I've got a P-3/1GHZ machine w/ Intel MB. Thinking of getting a 17" or 19" LCD monitor. The graphics controller is 82815e. Question is, the MB only has a VGA input (as far as I can tell). How much loss of video quality would occur from NOT using DVI-D input? In display properties for the graphics adapter's valid display modes, it lists up to 1280 x 1024 in hi-color(16 bit) or true color (24 bit). If video quality would be significantly reduced for a new LCD on this machine, no point in spending money.

Also, with my P-3 Intel MB, is it possible to add a relatively inexpensive DVI card, to work correctly w/ digital LCD? Thanks!

You need to supply more info on the MBoard and/or chipset. Try downloading Everest Home Edition. This freeware may yield the MBoard info. Find it here: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download4...

If you've got a good, sheilded VGA cable, you won't be able to tell the difference between VGA and DVI. I'd be more worried about graphics speed. My file server uses i815 integrated graphics. Hooked up to the 2nd input on my 1680x1050 flat panel, I'm forced to run the thing at 1280x1024 to make it look best. Even 2D apps such as scrolling up/down a webpage are kinda "syrupy slow". Of course it's possible to add a higher speed, digital-output video card. All you need is a PCI slot (although AGP is far preferable). All motherboards have PCI, and most have AGP. Check out my flickr stream.

If you already have a decent CRT monitor, use it until it dies or until the display gets too fuzzy or dim for you to tolerate. Buying an LCD monitor merely because it takes up less space is not a good reason to buy one. LCD monitors have a stated "optimal" or "native" resolution at which they look the best, comparable to a CRT. In other resolutions they don't look as good, and the text fonts are often harder to read. CRT monitors do not have that problem. The response time of the pixels - the time it takes to change from one color to the next, is much slower on any LCD monitor than CRT monitors. Because of that, motion and rapidly changing graphics looks better on a CRT. Some think LCD monitors will last longer than CRT monitors - that isn't necessarily so, especially for cheaper LCD monitors. The backlight behind the LC pixels is a CCFL - Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp - and like any flourescent lamp or bulb, it's light output diminishes as time goes on, and it will eventually burn out. For cheaper LCD monitors, the overall warranty may be, say, three years, but the CCFL is often only warrantied for only one year. Most CRTs are warrantied for three years or more, and they often last a lot longer than that, especially if you keep the brightness as low as you can tolerate. If you must buy an LCD monitor, choose one of the brands known for better than average quality - they are more likely to look better in other than the "native" or "optimal" resolutions than other brands which sell cheaper monitors, and they are likely to last longer. E.g. I know from recent experience that Samsung LCDs still look very good in other resolutions. Choose one with the lowest response time - x ms (milliseconds) - that you can afford. Use a screen saver or Power settings in Windows to blank the screen if there are long periods when the monitor is on but you aren't using the computer, to stretch the useful life of the backlight. ....... Inexpensive video cards are available with both DVI and VGA outputs on the one card that will improve your graphics a lot from what you have now.

Turn on Clear Type in Windows XP - makes type on LCD screens look clearer http://www.microsoft.com/typography...

Thanks for the input, everyone! Now, in order: Othehill - what sort of info are you looking for? I've got most all of the specs on the MB - it's an Intel D815EEA2 MB w/ integrated graphics, as noted. The Faz - yes, I've got free PCI and AGP slot(s). What sort of bucks (on sale) are we talking about for a decent graphic card. Why is the AGP preferable over PCI - just faster or better performance in general? Tubeandwires - thanks for the info. No, the main reason for a larger screen is "my arms are getting shorter", as they say. I'm not sure there's much real space saving from an LCD, cause behind the monitor is (usually) still unused. Suppose you could stuff things behind an LCD.