Bad News for CRT users...

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: Zebo
OMG NEWEGG STOP LISTING the DIAMONDPRO 930SB-BK JUST TODAY!!!

I was looking at buying two last night and they stocked them, today it's not even on thier site.

I bought their entire stock. I've cornered the DiamonTron market.

 

[RealityTime]

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO DIAMONDPRO!!! :shocked::thumbsup:

enjoy your black=gray, false color production, over-priced, pos, resolution restricted lcds. i game and have always been a gamer.

ALL YOUR GAMING BASE ARE BELONG TO DIAMPRO!!!!

MUAHAHHAHAH!

k thnaks

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: VIAN

CRTs are in their twilight years folks, if you want 'em, get 'em while you can.

Stock up!

well, i am probably getting a 21"/22" next year to replace my aging 19" Samsung (5 years old now) and it WILL be a CRT and likely a Mitsubishi . . . . so i don't have to even THINK about LCDs until 2010 . . . .

. . . by THEN, no doubt the LCDs will satisfy me.
:roll:

 

[alrocky]

Originally posted by: Zebo
OMG NEWEGG STOP LISTING the DIAMONDPRO 930SB-BK JUST TODAY!!!

I was looking at buying two last night and they stocked them, today it's not even on thier site.

It's on Amazon.com

 

[wickedone]

Ok I see a lot going for LCD's and Not CRT's no days other than Gamer's. But there still are good reasons to get a CRT.

1. The CRT's are cheaper
2. They are better for the newer Games at this point at least.
3. They usaly last a very long time with out burning up.
4. Dont get damaged easy, other than hiting the screen hard enough to break it.

Cons:
1. They take up a good bit of space
2. Are harder on your Eyes

LCD's
Pro
1 Take up little Space ( this is probly the reason most want them )
2. Easy on your Eyes
3. HAve a kinda oh cool effect when other see one that dont have one themselves

Con's
1 Pricey
2. Have a shorter Life Span than a CRT
3. Still not Recomed for Gaming.
4 Damage easy.

I am a Control room operator in a plant that is very dusty and the dust is very abrasive. I cant wonder why they decided it was better to Use LCD's over CRT's for our new DCS system. I was using a DCS that was based on a UNIX OS and worked great , think it was more than 20 years old the monitors still worked great. Only reason they upgraded was because the hardware started failing often and replacment was hard to find and expensive scince it was rare.
I belive they will see in the near future after folks point to what equipment is broke by touching the screen that is dusty wtih there grimy and dusty fingers enough they will wish they never got them.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: wickedone
Ok I see a lot going for LCD's and Not CRT's no days other than Gamer's. But there still are good reasons to get a CRT.

1. The CRT's are cheaper
2. They are better for the newer Games at this point at least.
3. They usaly last a very long time with out burning up.
4. Dont get damaged easy, other than hiting the screen hard enough to break it.

Cons:
1. They take up a good bit of space
2. Are harder on your Eyes

LCD's
Pro
1 Take up little Space ( this is probly the reason most want them )
2. Easy on your Eyes
3. HAve a kinda oh cool effect when other see one that dont have one themselves

Con's
1 Pricey
2. Have a shorter Life Span than a CRT
3. Still not Recomed for Gaming.
4 Damage easy.

I am a Control room operator in a plant that is very dusty and the dust is very abrasive. I cant wonder why they decided it was better to Use LCD's over CRT's for our new DCS system. I was using a DCS that was based on a UNIX OS and worked great , think it was more than 20 years old the monitors still worked great. Only reason they upgraded was because the hardware started failing often and replacment was hard to find and expensive scince it was rare.
I belive they will see in the near future after folks point to what equipment is broke by touching the screen that is dusty wtih there grimy and dusty fingers enough they will wish they never got them.

LCDs also have much lower Power consumption.

I'm hoping my Mitsu Diamondtron lasts another 3-4 years as I don't want to buy another monitor for awhile yet. That said, even though I'm a gamer, the size, weight, small footprint of LCDs is certainly tempting. I'm hoping that something other than LCD comes on the Market, is better than LCD, and is affordable before my Diamondtron packs it in.

 

[Malichite]

Don't most 20" LCDs have power consumption ratings listed between 50/70W typ/max? Not sure that I would can that MUCH lower than the 120W ratings on the newer 22" Diamondtrons. Definitely better, but that is ~one extra 60-75W light on in another the room, so don't think it will affect the power bill .

Either way I took the plunge and ordered a NEC 2141 before it is too late since my Sony G400 19" is flaking on me (the notorious high voltage popping experienced by a fair amount of 19"-21" Sony owners after 3-4 years of use).

 

[VIAN]

LCD vs CRT

LCDs Pros:
Perfect Geometry
More Accurate Color Placement
Lower Space Consumption
Lower Power Consumption
Lower Heat Output
Lower Noticeable Tearing w/Vsync Off
Higher Brightness

CRTs (AG) Pros:
More Accurate Color Reproduction
Quicker Response Time
Cheaper
Higher Contrast
Higher Viewing Angle
No Dead Pixels
Scale Resolutions Accurately
Returnable

 

[konakona]

More Accurate Color Placement

i think this belongs to the CRT category, i admit but we all see things differently

Lower Noticeable Tearing w/Vsync Off

why would you need this other than benchmarking purposes and very few glitched games (that get sorted out down the road sooner or later)

 

[konakona]

LCDs also have much lower Power consumption.

