Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CRT v.s. LCD - Page 2

Last response: in Systems
Share
December 5, 2006 4:27:28 AM

I own a LCD the only problem I have with them and I'm so glad I got the 2 year warranty is when a pixel goes dead or gets stuck it can be so annoying
December 5, 2006 8:18:22 AM

Quote:
Gee, thats real nice... 8)


what is?

did you check the link i posted?

its an oldie but a goodie
You said true to:

Quote:
What the stuff on plasmas or the "sucks to be poor" part? (or both :lol: )


uhmm all of the above.:wink:
But nevermind. Anyways I saw that ad in your thread that you started on it, the AMD vs Intel thing, or was it ATI vs Nvidia, I cant remember.

What :?:
December 5, 2006 9:48:09 AM

Your CRT was flickering because you had the refresh rate set at 60hz. It was matching the flickering of the lights. All you had to do is raise the refresh rate to 75hz or above. As far as the rest of your problems must be a bad CRT. To OP, if you have the space and the money, CRT will kick the crap out of any LCD out there, period. I didn't check for availability but if you want a monitor that is sure to not disappoint, see links.


http://www.iiyama.com/us/default.asp?SID=&LNG=US&NAV=23...

Review
`Changing the Face' of Desktop Computing With World's First Truly Flat-screen 22-

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WUB/is_1999...
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
December 5, 2006 11:37:54 AM

CRT Specifications (Average 19")

Brightness: 150 - 200cd/m2
Dot Pitch: .24mm
Resolution: 1600x1200
Responce Time: <1ms
Refresh Rate: 60 - 80Hz
Power Consuption: 200 - 250Watts
Physical Size/Weight: 2' Deep/75LBS

LCD Specifications (Average 19")

Brightness: 230 - 400cd/m2
Dot Pitch: .25 - .27mm
Resolution: 1280x1024
Responce Time: >2ms - 12ms (Or Worse)
Refresh Rate: 60 - 72Hz
Power Consuption: 30watts
Physical Size/Weight: 2" - 4" Deep/18 - 20LBS
December 5, 2006 11:49:50 AM

Quote:
CRT Specifications (Average 19")

Brightness: 150 - 200cd/m2
Dot Pitch: .24mm
Resolution: 1600x1200
Responce Time: <1ms
Refresh Rate: 60 - 80Hz
Power Consuption: 200 - 250Watts
Physical Size/Weight: 2' Deep/75LBS

LCD Specifications (Average 19")

Brightness: 230 - 400cd/m2
Dot Pitch: .25 - .27mm
Resolution: 1280x1024
Responce Time: >2ms - 12ms (Or Worse)
Refresh Rate: 60 - 72Hz
Power Consuption: 30watts
Physical Size/Weight: 2" - 4" Deep/18 - 20LBS


I've not seen a TFT that can't do 75hz. Even my Old Benq T904 can do that.
Response times are < 8ms nowadays too. If your response time is more than that ask yourself why you are buying it.

As for the rest of this thread. Talk about anal. Seriously CRT is dead, boring dull picture. Get over it.
December 5, 2006 11:55:07 AM

My LCD Wont Do 75Hz, And It Only Rated At 40ms (Suprizingly Theres Virtually No Ghosting/Smearing)
December 5, 2006 11:56:12 AM

CRT's really are a dead technology. No one wants a 50 lb behemoth sitting on their desk anymore. When I turned my old one on in the dark I felt like I was blinded. It wasn't high quality or anything but my new LCD is infinitly times better than my old 17" CRT. It was horrible. My new monitor is better in every single way.
December 5, 2006 11:58:00 AM

I prefer CRT to LCD. No its not dead tech. Its just that you have to get a good one, which can be purchased for under $200 and will perform better than a LCD.
December 5, 2006 11:59:15 AM

Quote:
CRT Specifications (Average 19")

Brightness: 150 - 200cd/m2
Dot Pitch: .24mm
Resolution: 1600x1200
Responce Time: <1ms
Refresh Rate: 60 - 80Hz
Power Consuption: 200 - 250Watts
Physical Size/Weight: 2' Deep/75LBS

