Seriously, why the hell are video cards even being equipped with a VGA connector?

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Bar81
Except they're not doing what YOU think they are doing Try taking a look around the marketplace for the reality of the situation.

Umm, CRTs are going away and LCDs are selling at a much higher rate? Seems like we ARE moving toward dual DVI cards after all.

Then why are so many of these "low-end" LCDs, that are supposedly taking over and driving the CRT makers out of the market, still shipping with analog VGA signal connectors, and no DVI!? Hmm. Doesn't exactly fit your "DVI for all" worldview, does it?

I think that the more accurate reality is, among low-end models, principly, 17" and under - those will likely be replaced by LCD displays, for your Average Joe computers sold at Wal-Mart. They'll think that they're getting some "spiffy new tech" LCD screens, when in fact, those displays are actually saving the mfg's money, by lower mfg/shipping/warehousing costs. That doesn't mean that they are actually better displays, because in many ways they are not, and chances are, because of existing infrastructure and cost purposes - most of them will likely continue to still have analog VGA inputs, if not only analog VGA inputs. Remember, again, the adoption of LCDs at the low-end is being driven primarily by costs, which is for the same reason retarding the growth of the DVI-interface display market. Plus, when is the last time that you saw 14/15" CRTs selling well? Other than the pre-built OEM market, where they weren't a profit item, but a check-list feature-requirement item? Truth is, for the last few years already, no-one was making any real profit off of lower-end CRT mfging anyways. So just because that is happening on the low end, doesn't mean that CRTs are being completely wiped off the face of the market. Far from it. (In a similar fashion, laptops, while more popular than ever, haven't totally displaced desktops either.)

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
This will be my final quoting of text from this thread. I think that LCD will become the dominant technology for this exact reason: price.

And to that (speaking of the mainstream market, who is unconcerned with the "best" performance from their display device) - I agree!

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
An LCD uses MUCH less raw material than a CRT and should eventually be significantly cheaper to manufacture than CRTs. Furthermore, LCD panel manufacturing is a cutthroat market with Korea, Taiwan, and other countries pumping out displays as cheaply as possible. Over the next few years we should see a dramatic decrease in the manufacturing cost of LCD screens (and possibly even the death of a major player in the LCD market).

CRTs are currently cheaper to manufacture because the process has matured over nearly a century. LCD is a technology that will become significantly cheaper to produce than CRT, especially in displays about 20" or less.

Thank you, that ties in nicely with my prior reply. I'm not so sure about the 20" or less cutoff though, I probably would put it at 17-19, although.. 20 is so close to that it's not really arguable. Suffice to say that, although mfg and raw-materials costs for LCD production, are or will soon be likely lower than (larger) CRTs, you have to take the "yield factor"/dead-pixel issue into account. For every "usable" LCD panel coming out of the factory, there are X (or 1/X) panels that aren't usable, and have to be destroyed. Yields have gotten better over the last five years in the LCD mfg biz., so much so that consumer 19" panels can finally be sold for under $1000. But that number will likely never begin to approach zero, whereas, with CRTs, most of them can be more-or-less tweaked to be at least partially usable, and sometimes diverted to "B-grade" markets. (Well, I'm sure that LCDs with too many bad pixels are as well, besides the ones that are destroyed.)

My point about LCD yields? That while the smaller, lower-res panels (14/15 and maybe 17") ones may have excellent yields, and thus lower costs to mfg in qty than CRTs (or similar costs, but higher profit margins, these days), the larger you go in terms of size, your yields start to drop off at a faster-than-linear rate, and thus once you get to equivalent display sizes to "professional" CRTs, say 20" and higher, capable of similar resolutions (1600x1200, 1920xY, etc), prices will rise dramatically. That will (I feel) prove to be the "balancing" point between CRTs and LCDs as the predominant desktop high-resolution display technology, and why neither will totally displace the other at the higher-end of the market.

Thus also as high-end CRTs are not going away, neither will analog VGA signal outputs either, even on high-end display cards. Sorry Jack. It just isn't going to happen.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
However, I think the benefits of LCD far outweight CRT's. Forget the "sexiness" appeal, the LCD to CRT argument hilights the american "size is better" mentality that has existed since the muscle cars of the 50's and 60's . Why use something big, heavy and wasting a lot of raw materials when you can use a smaller, less power hungry, less wasteful device that performs similarly? Do we all really need to run dual 21" CRT's for our gaming rigs, sucking down >200W of power? I'm not trying to be a hippie here, but for the masses, I think LCD is FAR more practical.

