CRT: A Gaming Guru.

[Patrick Wolf]

I don't know how many already know this, but I've been chatting with a tech person at NEC/Mitsubishi, and she said CRT's are no longer being manufactured as of Dec. 1, 2004, future LCD technology will catch up with high-end CRT's, and eventually replace them. They will be able to produce black as true black, and colors will be very close or match that of a high-end CRT. And with those 8ms response time LCD's already making an appearance, gaming will be just as good on a CRT, if not better.

Actually, I think LCD's are just now starting to replace CRT's, it would seem. But in the somewhat near future, LCD tachnology will improve even more, and hopefully prices will stay affordable.

 

[m4ch0dude]

I also remember somebody saying the geforce1 will make the ps2 obsolete, and what a lie that turned out to be. They'd have to make some serious improvements to lcd technology before it can replace crt's, and to be honest I'm not yet willing to trade up my crt for the lcd's out there now.

 

[DullesGuy]

Right now I'm looking to storing my NEC MultiSync FE991SB (that's 19") monitor for a 20" LCD. Honestly, the LCDs nowadays are so clear (to me) to the point that I can't make out a difference between the two. But I'm definately for the gain in a cubic foot of space or so.

 

[Insomniak]

I'm sure it will happen eventually - I think it'll still be a few years though.

 

[ReiAyanami]

CRTs will continue to exist because 3rd world countries where they are being manufactured will have a population barely emerging into the middle class and the $10-$50 differential makes all the difference

but the counter to that would be the cost of electricity

and are they ever going to be able to brin LCDs above 24-bit? the color dithering is noticeably inferior

 

[CraigRT]

IMO LCD's have a long way to go... I want one, but not when I really get to sit down and use one.

happy with my CRT for a little longer I guess

 

[Patrick Wolf]

My ONLY negative comment about LCD's, are their ability to produce black as true black. The colors are fine, IMO. And with 8ms reponse times, games won't ghost.

 

[Wolfshanze]

LCD's still have a LONG way to go at defeating this "Native Resolution" stuff. When's the last CRT that had a prefered resolution? I think LCDs will have to be able to change resolutions on the fly and still look good to totally replace CRTs.

 

[ohnnyj]

You also need some 20"+ LCDs with 8ms resonse time.

 

[Atomicus]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
CRTs will continue to exist because 3rd world countries where they are being manufactured will have a population barely emerging into the middle class and the $10-$50 differential makes all the difference

but the counter to that would be the cost of electricity

and are they ever going to be able to brin LCDs above 24-bit? the color dithering is noticeably inferior

Correct, they will exist. They will exist in those countries. But the fact is, more companies will cater to the mainstream/LCD demand. So why would the big name brands keep pumping out CRTs when their profit outlooks can be achieved faster ?

At the rate LCD technology is progressing, I doubt something as trivial as quality will be an issue in another decade. In the mean time, let me enjoy my LCD before occular-projection is developed

Remember when cell phones looked like textbooks? Now you can find ones that are paper-thin, feather-light, with cameras, microphones, etc. CRTs will be dead by 2012 or maybe sooner.

 

[mwmorph]

sooner if OLEDs come out earlier and improve their long term livability quality.

 

[biostud]

OMG!!!!! Say it's not so!!!!!!!!

 

[boatillo]

I don't even see how its a question...I can buy a name brand 19" CRT right now for $67 SHIPPED or have to spend $500+++ to get a worse LCD
monitor (but oh wow now I have desk space! BUY A BIGGER DESK ITS CHEAPER!)

Thanks but no thanks.

 

[DarkKnight]

The price of LCDs needs to go down alot till it will replace a CRT, but i agree with you that it will, its only a matter of time.

 

[Matthias99]

LCD's still have a LONG way to go at defeating this "Native Resolution" stuff. When's the last CRT that had a prefered resolution? I think LCDs will have to be able to change resolutions on the fly and still look good to totally replace CRTs.

