CRT's are better than LCD's.

[microsoft windows]

Or are they not? Dish the dirt here.

[didjamatic]

Desk space, Power consumption, weird pincushion crap, waiting for the thing to resume from standby = all CRT's lose

Some CRT's have very good picture, but so do high end LCD's.  In the end, LCD's win.  Thank you for calling.

[didjamatic]

You can't piss your friend off by holding a hard drive magnet up to his LCD, leaving a big blob of discolored annoyance.  That only works on CRT's.

[gr1m]

I'll post the same thing I posted in the other thread:

It's been argued to death enough. When LCD technology was new, it was horrible because like all new things, they need to mature to become viable. What was the first CRT? One of those black and white TVs from the 1900s? If you compare one of those 1900s CRTs to my current LG 24" 1080p LCD monitor, of course it will look horrible. But now, with how much LCD technology has advanced, the only real advantage that the best CRT has over the best LCD is the refresh rate, and even then LCDs are now moving into the 120Hz range because you have to keep in mind that it's still a new technology that has not had as much time as CRTs to develop.

[ch_123]

You can't piss your friend off by holding a hard drive magnet up to his LCD, leaving a big blob of discolored annoyance.  That only works on CRT's.

Don't forget degaussing your monitor in a tightly packed school computer lab, causing the people next to you no end of confusion when it also affected their monitor.

Negatives points for anyone who took the thread seriously.

[maxlugar]

Or are they not? Dish the dirt here.

Don't forget about plasma displays

[ch_123]

Plasmas are pretty **** in fairness. Life expectancy isn't great.

[keyb_gr]

Plasmas are pretty **** in fairness. Life expectancy isn't great.

Dunno 'bout that, they do seem to hold up reasonably well. They're not good for high pixel densities though, efficiency goes down the drain then. Not a bad option if you want a screen area as big as possible though.

Re: thread title, the good ol' plural still does not require an apostrophe. Those little buggers must be breeding like rabbits nowadays. (Could be worse though - the use of accents instead of an apostrophe where none belongs has spawned whole campaigns over here.)

[ch_123]

Maybe it's older ones, but they used to fade out after a few years.

AFAIK, LCDs are more popular for TVs these days.

Have there been many plasma computer monitors? (modern ones, not the ancient ones used in 80s flatscreens)

[microsoft windows]

Dunno 'bout that, they do seem to hold up reasonably well. They're not good for high pixel densities though, efficiency goes down the drain then. Not a bad option if you want a screen area as big as possible though.

Re: thread title, the good ol' plural still does not require an apostrophe. Those little buggers must be breeding like rabbits nowadays. (Could be worse though - the use of accents instead of an apostrophe where none belongs has spawned whole campaigns over here.)

You're German so I bet you use an accent too.

[gr1m]

Have there been many plasma computer monitors? (modern ones, not the ancient ones used in 80s flatscreens)

I can't believe they would be too popular because of the image burn-in thing. The start menu/taskbar for one would burn into the monitor.

[Infinite north]

I picked up a mint condition sony GDM FW900 for 50 bucks last week. past the 90+ pounds and heat it puts out it has to be the best monitor I have ever used on a daily basis.

I am not trying to add fire to the flames so I will throw in that it will be obsolete in a few years unless I want to run it through a hand full of converters.

[microsoft windows]

Not if you used a screen saver.

[EverythingIBM]

I'll post the same thing I posted in the other thread:

It's been argued to death enough. When LCD technology was new, it was horrible because like all new things, they need to mature to become viable. What was the first CRT? One of those black and white TVs from the 1900s? If you compare one of those 1900s CRTs to my current LG 24" 1080p LCD monitor, of course it will look horrible. But now, with how much LCD technology has advanced, the only real advantage that the best CRT has over the best LCD is the refresh rate, and even then LCDs are now moving into the 120Hz range because you have to keep in mind that it's still a new technology that has not had as much time as CRTs to develop.

