My desktop monitor just died and I’m currently using a 17" laptop at a resolution of 1600x900. Would this make an adequate monitor for my desktop (with a larger screen yet lower resolution than my laptop)? I websurf, edit papers and watch videos. Thanks.
As a local, I have to say I really enjoyed the write-up today. Especially since we have been having really lovely weather, with the sun shining and no-coat weather the last few early November days. And while there has been some rain, it hasn’t been AT ALL like normal. So if our recent Woot transplants think they’ve been suffering through typical Seattle weather, they should just wait a few minutes. Maybe gather a few more toys to wait out the coming alternating drizzle and downpours.
But they’re right – it is expensive here.
P.S. (Shhhh - we don’t usually tell nonresidents how really wonder this area is. We keep it to ourselves in order to keep the riffraff out)
P.S.S. Definitely NOT meaning Wootstaff, whom we both love and welcome.
The Moofi monitor is better it does 1920x1080 resolution, this TV only does 1366x768. That would not be fun for a computer monitor.
Except some of the writeup still says, “…but a refurbished Vizio Razor-Thin 1080p 26” LED HDTV wouldn’t hurt either.”
Also, it’s an LED backlit LCD not an LED TV.
Time to trot out Carlton Bale’s article again:
If you’re over 5 feet away from this 26" screen, 720p vs. 1080p won’t matter.
Write-up has been fixed.
The current title (LED LCD) matches the terminology on the Vizio product page.
Woot, I hope we can get this sorted out soon.
I payed for a 26" 1080p TV, not a 720p =/
I believe an actual LED TV would be one where each pixel is composed of an independent LED instead of some kind of filter with a general backlight (what a LCD screen basically is). An advantage is that each pixel can actually be turned off so you get much better black levels and contrast.
To my knowledge there are very few, if any, true LED TVs available. Even then they are limited to smaller screen sizes. You can find LED screens on some portable electronics like MP3 players and smartphones though.
That said, the usage of LED TV here isn’t exactly wrong as most companies use the term to describe LED-backlit displays. It would be more the fault of manufacturers and marketing than woot’s. But yes, it is technically a misnomer.
Sorry for the mistake. If you’d like to cancel your order, you can email firstname.lastname@example.org. It’s likely you’ll be getting an email from them in the morning if you ordered before the correction was made.
Just wait until 3D TV goes mainstream … then you’ll REALLY freak out. Breaking news this week said that they’ve even figured a way to do 3D without the need for glasses.
Fascinating chart. Thanks for posting it. One thang tho’… this is a 26" TV, not 36". I’d grab it if it is 36" for $299.
You kinda answered your own question - lower res, bigger monitor. It will work fine, and it is optimized for video, but will that resolution bother you?
If you like to spread out several windows on your screen, you’d be happier with higher res. And if you like to sit right in front of the screen and watch 1080p video, ditto.
However, if you use programs that have small, non-scalable windows, you may actually prefer a lower resolution, since they’ll fill more of the screen.
One positive to using a TV as your monitor - the colors usually look better, since TVs offer a wider color gamut.
edit: thanks for the catch on my typo - fixed now.
Where’s the “Razor-Thin” side profile pic?
I think Vizio must think razors are very thick, like this TV.
The common terminology is exactly what you described: an LCD screen backlit by white LEDs rather than fluorescent tubes. There are some major advantages:
Energy savings. LEDs are so energy efficient that many use less than 30 watts while equivalent fluorescent monitors would use 90+ watts.
LED monitors are much cooler. This can be important since heat is a major enemy of electronics.
LED monitors lasts longer because LEDs last longer. Plus, they’re not bothered by vibrations or impact, unlike fluorescent tubes.
LED monitors are lighter and thinner because LEDs can literally be printed on a circuit board.
LEDs provide better dynamic contrast. A big problem with LCD technology (as opposed to plasma or CRTs) is backlight bleed-through. Areas that should be completely black look gray because the liquid crystals can’s completely block out the backlight. This caused ordinary LCDs to have a maximum contrast ratio of about 8000:1, and most were much worse. When LEDs became a backlight source, engineers brilliantly decided to turn the individual LEDs on and off as needed. When an area was meant to be black, simply turn off the LEDs in that area so that there would be no light to bleed through. I’ve seen dynamic contrast ratios as high as 80,000:1 using this technique.
Unlike LED-backlit monitors, true LED monitors use OLEDs (Organic LEDs) for pixels. Like old CRTs, each pixel is composed of 3 colors (red, green, blue), or 3 LEDs. The pixel’s apparent color results from varying the brightness of the 3 individual LEDs. Unfortunately, full spectrum OLED screens are still too expensive for general use. At the last CES, Sony debut the first OLED consumer TV but it was less than 20" … and very expensive. But it was spectacular. Not only was it incredibly thin, but the contrast was second-to-none and there was no issue with viewing angle. I can’t wait…
Actually, it has been sunny for THREE days straight in Seattle.
Definitely a sign of the apocalypse.
re: the typo … it’s proof that I read your posts more carefully than those by others. In case it’s not clear, that’s a compliment.
re: this monitor, I’m no longer considering it since it’s not 1080p has we were first led to believe. But I still love the sexy profile…