I think that your entire post is excellent, however I just thought that I would point out the curious observation, that in America today (at least in my northeastern state), SUVs outsell most other cars, especially "compact"/"economy" cars by a wide majority last time I checked. So while I agree that LCDs will dominate the mainstream/low-end market, eventually, there's something to be said for human beings, or at least Americans, not really wanting to be "practical" all of the time. (Disclaimer: I don't own an SUV myself, nor likely would I considering the price of gas these days, so I'm not trying to lump all CRT owners in with SUV owners here.)

Edit: Found this link to a PDF on NEC's site, discussing the "TCO" of LCD vs. CRT ownership. It talks about the power/space savings. Bottom line? It mentions up to $7.50 savings in energy costs, per monitor, per year, under typical usage. Whoohoo! That's enough to buy one extra Wendy's Value Meal... per year. Some savings. It also mentions (in the green sidebar) that "24% more employees fit in the same office space" after switching from CRT to LCD monitors. That sounds a bit scary to me, if you happen to live in a "cubicle farm". That implies that if your company switches everyone over to LCDs, that you should expect your "cube" to shrink by nearly 25% soon after. Uh-oh. (Anyone seen the movie 'Toys'?)

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
So, I'm not trying to say that CRT sucks, or that LCD is the best thing since sliced bread, but I have my reasons for liking LCD. To me, it's far more practical, I prefer the brightness, and text looks a bit better than my best CRT.

That's perfectly fine, and I'm glad that you're happy with your choice. I guess perhaps I took offense at some other's stances that ... I should learn to love LCD, because that's the way the industry is moving, and soon I will have no choice. That's the wrong way to go about it, I think. It should be my choice what display technology that I want to use. Whether that will cost more or less, depends on the market, and there certainly are pricing advantages to being part of the majority rather than the minority. I have no problem dealing with that "reality", but apparently some take offense at that, and don't feel that basic market economics should apply to them.

 

[ribbon13]

You're numbers are, the big players in the CRT game (Sony Mitsubishi) have just about totally dropped out of the game. Sony's not selling any CRTs, and I think Mitsubishi is just selling 22" CRTs and I think they are leaving the game VERY shortly too. Dell is pretty much bundling all their awesome desktop deals with LCDs. I also don't hear the common consumer or even alot of the geeks here at AT saying, "man, I'm trading my CRT in for another CRT." Yes, there are some that will go to another CRT, but the majority are moving to LCD. There is no denying that.

That has got to be the biggest crock of bullshit I have ever heard... Care to prove that?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Here's my prediction (and hopefully final post), on when we will finally converge onto a "DVI only" world - when the lowest-end (generally also the highest-volume too) "integrated" motherboard video, ships by default with a DVI only output connector. At that point, then even the lowest-end LCD displays bundled with the pre-built OEM systems, will also therefore have to ship with DVI input connectors, or bundle DVI-to-VGA dongles. That will be the transition point, signalling that DVI's incremental cost over analog VGA connectors has reached the zero-point. Not until at least then, will we start to see video cards shipping with only DVI outputs by default, and given my prior statements about CRTs longevity in the high-end display market, I'm not certain that the analog VGA connector will ever totally disappear at the high-end. I think that it is far more likely that the product line will bifuricate instead, and there will be a DVI/DVI card, as well as a DVI/VGA or VGA/VGA card. But that will likely not happen before the value-segment "transition-point" does. That's my prediction.

 

[alius]

Here's my prediction (and hopefully final post), on when we will finally converge onto a "DVI only" world - when the lowest-end (generally also the highest-volume too) "integrated" motherboard video, ships by default with a DVI only output connector. At that point, then even the lowest-end LCD displays bundled with the pre-built OEM systems, will also therefore have to ship with DVI input connectors, or bundle DVI-to-VGA dongles. That will be the transition point, signalling that DVI's incremental cost over analog VGA connectors has reached the zero-point. Not until at least then, will we start to see video cards shipping with only DVI outputs by default, and given my prior statements about CRTs longevity in the high-end display market, I'm not certain that the analog VGA connector will ever totally disappear at the high-end. I think that it is far more likely that the product line will bifuricate instead, and there will be a DVI/DVI card, as well as a DVI/VGA or VGA/VGA card. But that will likely not happen before the value-segment "transition-point" does. That's my prediction.