LCDs can *never* become on par with CRTs in regards to resolution changing
(which is why my dedicated old CRTs are hooked up to win98 computers). LCDs have such horrid artifacts when you change a resolution.
However, before someone comes out with the stake & flames, I do love LCDs in native resolutions (if they don't have line issues like cheapo dell); if LCDs could change resolutions without artifacts, I'd choose them over CRTs any day. I use LCDs on my main computers *always* running in the native resolutions.
And if the backlight burns out, you can always replace it. If I had a crazy scientist's lab, I'd build a specialized long incadescent bulb for my thinkpad's LCD.

Don't forget about plasma displays

Plasma TVs have better contrast than LCD. Uh oh, I opened up a can of worms (better tell those worms to sliver back whence they came).
With the exception of screen burn (I guess people shouldn't hit "pause" so much on their porno movies), a good new plasma TV is way better than LCD.

[chimera15]

I got a 21 inch crt from a thrift store for $20.  CRT wins. lol   The thing is huge, and weighs a ton, but I figure when I move I trash it and I'm out $20. lol  A crt this size woulda been well over $1000 5-10 years ago.  For now I use it occasionally to increase my workflow.  Mostly I'm using my 1080p hd lcd that I got for around $100 though right now for what I was using it for since it's about the same overall size.  The crt still wins in some occasions because of it's 4:3 aspect ratio.



http://cgi.ebay.com/Sony-GDM-FW900-Flat-Widescreen-24-FD-Trinitron-CRT-Mon-/170486202736?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item27b1c50170

 Wow didn't know they made widescreen crts. lol


Looks like I got a pretty good deal.  They may still go for around $50-100 on ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sun-Microsystems-GDM-5010PT-21-inch-CRT-Monitor-/250655844780?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item3a5c40a9ac

[D-EJ915]

haha yeah you did, that's the best PC CRT ever made.  Those things were like $3k+ new

[Infinite north]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sony-GDM-FW900-Flat-Widescreen-24-FD-Trinitron-CRT-Mon-/170486202736?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item27b1c50170

This is what I picked up. they retailed for $2500 when they came out.

[chimera15]

haha yeah you did, that's the best PC CRT ever made.  Those things were like $3k+ new

It wasn't that one.  I was still editing my post. I looked up the stats on mine, it's only 21 inch, it's still huge though.  It's an NEC multisync xe21.

[n3rrd]

And if the backlight burns out, you can always replace it. If I had a crazy scientist's lab, I'd build a specialized long incadescent bulb for my thinkpad's LCD.

You could always look into using LEDs as a replacement for the cathode tube... less crazy scientisty.  There are various examples around the 'net.

[Manyak]

I own a Dell 3008WFP, arguably the best consumer-affordable LCD on the market. And I also own three Sony GDM-FW900's, some of the best progressive scan CRTs ever made. And I can tell you this from now: The CRTs have a better picture than this LCD. They take more effort to own because of the million different things you have to adjust to get a perfect picture, but after all's said and done even this IPS panel doesn't match up. Overall it's close enough for me to use it as my center monitor, it's immensely large size being it's biggest selling point. But comparing ONLY the quality of the picture displayed, the CRTs still win. And I still use the CRTs for doing any sort of graphic work, watching videos, or playing games.

I actually attempted replacing the three CRTs with LCDs - I used this Dell monitor as the center one, and two TN panels for the secondary ones. The IPS panel was good enough, but the side monitors were just terrible.

Just keep in mind that if your own LCD vs CRT experience is based off of cheap-ass shadow-mask CRTs, then any but the worst LCDs will be better. No argument there. But if you can get your hands on a nice Trinitron or Diamondtron display (aperture-grille) CRT, don't pass the chance up.

CRTs:
+ Better refresh rates (LCD response times are more like 20ms+, not the 2ms or whatever crap that is advertised, and even 60Hz can't be properly displayed)
+ No ghosting
+ Better real contrast ratios
+ Zero lag
+ Better color accuracy
+ Blacker Blacks
+ Can run at lower resolutions without looking stupid
+ No discoloration with off-angle viewing
+ Most problems can be repaired easily, instead of having to throw it out to buy a new one
+ Requires less time to "warm up" (about 30 mins on CRTs, 1hr on LCDs)
= Heavy (moot point, because it's not like you're going to carry it around everywhere)
= Need to take time to adjust the image position and geometry for every resolution/refresh rate combo you want to use (moot point, because you only do this once)
- Needs space for it's ass
- Requires calibration every few years to keep the picture as good as possible
- Usually not as bright, therefore ambient light has a greater effect on perceived contrast

[EverythingIBM]

I had a Sony Trinitron and don't miss the eyestrain one bit.  Just calibrate your LCD properly with a Xrite Eye-One and join the 21st century.  My assumption is Microsoft Windows is B.C. but most of you are A.D.