Practically irrelevant unless you're a gamer (which, need I remind you, the VAST majority of computer users are NOT), and the newer displays are pretty good at scaling (not that this is much of a problem these days if you have a decent video card).

I don't even see how its a question...I can buy a name brand 19" CRT right now for $67 SHIPPED or have to spend $500+++ to get a worse LCD
monitor

You can certainly buy a *crappy* 19" CRT for maybe ~$150 (I'd like to see a decent one for "$67" that's not a heavy rebate or deal of some sort), but then again, you can get a cheap 17" LCD (with only a little bit less screen area) for more like $225, or a 19" LCD (with more screen area!) for $300-350 (those are retail, btw, not some crazy hot deal with three rebates).

(but oh wow now I have desk space! BUY A BIGGER DESK ITS CHEAPER!)

Dorm rooms? LAN parties? Don't *want* a huge desk?

 

[xtknight]

SEDs will be taking over soon. Its only possible competition may be OLEDs. SEDs use existing CRT technology, use less power, look better, are as thin as LCDs, and are as cheap as CRTs. In the end SEDs will win because of their better resolution capabilities. Resolution has to be scaled on both displays though . The only thing OLED has on SEDs is the lack of flicker to produce a moving image. Hell, maybe some day there will be no such resolution as 1024x768, and everybody will be running 1280x1024 or something proportional, and scaling won't be as much as a problem. As long as Cleartype is off, it looks fine at other resolutions. Otherwise, it's a colorful mess that they call text.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: xtknight
SEDs will be taking over soon. Its only possible competition may be OLEDs. SEDs use existing CRT technology, use less power, look better, are as thin as LCDs, and are as cheap as CRTs. In the end SEDs will win because of their better resolution capabilities. Resolution still has to be scaled in OLEDs, unlike SEDs.

Don't know what you've been reading, but SEDs (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Displays) are still fixed-pixel displays (and are a considerable departure from 'existing CRT technology', although they are phosphor-based). Very promising for high-res TVs and computer monitors, though. Not sure about pricing; it'll probably be quite a while before they are "as cheap as CRTs", since apparently manufacturing the emitter arrays is hugely difficult. OLED may turn out to be cheaper, at least for smaller displays (say, 30" and under).

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: xtknight
SEDs will be taking over soon. Its only possible competition may be OLEDs. SEDs use existing CRT technology, use less power, look better, are as thin as LCDs, and are as cheap as CRTs. In the end SEDs will win because of their better resolution capabilities. Resolution still has to be scaled in OLEDs, unlike SEDs.

Don't know what you've been reading, but SEDs (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Displays) are still fixed-pixel displays (and are a considerable departure from 'existing CRT technology', although they are phosphor-based). Very promising for high-res TVs and computer monitors, though. Not sure about pricing; it'll probably be quite a while before they are "as cheap as CRTs", since apparently manufacturing the emitter arrays is hugely difficult. OLED may turn out to be cheaper, at least for smaller displays (say, 30" and under).

Brain fart . I stand corrected. Yeah, I guess they aren't that similar to CRTs. My bad. It's like a tube for every pixel. Edited. About the price: I think I heard that they could use existing CRT fabs to make them, or make that was ThinCRTs (something different). I'm not positive. ThinCRTs are the ones that don't have to scale resolution as far as I know. However, they aren't as thin, but still thin enough.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Practically irrelevant unless you're a gamer (which, need I remind you, the VAST majority of computer users are NOT), and the newer displays are pretty good at scaling (not that this is much of a problem these days if you have a decent video card).

Well sorry for being a mere gamer. Guess I'm not good enough to get a monitor that can scale properly since I'm "just a gamer", and not one of the elitist non-gamers.

You have to be pretty anal to complain about the scaling quality of current displays/video cards.

