Humm.. A monitor made in 1989... Well I would guess if your just looking at text then your fine. If your computer is also from 1989, then dont upgrade. If you can seriously say "am I sacraficing anything quality wise" then you most likly arnt the way you are using it now.
But when you do get a new computer, most of them come with a free monitor, so junk your old one.
The thing you're sacrificing is your eyesight! The older CRT (big tube) monitors didn't have the best refresh rate. The slower your monitor refresh rate the harder it is on your eyes. If your monitor is at 60hz your eyes will get bloodshot quicker than if it's at 100hz. You know a movie has around 30 frames a second? That's kinda the idea for a CRT monitor too. The CRT monitor has to redraw the entire screen every few milliseconds (I forget the figures), this is the hertz rate.
The advantage of a LCD flatscreen monitor is that it doesn't have to refresh the screen in the same way a CRT does. The tiny dots that make up the LCD screen are pixels (actually 3 different colors make up a pixel). Those pixels turn on and off or change colors like a light switch which is easier on your eyes than redrawing the entire screen.
I use a LCD monitor for 10+ hours a day and my eyes thank me that I have a LCD instead of a CRT.
Some other information you may not have considered is that a CRT monitor uses more power than a LCD. You're paying for more electricity than you need to. Some businesses change to only LCDs just for the cheaper electricity bill. Insignificant perhaps, but still true.
Today's LCDs are of nice quality and much crisper than a CRT (my opinion). Recently I went from a 19" 7 year old CRT at home to a 24" Dell LCD (I have two 19" LCDs at work that I use the majority of time I spend in front of a computer). The text was noticably crisper and easier to read on the LCD when I compared my 19" CRT to my 24" LCD.
For price vs quality Dell LCD monitors are great for their quality. They have nice sized ones; lowest size I'd go with is a 19" LCD, ~$230 to $300 depending on model. A 20.1" around $450. You have a choice for getting either a widescreen (rectangle) LCD or a "normal" (squareish) LCD. Personally I like the widescreen because I have more screen realestate.
haha. I play on
-AM2 X2 3800+ @2.6GHz
-7900GT OC'd to 7900GTX
-1GB RAM
-250GB Hard Drive
-450w PSU
I play Oblivion maxed, FEAR, Ill be playing UT 2007. Funny thing is its older than me and i need a adaptor to plug it in. lololoololololol. I was thinking of a 19" LCD. I found one but is 8ms response time good. I play right now at either 1024x768 or 1280x1024.
In a way he is right though, that monitor is old and you probably wont loose much of anything by getting rid of it. But towely doesnt have a good reputation attitude wise on the forums, so try not to listen to what he has to say. I would suggest just getting a new monitor. CRT or LCD, whatever floats your boat.
Guys your giving bad advice.
If he is using a monitor from 1989, it is very likly its an eVGA monitor which has a different plug. A new DVI monitor wont fit. Likewise, the monitors max rez should be 640x480.
Please post the age of your computer before accepting recomindations to buy a new monitor.
haha. I play on
-AM2 X2 3800+ @2.6GHz
-7900GT OC'd to 7900GTX
-1GB RAM
-250GB Hard Drive
-450w PSU
I play Oblivion maxed, FEAR, Ill be playing UT 2007. Funny thing is its older than me and i need a adaptor to plug it in. lololoololololol. I was thinking of a 19" LCD. I found one but is 8ms response time good. I play right now at either 1024x768 or 1280x1024.
LOL; your monitor is bottlenecking your system. An 8ms LCD is good; I'm using one, and I've never had ghosting in games. Newegg has this nice Samsung 17" 8ms LCD for $160 after a $20 rebate.
Actually, I’m amazed that a monitor made in 1989 would be good enough to display at 1280X1024 without frying the monitor or your eyes. It must have been a really top end monitor for its day.
As reference, I was using my top-of-the-line Amiga 2000HD at that time with a Sony RGB monitor/TV (15" I think) that as I recall cost $500 in 86’
So its not even good for my eyes. I need my eyes to stay 20/20. And that LCD from newegg wouldnt destroy my eyes? I also heard that 17" was bad for eyes ans 19-21" was way to go. Is that only with old monitors?
Actually, I’m amazed that a monitor made in 1989 would be good enough to display at 1280X1024 without frying the monitor or your eyes. It must have been a really top end monitor for its day.
As reference, I was using my top-of-the-line Amiga 2000HD at that time with a Sony RGB monitor/TV (15" I think) that as I recall cost $500 in 86’
Hay I had the same Sony monitor/tv. It was black and red. I played ALF and Rodger Rabit on it all the time! Was great and I wish I still had it.
But when you do get a new computer, most of them come with a free monitor, so junk your old one.
Wouldn't it be better to just keep it for another 17 years and sell it to some 2023 hipster with a nack for late 20th century memorabilia ? Could help fund his new system and datajack...
For the OP: a monitor is not a monitor, but you need to tell us your brand and model in order for us to figure out if it's still any good. CRTs last forever, so the key things are its design and specs. Since there were super-high-end monitors from that era, maybe it's OK. LCDs will be crisper and have nice square/rectangular images, but are lacking in color range compared to CRTs -- just compare a photo of a person's face on a CRT and on an LCD.
Note to Mondoman.
CRT's do not last forever. Many things can fail.
If you had read my post a few up, you would have noticed that it was not uncommon for a monitor to support 1600x1200 at 60hz with good colour depth. If the monitor is supporting 1280x1024 then it is a SVGA monitor as well, which should be fine if not a bit ugly.
It depends on the quality of your CRT. There are CRT's (also 17 years old) which are much better than todays LCD.
The real advantage to LCD's are size/weight and energy use.
If you got a good 19" or 21" CRT then you will NOT get a better picture by changing to a LCD. A Trinitron or Perfectflat CRT display is excellent even by todays standard.
But if you got a cheap CRT or anything smaller than 19", you definitely ought to get a good LCD. I recommend a good 21" or 24" LCD - the display is not the right place to get stingy. I have worked with the Samsung 214T and the HP LP2465 -excellent monitors.
I suppose forever is more like what it would seem in the PC sense, as you don't tend to run into many components for a system you can keep using for more than 10 years and still not feel the pinch or have it simply fail.
CRT's are one of those things (keyboards can be another). My CRT from about that time lasted a good 10 years until it up and died. Every other CRT I have ever bought still work AFAIK. Now is it advisable to continue with that old CRT? Well, just because it's a CRT isn't really a good reason to ditch it IMO on that basis alone. If I still had that CRT from back then, it would now be OK - it was 17" 60/75 mhz SVGA and so could do 1028x768 without burning my eyes. Now if that resolution was suitable and the monitor still working fine, I see no reason to just get rid of it, so long as it is in good order. One problem with an old monitor like that is screenburn. Not a concern on more recent display equipment, those older CRTs used to burn images onto the screen over time (that's why the screensaver came about). If you are burnt, then I'd say it's days are done - but if you took care of it it could be fine even now.
But maybe you'd like a bigger screen, or a higher resolution, or to use less electricity, then that LCD/TFT screen is a good choice for an upgrade. 19" generics run around £80-90, I picked up a 19" widescreen from ACER for £140 a couple months ago and it has a lovely picture.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.