Thats a very valid point but I think similar ones have been made previously, by myself and I believe the OP as well. That the whole dual DVI thing is only going to be present in the high mid to high end ranges. Which is definately reasonable. I think the OPs point was the fact that he couldn't find a lower end high range card that fit his needs, and was basically wondering why it hasn't become more available due to the increasing rate of LCD adoption.

This isn't a knock on you at all, just further explaining my previous point I guess.

 

[pkypkypky]

LCD so suck for me. My eyes can't seem to adjust to the brightness of the whites. I'll admit I'm very sensitive. I had a toshiba from monitorsdirect last year that was supposed to be high-end at the time and I have recently tried out my GF's dell 1905FP that I found for her. Both have proved to me that nothing can please my eyes more than my flat 19" samsung CRT. The picture is getting better, but you can't convince me that LCD looks better. Definitely cooler and no doubt, I wanted extra desk spacef, but I just can't for my poor eyes.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Um, you are aware that the majority of cheap VGA LCD owners don't purchase $400+ video cards, right? You are also aware that my push is for high end dual DVI cards, right?

High end gaming video cards. The same people who are most likely to by a high end CRT.

I like this genius remark. If my CRT is lousy, then 98% of the other CRTs out there are a total sh!t piles.

Of course, I thought that went without saying. They are the people who deserve Intel Extreme Graphics- and overwhelmingly they are happy with it.

And I'm not going to start a Larry post again and start replying to each quote you make. We will see if I'm right. Only time will tell. Like I said, my predictions is that most next gen high end gaming video cards will be dual DVI.

That is the direction the industry is heading in, although you must realize that the DVI interface intself is crap for high end displays beyond current "normal" limitations.

I replied to your anti CRT/pro LCD drivel. The good DLP displays utilize DVI along with Plasmas and most of the remaining decent CRTs(although these are now costing close to an order of magnitude more then LCDs).

Just go to BestBuy and compare Sharp Aquous 45" LCD panel versus any plasma or projection TV of any type.

Actually, it was an Aquos sitting next to a Tau(50" DLP) that I was comparing. The Aquos looked extremely poor, the colors were very washed out- there was no real black and there was an incredible amount of red push.

You must not have used a quality LCD for any extended period of time, even the 25hrz refresh rate LCDS had little noticable ghosting if they were the upper teir ones.

I have never seen a LCD display with a sub 60Hz refresh rate- are you talking about the latency? The IBM monitor linked to is limited by the extremely narrow(for the resolution) bandwidth possible over DVI- it is a serious issue because of the interface.

LCDs aren't as bad as people make them out to be and I'm sure that 12hz IBM is an excellent moniter.

They are far worse then most people make them out to be. It is a bit of the "you get used to it" issue going on. You got used to ghosting. It is much like people being adjusted to watching low framerate video feeds(myself included). I spend too much time watching 60FPS vid feeds and then try and watch a movie I get a headache from the extremely low framerate. Give it a while and I "get used to it" and don't have a major problem with it anymore. I picked my monitor up a bit over a year ago and paid more for it then a 'comparable' LCD(Dell 2001FP- supposed to be king of the hill) because whenever reasonable I will pick something being done right over getting used to second tier.

 

[JackBurton]

Larry, I'm tired of playing the quote game with you, and I don't feel like repeating myself either. All the questions you've asked have been answered in this thread. Whether you like the answers is a different story. Like I said, we ARE moving toward dual DVI, it's just a matter of time. And I predict it coming very shortly (I'd say within 2 generations of video card starting with the high end cards).

I think this thread has run its course. And I am done with it.


P.S. I'm right, you're wrong.

 

[Bar81]

Again, you don't provide *any* support for your statements besides your own conjecture which I'm sorry to say doesn't come close to proving your point. I also find it interesting how the imminent move to dual DVI has suddenly become "within 2 generations" which indicates that you are understanding, to a point, that your predictions are wishful thinking.

 

[knyghtbyte]

Being honest, the backplate parts of a graphics card dont cost much, its metal and plastic with very little moulding needed and some pin connections.....

i'd be happy to pay a small amount extra on a card to get the following

a card with 2 x DVI and 2 x AGP......no reason it cant be done.... this would of course mean needing a 2 slot card, but what the hell, how many people honestly use up every slot in full size tower case?
and those with small form factor cases, put up with what you can, you wanted it restricted in the first place!


rule 14 in life, always look for the easiest solution regardless of cost

 

[jiffylube1024]

Larry - thanks for the kind words in general.