LCD Specifications (Average 19")

Brightness: 230 - 400cd/m2
Dot Pitch: .25 - .27mm
Resolution: 1280x1024
Responce Time: >2ms - 12ms (Or Worse)
Refresh Rate: 60 - 72Hz
Power Consuption: 30watts
Physical Size/Weight: 2" - 4" Deep/18 - 20LBS
A little extreme in the comparisons, to make LCD look that much better. :roll:

1. 19" CRT uses ~100w(not 200-250)
2. 19" CRT are ~ 18" deep(not 24")..and ~50lbs.(not 75).
3. 19" LCD use closer to 40w(35-40)
4. Are you, by chance, a used car salesman?
December 5, 2006 12:01:41 PM

Quote:
I prefer CRT to LCD. No its not dead tech. Its just that you have to get a good one, which can be purchased for under $200 and will perform better than a LCD.


Link?
You can get good TFT's too. And in sizes of 22" for around $350.
The only reason i can think of buying a CRT is if i needed a really high res.
December 5, 2006 12:07:56 PM

Don't waste your time with a CRT.
December 5, 2006 12:37:12 PM

Quote:
Would you care to elaborate on an assumed correlation between a company's LCD technology and its plazma technology?

In particular, please examine this situation - Sony's plasma TVs are generally very well regarded, while their LCD monitors are generally considered SUCKY. Don't mean to yell, but they SUCK (in terms of performace. Quite well designed, though).

I am listening quite attentively.


I wasn't implying any correlation only that LG seems to be making decent products in general, plasmas, DVD players, receivers etc. As for Sony they SUCK in general. They are overpriced for under performance & if you have a problem their basic answer is to laugh & tell you to go buy a new one. Ever see the Chinpokomon episode of South Park? That's Sony 100%
December 5, 2006 12:44:14 PM

Quote:
I wasn't implying any correlation only that LG seems to be making decent products in general, plasmas, DVD players, receivers etc. As for Sony they SUCK in general. They are overpriced for under performance & if you have a problem their basic answer is to laugh & tell you to go buy a new one. Ever see the Chinpokomon episode of South Park? That's Sony 100%


Not a fan of Sony's LCD's, they looked the worst in the shop when hooked up to Sky+.
I prefer plasma's to LCD too, warmer picture, less digital feel to them.
December 5, 2006 1:10:42 PM

Which I need. Which is what make LCD impractical for me.
December 5, 2006 1:51:33 PM

if you use it for full-screen games, go CRT. Especially since most people with not-top-of-line cards go through res change when you go into games. (or the REALLY top-of-the-line rig who plays at 3 megapixels per frame that they turn UP the resolution because otherwiuse the text at desktop will be too small to read)

if you don't do games with it, get yourself a LCD and use the remaining space to store your favorite beverage/printed material/DVD's 8O
December 5, 2006 1:55:03 PM

You should get out a bit more or surf some alot of TFT can do 75hrz mine is one of them.

Alot of info reguarding LCD in this thread is wrong or vary vary vary old.

WizardOZ have you even used a LCD? almost all of your cons of a LCD are way way off.

Everything on my LCD looks WAY more crisp then it ever did on my viewsonic p815 21" cost wise my 24" and almost everyone out there is no more expensive when they were sold as my 24" LCD hell alot are cheaper if you dont mind cheap LCD monitors which is the only way i can see alot of the complaints i see about LCD happening(people buying cheap crap and expecting it to be good.)

I hated LCD for ever and wouldnt ever get one until i gave one a chance and there is no way in hell anyone could convince me a CRT is better for many things ill leave graphical design out of it since LCD at least in color represintation is not up to par yet but other then that i dont see any reason to hold on to CRT anymore.
December 5, 2006 2:08:55 PM

Quote:
if you use it for full-screen games, go CRT. Especially since most people with not-top-of-line cards go through res change when you go into games. (or the REALLY top-of-the-line rig who plays at 3 megapixels per frame that they turn UP the resolution because otherwiuse the text at desktop will be too small to read)

if you don't do games with it, get yourself a LCD and use the remaining space to store your favorite beverage/printed material/DVD's 8O


This arguement doesn't hold water though. If you have just spent all that money on a rig capable of playing games well on a res above 1280x1024 then why are you cheap skating on the monitor?

