The view angles are, again, one of those things that have greatly improved on more expensive units, but can still suffer badly at the low-end. The upshot is that the display industry is actually heading toward something that will still suit this community's needs. It's just going to take a while before it's available inexpensively.
I hope so, but I'm not as optimistic about it ATM. There are three* different LCD technologies. (*A lot more if you include the different genereations of each tech.) I hate the cheapest tech, but it seems to be winning ATM.
In
gerenal (AKA not always true, but often past on as if):
- The cheapest has the fastest refresh rate.
- The cheapest's "burnt out" pixels are bright red, green or blue (dependong on which is burnt); the others' burnt out pixels show as black and are less obvious.
- The cheapest has a lower color count (usually 14bit vs 16bit.
- The cheapest has the lowest viewing angles and sometimes reverse ghosting (look like negatives) at high angles, especially vertically. The others don't reverse much, but see next.
- One of the others can have purplish blacks, especially deep blacks at angles.
- The cheap LCD PC monitors use the cheap tech. (Example:
all 22" widescreen LCD do, and all those I've seen suck.)
IMO, there is no LCD PC monitor good at more than five criteria of what I want in a PC monitor: color quality, contrast, blackness, viewing angle, resolution, size, refresh rate, and price, yet. The cheap ones meet the last three but not most of the others; while the more expensive (and IMO better techs) sometimes can meet five of the first six but not the last two. Sadly, I think the last two or maybe three are the driving forces the public buys (or the industry pushes, depending on the slant

). (And ya, I wish the last was no object for me, but it is.)
(I rate PC monitors differently than TVs, mind you.)
Remember, each tech has a wide range of actual quality, so I suggest try it out with your own eyes before buying.