Regarding LCD - I'm not so much looking at the price savings in power (power is cheap for running a single monitor), just that there's no point for 95% of the population to be using CRT.

Regarding SUV's - I think it's a disturbing trend that encourages agressive and/or bad driving in many people. I know SUV drivers who are excellent drivers. I also know SUV drivers who are rich daughters that don't drive very well but their fathers want them to be safe so they equip their poor driving daughters with so they don't get themselves hurt/killed. Plus there's the whole pointless "bling bling" of driving a gigantic vehicle, like a humvee or the absurd Hummer H2, proving the masses are idiots.

In terms of cheap LCD manufacturing - you're right that the 17" and below market will be the first with very cheap panels. Above that will take some time.

About DVI - when LCD's become the dominant screen in the computer market (which will happen unless there's a revolution in the OLED market or something incredible comes in the next 5 years, which is doubtful (10-15 years is another story), what connection will they use? Standard VGA? They should be running on DVI - LCD runs as a digital interface.

I know that no display is 'truly' digital, but the way that LCD's work (each pixel being a 1:1 mapping of the pixels from the video card to the screen) is better suited to be handled by an all-digital interface before being output to the screen.

 

[glugglug]

My $169 19" CRT displays 2560x1600 (same res as the 30" Mac LCD) readably driven by an All-In-Wonder 9700, using only 1 of the video outputs.

Show me the DVI card that can do this. Oh yeah, that's right, DVI can't approach that. So much for VGA being obsolete.

P.S. The HIGH end won't be all DVI any time soon. The LOW end unfortunately might be.

 

[housecat]

I hate to say it, but if you were right.. you wouldnt see so many people choosing 30" LCDs over your 19".
A 19" CRT doesnt hold a candle to that 30" apple cinema. You must be joking.

I'm sure 2560x1600 looks real great on a cheap 19" CRT.

Give me Diamontron, or give me death.
Or since Diamondtrons are gone, and death is unappealing... just a good LCD.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: glugglug
My $169 19" CRT displays 2560x1600 (same res as the 30" Mac LCD) readably driven by an All-In-Wonder 9700, using only 1 of the video outputs.

Show me the DVI card that can do this. Oh yeah, that's right, DVI can't approach that. So much for VGA being obsolete.

P.S. The HIGH end won't be all DVI any time soon. The LOW end unfortunately might be.

Man, I just have to come back for this one. Can you please give me the model of that 19" CRT? This should be interesting.

Edit: Oh I just noticed, you're combining the resolutions from two sh!tty CRTs. Sorry buddy, not the same.

Show me the DVI card that can do this. Oh yeah, that's right, DVI can't approach that. So much for VGA being obsolete.

This one? Try 2500x1600 x 2. So much for VGA.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: glugglug
My $169 19" CRT displays 2560x1600 (same res as the 30" Mac LCD) readably driven by an All-In-Wonder 9700, using only 1 of the video outputs.

Show me the DVI card that can do this. Oh yeah, that's right, DVI can't approach that. So much for VGA being obsolete.

P.S. The HIGH end won't be all DVI any time soon. The LOW end unfortunately might be.

Man, I just have to come back for this one. Can you please give me the model of that 19" CRT? This should be interesting.

Edit: Oh I just noticed, you're combining the resolutions from two sh!tty CRTs. Sorry buddy, not the same.

Nope, just 1 CRT, not 2, although it does have dual inputs (VGA & BNC). It's an LG Flatron 91FT+, does that 2560x1600 at 64Hz. (YEs, I know 64Hz sucks, I really use it more at 1920x1440 @76Hz which is still way above anything DVI will do).

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: Bar81
Interesting, I hadn't realized that they were using DVI-I, which would explain why those cheasy adapters work. I'm quite surprised the port isn't DVI-D as they can cut out the expense of the DAC. I'm guessing they'd rather have universal compatibility for those looking to drive two CRT monitors but also give the LCD crowd something to like. It makes sense when you think about the number of CRT users, even gamers, out there in comparison to LCD converts.

But they aren't always DVI-I -- for a while ATI was making Radeons with VGA HD15 and DVI-D. A lot of people bought them for use with dual CRTs and complained loudly when it didn't work. After a while NewEgg added the comment that "DVI-VGA adapters won't work with this card" to their product description.

As I've said before, bottom line is that manufacturers are out to make money. It's all about marketshare and product demand. The move to DVI is happening very slowly but is inevitable for the simple reason that it's less expensive for the manufacturer. That's the same reason why Dell dropped floppies and PS/2 (keyboard) connectors from their newer machines. It's going to be like SATA adoption. Eventually IDE connectors will disappear, but it's going to take a very long time.