Heh, you're the kind of guy who is more into tools than art & computer displays. So you wouldn't even notice if an LCD got smudy when changing a resolution to play a classic game. Unlike many of the individuals here, I still enjoy many of the old games (NES: mario, SEGA: sonic, DOS: doom) etc etc etc. To play them, you want the best screen with least artifacts as possible.

If you have eyestrain, get glasses or new corneas. Big baby. So you get eyestrain, but the artifacts on LCDs don't bother you in lower resolutions? Uh huh. And in all theory, those HORRID fluorescent bulbs in LCDs should also irritate your eyes if a mere CRT does. With that said LCDs still are worse for my eyes than CRTs -- flickering is nothing compared to excited mercury emitting odd wavelenghts of light & toxic fumes. But with a matte screen and lower brightness settings, it is tolerable.

During our family "retreat" yesterday, I seen possibly one of the biggest CRT TVs ever. It was a MASSIVE sony trinitron TV (easily over 30"). Surprisingly it never had a bad ring to it (I'm sensitive towards CRT ringing), and the picture was pretty good -- it's probably a few years old now. I was just wondering if it could support a higher resolution, it was running in a fairly low one.
But there is NO WAY I would ever buy (or take for free) one of those. If I can't carry it by myself, it's a no-no.

[NamelessPFG]

CRTs have the edge in color reproduction, black levels (assuming it's not one of those FD Trinitrons with the G2 voltage way too high), refresh rates (being able to actually see a game run at 95-160 FPS is great, rather than being bottlenecked to 60 FPS because the monitor can't physically display anything faster), native resolution scaling (they don't HAVE a native resolution), viewing angles (important for TrackIR use or just showing other people what's on the screen), and price-to-performance (I got a Dell P1110 locally for $6, though I'd almost kill for one of the Sony GDM-FW900s or their ilk even at $50).

LCDs have the edge in not needing to fiddle so much with geometry and convergence (it's especially irritating to see colored edges because the convergence is off), size (don't need a deep desk), power consumption (though the gap supposedly isn't as large as it's made out to be), and for the rich artists, there's the Wacom Cintiq (whose digitizer technology simply cannot work with a CRT). Either refresh rate or color reproduction and viewing angles can approach high-end CRT levels of quality, but it will NOT come cheap.

I'm using the P1110 (21" FD Trinitron) for as long as I can at the moment. Works great most of the time, but it needs some color calibration and some hardware work to keep it from losing focus every now and then. Maybe when I can pinch enough pennies for something like the 3008WFP-HC (S-IPS or especially H-IPS, 2560x1600), I'll make the switch.

Oh, and I could use a Sony PVM for running most of my classic consoles in RGB-the way they were intended to be viewed. Too bad I can't seem to find any around here.

[EverythingIBM]

CRTs have the edge in color reproduction, black levels (assuming it's not one of those FD Trinitrons with the G2 voltage way too high), refresh rates (being able to actually see a game run at 95-160 FPS is great, rather than being bottlenecked to 60 FPS because the monitor can't physically display anything faster), native resolution scaling (they don't HAVE a native resolution), viewing angles (important for TrackIR use or just showing other people what's on the screen), and price-to-performance (I got a Dell P1110 locally for $6, though I'd almost kill for one of the Sony GDM-FW900s or their ilk even at $50).

LCDs have the edge in not needing to fiddle so much with geometry and convergence (it's especially irritating to see colored edges because the convergence is off), size (don't need a deep desk), power consumption (though the gap supposedly isn't as large as it's made out to be), and for the rich artists, there's the Wacom Cintiq (whose digitizer technology simply cannot work with a CRT). Either refresh rate or color reproduction and viewing angles can approach high-end CRT levels of quality, but it will NOT come cheap.

I'm using the P1110 (21" FD Trinitron) for as long as I can at the moment. Works great most of the time, but it needs some color calibration and some hardware work to keep it from losing focus every now and then. Maybe when I can pinch enough pennies for something like the 3008WFP-HC (S-IPS or especially H-IPS, 2560x1600), I'll make the switch.

Oh, and I could use a Sony PVM for running most of my classic consoles in RGB-the way they were intended to be viewed. Too bad I can't seem to find any around here.

The games I like are not only console, but PC DOS and windows 9x. And NINTENDO. mama mia, pizza timea! Luigi, makea the pizza piea!

You could search around for other CRTs, IBM has some nice ones... they don't all have to be sony (frankly, the silver plastic disgusts me; plain black or beige please).

Hey, it's the Mini Me version of Microsoft Windows!

Show Image

Hello Mr. Ripmon. Who were you expecting, ch_123?

I actually own a good LCD, unlike the many non-IBM ones around here which have glossy screens & ultra high contrast that makes your eyes bleed.

[ch_123]

haha yeah you did, that's the best PC CRT ever made.  Those things were like $3k+ new

Any Sun CRTs I've encountered were horrible things. Then again, they might have been lower end monitors...

Hello Mr. Ripmon. Who were you expecting, ch_123?

[Mercen_505]

I love a good CRT, but finding one these days is a crap shoot.

After all those years of staring at CRTs, LCD monitors give me a significant amount of eye strain.

[firestorm]

When it comes to high end displays, the only downfall I really see with LCDs is the fixed resolution, as already mentioned.  Even then, the built in scalers are getting better and better.  LCD TN panels are limited by their 6 bit color depth, but again the dithering used to make up for that deficiency have been getting better as well, to the point that I find them very usable for general usage.

I happen to be a fan of plasma TVs, having a Panasonic TH-50PZ80U at home.  Being that they are phosphor based, like CRT, they have many of the same advantages.  Being fixed pixel, they have many of the same advantages (and disadvantages) that LCDs have.  And newer plasmas are hardly susceptible to screen burn anymore - I haven't seen even a hint of it on ours.  Generally speaking, they're no more prone to image burn than CRT - as with CRT, some are better than others in this regard.

[spolia optima]

I used to praise CRT over LCD... and then I got my dual Dell IPS panels
I will never buy a CRT again.

Oh, the FW900 is excluded because it is a f**cking epic display.

[wellington1869]

in ny people leave perfectly working CRT's on the sidewalk cuz no one wants them. Same with CRT tv's.  My friend was trying to sell his 35" CRT tv on craigslist and finally dropped the price to FREE and still no one came.

[gr1m]

People say that CRTs' average size and weight is just one disadvantage compared to LCDs but don't consider how big of a disadvantage size and weight really is. I'm sure a 24" CRT would reduce my current desk to a pile of matchsticks.

[Manyak]

I love a good CRT, but finding one these days is a crap shoot.

After all those years of staring at CRTs, LCD monitors give me a significant amount of eye strain.

lol, me too. I've adjusted to IPS panels, but I just can't do TN panels for the life of me. When using a bigger screen the image is never uniform because even when sitting directly in front of it, the angle between your eyes and the edges differ enough to make it non-uniform. And of course, there's the ... i forget the term for this ... but it's where all the dark colors kind of blend in together and lose contrast. And on some screens even the light colors do it too.

And with games, I still can't even do IPS.

When it comes to high end displays, the only downfall I really see with LCDs is the fixed resolution, as already mentioned.  Even then, the built in scalers are getting better and better.  LCD TN panels are limited by their 6 bit color depth, but again the dithering used to make up for that deficiency have been getting better as well, to the point that I find them very usable for general usage.

I happen to be a fan of plasma TVs, having a Panasonic TH-50PZ80U at home.  Being that they are phosphor based, like CRT, they have many of the same advantages.  Being fixed pixel, they have many of the same advantages (and disadvantages) that LCDs have.  And newer plasmas are hardly susceptible to screen burn anymore - I haven't seen even a hint of it on ours.  Generally speaking, they're no more prone to image burn than CRT - as with CRT, some are better than others in this regard.

