Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

LCDs vs CRTs talk

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
December 8, 2002 5:30:23 PM

Ok, I don't understand why people still defend CRTs which are really an old technology now and LCDs is the way to go, espeically now when 16ms panels are arriving it's time to "throw away" your chunky CRT.

When I got 19 inch Viewsonic VX900 LCD about 6 month ago, I fell in love with that monitor. Beautiful colors, sharp images, huge display of course and I mostly played games, like Battlefield 1942, SOF2, RTCW so there was some gosting, but it was something I got used to in one day. Ever since the anouncement about the new Hitachi I decided to sucrifice the size to get the most peformance. Sold my viewsonic in 2 days and while I am waiting for Hitachi to arrive next week (thanks to fast order processing from monitorsdirect.com) I had no choice but to use my old 15 inch NEC CRT... It turned out that I couldn't sit in front of that monitor for more then an hour without a headache and if I sit another 2 hours my eye start to hurt... I tried also playing some games to see if I notice big difference and I did, but it wasn't a lot that would make me want to go back to using CRTs...

More about : lcds crts talk

December 9, 2002 7:35:22 AM

I perfectly agree with many of your suggestions. HOWEVER, I must say that not everyone can afford a TFT. On average they are still twice the price of an equivalent CRT. For example, The Hitachi CML174 costs £400 in the UK. Whilst the best 17" and 19" CRTs cost <£200 from NEC/Mitsubishi and <£300 from IIyama, respectively.

I am also aware that dead pixels may be a problem. But I'm not sure how drastic the effect is, I think until I actually get a TFT I can't be sure.
December 9, 2002 12:51:06 PM

well put.

Those dogs can smell anything. That's why you gotta kick em in the throat!!!
Related resources
December 9, 2002 2:23:30 PM

I have a 3 year old Sony Trinitron 17" CRT monitor (max 1600x1200x60hz) that's as great as the day i got it (a few heavy spots on the glass (age and LAN hauling), but less bad than dead pixels...).

It cost me $325.

now a LCD with that screen size and res... like $800.
now i'm sure i'd like it, but i'll wait 6 months or so, methinks i'll get a new monitor in the summer (max res needed 1280x1024, or whatever that 4:3 ratio is with a width of 1280 (i think thats 960 i could be wrong). and a god quality one at that. 16ms refreah rate, eh? thats about 62.5HZ rate comparable to a CRT, not bad, but is it cheap enough.
December 9, 2002 2:45:28 PM

Forgot to mention that Viewsonic had 2 dead pixels and 2 sub pixels. It wasn't a problem for me, I only noticed them if I did a test. Yes, technology is not perfect, but still beats CRTs. Take less space, less energy, sharp text, no headaches or eye strains... of course you pay almost double the price, but 15 inch LCD monitors are very affordable now (which almost equavalent to 17 inch CRT). You can get one from Dell.com for about $250. (I bought one for my girlfriend and sometimes I use it for small lan parties at my place playing games like Americas Army or Battlefield it works great.
December 9, 2002 3:29:55 PM

It depends on the application. I work in a visual effects house for example, and no one here would touch an LCD if their life depended on it (for work anyway). They just don't display the colour richness and subtle variation that CRTs do. You won't find an LCD hooked up to an Inferno.

For normal everyday computing however they are superior. It is still a matter of preferance.

- Alec

"Something is only impossible until it's not."
!