Well I'm back on a CRT. To be exact, a 17" NEC MultiSync FE700+ that we bought in 2002 that hasn't seen regular use since about 2005 or 2006, when it was replaced by a 19" TN on the main computer. The secondary computer, the one I use, has had a 14" Panasonic TN from 1998 or 1999 hooked up to it. Simply, I was sick of the horrible viewing angles from such an early LCD, so I tried the CRT at first, but the flicker was painful even at 85Hz. So back to the LCD. However, in another thread, someone mentioned that apparent flicker can be reduced by turning down the brightness. So I did just that, and now the CRT is tolerable.
Thoughts:
-Blacks are fantastic(+) Unfortunately, I'm sacrificing whites to get this(-),due to reduced brightness in order to combat flickering)
-Because of above, gamma is way off(-), though my previous monitor's gamma was also somewhat off.
-Awesome viewing angles(+)
-More vivid colors (at least partially due to glossy display) (+)
-Slightly bigger display(+)
-Moderately increased eyestrain(big -)
-Takes up significantly more room on desk (-)
-Increased power consumption(-)
-Cool sound when turned on (+)
-Satisfying mechanical switch on the power button, with plenty of throw (+)
Overall, it's a tradeoff against my 14" Panasonic from 1998. However, compared to the 19" LCD downstairs (probably TN, circa. 2005), it loses significantly. Viewing angles on the LCD are worse than the CRT but still acceptable, Gamma is actually reasonably good, the colors are acceptable, It sucks less power, gives me better resolution (1280 x 1024, vs. 1024 x 768), and most importantly, it doesn't give me as much eye strain. It's also a bigger display and takes up much less space. I don't game so loss of refresh rate is not a big deal. So if I had the money to buy a modern LCD for the secondary computer, I'd definitely use it instead of this CRT.
Granted, I'm just an ordinary user and I don't do heavy graphics work. However, I believe the comparisons are fair. (1998 early LCD vs 2002 consumer CRT vs 2005 consumer LCD)