I'm a fan of Plasma TVs too. The lifespan and burn-in problems have been pretty much done away with now. Yeah the old ones suck, but the new ones do match up to LCDs in those aspects - you only have to worry about image retention for the first month or so, after that you can even leave a game paused all day and it'll only take 2 mins for the retention to disappear. And of course, the picture quality is just plain awesome in comparison.

The only situations where LCDs are better than plasmas (for TVs of course) are 1) when all you want is a small screen for your kitchen or bathroom or whatever, and 2) when you're going to be watching it primarily when there's a lot of sunlight.

in ny people leave perfectly working CRT's on the sidewalk cuz no one wants them. Same with CRT tv's.  My friend was trying to sell his 35" CRT tv on craigslist and finally dropped the price to FREE and still no one came.

CRT TVs and monitors are two completely different ballgames. The sub-pixels on a CRT TV are arranged to give optimal quality to interlaced images, not progressive scan images. And only at 480i. If you wanted a 35" progressive scan CRT that could do 1080p, it would have to be about 10 feet deep. In other words, it would need a room on it's own.

In short: CRT TVs suck for anything except either watching old TV shows (like I Love Lucy) or playing old video games (who's graphics become better with interlacing).

[phillip]

in ny people leave perfectly working CRT's on the sidewalk cuz no one wants them. Same with CRT tv's.  My friend was trying to sell his 35" CRT tv on craigslist and finally dropped the price to FREE and still no one came.

I sold three CRT tvs last month

2x 32", 1x 27"

Anyway, I'm happy with my lcds.  TNs are bleh but usable.  I wouldn't mind having a nice CRT, but they're too bulky.

[gr1m]

lol, me too. I've adjusted to IPS panels, but I just can't do TN panels for the life of me. When using a bigger screen the image is never uniform because even when sitting directly in front of it, the angle between your eyes and the edges differ enough to make it non-uniform.

I noticed this as well. There is no way to directly look at my 24" TN displaying a white screen and have the entire screen appear white. Parts appear bluish all the time.

[NamelessPFG]

I noticed this as well. There is no way to directly look at my 24" TN displaying a white screen and have the entire screen appear white. Parts appear bluish all the time.

I've noticed it too. It became especially obvious once I brought my eyes upon an HP TC1100 with a BOE Hydis panel and an iPad just how bad TN panels have it in regard to viewing angles.

Alas, the Gateway E-295C I'm using as a replacement for the TC1100 has an inferior TN panel-and since it's much larger at 14" 1280x768 vs. 10" 1024x768, the viewing angle issue is just that much worse. Same for the HP tm2 I'm dead set on getting down the road, except that's 12" 1280x800. And any convertibles with decent screens are usually more expensive and gimped with integrated graphics...

[Manyak]

I've noticed it too. It became especially obvious once I brought my eyes upon an HP TC1100 with a BOE Hydis panel and an iPad just how bad TN panels have it in regard to viewing angles.

Alas, the Gateway E-295C I'm using as a replacement for the TC1100 has an inferior TN panel-and since it's much larger at 14" 1280x768 vs. 10" 1024x768, the viewing angle issue is just that much worse. Same for the HP tm2 I'm dead set on getting down the road, except that's 12" 1280x800. And any convertibles with decent screens are usually more expensive and gimped with integrated graphics...

It's not just tablets, it's laptops in general. Not only do they always use some of the worst panels possible (with a few exceptions, like the Thinkpad W710's upgraded display), but they're GLOSSY. And do you know why? Because the glossy coating increases the perceived contrast, allowing them to get away with using crap panels without too many people noticing.

Until you go outdoors of course. Then you can't see a glossy screen at all.

[microsoft windows]

I used to do that at work when the screen on my laptop died. I just put it on a cart and hooked up a monitor.

[ch_123]

in ny people leave perfectly working CRT's on the sidewalk cuz no one wants them. Same with CRT tv's.  My friend was trying to sell his 35" CRT tv on craigslist and finally dropped the price to FREE and still no one came.

Well, with the high def craze going on, there's not an awful lot of people who are going to want a huge CRT TV. Sure there's a market for small ones for a spare room/kids room/games console, but for a living room TV, not as much.

Besides, the transport cost of a 35" CRT is probably the same as an equivalent LCD anyway =P

[Buckling_Summer]

I had an Iiyama CRT 19'' (Diamondtron) and I gave it. Nice monitor. Nice colors but needed some geometry fixes.

I have never seen a Sony GDM-FW900 Flat Widescreen 24" FD Trinitron CRT in action. Neither I have test-driven a top notch LCD (IPS).
I think the radiation of the CRTs is the biggest disadvantage of them.
Have been using  Samsung 24'' LCD TN-panel since 2009 I am not experiencing headaches like i was with the old CRTs.

[microsoft windows]

I think the radiation of the CRTs is the biggest disadvantage of them.

I knew I had an old radiation monitor lying around somewhere. So I dug it up and put it around my CRT's. I think it ticked only once or twice. Don't think radiation's too bad with them. My root cellar's more nuclear than that (There's radon down there).

[Mercen_505]

That said, I'll never give up my LCD projector when it comes to watching movies and gaming. Well... not until something better comes along

I was really hoping SED was going to eventually make a showing, but I think there was some patent trolling going on, or one of the partners getting cold feet. Can't remember now, I just recall seeing a demo unit at CES a few years ago and it absolutely destroyed the rest of the LCD and plasma panels along the wall. But that's another subject for another day.

[NamelessPFG]

It's not just tablets, it's laptops in general. Not only do they always use some of the worst panels possible (with a few exceptions, like the Thinkpad W710's upgraded display), but they're GLOSSY. And do you know why? Because the glossy coating increases the perceived contrast, allowing them to get away with using crap panels without too many people noticing.

Until you go outdoors of course. Then you can't see a glossy screen at all.

And as if the high prices for some of these systems weren't enough, they STILL cheap out on the screens.

Case in point: 13" MacBook Pro. I did my vertical viewing angle test and noticed some distressing color shifts. That is NOT what I expect from a "Pro" product costing at least $1200. (And I haven't even started on that mirror gloss finish yet!)

ThinkPad W710...did they make a follow-up to that beast of a mobile workstation in the W700(ds)? I'd actually like to own one of those at some point, but can't see myself having one until they're very well obsolete due to the crazy high price tags. (Then again, packing a decent LCD, colorimeter, Wacom digitizer, and some of the most powerful laptop hardware around in such a package can't come cheap. Very much a "no compromises" system.)

Are you guys gonna walk around with CRTs attached to your laptops?

If you do it with an iPad be sure to post on YouTube.

Haha, no. I prefer not to be reminded too much of how hard it was to get the Dell P1110 on my desk in the first place; the aperture grille models are significantly heavier than their older shadow mask brethren! (And I can't even budge the Hitachi 43FWX20B in the living room...to be honest, I'm not sure how we even got it in the house. That thing took at least three people to move, all probably herniated by the time we got it in place. It's only rear-projection, but damn...)

[microsoft windows]

lol, me too. I've adjusted to IPS panels, but I just can't do TN panels for the life of me. When using a bigger screen the image is never uniform because even when sitting directly in front of it, the angle between your eyes and the edges differ enough to make it non-uniform. And of course, there's the ... i forget the term for this ... but it's where all the dark colors kind of blend in together and lose contrast. And on some screens even the light colors do it too.

And with games, I still can't even do IPS.




I'm a fan of Plasma TVs too. The lifespan and burn-in problems have been pretty much done away with now. Yeah the old ones suck, but the new ones do match up to LCDs in those aspects - you only have to worry about image retention for the first month or so, after that you can even leave a game paused all day and it'll only take 2 mins for the retention to disappear. And of course, the picture quality is just plain awesome in comparison.

The only situations where LCDs are better than plasmas (for TVs of course) are 1) when all you want is a small screen for your kitchen or bathroom or whatever, and 2) when you're going to be watching it primarily when there's a lot of sunlight.




