I Am Afraid of LCD's I Think I Want a 80 lb CRT

[pradeep1]

I do very intensive photograph editing work and find that I get better results with my 80 lb. 19" CRT than my 15 lb. Ultrasharp 17" LCD.

 

[jahutch]

This is always going to be a subjective thing, but most people (myself included) vastly prefer LCDs, so that is the direction the market is going. Both technologies do have advantages though, and your use will decide which advantages are more important. In my experience the main advantage CRTs still have is in the area of color reproduction and black levels. That said, for normal use (gaming, office work, etc), *newer* LCDs are more than competent in these areas. If you are a graphics professional however, a CRT might well be preferable.

Otherwise, I find it hard to see the advantage of a CRT. LCDs are far sharper, the image is immune to flickering and distortion due to power sources near the monitor, and most importantly to me, they have *perfect geometry*. To me, ANY flaw in screen geometry is something that drives me crazy, and even a nice monitor like my trinitron had some minor flaws that drove me up the wall. Further, newer LCDs that are of good quality have low enough response time that ghosting and such is no longer a reason for concern. Finally, LCDs are lighter, use less power, and take up less desk space.

If the brightness bothers you, this can easily be adjusted downward, both via the LCD directly, or via your video card. Contrast can likewise be adjusted. If you find text to be too sharp or "jaggy," try turning on ClearType, it will soften text a great deal and make it more readable.

With today's LCD technology I honestly don't see why anyone other than a photograph/graphics professional would choose a CRT computer monitor.

 

[Cygnus X1]

VX922 > CRT nuff said.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
VX922 > CRT nuff said.

1280x1024 on 19" viewable. No thanks.

If it was 1680 ws or 1600x1200 at that response time it would be a good option. Of course, it would cost a lot more, probably ~$700.

 

[santz]

Originally posted by: munky
I'm still using my 4 year old CRT, and I dont even care about LCD's. The bad news is that CRT's are no longer in production, and most places sell only LCD's. So most people naturally start buying LCD's, but after having used a CRT and a LCD side by side there's no way I'm buying any new monitor until something better than LCD's comes along.

OKKK, BHEHOLD, 63" rockin PLASMA TVS. now that will get u off!! (CRTs i mean, what did u think?)

 

[Heartbreaker]

Originally posted by: dfloyd
But as far as sharpness goes it makes no sense. Even if the text is more blurry on a CRT iit is still the same text and the same pixels they are just not as sharp so you will have to focus harder to make them out perfectly. The sharper (I read as clearer) something is the less you should have to focus on it to make it out. So he is theorizing that sharpness could contribute but from my understanding of the human eye and how it works this just does not make any sense.

And on the contrast issue I dont understand how anyone could say more contrast is worse. The larger the amount of contrast the bigger the difference between light and dark, aka white and black. One of the biggest original complaints with LCDs was not having enough contrast to make blacks black enough, so claiming more contrast is bad is very confusing to me. The newest tech coming out is up to what 4000:1 contrast and higher? Compare that to 300:1 LCds started around.

Sharpness:
Do you like Aliasing? You keep saying CRT is blurry. Excuse me but you need to look at a better class of CRT. My 21" trinitron at work is not blurry. What it does have is an almost built in Anti aliasing effect. When I look at text on screen I don't need to see each individual pixel of the letters. On a CRT I get nice Anti-Aliased smooth text. LCD gives me a sharp group of pixels. Now that may impress you with it's sharpness but smooth letters is more benefit to me than seeing each pixel that makes up a letter. And cleartype doesn't quite cut it for smoothing fonts.

Contrast:
CRT's have blacker black. Turn both down to about 50cd/m² and the CRT will have actually have better contrast. Contrast is only the difference between bright and dark. LCDs are pumping the contrast number buy cranking the heck out of the brightness. Which doesn't do any good when you want a display for a dimly lit computer room. CRT simply scale down better. My 2405 was rated at 500 cd/m². That is insane. But more must be better right? Wrong. Typical home user is probably better off around 50, but that monitor just couldn't scale down. It was made to look good running super bright and turned to garbage when you minimize the backlight and adjust card gamma.

