Ping John Bean & David Taylor: Samsung 24" LCD monitor clarified

Discussion in 'Samsung' started by HEMI-Powered, Oct 8, 2007.

  1. HEMI-Powered wrote:

    I need to correct that. My monitor is not widescreen, it's 4:3 aspect
    ratio 1600 x 1200 pixels, 20-inch diagonal. Dell 2007FP. I was
    commenting that it was ironic that my pictures are now mostly 3:2 from a
    DSLR, rather than 4:3 from a compact camera as they have been for the last
    ten years or so. I find I can live with either aspect ratio, but it's
    ironic that my new camera doesn't (by default) fill my new display! The
    3:2 will be a better match, though, if I do get a widescreen display in
    due course. For the moment, the number of pixels vertically and the desk
    area occupied matter most.

    David J Taylor, Oct 9, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. sheepdog 2007 wrote:

    You mean the Mac doesn't offer multiple monitors with different content?
    That surprises me, as Windows does and it's something I now rely on.

    David J Taylor, Oct 9, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. "Pivot" is to rotate the display between landscape and portrait. The
    245B can't do this. But it still has adjustable height and front to
    back tilt. The 214T has both facilities, so it can display a 3:2 portrait
    image larger than the 245B can (245B limited to displaying something 1200
    pixels tall, 214T can do 1600 pixels tall) while as previously noted, the
    245B is much larger at landscape 3:2 images than the 214T (1800 pixels wide
    rather than 1600).

    Ambient light is certainly one reason for caring less about the 245B colour
    fidelity at work over the 214T at home: work is a rather harsh lighting
    environment with little control apart from closing the window blinds.
    I did my best

    Sophie Wilson, Oct 9, 2007
  4. HEMI-Powered

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Neil Harrington added these comments in the current discussion
    du jour ...
    If I at all can, I try to add some extra "white space" on the
    left and right of the cars I shoot so that I can CROP for best
    resolution. Up until now, I have cropped to 4:3, as I don't like
    ellipical tires. <grin> When I say "force", what I mean is my
    Rebel's "native" aspect ratio is 3:2 and I am going to extra work
    to make it do something it isn't intended to do in the
    (previously until yesterday) mistaken belief that I wanted ALL my
    pictures 4:3, preferably at least 1280 x 960 but not more than
    1600 x 1200 to avoid Windows displaying them by doing a pixel re-
    size which introduces ghastly aliasing. I need to revisit both
    Irfanview and Windows Picture and FAX view for the true purpose I
    have for virtually all my pictures - a running display, slide
    show, or screen saver; seldom print. I have David Taylor to thank
    for politely tapping me on the side of the head to re-look at

    To answer your question directly, no I'm not distorting them, but
    I DO want to fill a 4:3 screen if I can. That is, I THOUGHT I
    wanted to do that until I learned all the good stuff in a couple
    of threads about monitor sizing. Now, I am at going to at least
    switch to leaving the aspect 3:2 as it comes out of my camera,
    and spend more time worrying about a pleasing crop than worrying
    about eliminating black bars.
    No, there isn't. Truly, Neil, I am grateful to people for setting
    me straight and it is embarassing to me to admit I was so
    stubborn. I NOW see that there IS a reason to go to a wide-screen
    16:10 monitor, I'm just not going to do so now.

    Here's the original gig: I THOUGHT, incorrectly, that a Samsung
    244T was a 24" 4:3, but it is a 24" 16:10. Thus, the vertical
    dimension of the physical screen is actually SMALLER than on my
    current 3:2 21" 213T. The reason I am delaying a purchase is that
    I found out that it is just plain unrealistic to expect to get a
    bigger vertical screen so I can go to, say, 1600 x 1200 in
    Windows without making my cars look small. The buy decision is
    now this: the old 19" CRT TV my wife watches ordinary analog
    cable in our den on is dying, and it is the only TV that will
    correctly talk to the Panasonic DVR I bought her which she loves.
    Last year, I bought her a 26" Sony HDTV/PC monitor for her PC
    office. I makes a really crappy 1024 x 768 monitor but she
    doesn't do graphics. I thought she was going to switch between TV
    and PC but what she did was have me put the TV that won't work
    with the DVR in her office and hook it to our cable. So, NOW the
    plan is this: when the den TV looks like it is truly about to
    keel over, I'll buy somebody's 24" 16:10 LCD, preferably a
    Samsung 244T IF I can verify that it at least CAN display
    alternative Windows screen sizes that are 3:2 without distortion.
    Since I cannot get to anyone at Samsung, I will simply buy it
    from a store that will give me my money back and try it out.

