Holy Smokes!!! High end CRT's are back in stock!

[mrgq912]

My IBM 22 inch (p series) CRT is great, they are certainly not trash. But i see the point of LCD fanbois, why spend 800 or even 400 today on a CRT when you can have a LCD.

I bought my LCD in like 2000 i think, for 250 (refurb). I have ha no probs with it. In 2000 there was nothing in the LCD segment that could compete with this CRT. I love switching resolutions based on the games i play, I also like the extremely high refresh rates. These are the kinds of monitors that graphic designers and CAD people use.

BUT, If I had the extra 1500 cash to burn, yes I would buy me a nice LCD widescreen. 800 for the dell lcd and about 700 to go SLI so i can play most games at the native high resolutions.

But until that day arrives and until this monitor dies on me, I see absolutely no reason to switch.

 

[DerelictDev]

First off stop shooting your mouth without reading my reply. I bashed people with CRT's who swear by them on terms of better gaming, I think thats just a load of horse ******. Secondly the monitor in question costs $700+, not $300 as you're mentioning, that of course is ALOT more reasonable.

I'm not arguing that LCD's are better in all the aspects you listed (probably none except for contrast) but the difference in high quality LCD's ranging around that price range are minimal at best plus the aesthetics make up for it in my opinion.

And take that sarcasm and stick it, 70lbs is no light weight for a typical person. I consider myself a good build and wouldn't have a problem dragging around 70lbs if required but god damn I wouldn't enjoy doing it. A more valid argument would be looking at its mere dimensions, 19in depth? no thanks, I'll stick with 7in (that's including the base).

 

[JRW]

The whole weight issues has always boggled my mind , How often do you *HONESTLY* have to lift or move your monitor?!?! And the whole need it for LAN excuse is used by a lot people who've never even been to one. I simply dont judge a display by its weight ..I go for what counts most ,overall picture quality /response time / input lag / black level details/ viewing angle / resolution flexibility etc. - nothing beats a high end CRT in those areas.

And to those who claim input lag doesnt exist on LCDs try putting one next to a CRT and play some games via Clone mode, you'll see the LCD delay with your own eyes like I have. Theres also this recent article on LCD delay: http://www.behardware.com/articles/632-...ages-delayed-compared-to-crts-yes.html

 

[greyeyezz]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: DerelictDev
Can CRT's and people who swear by them just go to hell. All i ever hear is, its about the gaming blah blah blah. My friends and I have all switched over and noone has lost any skills because of a LCD monitor. If thats your excuse, maybe you just suck at the games you're playing. And jesus that amount of money for a 70lb piece of trash, come on this isn't 1996.....

i'd like to see your LCD side by side with my 24" widescreen Sony FW900 CRT (which i got for under $300). we'll see which monitor is better in photo editing, gaming, movies, using different resolutions, viewing angles, colors, contrast, etc... not to mention the other random problems LCD's have, such as dead/stuck pixels, backlight bleeding, no ability to display a true black color, etc... i bet you couldn't find an LCD anywhere near that price to match it.

and if the weight bothers you, maybe you need to hit the gym.

Well put.

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Good news for those of us who prefer CRT technology.

The lugging to LAN party argument is ridiculous guys - you can buy and LCD specifically for LAN parties and use it as a 2nd screen or on a spare system at home.

The price is a natural consequence of large CRT's no longer being mass manufactured, unfortunately. Like everything else, monitors are not immume to the laws governing economy of scale.

Not entirely accurate. If you're used to a CRT at home you're not going to revert to LCD if you're planning on competition for the LAN. Now if the whole intent is just for fun then I agree 100%, however bothering with the CRT in the first place doesn't make a whole lot of sense IMO.

I don't see it any diiferently than using a CRT at home and an LCD at work, which I do on some of our machines. I don't like it much, but I tolerate it.

Whether you will bother with a CRT or not depends on how well you like LCD's. Frankly I wish I could like LCD's more than I do - it would be cheaper and less back breaking, but I can't stand LCD's. Good luck to you if you can tolerate them, but not everyone is like you.

 

[Ackmed]

Just in time for winter...

I dont see any motion blur. There is zero chance I will ever buy another CRT again. Its lived a long life, its been over 100 years. Time to let it go.

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: robkas
i could imagine lugging that thing to LANS :disgust:

Wendel does and he's a little twerp. Man up.

Wendel only plays with CRTs. The problems for him are afterglow and the lower frequency of images. The main fault of LCDs is the restriction in frequency and consequently fps.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/613-8/the-last-crt-survey.html

And you think he actually carries his own stuff.. ?