Originally posted by: jahutch
Otherwise, I find it hard to see the advantage of a CRT. LCDs are far sharper, the image is immune to flickering and distortion due to power sources near the monitor, and most importantly to me, they have *perfect geometry*. To me, ANY flaw in screen geometry is something that drives me crazy, and even a nice monitor like my trinitron had some minor flaws that drove me up the wall. Further, newer LCDs that are of good quality have low enough response time that ghosting and such is no longer a reason for concern. Finally, LCDs are lighter, use less power, and take up less desk space.

If the brightness bothers you, this can easily be adjusted downward, both via the LCD directly, or via your video card. Contrast can likewise be adjusted. If you find text to be too sharp or "jaggy," try turning on ClearType, it will soften text a great deal and make it more readable.

With today's LCD technology I honestly don't see why anyone other than a photograph/graphics professional would choose a CRT computer monitor.

There is question of how much sharpness you need. I want smooth letters, not a harsh jumble of individual pixels. Initially I was impressed with the sharpness too, but when I got down to work it was no easier to read and I got massive eye strain.

No wonder you LCD guys love them, you seem to all use busted CRT's sitting on a power source, running 60Hz. In 20+ years of computing on CRT I never put up with that. My screen is always smooth, sharp and flicker free. The last time I was running at 60Hz, I was using an Amiga. If my home monitor starts to die, I get a new one, but usually I just get bored an buy something before that. If it is my work monitor I likewise just get a new one. Actually my current home monitor is the first one that I ever had decline on me and I am now looking for a replacement. It is a 6 year old 19" that is no longer sharp at 1600x1200, so I run at 1360x1024 while I look for a replacement.

Most good CRTs come with a host of geometry adjustments and frankly I seriously doubt you can spot small geometry problems without a test pattern.

LCD brightness cannot be cleanly adjusted down. These monitor are made to run super bright and look like crap when at minimized brightness, and adjustments on the video card don't adjust the backlight, merely put more twist on the LCD crystals, the lower you go, the crappier it looks and wierd shine through glare becomes more prevalent. CRT can gracefully darken to match any environement and still look the same.

The LCD disadvantages remain, though you probably have gotten used to them. They still lag, blur, have poor viewing angles, poor brightness control, color banding issues,burnt pixels, poor scaling to other resolutions etc. Want to know what drove me nuts, seeing my new LCD with quoted 170+ degree viewing angles, fluctuate certain tones if I moved my head 2 inches. Quoted Viewing angles on LCDs are essentially lies. Yeah you can see something, but it is not remotely consistent.

Originally posted by: Madwand1
One significant part of the boat is that the manufactures are also abandoning CRT. So you likely going to second grade CRT at this point if you get one new -- a rough conclusion drawn from the withdrawal of key players in the field and the lack of continued development in that area. Correct me if I'm wrong and you can get a 1st rate new CRT at a reasonable price.

Current LCD's have obvious advantages on some areas, and have overcome some of the traditional shortcomings (see the CRT review), but to me it seems to be an incomplete, not fully mature solution, and that a couple of generations from now will make the current LCD's seem bad. Hence it could be worthwhile to not pay the premiums necessary for a top-ranked LCD at the moment. OTOH, that also means not having their benefits.

If you look around enough you will find them still. You probably don't have long though. I have found several to choose from. I like the Phillips brilliance 201b and 202p. Both 20" viewable screens that will do a very nice 1600x1200 and every intermediate resolution as well. Still quite cheape than a 20" viewable LCD. IMO they do just about everything (scaling, response time, viewing angles, brightness control) better than LCDs except impress your friends with size and showing nice individual square pixels. By the time the next CRT dies, the LCD (or other tech) screens should be more mature and cheaper yet.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: munky
I'm still using my 4 year old CRT, and I dont even care about LCD's. The bad news is that CRT's are no longer in production, and most places sell only LCD's. So most people naturally start buying LCD's, but after having used a CRT and a LCD side by side there's no way I'm buying any new monitor until something better than LCD's comes along.