    Thus, after all the dust I kicked into the air and cranked
    everybody up with my stubborn insistance on sticking with a
    yesteryear or yestertech 4:3 scheme, I've now seen the light; I'm
    just going to delay buying a bit.
    In my OP on this, I stated that while I COULD view a wide-screen
    DVD using PowerDVD on my PC, it wasn't my intent to watch movies
    in my office. Rather, I simply wanted a bigger monitor for post-
    processing my car pictures.
    Neil, this is precisely what David Taylor observed when HE went
    to a wide-screen, and his better idea lightbulb, now complemented
    by your confirming opinion has me convinced. I WILL start editing
    to 3:2 for my Rebel images.

    Thank you for the information and perspective on my "situation",
    and have a great day!
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 9, 2007
  5. HEMI-Powered

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Neil Harrington added these comments in the current discussion
    du jour ...
    That is what I meant, Neil. It was my bad to use the wrong word.
    What really rang my bell yesterday is when I discoverd that a
    pretty gigantic physical size 244T, while 24" wide diagonally
    which is ideal for wide-screen movies and stills, it is actually
    1/4" smaller vertically, so in reality to my perverted brain, it
    looked like mindless insanity to spend money and get smaller,
    until David and now you used the compelling logic that I can do a
    better job with my Rebel images on a 16: 10 monitor.
    Somewhat over 2 years ago, when I bought the 213T, I was entirely
    ignorant of aspect ratio to the point of being oblivous. I just
    assumed they were 4:3, and we all know what happens when we
    assume! <grin> It was just blind luck, I think, that the monitor
    I chose, the 213T, was one of only a very few 4:3 monitors larger
    than 19" at the time.
    I'll take a look. Thanks for the idea, Neil. In the last 2 days,
    I have come around both looking at monitors in local stores and
    Googling for them that there just ain't no big 4:3, and probably
    for good reason. I still want a Samsung as I am extremely
    impressed with their image quality and price, and others seem to
    agree. But, I am MAJORLY pissed that in 2 days, I have been 100%
    unsuccessful in getting to a human being in the right customer
    service department - the sales end, not repair - that can answer
    my question about supported resolutions other than the native
    1920 x 1200.

    I did find out at Best Buy yesterday that the 245B and probably
    244T DO support less than native, with image degradation, but it
    appeared like the 1280 and 1600 sizes were slightly elongated
    vertically. e.g., instead of 1280 x 960 which is 4:3, it appears
    that the 244/245 do 1280 x 1024, which would make it very
    difficult to edit car pictures without introducing some degree of
    distortion unknowingly. Since I have decided to delay my
    purchase, which I explained in my other reply to you, I'm just
    going to calm down and try Samsung again when I get more serious.
    Or, just buy the blinking thing and test it for myself. Best Buy
    and Circuit City will both give me a 10-day trial with full
    charge refund and no restocking fee so long as I don't mangled
    the box or damage the monitor, and also that I not open the
    driver and utilities CD. Both of these restrictions are entirely
    reasonable to me; if I wound up getting an open box when I do
    buy, I would certainly hope the person who brought it back wasn't
    a twit.

    Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that the people one can
    readily talk to, e.g., Best Buy, Circuit City, other stores,
    perhaps Newegg do not necessarily know specifically what the
    entire spectrum of support resolutions are and which will distort
    a 4:3 image and which won't. Again, that is reasonable since they
    are selling to what SHOULD be a customer that intends to run at
    16:10. So, in the final analysis, I somehow just need to find out
    what happens if I display one of my 4:3 images. There's only two
    possibilities for each supported resolution: they either fill the
    screen but aree distorted or they show black bars at the left and
    right. Black bars are OK, distortion is not, obviously.

    Thanks again for your ideas and observations.
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 9, 2007
  6. HEMI-Powered

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Sophie Wilson added these comments in the current discussion du
    jour ...

    OK, my bad. I really don't need that but I understand why some
    people do - they do both portrait and landscape photography.
    Since your next sentence says the 245B can tilt, that's enough
    for me.

