> That's a 6-bit TN panel, with a decent gamut. Color accuracy will be so-so, most likely. For sure, I grant that there are much much better panels these days.

> That's a 6-bit TN panel, with a decent gamut. Color accuracy will be so-so, most likely. For sure, I grant that there are much much better panels these days. I would get something better if I was purchasing it today. But I would find it difficult to give up the wide gamut with all the work I do with photos (personal and travel photos). The profile says the white point ΔE 2000 to daylight locus is 21.86. I don't understand exactly what this is, but I know it isn't very good. The viewing angles are indeed quite bad, though actually a bit better than most other TN panels I saw during that era. My point wasn't that this was the best screen you could get, even at the time, just that an sRGB screen isn't impressive at all - Apple's MacBooks hit 100% sRGB in 2014 at the latest, going by one I profiled with my colorimeter. MacBook Pros have been at ~100% Display-P3 for years now, and HP has a laptop at 100% DCI-P3. > For most people, 100% sRGB will be pleasing and accurate for most purposes. I just don't know that this is true. HDR video is becoming a bigger and bigger thing. Image codecs that support 10 bit+ color depth are becoming widespread; the iPhone takes photos with HEIC by default. I assume that eventually consumers are going to want to be able to view movies in HDR on their laptops, if we aren't there already.