Same situation here,After having LCD & CRT side by side I'd say LCD's are great for text but thats about it IMO (when compared to a high end CRT).

Sony 24" FW900 > *.* LCD. The FW900 cost $2,300 but you can get them off ebay for $300 - 400 now, Get one while you can!

 

[dfloyd]

Originally posted by: CP5670

Originally posted by: dfloyd
Its a good article but I still disagree with it on several points. First it was done in 2004, things have improved some since then. Also I can understand how Fluorescent Light and brightness might bother someone.

But as far as sharpness goes it makes no sense. Even if the text is more blurry on a CRT iit is still the same text and the same pixels they are just not as sharp so you will have to focus harder to make them out perfectly. The sharper (I read as clearer) something is the less you should have to focus on it to make it out. So he is theorizing that sharpness could contribute but from my understanding of the human eye and how it works this just does not make any sense.

And on the contrast issue I dont understand how anyone could say more contrast is worse. The larger the amount of contrast the bigger the difference between light and dark, aka white and black. One of the biggest original complaints with LCDs was not having enough contrast to make blacks black enough, so claiming more contrast is bad is very confusing to me. The newest tech coming out is up to what 4000:1 contrast and higher? Compare that to 300:1 LCds started around.

So considering my above two arguments I am still not sure I am wrong on my points friend. I am definatly not saying LCDs are for everyone and in fact I know they are not, but it seems in general and for the majority LCDs are far enough along to make very good daily use monitors. At least imo and from what I have read on the statistics.

There are no LCDs (at least computer monitors) with anything near 4000:1. The contrast ratios can be somewhat misleading in any case, since they are measured at the maximum brightness setting. A lot of LCDs with high contrast ratios also have an excessive default brightness level and can't maintain the same contrast ratio at lower brightness settings.

In general, I think ambient lighting makes a huge difference in what looks better. Some LCDs actually look very good to me in the daytime, but in a pitch dark room it's a different story, with the washed out black levels and/or screen door effects contributing to both eyestrain and poor image quality. There is also the 60hz limitation on most larger LCDs as well as the lower resolutions (compared to CRTs) on anything except the pricey 30" LCDs. For a nighttime gamer like me, there is not much of a contest.

The last generation of aperture grill CRTs, if you can still find one of them, have extended brightness modes that give the same vibrant, saturated look in games (and at the same time preserve black levels) while allowing for a dimmer look in Windows. As for the sharpness, the one I have is very hard to distinguish from an LCD after making the necessary focus adjustments, although I agree that the average CRT is quite lacking in this respect.

All that being said, if I was buying today I would probably get an LCD, as the good CRTs have all disappeared from the market by now (I'm not quite comfortable with buying a used one unless I can see it in person). But just about any LCD I could buy would be a downgrade in some way over my existing CRT.

The ViewSonic P227fB is actually a brand new monitor. It's been sold since March 2006 in Europe.

That's interesting, I remember seeing it (the G225 one) on Newegg a few months ago but it is no longer available there, so I thought it was discontinued. I don't think I know of any other 21/22" CRT still being manufactured.

I never once stated that there is a current LCD with 4000:1 ratio, cant remember the name at the moment but the new flat panel displays that will be released very shortly will have this type of contrast ratio. Thats why I mentioned the newest tech coming out, not out.

Edit: The tech is called OLED and I was wrong, its 5000:1 contrast ratio.

Linkage

 

[dfloyd]

Originally posted by: guidryp

Originally posted by: dfloyd
But as far as sharpness goes it makes no sense. Even if the text is more blurry on a CRT iit is still the same text and the same pixels they are just not as sharp so you will have to focus harder to make them out perfectly. The sharper (I read as clearer) something is the less you should have to focus on it to make it out. So he is theorizing that sharpness could contribute but from my understanding of the human eye and how it works this just does not make any sense.