    But it still has adjustable
    My 213T can do 1600 x 1200 but with its vertical physical screen
    size, and the inability for me to get my older legacy apps to
    allow me to custom size text and icons, I rarely use it because
    it is so difficult for my 60 year-old eyes to read even with
    glasses, so I run at 1280 x 960. But, there have been occasions
    when I did an entire series at 1600 x 1200. One was when I BOUGHT
    - not ripped - the DVD of the movie "Flags Of Our Fathers".
    Unlike most movie DVDs which are wide-screen on one side and a
    cropped 4:3 on the other, this one is wide screen only, which
    ticked me off. Obviously, DVDs that have both are more appealing
    to people who want to view them on an old TV.

    In my case, I wanted to to screen frame grabs from PowerDVD. What
    I did was go to 1600 x 1200 which gave me more pixels for the
    wide-screen display and I was able to get decent results. BTW,
    for anyone thinking I am doing something illegal, I do not think
    I am. These frame grabs are for me personally, I have NO
    intention of distributing them as my own work nor attempting to
    circumvent Clint Eastwood's copyrights. It is analogous to
    ripping music CDs I BUY so I can create MP3s, then burn MP3 CDs
    to listen to hundreds of songs in my car.
    I am not a purist when it comes to color fidelity, I just want my
    car pictures not to have an overly blue color cast because I
    adjusted the RGB balance in a room lit by incandescent lighting.
    Great! Thanks again.
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 9, 2007
  7. HEMI-Powered

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    David J Taylor added these comments in the current discussion du
    jour ...
    Hmmm. Obviously my bad. But, look at it on the bright side,
    David, you DID slap me up side the head to at least think about
    moving to 3:2 but you did it in a polite way. Now, whether you do
    or don't - and you now say you don't, I STILL intend to start
    switching over, so I am still grateful for your observation.
    In my scanning days, if at all possible, I finished the images to
    4:3 which made perfect sense in the CRT era. My first 2 digital
    cameras were EVFs, and both produced 4:3, so I was still OK. I
    knew in advance that DSLRs were 3:2. At the time I made my buying
    decision, almost 2 years ago now, I narrowed my choices down to
    the Nikon D70s and Rebel XT. I chose the Rebel because it was
    smaller and lighter, and I liked its ergonomics better. But,
    being the Luddite dummy I can be, while I knew it did 3:2, I
    didn't like it, so I cropped to 4:3.

    To repeat a quote from a friend I associated with in my old Apple
    ][ days "when you're stupid, you're stupid for a long time!". Now
    that everybody reading my replies knows I am deferring my
    purchase, your time patiently explaining this all to me is NOT
    wasted one bit. First, I am NOW convinced to change over to 3:2,
    I am NOW willng to investigate on my own if the 16:10 24"
    monitors from Samsung or anybody can or cannot at least display
    an undistorted 4:3, and perhaps some equally ignorant/confused
    lurkers have learned something even though I don't think anyone
    else chimed in expect you and all the other nice people who tried
    very hard to get me turn around. And, you succeeded.

    My hat is off to you David, and to all the others. I hope you
    have a great week!
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 9, 2007
  8. You're very welcome, and good luck in your search for the best monitor.

    I have limited experience with Best Buy and Circuit City, but they do appear
    to have excellent return policies. The only downside to that, of course, is
    that when you buy a new monitor it may be someone else's return, and might
    even have been returned more than once. But obviously there is the advantage
    that if you're unhappy with the purchase for whatever reason, you can just
    put it in the car and bring it back -- whereas in the case of an online
    purchase you'd end up paying shipping both ways, plus the greater
    inconvenience of having to ship it.

    However, I've bought almost all my monitors (quite a few, over the years)
    online, mostly from or, and have almost always been
    perfectly satisfied -- and at a substantially lower price than available
    locally, even with shipping.

    Apart from the cost and bother of having to ship one back, online sellers
    may not have the easy acceptance of returns that your local BB or CC does.
    Newegg for example won't take back an LCD with less than eight bad pixels,
    and in a few cases won't even do that but refers you to the maker/importer
    for satisfaction. Of course the good side to that is they must get very few
    returns, so you're reasonably sure of getting a brand new one.