Get yourself in the 22"+ section of newegg and take a look at what is on offer ;) 

Look at this beaut too.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...
Okay i know its acer, but 26inches for $750 (£400). Wish they were that cheap over here.
December 5, 2006 2:20:05 PM

Thats what i ment about incorect info. People are still holding on to the past when it comes to LCD.

k61824 defanitly doesnt have a point.
a b B Homebuilt system
a c 78 C Monitor
December 5, 2006 3:48:01 PM

In every technology comparison, all technologies are compared to a "state of the art" reference standard. That standard is still CRT's.

A cheap CRT is gonna be better than a cheap CRT but a quality CRT is still untouched in the desktop arena as far as image quality goes.

I couldn't find this year's comparison easily enough with their search engine, but in the previous one, Extremetech.com wrote:

"If you can live with a bulky unit and a 40 inch or smaller screen size then the CRT is the clear image quality winner. For thin direct-view displays the plasma is currently better for video but the LCD is better for (non-gaming) computer applications. For large screen image quality the DLP currently produces the best overall image quality......"

While response times have improved for LCD's they are still grossly overstated on manufacturer's spec sheets. I don't much care if someone advertises they have a 6 ms response time when it's tested here on Tomshardware and their tests show it to be 30. For the most part LCD's response times are a fraud. I even remember tomshardware complimenting a vendor (Eizo IIRC) for publishing accurate response times noting how such a practice was unique in the industry. Contrast is another area wher published specs are grossly overstated.

LCD's have certain advantages mainly in brightness, size and weight. For the most part, their resolutions still pale compared to CRT's. We have three 19" 1280 x 1024 LCD's and I find the fact that I can see individual pixels annoying. I can see the border around pixels. We also have a 17" 1920 x 1200 LCD and that is quite good in respect to individual pixels not being visible to the naked eye at normal viewing distances.

As for heat generation, my experience contradicts "rumor". The exterior temperature of our 21" CRT is 22 degrees C.....the LCD's are 29C.

Finally, if you want an authority with regard to display technology, go to the source....go to the people who develop the software to test display technology. These are the people who run the technology comparisons on extremetech.

http://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html

Note the most important criteria:

Color and Greyscale Accuracy - CRT's The reference standard, the very best color and gray-scale. If you need very accurate color and gray-scale calibration then get a CRT. LCD's - Pleasing images but not accurate because of problems with black-level, gray-scale and Gamma. Reduced color saturation at low intensity levels due to a poor black-level. Generally not suitable for professional image color balancing.

Contrast - CRT's Produce the highest contrast levels normally available. LCD's - Lower contrast than CRTs due to a poor black-level. Don't believe the published contrast ratios. Real world operational values are substantially lower.

Resolution - CRT's Operate at any resolution, geometry and aspect ratio without the need for rescaling the image. Run at the highest pixel resolutions generally available.LCD's - Each panel has a fixed pixel resolution format determined at the time of manufacturer that can not be changed. All other resolutions require rescaling, which generally results in significant image degradation, particularly for fine text and graphics.

Grey Scale - Have a perfectly smooth gray-scale with an infinite number of intensity levels. LCD's Have an irregular intensity scale and typically produce fewer than 256 discrete intensity levels. For some LCDs portions of the gray-scale may be dithered.

Black-Level CRT's Produce a very dark black. Suitable for use even in dimly lit and dark environments. LCD's Have difficulty producing black and very dark grays. Not suitable for use in dimly lit and dark environments.

Finally, LCD's is a "close the curtains" technology. Using a LCD in proximity of an uncovered window, outside or in a car is too often an exercise in frustration.
December 5, 2006 3:55:57 PM

I don't think anyone cared to mention heat differences between LCD and CRT.

I know for a fact my old "17 inch CRT would generate so much heat in the summertime it would be nearly unbearable to keep it on for any longer than a hour, yet stay in the room with it.

My new LCD doesn't nearly generate any heat at all, and I can keep it running all day long. With the lower voltage use I save on my electric bill also...

Anyhow I guess it all BOILS down to preference.
December 5, 2006 4:16:30 PM

Image quality wise if you need exact color yeah a crt is better as for crt better for gaming i dont see it unless you actualy pay for something witha responce time so bad you actualy see bluring. In every other aspect aside from graphical design i dont see the need for a crt anymore. Dispite what you have said about crt having way better image quality i defanitly dont see it. Every LCD even from when they were bad for gaming way way back has always looked better then any CRT alot more crisp that is of course when active matrix was entroduced i wasnt to fond of the dual matrix monitors.

I believe all my 21"+ monitors here are the $800+ professional grade monitors since i have this thing about having the best. so far the only gripe i have about my LCD is the low resolution of 1920x1200. other then that i have yet to see a CRT i would use over this LCD. (since i dont need the exact color representation of a crt ;) 
December 5, 2006 4:34:55 PM

Quote:
SUP, I'm in the market of getting a new monitor, i was wondering what r the average specs of a CRT so i can compare them to a couple LCD's i'm interested in. i went to Google and didn't get far, can anyone help?

Thanks, l8er :) 
Though 2 years old now, this article offers some pretty interesting opinions/facts in comparing CRT/LCD. Check it out: :) 

http://www.behardware.com/articles/511-1/screen-compara...
December 5, 2006 5:01:45 PM

Yeah my TFT's are far crisper than any of the CRT's i had.

As for seeing pixels on the screen, what a load of rubbish! For that to be the case you'd have to be sitting 6inches from the screen. That's going to give you a serious headache... 8O
December 5, 2006 5:12:30 PM

Don't be nitpicky. The idea is still the same: LCD use less power, take up less space, and CRT are power hungry.

They set my eyes on fire, too, like this demon. :evil: 
-cm
December 5, 2006 5:21:25 PM

Any CRT takes a LCD, puts it into a bag and bashes it like there was no tomorrow.
Disadvantage is the weight and dimensions.
December 5, 2006 5:26:30 PM

even sitting 6 inches from my monitor i fail to be able to see the pixles :o 
December 5, 2006 6:18:59 PM

Quote:

That funny considering Sony no longer make plasma TV's. Sony's higher end LCD's are among the best made. They are also quite pricey which is the way it's always been for them. I am no big fan of Sony but the broad brush bashing is misleading.


I'm sorry, should have been clearer. Should have read "a company's plazma TV technology and LCD computer monitor technology," since we're talking about monitors.

Here's the point: I haven't checked in a while, but as far as I remember LG always used last gen panels (in their computer monitors), and they were always the 6 bit color depth type (no longer remember the terminology, and also don't remember whether they were AU or Panasonic), but were always stylish. And they were decent but not stellar in terms of performance (i.e. response time, uniformity, color reproduction). That's computer monitors. LG, though, has always been great in terms of design.

If you're looking for a good performing LCD monitor, read up on Tom's reviews to see what to look for so that you don't get caught up in marketing speak (like 4 ms panels that are anything but).

The point of my post was you can't recommend one product because a cmopany makes a good product in a different division. Doesn't always work that way. Sony was just an example. Actually, LG is one, too.

Oh, and last but not least, plasma vs. LCD for TV technology discusion could last forever and people would still remain loyal. Thankfully, we're not talking about TVs and there are no plasma monitors, at least none that I'm aware of.
December 5, 2006 6:58:50 PM

To the posters that replied writing CRT is a dead technology.

CRT is not a dead technology. The main issue here is that the increasing demand for larger screen sizes made the bulkiness of CRT's an issue.

The fact is all major display manufacturers (Sony, Samsung, LG, Canon and Toshiba, among others) are investing in the development of new technologies to replace LCD in the long run. And guess what…some of them (SED and FED) use the same principle behind CRT's! And IMHO, they could be called CRT’s as well.

BTW, as previously mentioned in this thread, SED is already scheduled to hit the shelves starting in December 2007 at the HDTV segment, so it's a pretty real thing. :wink:


At the end, I think this whole CRT vs. LCD comes down to this:

LCD has two solid advantages over CRT's: size and weight. For some, the wide format can count too.

So, if you don't have a space problem, don't carry you display around, and don't care for wide format, or if you value image quality more than the previously mentioned, then, a CRT monitor will please you way better than any LCD out there.
December 5, 2006 7:09:02 PM

You would have to define image quality becuase aside color reproduction i dont see it in a crt in fact when it comes to anything but that one thing imo crt is worse.
December 5, 2006 8:02:01 PM

My Samsung 19" LCD has a much better picture clarity than my old 17" CRT, which was pretty good did (aside from black color clarity). It also has absolutely no problems with games, other than I wish it had higher res.

That being said, LCDs are nice because they are readily available, light, smaller footprint, are kinder to the environment (less power consumption and no radioactive parts), plus they are easier on your eyes and do not have an emissions (CRTs, the electrons pass through the screens as a form of radiation, I think this is one reason they can hurt your eyes after a few hour).

CRTs have higher resolution, often better color clarity and response times, and are the monitor of choice for any high end imaging such as CADD, Medical imaging, etc.

For home use, I would not recommend CRT for anyone at this point in time, since the advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages towards LCDs.
December 5, 2006 8:53:34 PM

Quote:

1) All LCDs operate at a specific native resolution. Usually, this is a pretty high setting. 15" LCDs usually work at 1024 x 768, 17" & 19" usually run at 1280 x 1024 (or higher). This means that your text and icons and many other items are pretty small. This may not be an issue if you are young and have good vision, but if your eyesight is less than perfect, there will be a problem. If you are older (over 40) this will definitely be a concern.


If you have these problems there are numerous settings in windows that will allow you to compensate.

rt-click on the desktop > properties > settings > advanced > DPI Setting > Large Size (120)

That will help immensly, also browsers usually allow you to use ctrl + + (control key and the plus key) to enlarge your fonts in the browser and you can of couse increase your mag in word or increase the font.

Also, having several flat screens, A SONY 23" SDM-P234 and 3 SyncMaster 213T 21.3 inchers....I have to say, I think the gripes about "Fuzzy" displays at non-native resolutions are way over hyped....The SyncMasters I keep at max res due to what I use them for, but my Sony runs at 1024x768 or there abouts for most games and Im not complaining about the picture at all.
December 5, 2006 9:00:40 PM

Quote:
Any CRT takes a LCD, puts it into a bag and bashes it like there was no tomorrow.
Disadvantage is the weight and dimensions.


And heat and power consumption and problems with flicker and and and :) 

CRT technology really is very old and nearly obsolete. They were developed during World War 2...its time to send them out to pasture. Newer solid state techs will dominate the future, And SED only can be considered a CRT in the VERY VERY loosest and inaccurate of terms....yes they both use electrons accelerated to a phosphor but SEDS don't have those huge honkin vacuum enclosures behind them.
December 5, 2006 9:49:51 PM

Quote:
CRT technology really is very old and nearly obsolete.


true but they still offer the best overall pic.
December 5, 2006 9:59:43 PM

Well this is the wrong forum for this thread. My post was aimed at the statement that CRT is a dead technology. But just for the sake of it…

1. Lower contrast ratios (most evidently by LCD's inability to produce true blacks);
2. Leaked light from surrounding dots (which also affects color accuracy and quality of the blacks);
3. Uneven light distribution across the panel (NEC actually improved it substantially with its Lumileds Display, although it didn't have good response times)

I'm not saying it is all roses with CRT's either as the corners of the screen could be improved; or if you crank it to the max resolution, the 60hz refresh rate will tire your eyes. But SED and FED already promise not to share those limitations.