And on the contrast issue I dont understand how anyone could say more contrast is worse. The larger the amount of contrast the bigger the difference between light and dark, aka white and black. One of the biggest original complaints with LCDs was not having enough contrast to make blacks black enough, so claiming more contrast is bad is very confusing to me. The newest tech coming out is up to what 4000:1 contrast and higher? Compare that to 300:1 LCds started around.

Sharpness:
Do you like Aliasing? You keep saying CRT is blurry. Excuse me but you need to look at a better class of CRT. My 21" trinitron at work is not blurry. What it does have is an almost built in Anti aliasing effect. When I look at text on screen I don't need to see each individual pixel of the letters. On a CRT I get nice Anti-Aliased smooth text. LCD gives me a sharp group of pixels. Now that may impress you with it's sharpness but smooth letters is more benefit to me than seeing each pixel that makes up a letter. And cleartype doesn't quite cut it for smoothing fonts.

Contrast:
CRT's have blacker black. Turn both down to about 50cd/m² and the CRT will have actually have better contrast. Contrast is only the difference between bright and dark. LCDs are pumping the contrast number buy cranking the heck out of the brightness. Which doesn't do any good when you want a display for a dimly lit computer room. CRT simply scale down better. My 2405 was rated at 500 cd/m². That is insane. But more must be better right? Wrong. Typical home user is probably better off around 50, but that monitor just couldn't scale down. It was made to look good running super bright and turned to garbage when you minimize the backlight and adjust card gamma.

That is not quite correct friend. CRTs do not have a built in Anti Aliasing effect, that is blurring you are seeing. The reason you notice the difference between the lcd and the crt is that the lcd is sharper and less blurry. There is a built in effect in windows (Cleartype) that is meant for LCDs. It is anti-aliasing for text and can be used on either LCDs or CRTs although on some CRTs it looks really bad imo, but it definatly applys anti-aliaising to the text and takes away the complaint the poster had about text being too sharp.

And yes on average CRTs have better blacks than LCDs, this is mainly because of the way LCDs work. But the way they work is also part of their benefit. Alot of eye strain can be caused by refresh, LCDs do not have the problem with refresh that CRTs did, but the way they refresh is what makes it harder to reproduce the blacks as the pixels are always on, read always lit, (Same cause of backlighting issues). And I never disagreed with this. I just stated that it is not nearly as noticeable an issue as it used to be, especially on some of the higher end lcds.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: rbV5
I've been back and forth about buying a used FW900, if I don't do it soon, I'll probably be forced to settle for an LCD. (I have a 17" LCD sitting next to my 22" CRT for dual monitors btw)

I had the same decision to make not long ago, new LCD or used CRT. After a lot of research and thinking I decided to go with a used HP A7217A (Sony FW900) and have been completely satisfied with my decision. These monitors were the no-expense-spared ultra-high end model for Sony.

If you're worried about reliability in a used monitor, consider how many people you know that are STILL using 10+ year old monitors on their computers that were nowhere near the quality and price of these 24" widescreens.

For text, physical size and power consumption, yes, the LCD is superior. But for nearly everything else, a good CRT will either equal or surpass an LCD.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: Reagle
Am I nuts? Flatpanels have a irratating contrast to them and a strangly bright back lighting to them that is never quite right and the whites are slightly nausiating to me. I know that they have their good qualities but I know I can buy a 80 lbs CRT for very little and run it at like 150 hz. It should look good. I play alot of games too.

Everyone is going to LCDs and abondoning CRTs. Am I missing the boat?

Yes

 

[rbV5]

Now I have a wide screen I can pick up in one hand, try doing that with a Sony widescreen CRT

Its funny how this always pops up when discussing the "quality" of the image displayed on a CRT vs an LCD.

Highend CRT's simply produce a better image for gaming and video...period.

Without fail, every new "its better than a CRT" LCD that hits the market, becomes the "well you haven't seen the XD450, since I've picked it up, it has made me forget about my CRT. Its even better than the 2005 my Dad has, its awesome" Then of course the discerning user gets the XD450 on the hype, and is disappointed. I've seen it time and time again.

