Duck,I just placed my order for the system tonight. Might take two or three weeks to build but I am in no hurry. I decided to get the monitor on my own simily becasue it would be easier to return if I don't like it. I still have time to make my decision. Right now I am using a 21 inch Samsung which I love. I am giving my existing system to my son along with the monitor.I have been looking at Best Buy and the Lg you selected is the one I am considering. I saw it in the store and it had a very nice picture along with the Hanspree. At the store I was surprised to see that the Samsung monitors did not look so good next to the LG and Hanspree. I would sure like to know how you like it when your system is set up. The 2ms response time was also a prime consideration in my choice. I would like to see how a 24 or 25 inch monitor looks with the 1080 resolution. In my research the last couple of days I read where 1080 won't look good 24 inch and bigger. I am also kicking around a 26 inch Asus (1090x1200 2ms) Asus VW266h for $299.99 at new egg. This monitor gets excellent reviews but I am not sure if I really want to go that big. So heck, I am thinking I can start at Best Buy, take home and sample, return if I don't like and still have the option of the Asus. Can't miss.I would sure be interested in updates on your build. Seems like we think alike at least as far as monitors and hard drives go.CbreezeKrister,I checked out the specs on your Samsung 26" and it looks like a nice monitor. It doesn't seem like the slower, 5ms, response time is an issue.

So heck, I am thinking I can start at Best Buy, take home and sample, return if I don't like and still have the option of the Asus. Can't miss.

That is what I figured since most of monitor issues are subjective anyway. I also noticed that the Hanspree and the LG looked the best on the showroom floor. I was really interested in a Samsung or a Dell when I entered the store. Those two get the best reviews on line. I did check out Hanspree reviews but most of them were mediocre. I went with the brand I knew better.So far so good. FSX on the LG looked great on my old system considering its age.The only think I don't like about it is there are no height adjustments. I had to buy a stand to raise it up 4" so I could see over my yoke. All is good now.

I bought an HP 2159m from Best Buy in June and it was 10 bucks cheaper than HP.com and it is very crisp and sharp and displays things beautifully. If you don't like glossy screens, then maybe it is not for you, but I definitely recommend it.

I know this thread is dead but I have a question:If I have a 7200 RPM hd with the OS and a 10000 RPM hd with fsx is there going to be a bottleneck from the slower drive when you are playing FSX?

No, I don't think to. I didn't have a problem with my last system and I am not having a problem with the new one.

alright just making sure. I am thinking of buying my new system tonight

Hello,I have always understood that FSX needs to be on a separate drive than the OS. As a result, I have design my new system to have a 300GB VelociRaptor for FSX. The OS will be on a 1TB Caviar Black.I have recently been told something completly different and I wanted to get some other opinions.What I have head makes sense - FSX should be installed in the default path on the same drive as the OS. If you don't FSX will continually search for files. Eventually, it should find what it is looking for but it will look on the C drive first.Any opinions? I'd hate to spend the money on a separate drive if it is doing nothing for me.Thanks.

FSX searches for files in the path defined in the registry, not the default path. A few minutes watching filemon with FSX running will quickly dispel the idea that FSX is first hitting the C: drive for files.If you're using Vista, you most definitely do NOT want to put any user program under a \Program Files directory, as you invite massive complications from the file redirection that Vista does (ostensibly for security).Second, if FSX and the OS share a drive, then you introduce more head-seek latency, as the disk heads are going to be shuttling back-forth between the OS and FSX areas on the physical disk. How much of a difference that makes depends on how your system is configured (amount of RAM, OS services left running during FS etc).A separate, fast drive for FS is what I use.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO