Monitor or TV?

I don't need to replace it yet but if one wanted to replace a CRT TV that is
currently getting input from a media PC, a separate Freeview box, a VCR and
a DVD. Should I be looking at monitors or TVs? I don't need MASSIVE as I
have a projector for that.
I find the current (28"ish) TV to have too low a resolution (600x800) for
the PC but otherwise it's OK - (like to view the media).

Slatts

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:16:23 -0000, "Sla#s" <phil DeleteThis @KNOTslatts.net>
wrote:

>I don't need to replace it yet but if one wanted to replace a CRT TV that is
>currently getting input from a media PC, a separate Freeview box, a VCR and
>a DVD. Should I be looking at monitors or TVs? I don't need MASSIVE as I
>have a projector for that.
>I find the current (28"ish) TV to have too low a resolution (600x800) for
>the PC but otherwise it's OK - (like to view the media).

An interesting question, and one that recently exercised me. I use my
home cinema amp as a video switchbox. My TV is only ever used as a
monitor for the one output video signal. Its tuner, amplifier and
speakers are never used. Thus, when the CRT died a few weeks ago,
buying a monitor seemed like a possibility worthy of consideration.

But I ended up buying a TV (albeit with redundant features) because it
offered features that I wanted but are, AFAIK, not available on
monitors (well, none that I've seen):
- remote control
- aspect ratio switching
- multiple inputs (I only use component input now, but I can see that
HDMI will be preferable in a year or two, and I *might* want to plug
something in directly by SCART at some stage).

The remote control includes a pile of things that can be pretty
awkward on a monitor without r/c.

I also think you'll find that economies of scale might well mean that
you can get a better TV than monitor for the price - absurd as that
sounds initially! (As a guide, I've just paid £1000 for a 37"
Panasonic LCD - and know that I could have bought it more cheaply.)

Peter.