You talk about resolution support, they promote sharper text as if we are bent over a wordprocessor all day. Black levels become a minor negative overshadowed by eye strain. On and on.

IMO the arguments amount to not much more than pimping an expensive purchase rather than admitting that LCD's have not progressed to the point of replacing a high end CRT for Video playback and gaming for a discerning user.

They do keep getting better, sure, but I've seen a number of users already upgrade recently purchased "good" LCD's with newer "better" LCD's...I haven't replaced my main CRT in years and it was manufactured last century.

If you're worried about reliability in a used monitor, consider how many people you know that are STILL using 10+ year old monitors on their computers that were nowhere near the quality and price of these 24" widescreens

I agree completely. I purchased my 22" mitsubishi CRT used years ago it was manufactured in 1998. I want to upgrrade it with the FW900 and I'm assuming it will be my last large CRT.

 

[dfloyd]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Now I have a wide screen I can pick up in one hand, try doing that with a Sony widescreen CRT

Its funny how this always pops up when discussing the "quality" of the image displayed on a CRT vs an LCD.

Highend CRT's simply produce a better image for gaming and video...period.

Without fail, every new "its better than a CRT" LCD that hits the market, becomes the "well you haven't seen the XD450, since I've picked it up, it has made me forget about my CRT. Its even better than the 2005 my Dad has, its awesome" Then of course the discerning user gets the XD450 on the hype, and is disappointed. I've seen it time and time again.

You talk about resolution support, they promote sharper text as if we are bent over a wordprocessor all day. Black levels become a minor negative overshadowed by eye strain. On and on.

IMO the arguments amount to not much more than pimping an expensive purchase rather than admitting that LCD's have not progressed to the point of replacing a high end CRT for Video playback and gaming for a discerning user.

They do keep getting better, sure, but I've seen a number of users already upgrade recently purchased "good" LCD's with newer "better" LCD's...I haven't replaced my main CRT in years and it was manufactured last century.

If you're worried about reliability in a used monitor, consider how many people you know that are STILL using 10+ year old monitors on their computers that were nowhere near the quality and price of these 24" widescreens

I agree completely. I purchased my 22" mitsubishi CRT used years ago it was manufactured in 1998. I want to upgrrade it with the FW900 and I'm assuming it will be my last large CRT.

Sorry friend but your utterly wrong. My 20" Mitsubishi does not and did not hold a candle to either of my 20.1" LCDs. You saying period is speaking of an absolute, and that is wrong. Both current monitors have far better color, far better text, far less eye strain, and in ways BETTER blacks. The problem with CRTs, at least most I have seen is yes they have better blacks but to get those true blacks most are TOO DIM!!!! So you lose your lights, contrast please. This is true of the Sonys I have owned, the Mitsubishis I have owned, heck about every single monitor I have owned (From my big bad 286 w/ Herclues graphics till today) has had these problems. How do I know this? Side by side comparisons, not from memory, but actually looking at my Dell 2005 FPW and my Mitsubishi 20" side by side. So friend you are wrong to state anything as an absolute. All of this is opinion and each persons opinion can differ. I would never accept any CRT over the current high end crop of LCDs. Its like a scale, the LCD just has more benefits overall (IMO) than a CRT and not the least of which is IMAGE QUALITY!!!

And next time please look at the whole discussion and dont just focus on one comment I made. Pointing out that a LCD does not weight eighty+ pounds is a huge benefit to anyone who ever gets out and goes to lan partys. Moving a LCD is a heck of alot easier than a CRT, nothing to do with image quality, but just showing even another benefit of LCDs.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: dfloyd
I never once stated that there is a current LCD with 4000:1 ratio, cant remember the name at the moment but the new flat panel displays that will be released very shortly will have this type of contrast ratio. Thats why I mentioned the newest tech coming out, not out.

Edit: The tech is called OLED and I was wrong, its 5000:1 contrast ratio.