CRT TVs and monitors are two completely different ballgames. The sub-pixels on a CRT TV are arranged to give optimal quality to interlaced images, not progressive scan images. And only at 480i. If you wanted a 35" progressive scan CRT that could do 1080p, it would have to be about 10 feet deep. In other words, it would need a room on it's own.

In short: CRT TVs suck for anything except either watching old TV shows (like I Love Lucy) or playing old video games (who's graphics become better with interlacing).

CRT TV's aren't nearly as good as CRT computer monitors.

[bhtooefr]

Show me a 3840x2400 CRT in the 22.2" ballpark, and I'll admit that CRTs are NEARLY on a par with LCDs.

Oh, and that resolution and size was in 2001, so in the heyday of CRTs.

[Manyak]

Show me a 3840x2400 CRT in the 22.2" ballpark, and I'll admit that CRTs are NEARLY on a par with LCDs.

Oh, and that resolution and size was in 2001, so in the heyday of CRTs.

Resolution means nothing when the colors are inaccurate.

[wellington1869]

i'll say this for crt's, they wont freaking die.  I'm waiting patiently for my 12" crt tv in my bedroom to die so I can buy a nice shiny lcd tv.  I've had that crt since, oh I dont know, 1988. Seriously. Damn thing just wont freaking die. The buttons have fallen out the front of it, I've been thru two chewed up remote controls, but the crt itself keeps chugging along.

Meanwhile I've been thru countless computer lcd monitors whose average lifespan seems to be 3 years.

That said, yea, i'd convert to lcd's in a second for the convenience (size and weight).

[EverythingIBM]

I love a good CRT, but finding one these days is a crap shoot.

After all those years of staring at CRTs, LCD monitors give me a significant amount of eye strain.

That's probably my issue too.

I reccomend a really matte and dark LCD screen to solve the problem for CRT-eyes. lol.

[EverythingIBM]

i'll say this for crt's, they wont freaking die.

Well, the good ones never seem to die. But there are so many CRTs that die within a few years due to bad quality. Which is why you want a good one.

I guess the good ones stay good forever, and the bad ones, they get bad real quick.

And no, CRTs don't lose their colour within a few years. Good ones retain it. All of my CRTs still have 100% tip top colour. If they didn't, I'd chuck 'em.

Once I had the priviledge of using a 14" ADI CRT made in something like 1995 or 1994. It was able to go up to 1280x1024 (fairly good for 14"), however, it had the most disgusting green hue. That's an example of a CRT that didn't last very long in terms of colour. However, it was possible to correct the colour with some software. But it has been recycled. Besides, 1280x1024 on 14" is way damn too small. 17" is the lowest I'll go. I prefer 19" though.

[ch_123]

Resolution means nothing when the colors are inaccurate.

Well, if you're not some sort of professional artist type, sacrifices can be made.

[bhtooefr]

Resolution means nothing when the colors are inaccurate.

Except this is an IPS panel.

Oh, there is one advantage to CRTs. The Apple IIGS is designed around the quirks of a specific CRT, and its large dot pitch. Combined with the IIGS's dirty signal, LCDs don't play nicely, and even when they do play nicely, they don't look right (on the CRT, the colors are dithered in 640x200 mode. On an LCD, stripes are obvious.)

[microsoft windows]

Originally Posted by Mercen_505  
I love a good CRT, but finding one these days is a crap shoot.

After all those years of staring at CRTs, LCD monitors give me a significant amount of eye strain.

That's probably my issue too.

I reccomend a really matte and dark LCD screen to solve the problem for CRT-eyes. lol.

That could also be caused by the fluorescent backlights in LCD's (Which flicker at 60Hz).

[42.tar.gz]

That could also be caused by the fluorescent backlights in LCD's (Which flicker at 60Hz).

Are you sure? Do you have any sources?

I did a quick research and found this:

CCFLs require an inverter to supply the 270 to 300 VAC @ 35KHz used by the CCFL tube.

Also, German Wikipedia says:

Die Frequenz liegt im Bereich um 30 bis 100 kHz.

in English:

The frequency is in the range of 30 to 100 kHz.

I suppose at > 30kHz, nobody would notice any flicker at all.