Now, maybe you don't care about those. But then we would be entering the realm of personal preference, and what you value in a monitor. Frankly if that's the case I can't discuss it with you.

Finally, I'm not saying some LCD's can't produce a good image quality, but technologically I stand by what I've written: LCD's are inferior to CRT's.
December 5, 2006 10:19:19 PM

Of course your 19" LCD has a better picture than your 17" CRT! I has about 50% more pixels in there. And if you push the CRT's resolution to match that of your LCD's, you'll be awarded with flickering. :wink:

But if you put you 19" LCD right next to a 19" CRT, you'll notice the CRT has a sharper, more detailed image.

About all those marketed LCD "advancements", think about this: LCD technology has been around over 30 years. If it is so good why wasn't it adopted a bit earlier? And now that it is; why so many manufacturers are investing already on other technologies to replace it? Some of them will even admit LCD's have inferior image quality than CRT's of the same size.

LCD's became mainstream because the CRT bulkiness finally became an issue. People were demanding larger displays, CRT's would became huge (people wouldn't buy) and plasmas have also limitations. LCD filled in. Sure there have been several improvements of the standard, but that's it. It allowed the display market to continue to grow.

BTW, many these benefits of LCD are common to the new technologies that will come about.
December 5, 2006 10:25:09 PM

Don't mind what sirheck types, everytime he makes a post this happens
December 5, 2006 10:27:52 PM

well arent you mr. fancypants :lol: 
December 5, 2006 10:34:09 PM

Quote:
...CRT technology really is very old and nearly obsolete...


The bulky design, sure. The working principle, not at all!

Quote:
...SED only can be considered a CRT in the VERY VERY loosest and inaccurate of terms....yes they both use electrons accelerated to a phosphor but SEDS don't have those huge honkin vacuum enclosures behind them.


Sure, SED aren't bulky. But the vacuum tube is there, my friend! :)  It is needed for the electrons to hit the phosphor coated screen, just like in any CRT display out there.

But I admit my statement was somewhat inappropriate. It was intended nonetheless to point out the similarities between CRT and SED, and that the former was not a dead technology.
December 5, 2006 11:55:11 PM

Quote:
The advantage of getting one at the department store is that you can have them open the box and try the thing out before you buy it so you can make sure you are getting one that does not have any dead pixels. I did this at staples and they were very happy to do it for me before I purchased it.



first off i just want to point out that i dont know where you live or what kind of people go to the stores in your area but in most areas(or major computer stores which i dont consider staples to be) if you ask them to open the box they will laugh at you and tell you that you either have to buy it first to see it or go somewhere else. the reasoning is that alot of poeple will ask to see it then not buy it. the stores technically cant sell it at the regular price anymore since it was opened.
i work at a circuit city so ive seen first hand what people try to do before they buy. thats the whole point behind the return policies the stores have. if its broke get a new 1.

as far as buying it in a store i wouldnt just for the prices. do some research in stores sure but when it comes time to buy it then i would go online to newegg or another site and buy it for less.

and now for the main topic. yes CRTs have a better picture and support higher resolutions. however if you dont have the need to run games higher then 1280x1024 or a <1 ms response time then LCD is the way to go. personally in the games i play like bf2,bf2142,cs:s,dow i dont pay attention to the graphics or how 1 guys helmet is a little brighter or darker then it should be. i concentrate on the gameplay.

if you do alot of editing or CAD work then sure a large CRT will be useful but if you play games,use your pc for movies, or pretty much anything else LCD is easier to find for a decent price. my LG 17" cost me $300 2 years ago when the cheapest i could find in stores was $450-500. ive noticed a few pixels getting stuck here and there but with the amount of time its in use im not suprised that after 2 years i have a couple of minor problems when browsing the web. it could happen during games but like i said in multiplayer games the fact that 1 pixel is black or red instead of what is should be is normally the least of my concern.
December 6, 2006 12:30:38 AM

Quote:
To the posters that replied writing CRT is a dead technology.