What is with all this bashing simply because I want an LCD to scale as properly as a CRT does. If we're not conformist enough to belittle gamers or "anal people", we're not good enough to get a "modern" LCD techonlogy that lacks compared to "old" CRT technology.

I fail to see any reason to belittle or put-down somebody based on how they spend their spare time; or say that because they are such a tiny, ity-bitty fraction of society we're not good enough to get monitors that scale properly.

You don't have to agree that scaling is important to you, but to others it might be. That is no reason to be insulting.

I'm perfectly happy being a minority non-conformist if it means I don't go around making light of what is important to others.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Wolfshanze

Practically irrelevant unless you're a gamer (which, need I remind you, the VAST majority of computer users are NOT), and the newer displays are pretty good at scaling (not that this is much of a problem these days if you have a decent video card).

Well sorry for being a mere gamer. Guess I'm not good enough to get a monitor that can scale properly since I'm "just a gamer", and not one of the elitist non-gamers.

Sorry if I've insulted your delicate sensibilities. I wasn't trying to single you out, or even to single out computer gamers in a derisive fashion (which would be pretty stupid, since I AM a computer gamer). But if 95+% of the market would rather have thin, light, eyestrain-reducing LCD monitors (which also happen to have a much higher profit margin for the manufacturer), you shouldn't be surprised that CRTs are becoming less and less prevalent.

I can't remember the last time I changed resolutions on my desktop. And I play almost all of my games in 1280x[960/1024]. As I see it, the worst-case scenario if you're stuck at 1280x1024 on a 19" LCD and you have a real fast video card is that you crank up the AA/AF all the way. Dear God, no. I might see some sort of problem on a 17"/1024x768 LCD -- but then again, I wouldn't buy a 17" CRT monitor, either, as it's too small.

You have to be pretty anal to complain about the scaling quality of current displays/video cards.

What is with all this bashing simply because I want an LCD to scale as properly as a CRT does. If we're not conformist enough to belittle gamers or "anal people", we're not good enough to get a "modern" LCD techonlogy that lacks compared to "old" CRT technology.

I think all he's trying to say is that to many people, newer LCDs scale just fine. Chill out, man. LCDs are getting better all the time, and you can still get CRT monitors if you want (and for bargain-basement prices, at that, since demand is so low on them). And if you wait a few years, we'll have OLEDs and SEDs (and probably some other stuff, too) that will combine the benefits of both LCDs and CRTs.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Wolfshanze

Practically irrelevant unless you're a gamer (which, need I remind you, the VAST majority of computer users are NOT), and the newer displays are pretty good at scaling (not that this is much of a problem these days if you have a decent video card).

Well sorry for being a mere gamer. Guess I'm not good enough to get a monitor that can scale properly since I'm "just a gamer", and not one of the elitist non-gamers.

You have to be pretty anal to complain about the scaling quality of current displays/video cards.

What is with all this bashing simply because I want an LCD to scale as properly as a CRT does. If we're not conformist enough to belittle gamers or "anal people", we're not good enough to get a "modern" LCD techonlogy that lacks compared to "old" CRT technology.

I fail to see any reason to belittle or put-down somebody based on how they spend their spare time; or say that because they are such a tiny, ity-bitty fraction of society we're not good enough to get monitors that scale properly.

You don't have to agree that scaling is important to you, but to others it might be. That is no reason to be insulting.

I'm perfectly happy being a minority non-conformist if it means I don't go around making light of what is important to others.

I wasn't calling you anal; I wasn't calling you anal at all. I don't even think I read your comment. It just annoys me how some people (if you're one of them, not JUST you) are concerned about issues that are negligible. I would certainly rather have 90% perfect scaling than a big behemoth sitting on top of my desk. Maybe you wouldn't, or maybe you're not concerned about desk space in the least bit. That's fine with me...ignore my comment. I'm not here to try and earn myself a bad reputation. Perhaps I should change that word to 'picky' then. I apologize if I offended you.