I'm hoping my Mitsu Diamondtron lasts another 3-4 years as I don't want to buy another monitor for awhile yet. That said, even though I'm a gamer, the size, weight, small footprint of LCDs is certainly tempting. I'm hoping that something other than LCD comes on the Market, is better than LCD, and is affordable before my Diamondtron packs it in.

how much power does a CRT consume if you set it to turn off after preset period of inactivity? i doubt it would be much higher than what LCD uses.. could be wrong tho, just guessing.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: VIAN
LCD vs CRT

LCDs Pros:
Perfect Geometry
More Accurate Color Placement
Lower Space Consumption
Lower Power Consumption
Lower Heat Output
Lower Noticeable Tearing w/Vsync Off
Higher Brightness

CRTs (AG) Pros:
More Accurate Color Reproduction
Quicker Response Time
Cheaper
Higher Contrast
Higher Viewing Angle
No Dead Pixels
Scale Resolutions Accurately
Returnable

I don't know about the higher brightness. I keep my diamondtron at 32% bright cause anything higher just blinds me. Also diamondrons have "perfect enough" geometry ie, not noticeable to human eye to make a difference.

Basically the only thing I like my AG Neovo LCD over diamondtron is esthetic looks. BTW they were the same price. $651 for diamondpro 22" and $690 for AG neovo E-19A (at the time) Now the LCD is cheaper.

 

[piroroadkill]

I am perfectly happy with my 3x 15" Dell 1504FP TFTs, I shudder to think how much my desk would groan under the weight of equivalent CRTs, let alone the increased electricity bill, and to be honest, I don't think I'd fit them on. And I sure as hell wouldn't want 15" CRTs, because they're mostly POS's.

I think the moral here is that only people who think they're better than everyone else want CRTs, and in reality, TFTs are fine for the majority of people.

That's not saying some people don't have valid uses for high end CRTs, but you guys are overplaying the need for them, dramatically.

Yes, I do use CRTs and TFTs regularly, I have a 21" iiyama vision master pro 501 on my desk at work, and I am quite happy running that at 1600x1200 @ 75hz, and I'm happy with the picture it gives me, but I'd still rather sit here with my 3 15 inchers.

 

[konakona]

I think the moral here is that only people who think they're better than everyone else want CRTs, and in reality, TFTs are fine for the majority of people.

That's not saying some people don't have valid uses for high end CRTs, but you guys are overplaying the need for them, dramatically.

number of polls at ATOT and other AT forums conclude the majority here favors LCDs which is probably reasonable. people who posted in this advocating the CRTs all seemed to have their reasons, and that includes me. i am not sure who you are reffering to with that dubious statement when there arent that many people who favor the CRTs to begin with. not to mention i only paid $230 shipped for mine

 

[DonRamon]

what the hell?? CRTS 4 life!

 

[Malichite]

how much power does a CRT consume if you set it to turn off after preset period of inactivity? i doubt it would be much higher than what LCD uses.. could be wrong tho, just guessing.

If you are talking the power down stand-by mode, I believe that in order to get the TCO certification a CRT must consume less than 15W in standby. I believe that most high end ones are on the order of <3W. I agree that ~60W less power is better, but just wait for the next hot GPU release to gobble that up .

The three main concerns I had with LCDs were the native resolution issues, ghosting, and dead pixels.
I still play the older games on emulators and some require the lower resolutions to run properly. While I realize that ghosting is becoming less critical it still sounds like it really depends on how anal retentive you are, but you have to love the marketing departments that boast thier product's 8ms response time when it only occurs in 10% of the transitions (e.g. very dark to very light) while the average response is in the mid 20's. Lastly I wouldn't be happy with a single dead pixel (remember though CRTs can have them too, at least the old shadow masks did not sure about AGs) and I have seen many say it takes on average 5-6 RMAs to get a LCD that is perfect unless your VERY lucky. Thus to sum it up I am too anal and little things that bother me don't bother others, so I FINALLY convinced myself to continue with a high end CRT.

I must admit I was very tempted with some of the DELL LCD 25% OFF coupons that have been around recently.

 

[Thermalrock]

image quality of crts looks nicer to me cuz i think im something better...

 

[carage]

Originally posted by: DonRamon
what the hell?? CRTS 4 life!

CRTs for life??
Oh yeah, I have a 10 year old TV that still works perfectly, but my 10 year old Viewsonic was displaying weird problems (most notability the lack of green) 4 years ago.
My grandmother has a 30 year old TV that is still fully functional (albeit it never had many functions anyway), should I expect the same for CRT monitors. I don't think so, and I doubt any corporate executive would believe that either.