CRT is not a dead technology. The main issue here is that the increasing demand for larger screen sizes made the bulkiness of CRT's an issue.

The fact is all major display manufacturers (Sony, Samsung, LG, Canon and Toshiba, among others) are investing in the development of new technologies to replace LCD in the long run. And guess what…some of them (SED and FED) use the same principle behind CRT's! And IMHO, they could be called CRT’s as well.

BTW, as previously mentioned in this thread, SED is already scheduled to hit the shelves starting in December 2007 at the HDTV segment, so it's a pretty real thing. :wink:


At the end, I think this whole CRT vs. LCD comes down to this:

LCD has two solid advantages over CRT's: size and weight. For some, the wide format can count too.

So, if you don't have a space problem, don't carry you display around, and don't care for wide format, or if you value image quality more than the previously mentioned, then, a CRT monitor will please you way better than any LCD out there.

I don't think it's just the size that's an issue. Me honestly I don't give a shit about power consumption cause I don't pay the bills so that's not a factor for me. However the image quality, size, clarity, brightness, contrast, and just everything is so much better than my 17" CRT that I have. It's a lot easier on my eyes too. Going from 1024x768 to 1600x1200 was a big difference and I love it. I have never seen a CRT, or any monitor for that matter, better than the Samsung 204B. It's cheap as hell for a high quality 20.1" LCD.
December 6, 2006 1:00:20 AM

Thanx For The Correction, Serously, But Readers Should Get The Point As To Why LCDs Are Better For The Most Part Any Good LCD Can Kick A CRTs Ass, For Example Im Still Using An LCD From 1999 (It Was Originally $2500.00!) I Bought It In 2001 For $900.00 Its Specs Are:
Manufacturer: Silicon Graphics (SGI)
Model: 1600sw (Superwide)
Panel Type/Size: HP (High Performance)-TN+Film Active Matrix
Native Resolution: 1600x1024 (16:10 Ratio)
Dot Pitch: .23mm (Amazingly Better Than Even The Newest Of Most TFT-LCDs)
Color Depth: 8-Bits Per Pixel (16.7Million Colors)
Brightness: 230cd/m2
Power Usage: 30Watts
Weight: 16LBS

It Responds As Well As The Majority Of 12 - 16ms Rated Monitors
With An Extremely Small Amount Of Smearing (You Wont Notice It Unless Your 7" From The Screen Actually Trying To Look For It), Absolutely No Ghosting And 97% Colors Are Correct With About 2% That Are Off Slightly And 1% That Are Completely Incorrect (The Average LCD Today Is 95%/2%/3%

Lesson: You Get What You Pay For
December 6, 2006 1:48:50 AM

Some of what you said is a bit misleading.

Of course, a high end CRT will have better image quality than an LCD, I stated that in my post. But not all CRTs are better than LCDs by any means. In my case, both were decent quality and at the same resolution, and there were cases in which the CRT was better, but text was a lot sharper on my LCD though. Screen size was not the issue here, I have compared more than one of the same size side by side before with similar results. Obviously, this varies greatly by brand and quality.

As for LCDs being around for 30 years, that is true, but misleading. Yes, they have been, but not in color, high resolution, or in the screen sizes needed for computers. Look at a "high quality" laptop screen from 6 or 8 years ago, and the pictures looks like crap compared to today (due a lot to contrast ratios and the failure to display black properly).

While you have a point about the size of CRTs, the improved quality and affordability of LCDs in the past few years has had as much, if not more to do with their adoption.

And of course the benefits of LCD would be common to new technologies. Who would embrace new technologies that are inferior to existing ones.

That being said, I don't have a preference either way, since both have their applications. The main reason I have an LCD is because I can fit a much larger one on my desk, and the large screen is great for coding and design, along with not hurting my eyes after hours of looking at it. And I still think LCDs are better for the common user, because they are at similar price points, use less energy, and are easier to find. But you HAVE to get a zero-dead pixel warranty (I've already replaced mine once).
December 6, 2006 2:03:34 AM

The only question I have for you is.....do you game??? cause if you do,go with the crt as lcd's still are not up to the real gaming yet.Although rumour has it there are a couple of very pricey 2ms lcd's kicking around.But as I said they are very pricey.Recommendation;Go with crt.If not a gamer,then have fun with an lcd.Goodluck.