 

[Wolfshanze]

No problem, it's just that there are things some people say that aren't important to me at all... when I see someone think something is important that I don't care about, I don't say that's anal.

Since the subject is making CRTs a thing of the past, I would put it forward that if you want to make something completely obsolete, it's replacement should be equal to or better then it's predecessor in EVERY category. Otherwise, you're going to have "nitch" people (minority quite possibly) that will cling to old technology because that ONE THING didn't get improved (or at least equal to) that some folks consider important (even if others do not).

Maybe I can't tell the differance between a 6-bit panel and an 8-bit panel... but I'm sure there are those here that think it's important. Maybe I can't tell the importance of UXGA vs SXGA.... but I'm sure there are those here tha think it's important. To me, heat, power consumption and ease on the eyes are more imporant to me then space concerns... but others (such as yourself) will put a premium on desk space... that's fine.

Every person will nitpick about something... that doesn't make them anal, it's just differant strokes for differant folks. If LCDs are to replace CRTs, I think it's important ALL ASPECTS are AT LEAST equal to CRTs... yes... even us silly gamers who want to change resolutions from "native"... we're no less human beings then people who put a premium on desk space or bit levels, or whatever.

No harm no foul... you don't have to agree with us, but don't sling words around loosely if you don't agree. We all have our favorite aspects about monitors, and we all seek that same "utopia", even if we might disagree over what is more important.

 

[amol]

i bought my 2005FPw (20" 12/16ms) now because I know for LCDs to come close to CRTs, it's going to be probably 2010 by the time that happens . . .

i hope to keep this monitor until 2010, 2011 possibly

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: m4ch0dude
I also remember somebody saying the geforce1 will make the ps2 obsolete, and what a lie that turned out to be. They'd have to make some serious improvements to lcd technology before it can replace crt's, and to be honest I'm not yet willing to trade up my crt for the lcd's out there now.

Check your facts there. The GF1 came out fall of 99, PS2 march of 2000. They both debuted in final form around roughly the same time frame. Additionally, the GF1 does/did top the PS2 in some areas. However, the PS2 as a dedicated gaming machine naturally produced better gfx because of the lack of hardware variables.

However, LCDs do have a ways to go yet before they can top CRTs in all areas. That comment about them producing true black seems like hogwash. That would involve some sort of selective blocking of/removal of the backlight, which I can't see happening anytime soon with LCD technology. However, OLEDs look interesting as an up and coming tech.

I still dig my dual LCDs and really wouldn't want to go back to CRT. They are so much easier on my eyes.

 

[Matthias99]

Since the subject is making CRTs a thing of the past, I would put it forward that if you want to make something completely obsolete, it's replacement should be equal to or better then it's predecessor in EVERY category. Otherwise, you're going to have "nitch" people (minority quite possibly) that will cling to old technology because that ONE THING didn't get improved (or at least equal to) that some folks consider important (even if others do not).

"niche", not "nitch". Niche users are (almost by definition) in the minority.

The problem with this approach is that then you would *never* bring out any new products until they are perfected (if even then) -- and companies want something to sell *now*. The thing with LCDs is that they vastly surpass CRTs in terms of ergonomics, and many people prefer them for office-type work -- and their disadvantages are, to almost all users, extremely minor (if not unnoticeable). So you have a product that, to many people, IS an improvement in every way (that they can see!) over CRTs. Super-accurate color reproduction, very low black levels, and extremely low refresh rates are just not key selling points to most users. You can't make everybody happy, and maintaining two entire product lines is just not feasable (or profitable) for a lot of companies.

Also, CRTs are not "completely obsolete"; plenty of companies still make them, and will probably continue to do so to some extent for the next few years at least (if only because they'll sell in markets where price is a more important consideration). Like I said, LCDs are continuously improving (by leaps and bounds), and OLED (and possibly SED) displays are looking to make some big inroads in the next few years, and will probably revolutionize the market all over again once the prices get low enough.