 

[jogiba]

Eizo F980, 2048x1536 @ 85Hz, 400MHz Dot Clock,CRT Phosphor Pitch 0.23 mm / 0.20 mm (horizontal) .
http://www.eizo.com/support/discontinued/crt/f980.asp

 

[robkas]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Good news for those of us who prefer CRT technology.

The lugging to LAN party argument is ridiculous guys - you can buy and LCD specifically for LAN parties and use it as a 2nd screen or on a spare system at home.

The price is a natural consequence of large CRT's no longer being mass manufactured, unfortunately. Like everything else, monitors are not immume to the laws governing economy of scale.

Not entirely accurate. If you're used to a CRT at home you're not going to revert to LCD if you're planning on competition for the LAN. Now if the whole intent is just for fun then I agree 100%, however bothering with the CRT in the first place doesn't make a whole lot of sense IMO.

i've used CRT my whole life until this may, and i plan on doing competitions for LANs

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: DerelictDev
First off stop shooting your mouth without reading my reply. I bashed people with CRT's who swear by them on terms of better gaming, I think thats just a load of horse ******. Secondly the monitor in question costs $700+, not $300 as you're mentioning, that of course is ALOT more reasonable.

I'm not arguing that LCD's are better in all the aspects you listed (probably none except for contrast) but the difference in high quality LCD's ranging around that price range are minimal at best plus the aesthetics make up for it in my opinion.

And take that sarcasm and stick it, 70lbs is no light weight for a typical person. I consider myself a good build and wouldn't have a problem dragging around 70lbs if required but god damn I wouldn't enjoy doing it. A more valid argument would be looking at its mere dimensions, 19in depth? no thanks, I'll stick with 7in (that's including the base).

first of all, don't tell CRT users to go to hell if you can't take someone "shooting" their mouth off at you. and CRT's don't make you better "AT" gaming, the games can perform better "ON" them (which has little to no bearing on your success in the game). a quick comparison of CRT's vs LCD's:

* most LCD's look like crap at anything other than their native resolutions, so if the game doesn't support your native resolution (esp. with widescreen) or your vid card can't run at the native resolution, you're SOL. most CRT's look great at any resolution - you can crank them up as high (or as low) as your video card can support, which will give you the optimal performance and appearence. my games look way better on my old 19" CRT 1600x1200 than they did on the 17" LCD at 1024x768 even though both have the same screen space. and my 24" LCD @ 1900x1200 blows away comparably sized LCD's.
* CRT's don't have any ghosting. older LCD's did. this was a serious problem when playing a games with lots of movement. modern LCD's are much better in this respect, but ultimately, the CRT is still the gold standard
* many LCD's have issues with viewing angle, where anything but the optimum angle looks bad. CRT's are, again, the gold standard here.

and the sony fw900 24" CRT is readily available on ebay for $300, not $700. you might have to spend another $100 on shipping, but i picked mine up locally, and the warehouse had hundreds of them to choose from. so, again, for the price, that CRT cannot be matched by any LCD.

as for the weight argument, it was obviously a joke. LCD's are clearly better in terms of size, weight, and energy consumption. but if you have the desk space, depending on your uses and price range, CRT's are not dead. in fact, i constantly see decent 21" CRT's being given away for free... in my book, that's a bargain that's hard to beat

 

[Mem]

Both have there good and bad points,I have yet to see a CRT display the detail of a LCD,only advantage I see CRT has is colour range and switching of resolution,LCD has better detail in both gaming and text IMHO.

Personally I can't go back to CRT,my 2 year old Samsung CRT now looks so poor compared to my widescreen LCD,as to response times in gaming etc..I consider myself a gamer,if I can play a fast paced game like TFC on dustbowl map and finish 3rd and see no ghosting with my LCD then I would have to say LCDs have come a long way.


I still see major improvements down the road for LCDs,as to CRTs well virtually all monitor companies have stopped making them so that says a lot on its own.

End of the day stick with what you are happy with.Side note I was very impressed and surprised on how many games now support widescreen resolution.Gothic 3 widescreen gaming here I come (nextweek) .

 

[Gstanfor]

Yes, give me Gothic3 too. The wife can keep her Oblivion. Can't wait.

 

[BFG10K]

i could imagine lugging that thing to LANS

Oh pu-lease, is that the best you've got? How often do you go to a LAN?

And by that reasoning why buy a desktop and lug it to a LAN when you can have a laptop instead?

 

[postmortemIA]

Is this what Iranians are trying to make?

 

[eljaye925]

No one has mentioned eye strain. I got a dell 2001fp a year or so ago to replace my 19 trinitron. Slight ghosting, but no more headaches...