Linkage

OLEDs are a different matter altogether and have little in common with LCDs. Unlike LCDs, I think those (together with SEDs) will really be a true step forward from CRTs in everything but the resolution scaling issue. Even that could potentially cease to be a problem if the resolutions and pixel densities go as high as they're saying, particularly with SEDs.

The problem with CRTs, at least most I have seen is yes they have better blacks but to get those true blacks most are TOO DIM!!!!

Have you seen one of the more recent models? The NEC/Mitsu Superbright Diamondtron CRTs have a special mode that nearly triples the brightness level and they look quite different from other CRTs in that mode. I think the Sony Gx20 models have a similar feature. You get the best of both worlds with these, with a fairly high brightness ("vibrant" colors) in games and a dimmer look in Windows that is easier on the eyes for text, with perfect blacks in both cases.

 

[dguy6789]

IBM P275 FTW.

http://www.azatek.com/details.asp?iid=510

 

[Heartbreaker]

Originally posted by: dfloyd
That is not quite correct friend. CRTs do not have a built in Anti Aliasing effect, that is blurring you are seeing. The reason you notice the difference between the lcd and the crt is that the lcd is sharper and less blurry. There is a built in effect in windows (Cleartype) that is meant for LCDs. It is anti-aliasing for text and can be used on either LCDs or CRTs although on some CRTs it looks really bad imo, but it definatly applys anti-aliaising to the text and takes away the complaint the poster had about text being too sharp.

Umm. I owned a 24" LCD, Cleartype does not take away the complaint at all. It makes it better but it is still not as good as CRT. CRT does have an AA effect on text because they pixels flow together to form smooth lines. LCD remains jagged.

Alot of eye strain can be caused by refresh

So? Who in their right mind runs with low refresh (60 Hz)?? If refresh is sufficient to be invisible (75Hz or higher) it will not cause eyestrain and most likely other factors are at work. This is one of the biggest red herrings. I use CRT 10+hours everyday for 10 years of professional work. Previously 4 years of heavy CRT use at university including all nighters on CRT's, and 6 years before that as a hobbiest including gaming till the sun comes up sometimes 20 hours at a stretch. No eyestrain at all.

You still keep thinking your view is the only correct one. Clearly there are plenty of us who find CRT better at this time.

Show me the LCD that:

• Scales to different resolutions cleanly.
  
  Has real world viewing angles that are good to even 80 degrees let alone the lie of 170+ degrees claimed in the literature.
  
  Scales brightness down to be tolerable in dimly lit rooms, and keeps image quality decent.
  
  Has zero lag.
  Doesn't smear details when I move a window.
  Doesn't ghost.
  
  Has no color banding.
  
  Plays video without twinkling (effect of overdrive to get speed up).
  
  Has no burnt pixels guaranteed.
  
  Has no backlight bleed.

You can find a LCD that does some of these, but none does all and even those that do only half this cost more than double the price of a CRT that does all the above perfectly.

LCDs are smaller and have sharper more defined pixels and that is about it. That level of sharpness is not needed or even desired. I want smooth line not a collection of obvious pixels.

LCDs are getting better all the time, but they are still not there for some of us. Even harder to grasp some of us actually do find LCD harder on the eyes. This is the final straw. Note this was counter to my expectations until I actually got the monitor so I get why you have a hard time grasping it. But this is the last time I try to explain it. It hit me even when I turned down the brightness. I believe it is because you can actually see the individual pixels and my eyes keep trying to focus to the pixel level where on a CRT there was not this pixel view to focus on therefore my eyes were more relaxed. Whatever the reason it was harder on my eyes. I really had eyestrain for the first time in my life, much to my surprise. But in the end the objective is to see an image/text, not to see individual pixels. I prefer a display that hides the pixel structure.

I was still interested in trying another LCD (Dell 2007FP) that has smaller pixel structure and wider view angles, but reports now indicate it has banding issues. So I will soon likely buy a CRT and wait for LCD to mature further.