    As a practical matter this stricter seller's return policy hasn't been a
    problem for me. I've so far bought seven LCD monitors online and only one
    (an inexpensive 15" I bought for playing older games, mostly 640 x 480 with
    no adjustment for any other aspect ratio) has a single stuck blue pixel,
    which most of the time can't even be seen so doesn't bother me.

    So "yer pays yer penny and yer takes yer choice" as the saying goes.

    Neil Harrington, Oct 10, 2007
  9. HEMI-Powered

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Neil Harrington added these comments in the current discussion
    du jour ...

    [big snip]
    As I said, I have learned a TREMENDOUS amount not only from the
    good people in this NG, like yourself, but I also learned
    something valuable about myself: somehow, I'd allowed myself over
    a long period of time to become SO rigid as to almost totally
    resist even the hint that my ideas are at best out-of-date and
    may be closer to pretty foolish.
    If I possibly can, I buy from Circuit City. I have bought a
    relatively high $$$ worth of various things from them. I've
    talked about the Sony 26" HDTV/monitor I bought for my wife. It
    was over $1,250. What you don't know because it wasn't relavent
    to this thread was that I'd previously bought a similar monitor
    with identical specs from Polaroid that I thought had about an
    equal picture quality for only $800. But, I literally blew up two
    of them! No, I did do anything dumb, I was just working along on
    my wife's PC optimizing her Windows text and icon sizes when the
    screen suddenly went completely black and it was stone dead. I
    took the 1st one back and the 2nd one in an unopened box blew out
    the very next day. Circuit City cheerfully refunded my Visa
    charge BEFORE I bought the more expensive Sony, so their return
    policy was genuinely friendly to me.

    I haven't personally had any problems with Best Buy, but then,
    I've not bought any high ticket items. But, I know people that
    have had pitched battles with them on things as small as a case
    to create an external HD from an internal one and as large as a
    digital camera or TV, both of which were allegedly "money back
    guarantee". So, I'm not all that confident of them. My brain is
    soft tonight so I can't remember if I comment on this or not
    earlier, but I looked again today at Circuit City and asked the
    sales droids if they carried any 24" LCDs in stock, specifically
    the 244T/245B, and the answer was "no but we can order it." If I
    were to buy one from Best Buy, being the paranoid whacko that I
    am <you're supposed to grin here!> I would get an assurance from
    a manager.

    I almost hestitate to say this, as you or others may think I've
    been trolling you, but after my disastrous experience trying to
    simply talk to a human at Samsung, I talked this whole thing over
    with my wife and reached a rather peculiar conclusion. Please
    don't be angry with me. I DID learn a lot from you, David, Sophie
    and many others, but I've changed my criteria. Since there is so
    much uncertainty swirling all around this entire debate and
    pretty much there is no clear consensus that I would be able to
    do what I want even from Sophie who owns one, that my wife and I
    said "to hell with it". I've had a very bad year healthwise, took
    very few car pictures - none at the annual Woodward Avenue Dream
    Cruise, a mecca for car picture collectors, and I am thousands of
    images behind on LAST years digitals. So, since I cannot obtain a
    monitor that is physically larger than my 213T vertically, she
    and I decided that when it becomees apparent that our old den TV
    is about to die, I'll move the Sony downstairs and just buy her a
    low-priced 17" or 19" monitor. She doesn't place large demands on
    a monitor for performance, resolutions, color fidelity, et al as
    I do, so I can probably get around this whole mess for a little
    over $200. Assuming I feel better by next spring, I'll re-look at
    the then-current offerings in large sizes.
    Again, thank you for alerting me to this company. So that I don't
    sound like I've slipped back into my rigid Luddite mode, I prefer
    to buy locally rather than shipping back and forth. Thus, I pay a
    penalty for my camera gear compared to, say B & H. But, since I
    have this health thing that saps my energy and makes me far less
    able to deal with frustration, I'd rather not aggravate it.

    I am curious, though, should I change my mind when I get back
    into "buy" mode after Christmas: on-line stores will often ship
    TO the customer free or only a modest amount. So, would I be
    right in assuming that any shipping you do pay is at least offset
    by your price savings, maybe substantially offset? And, have you
    ever needed to return something as large and expensive as one of
    these big monitors? If yes, would I be right that at best you had
    to pay the shipping back? And, will they accept a return for just
    "I don't like it" without charging that silly "restocking fee"?