Dahak

primary gaming rig
AMD X2-4400+@2.4 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7800GT CO IN SLI
2X1GIG DDR IN DC MODE
WD300GIG HD
EXTREME 19IN.MONITOR 1280X1024
ACE 520WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120

secondary gaming rig
GYGABYTE MB AGP
AMD X2 3800+ S-939
2X512 DDR IN DC MODE
X1650PRO 512 AGP
17IN.MONITOR
MAXTOR 120GIG HD
450WATT PSU
December 6, 2006 2:58:18 AM

lcd's hurt my eyes, cause of the low refresh rate they have.
December 6, 2006 3:00:31 AM

Quote:
There's pros and cons for both
LCD= easy on the eyeballs 8O
CRT= sharper image :wink:

used to be, lcd look basically the same as crts now but are huge big boxes with maybe a tiny bit better image.
December 6, 2006 3:13:38 AM

Quote:
Don't be nitpicky. The idea is still the same: LCD use less power, take up less space, and CRT are power hungry.

They set my eyes on fire, too, like this demon. :evil: 
-cm
Nitpicky? You think stating 200-250w instead of 100w is nitpicking? Saying 150w instead of 100w is nitpicking.....he was outright bullsh!tting!! Same as weight... 50% exaggeration is not acceptable....that's the type of sh!t that Baron Matrix, and Sharikou use to try and sway peoples decisions their way...I will continue to nitpick if people lie like that. :roll:
December 6, 2006 3:35:44 AM

Quote:
lcd's hurt my eyes, cause of the low refresh rate they have.

Ha, this guy can even see LCDs refresh :roll: Must have good eyes mate. I'm pretty sure that either your joking or your an idiot as LCDs dont flicker at all, coz they dont refresh.
December 6, 2006 4:06:55 AM

The first units of every display technology had poorer resolutions and were black and white. The fact that nowadays such would be considered a prototype and not see day light is another issue. So the simple fact the first LCD's produced were black and white does not add anything to the discussion. Nothing misleading here.

There was no interest in investing in LCD technology in the past. And I reiterate: if the technology was indeed superior as you advocate, the industry would have taken the LCD plunge earlier. There's no reason not to, as LCD's are also cheaper to manufacture. The "improved quality and affordability in the past few years" you've mentioned are due to the investments made by manufacturers, which could have been done earlier.

LCD's came a long way, no doubt! Image quality is nearly impeccable on the new models released this year, but; on a side-by-side comparison between an LCD and a CRT display (same size, same resolution), the CRT will show better picture overall. And I didn't come up with that. :wink:

Regarding availability; it is not an issue everywhere on the globe.


All I've written is that if one does not care for size, weight or wide formats, I believe CRT's to be a better option.

A flaw on my argumentation is that, on my first post, when I wrote "CRT monitor will please you way better than any LCD out there", I should have specified they should be the same size and resolution.
December 6, 2006 4:17:11 AM

1 basic fact that people dont seem to understand about LCD's and CRT's is resolution, with larger and more powerful video cards these day's that seem to love high resolution's LCD's simply carnt cut it, you may notice an x1900 or 7900gt love 1600x1200 and up, this is where they perform best, i cant say i have seen an LCD on the market that can run at these resolution's, i am willing to sacrifice a little bench space (approx 3 times more than an LCD) for my trusty 22" mitsubishi diamond pro 2060u (weighing nearly 35 kilo's) that eats everything my video card (x1900cf master) can throw at it.
December 6, 2006 4:24:43 AM

At 1600x1200 from 1024x768, I would be surprised if you didn't notice a difference! :)  That’s a 144% more pixels… Aside some color accuracy; any other drawback I might have mentioned gets faded by that much increase in resolution. :wink:
!