 

[imported_Imp]

The only thing I hate about LCDs is the native resolution thing. My 17" (so wish I got a 19" now) has teeny text, and it was brighter than the sun when I first got it, but eventually, I got use to all of it. Text is STILL a bit small, and it's actually not bright enough anymore (I say and see that, but I go blind if I raise it...). Also, be patient, it took me almost 4 months to finally get "use to" my monitor when I stopped noticing the above two things.

 

[rbV5]

Sorry friend but your utterly wrong. My 20" Mitsubishi does not and did not hold a candle to either of my 20.1" LCDs. You saying period is speaking of an absolute, and that is wrong.

Sony Trinitron FW900 widescreen and Mitsubishi 2070u Diamond Pro are the best monitor displays I've seen. I own LCD's, and I've seen numerous others at work, friends homes and BM's. None of them I would pick over those monitors, when that happens I'll go with that for my main PC display.

Most users will pick the LCD over the CRT when viewig them side by side. Its akin to going to Best Buy and picking the nicest looking TV display. Usually, it will be the model they are trying to push out the door, using a "Torch Mode" color adjustment and cranking up the contrast and brightness. Its a common trick, and hardly the proper way to pick a display.

LCD's are great for alot of things, but they are just not the best solution for video playback and gaming yet IMO, and thats a view shared by many.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Originally posted by: Imp
The only thing I hate about LCDs is the native resolution thing. My 17" (so wish I got a 19" now) has teeny text, and it was brighter than the sun when I first got it, but eventually, I got use to all of it. Text is STILL a bit small, and it's actually not bright enough anymore (I say and see that, but I go blind if I raise it...). Also, be patient, it took me almost 4 months to finally get "use to" my monitor when I stopped noticing the above two things.

I guess my question would be: Why spend 4 months getting used to LCD when I can just get a CRT that does so many things better? Next time around there will be no more CRTs. I can get used to LCD then if there is not a better technology.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Does anyone know if the 202p70 has something equivalent to superbright mode?

I don't think I can go back to a non-superbright monitor after having seen the impact it makes on games.

 

[CP5670]

Same here, superbright owns all. The 202P70 doesn't have it though as far as I can tell. (it's not an aperture grill monitor at all)

I think your best bet for that is a used 2070SB / FP2141 or one of the numerous rebadges. There is a guy on ebay selling one for $300, or you can try getting the HP P1230 refurb off AccurateIT.

 

[gramboh]

Just picked up a Samsung SyncMaster 997MB (shadow mask) 19inch last week new for $260 Canadian. My old 19inch CRT was dying (blury text) and I was worried it was hurting my eyesight. Didn't even consider LCD because of the resolution scaling problem. I don't want to be forced to run games in the same resolution and have to buy a better video card for each generation of games.

If OLED or SED has a high number of pixels and can scale properly then I would consider it.

 

[luigionlsd]

Dell P1130 ftw. NEC FE1250+ is good too, my friend has it. I've got the dell, and I love it. Got it refurbished on ebay for $135. Also, I wouldn't recommend super high refresh rates like 150 hz, it wears down the monitor faster.

 

[Sonikku]

Originally posted by: pradeep1
I do very intensive photograph editing work and find that I get better results with my 80 lb. 19" CRT than my 15 lb. Ultrasharp 17" LCD.

Yes indeed. I am a Graphic Designer myself and I for one appreciate the fine colors and black blacks of my Sony FW900.

 

[PingSpike]

I can't deal with the fixed resolutions, poor blacks, and dead pixels. Why should I pay twice as much for a monitor that does all the things that are important to me half as well as one that cost half as much? Or thats right, because they don't make good CRTs anymore, so I'm screwed. I have to risk buying a used monitor, or settle for a shadow mask monitor that isn't quite as good.

The desk space and power usage are nice...but I wouldn't really do anything with my extra desk space anyway, and how much money am I going to save in the end? Consider that I'll have to buy higher end graphics cards to push my games at native resolution, or run it at non-native where it looks like shat. I wish some one still made decent AG CRTs.