    Perhaps you've been so satisfied after having done your homework
    prior to the purchase that you've never need to return the item.
    But, if someone - me, a lurker, anyone - in a similar connundrum
    as I've been in for a couple of days found out to their sorrow
    that they just couldn't get it to perform at a 4:3 resolution,
    perhaps the valuable information flowing into my inbox will help
    them avoid some pain. And, they will silently thank you for that.
    Oops! I reply to posts serially, I have another of my character
    flaws <grin> that somehow "prevents" me from reading an entire
    post. So, in the paragraph above, you answer all of my questions.
    The bottom line seems to be, though, for me is that I would have
    to be 100.000% sure that ANY wide-screen LCD can do the peculiar
    things that still may remain in my purchasing criteria. That
    tends to point me back to a local store even at a higher price.
    I don't want to take cheap shots at ANYBODY is this NG or the
    other digital NG, but people tend to fall in two categories: 1)
    those who can accept another person's differing views and still
    be friendly, respectful, and helpful and 2) those who take a
    different rigid tack. I'll use RAW as my analogy. Some folks
    believe so strongly that max mega pixels AND RAW is so
    overridingly important that they tend to insult the intelligence
    of someone like me who, say, is satisfied with half the mega
    pixels and plain JPEG because my standards don't require RAW. I
    don't mind being told I am being way sub-optimal or even
    degrading my performance wrt RAW vs JPEG anymore than I mind
    being told that every step smaller than the native resolution of
    any LCD monitor further degrades image quality - IF the
    suggestions are respectful and not challenging my sanity or

    You sound like you've had an excellent track record with, which I would attribute more to your knowledge of
    what is and is not a quality monitor so your risk of a bad one
    goes way down. I'll close with this observation to your last
    sentence: nobody, not even Bill Gates, ever has enough money nor
    does anybody think that anything they buy is too cheap. We all
    want more money and cheaper purchases, that's only natural.

    Thanks again for all your patient help and have a great week!
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 10, 2007
  10. Neil Harrington wrote:

    Thanks for the reminder about stuck and dead pixels. Different monitors
    have different classes of fault levels (I'm not sure where these are
    defined) and it's possible that one stuck pixel may not be counted as a
    defect, however annoying it is for you. It's wise to check the return
    policy before you buy!

    David J Taylor, Oct 10, 2007
  11. HEMI-Powered

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    David J Taylor added these comments in the current discussion du
    jour ...
    David, at the risk of annoying one or two people with you and I
    trying to communicate with each other in a friendly manner
    <supposed to be a grin!>, both Neil and you are entirely correct
    in my view. Neil is obviously correct for both practical and
    realistic reasons that a buyer of ANY commodity MUST take it upon
    themselves to verify BEFORE the purchase what the terms of the
    return policy is, or if there is one at all. e.g., one local
    camera store will let me return ANY item I buy, while the better
    one WON'T let me return a DSLR camera body but any lens, flash or
    accessory. You are obviously correct that a manufacturer and/or
    store, whether on-line or local, vies ONLY defects as a valid
    reason for a return, then again, a buy MUST fully verify BEFORE
    the purchase what constitutes a "defect", e.g., how many dead
    pixels must there be or do dead pixels just constitute a warranty
    or multi-year warrenty extension?

    As I commented last night, many people are entirely comfortable
    with buying on-line from companies they have found to be both
    reliable and economical. As their trust and confidence grew, they
    bought less and less locally and more and more from their on-line
    company(s) of choice, thus saving themselves much $$$. Other,
    such as me, prefer to actually SEE the commodity, whether camera,
    monitor, whatever, before purchase and enjoy the "luxury" of
    being able to simply drive back with the thing just bought in the
    trunk of the car and either exchange it for one that works or
    politely ask for a refund. Often, but not always, this preference
    has a price penalty. Thus, it seems reasonable that a given
    person apply their criteria for purchase and their notions on
    ease of return and balance that with the time to make the
    purchase and have it shipped/drive it home with the price.

    As with so many things we talk about, I don't believe there is
    any one "right" answer". Have a great day, David!
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 10, 2007
  12. Whatever best suits you is the way to go. I'm sure many people are
    uncomfortable about buying online, especially large-ticket items and
    especially people who haven't done much buying online before. Your mental
    comfort is certainly worth something, so that's a legitimate consideration.