 

[carage]

I am not sure about power consumption being low for LCDs, espcailly when it comes to the high end stuff.
Like the LG 2320A 23inch LCD is rated at 100w at full on mode.
I am not sure how this figure compares to a similar size CRT, but if anyone could afford to pay top dollar on a LCD like that, I doubt they would notice the difference on the electric bill.

 

[mysticfm]

Originally posted by: piroroadkill
I think the moral here is that only people who think they're better than everyone else want CRTs, and in reality, TFTs are fine for the majority of people.

That's not saying some people don't have valid uses for high end CRTs, but you guys are overplaying the need for them, dramatically.

Okay, here's a concrete example to contradict your viewpoint of those of us who favor CRTs: this last weekend I needed to color-balance and tweak a photograph of my sister's family for her Christmas card, and the computer I had to do it on had an LCD monitor (and a pretty good quality one, at that). Nonetheless, due to the lack of contrast and color accuracy, the LCD monitor made it almost impossible to tell what I was going to get when I printed the results, so I ended up having to print a copy, then look at the results and guesstimate how to change it on the screen to improve the printout, and repeat the process until it was "good enough". Whereas I've done color-balancing and photo-improvement many times on my own computer with CRT monitor (using the same software package), and I know how much easier it would have been to do this on my system (where I can actually SEE the full range of color, wonder of wonders) than on the LCD I was stuck using this weekend.

I honestly don't know how graphic design shops are going to continue to function if the only type of high-quality monitors they can get in the future are LCD. Unless someone comes up with a dramatic improvement in LCD quality within the next year or two, that is, and one that doesn't cost $3K to put on a desk. I hope someone comes up with an improved version of LCD that resolves these issues, because I do very much like the idea of a smaller, cooler running screen ... but not at the expense of video quality.

 

[halfadder]

Yay, more cheap used CRTs for me!!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Besides can you imagine dual-CRT setup? It would take up the whole desk and weigh 100lbs.

Ehh, try a triple-CRT setup. Windows' screensavers look pretty neat stretched across 3840x1024 worth of desktop space. Two 20" Sony tubes and a 19" MAG in the middle, in that case. (The desk surface was about 1.25" of solid wood, you're right about the weight issue. I wouldn't try it on a glass-surface desk.)

This is pretty sad though, if NEC/Mitsu is truely getting out of the CRT biz. I haven't seen an LCD yet that I truely liked. :| (I'm a big fan of NEC displays in general, I even have an NEC television, even though they haven't sold those in the US for quite some time. Excellent picture, and oodles of inputs and outputs.)

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Most people I know (and I do know more than a few gamers) leave their resolutions the same (meaning if they run their desktop at 1280x1024 they game at that resolution).

Generally that's true, assuming that your video card can handle the higher resolutions, but there are also a good minority of people that play things like emulators, that run the CRT at the original system's native res and refresh rate (when possible). Doing that on an LCD, and having the panel auto-scale the display, makes it look like crap, in most cases. :| One more way in which CRTs are a clear win.

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Also, how many times has it been stated that refresh rates don't apply to LCDs like they do to CRTs. I have far less eyestrain on my 2001FP at 60hz than on any CRT I've ever used, this includes 20"+ Sony Trinitrons running high refresh rates.

That's not because it doesn't refresh, only that active-matrix LCDs don't suffer from "phosphor decay", so the effective pixel brightness output doesn't cycle like it does with a CRT, which is what causes the associated "flicker" and eyestrain.

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
I'm not saying CRTs are bad, or even worse than LCDs (although it kinda sounds like it), I'm just saying its an evolution of technology.

But not all evolutions of technology displace their predecessors. Hopefully that won't happen here. Then again, I haven't seen too many stream-powered buggies, nor SCSI peripherals, lately. :|

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
The industry is moving towards LCD's because they are much MUCH cheaper to manufacture. CRT's contain >20 lbs of lead, several pounds of glass and the electron guns required to create the image, as well as tons of power storage capacity (ie capacitors).

That's one thing that I hadn't considered, but makes a good point towards the abolishment of CRTs - they clearly are bad for the environment, when they are disposed of. However, I'm not entirely sure that LCDs are so much safer.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: acx
LCD factories are springing up all over the place in China for 15" and 17" panels. In a year or two when these factories reach capacity, mainstream LCD prices will plummet.

Yes, and considering that the max resolution that those screens will run at, is complete garbage - what is the point, for enthusiasts like us? Those LCDs, are simply the low-end bundled-computer market replacement, the equivalent of those no-name 14" 1024x768 CRTs sold in white-box shops quite a few years back.

I'm still appalled at the lack of 19" LCD panels sporting 1600x1200-alike resolutions, that's quite frankly disturbing. Even mid-grade 19" CRTs have better (lower) dot-pitch and display 1600x1200 easily, although not always at an acceptable refresh-rate. (And for anyone that claims that dot-pitch doesn't matter for LCDs, somehow - well, you're wrong, it affects the resolution for *any* kind of display-device.)

 

[Insane3D]

Just ordered a NEC 2141 form Dell for $594 shipped. The 2070 is $610 shipped.. Amazon also has the 2141 for $599 shipped free.

It was either the 2001FP, 2005FPW, or the NEC 2141, and the 2141 made the most sense to me.