 

[JRW]

Ugh dont get me started on the crapiness that is the Dell 2001FP .. heres the short version: I had one for awhile and it couldnt hold a candle to my previous Sony 21" G520P CRT (I had them both running side by side) .. Worst black levels I have ever seen , motion blur wasnt horrid but definately noticable, and bad color reproduction. If anything the LCD was hurting my eyes with its extreme / over exagerated brightness. I got rid of it and bought my current FW900 CRT over a year ago with zero regrets.

 

[eljaye925]

Originally posted by: JRW
Ugh dont get me started on the crapiness that is the Dell 2001FP .. heres the short version: I had one for awhile and it couldnt hold a candle to my previous Sony 21" G520P CRT (I had them both running side by side) .. Worst black levels I have ever seen , motion blur wasnt horrid but definately noticable, and bad color reproduction. If anything the LCD was hurting my eyes with its extreme / over exagerated brightness. I got rid of it and bought my current FW900 CRT over a year ago with zero regrets.

Well good for you. The point I'm making is that I for one was willing to sacrafice the overall gaming quality the CRT gave for the smaller footprint, lower power consumption and reduced eyes strain the LCD provides. The trade off is worth it to me.

 

[brikis98]

out of curiosity, has there been any research to indicate that a CRT at a good refresh rate (85Hz+) causes more eye strain than an LCD? i tried googling and found many posts on various message boards that argued in either direction... anyone know of anything more "official"?

 

[CP5670]

No, it's a completely subjective thing. I run mine at 110hz in Windows and get significantly less eyestrain than my 90GX2 LCD due to the brightness differences, especially as I often use them in dark rooms.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: eljaye925

Well good for you. The point I'm making is that I for one was willing to sacrafice the overall gaming quality the CRT gave for the smaller footprint, lower power consumption and reduced eyes strain the LCD provides. The trade off is worth it to me.

If your happy with it thats all that matters.. but I honestly dont believe a CRT running at a higher refresh is going to cause more eye strain than an LCD. My 2001FP proved that to me, To each his own.

 

[Gstanfor]

A CRT will definitely cause less eyestrain, unless you run it at 60hz, where the flicker induced by redrawing the screen is very apparent to the eye and really doers cause eyestrain/tiredness.

LCD's typically have a flouro lamp for illumination and this is very unfriendly for closeup vision (I can use a compact flouro in the ceiling not a problem, but it's much further from your eyes).

 

[Ackmed]

Everyone is different. I ran my 19" Trinitron at 75hz, and it gave me pretty bad eye strain when playing in low light, or the dark. Which is how I liked to play most of the time. I got a 1800FP, and ran dual display. I found after several weeks, the 1800FP was better for me, in many things. So I sold my CRT, and havent had one since.

Like video cards, I actually try the other options firsthand, and decide what is best for me.

There are things for each that I like better. Like eljaye925 said, the positives of the LCDs outwieghed the negatives for it. CRT's are too hot, big, heavy, cause too much eye strain, and just plain dont look as good reading text to me. CRTs have positives too of course, just not enough to warrant me to have one. To each their own.

I do find it kinda ironic that some people like CRts better, because they claim better IQ quality. But then claim that there is no difference in NV and ATi video quality. Things that make you go, hmm.

 

[JRW]

Ive never ran any CRT ive owned below 85hz, 75hz is still a little low no wonder you had problems.

Ive been running this one at 1920x1200 @ 95hz desktop res for the last year and text looks great.

 

[Gstanfor]

Yeah, your 19" CRT must have been the Walmart special or something. The only time I'm forced below 85 hz is @ 1920x1440 where the refresh is 72 hz, otherwise my monitor is at or above 100 hz for the screen resolutions I make use of.

I have access to quite a selection of LCD's in the various places i work, so I've had ample opportunity to evaluate them (and have even been able to borrow some briefly). None have impressed.

I've never understood the text sharpness argument. Anyone trying to claim LCD's are sharper must have been using a 1970's color tv as a CRT...

 

[Ackmed]

Actually, it was one of the best at the time, a Sony Trinitron 19". E400 or G400, something like that, I forget. Its been at least 5 years. I ran 75hz most of the time, and 85hz too. Just played around with different setting to see what worked best for me. I got eye strain no matter what. But only after extended play time, and in the dark. At the time, I was very hooked on Tribes, and played it way, way too much. Our matches were always at night, and after 3 hours or so of playing, nothing felt good except just closing my eyes. Moving to the LCD, solved this for me. But as I said, its different for people. Perhaps my severe near sightedness compounded the issue. I was almost legally blind, and used glasses and contacts. Ive had lasik since.

The text looks better (or did the one time I did a side by side comparison) on my LCD, than my CRT. Especially with clear type enabled. It just looks bolder, more pronounced. But again, people are different, and not everyone will see things as I did.

 

[Gstanfor]

Nearly legally blind and has the nerve to lecture about IQ... I've heard it all now.