    Long before it became so easy to buy all kinds of stuff over the Internet,
    I'd bought most of my photo equipment by phone order from the big city
    camera stores. So I was used to that and comfortable with it, and it made
    transitioning to online buying very easy and non-worrisome.
    Let me give one example from a few months ago. I had never owned a
    widescreen TV, or an LCD one either, finally decided to get a 32" widescreen
    LCD since their prices have come down so much. I actually watch very little
    TV, but wanted a widescreen for DVDs as my standard-screen 27" Sony Wega
    CRT, while otherwise perfectly satisfactory, was rather a nuisance for
    those. (The Sony had a 16:9 mode, which was OK if less than thrilling, but
    getting into that mode required going into the menu and a lot of button
    pushing. Really got to be a pain.) I did what research I could, saw a lot of
    good user reviews for the Sanyo DP32746 sold by Wal-Mart, so bought one of
    those locally. The price of $624 was very appealing.

    Now I must say that in my experience, comparing these things in the stores
    has been almost worthless. The Sanyo looked better than other brands in one
    Wal-Mart, worse than the others in a different Wal-Mart. And in most cases
    the store sets don't show a high-definition or DVD-quality picture, making
    comparisons even more useless. So I felt I pretty much had to go by reviews,
    not by what I was seeing in the stores.

    I found the Sanyo unsatisfactory for various reasons I won't bother going
    into here, and returned it. Reading many more reviews I finally settled on a
    Samsung LN-T3242H. A local Circuit City had that model at about $1000.
    However, (a company I've done a lot of business with, and
    always with perfect satisfaction) had the same model at $784 with free
    shipping. So that's where I bought it. It arrived the day after I ordered it
    (I live only 150 miles away), I set it up, it's just great and I love it.

    Now, suppose it had *not* been satisfactory. Well, if it had been actually
    defective Beach Camera would have taken it back for either refund or
    replacement. It would've cost me the return shipping, but that would've been
    far, far less than the more than $200 I saved by not buying it locally. If I
    just hadn't *liked* it for some reason, I doubt that would have been an
    acceptable reason for returning it unless I paid the usual 15% restocking
    fee. But my Samsung LCD monitor has been so thoroughly satisfactory I
    thought it unlikely I'd be dissatisfied with their TV.

    So there you are. I'm glad I bought the Sanyo locally, because that made it
    easy to return. On the other hand I'm glad I bought the Samsung online,
    because it saved me a lot of money and I'm really thrilled with its quality.

    In most cases, yes. A few individual stores might have some different

    I doubt that very much. I don't really blame them for charging a restocking
    fee if the product is not defective but the buyer just doesn't like it.
    Selling at narrow profit margins doesn't give the seller much wiggle room
    for accommodating customers' whims, I suppose.
    Again, it's entirely a matter of what you're comfortable with. I do a great
    deal of buying online, and the overall savings for me have been and continue
    to be so great that even if I should get stuck with a real bad buy once, I
    could write it off and still count myself way ahead. But if you don't do
    much shopping online, it's perfectly reasonable that you might not feel the
    same way.,, and are all aces in my book.
    The last two especially where photo equipment is concerned. I've done a lot
    of buying from other online sellers too, and can't recall ever having been
    less than satisfied, but I am reasonably careful about which companies I buy

    You too, Jerry.

    Neil Harrington, Oct 10, 2007
  13. You're welcome, David. From various user reviews I gather that dead or stuck
    pixels are not so much of a problem nowadays, though they do get reported
    from time to time. In my case, only that one stuck pixel between seven LCD
    monitors and one LCD TV. There's one manufacturer (I forget which one) that
    was guaranteeing ZERO bad pixels a while ago, but of course that one may be
    counting on the probability that a customer who gets a single dead or stuck
    pixel wouldn't bother shipping the monitor back anyway.

    Neil Harrington, Oct 10, 2007
  14. HEMI-Powered

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Neil Harrington added these comments in the current discussion
    du jour ...

    Neil, my apologies to you and this NG for top posting, but this
    is such a long-yet-very-informative post, I wanted to put my
    brief comment on top yet leave all your comments intact for
    anyone who wants to read them. Thank you for still more excellent
    commentary on your experiences. I have found your observations
    and perspectives extremely useful.
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 10, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.