com. Sad to see how these once great review sources have completley slipped compared with the webzines above,