As for 2560x1600 at 64Hz, that's likely beyond the true error-free bandwidth of most analog connections. I bet if you displayed a loose horizontal and vertical crosshatch of one pixel wide lines at those specs you'd find the vertical lines were less bright than the horizontal.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: L00PY

As for 2560x1600 at 64Hz, that's likely beyond the true error-free bandwidth of most analog connections. I bet if you displayed a loose horizontal and vertical crosshatch of one pixel wide lines at those specs you'd find the vertical lines were less bright than the horizontal.

It would look that way, but not because of the bandwidth. 2560x1600 does not have square pixels on a 4:3 aspect ratio monitor, so the pixels are narrower than they are tall.

As far as what the error-free bandwidth limitation is, I believe this to be determined more by today's RAMDAC's than the actual cabling. With my old video card (GeForce 2 GTS/Pro) in this mode, there would be pixel jitter at certain points, usually about 2/3 of the way down the screen, possibly from the RAMDAC failing to keep up. (It's only supposed to go up to 300MHz on a GeForce 2, that res requires about a 350MHz dot clock). On the 9700 the RAMDAC is actually rated for 400 or 450MHz, forget which, and it does not have this problem. Oh, and if you try to run a mode like this through a KVM, forget about it, even a high quality KVM is gonna give you a ton of ghosting. I've seen ghosting caused by the DVI-I adapters at high dot clocks as well.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: housecat
LCD caught up in response rate ect. and now CRT is trying to emulate, so we know who overtook who here.

Wow. Clueless. Btw, for all of your pro-LCD babbling, and some of it is true (power savings, etc.) - you left out the part where LCDs still have an extremely limited viewing angle compared to any CRT. This may also limit the maximum size that they can effectively be built at, depending on the distance from the viewer, because from any one particular viewpoint, a portion of the screen will be at such an angle, that there will be noticable color distortion. (You do realize that LCDs work by a pair of cross-polarized "shutters", with color filters and a backlight, right? The polarization used with respect to the angle of the viewer is what is the problem here, and that problem is inherent in the LCD technology itself. So LCD will always be saddled with that problem, and CRTs will not.)

Btw, with all of your complaints about lack of sharpness, color, etc., on CRTs - methinks that you have never ever used a "professional-grade" CRT, like a nice focused and color-calibrated Trinitron 20", for example.

Let me ask you this question - would you rather your medical doctor, look at your brain-scans, on a high-quality high-resolution CRT, or on an LCD display? Be honest here.

With all due respect:

http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=MIGR-39635


http://www-1.ibm.com/industries/healthc...ontent/resource/insight/940975105.html


http://www-1.ibm.com/industries/healthc...tent/resource/technical/977319105.html

 

[imported_humey]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzz :thumbsdown: getting boring flame war now aint it, not even about topic its change to crt v lcd.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: L00PY
As I've said before, bottom line is that manufacturers are out to make money. It's all about marketshare and product demand. The move to DVI is happening very slowly but is inevitable for the simple reason that it's less expensive for the manufacturer. That's the same reason why Dell dropped floppies and PS/2 (keyboard) connectors from their newer machines. It's going to be like SATA adoption. Eventually IDE connectors will disappear, but it's going to take a very long time.

That's an interestion analogy - but by the same token, PS/2 ports, floppy drives, and PATA IDE haven't disappeared yet. Not by a long shot. You can still easily find them in stores, etc. The only difference is, the pre-built OEM branded boxes being sold, in order to cut costs to the bone, have eliminated them as "extra" features.

As far as your comment that "DVI.... is less expensive for the mfg", I disagree, I think what you meant to say is that low-end LCDs are less expensive to bundle with systems, or something. The DVI connector itself has more pins, and is slightly more complex, thus it still costs more to mfg (in an absolute materials-cost/assembly sense), and today, since there are still for more analog VGA connectors in use, just in terms of scale of supply and mfg capacity, the good old VGA HD15 connector will be cheaper to use for quite some time to come.

So I feel that for for the same reason that OEMs removed floppies and PS/2 ports, they will likely not adopt DVI ports by default, for price-sensitive systems. Time will tell.

Originally posted by: L00PY
As for 2560x1600 at 64Hz, that's likely beyond the true error-free bandwidth of most analog connections. I bet if you displayed a loose horizontal and vertical crosshatch of one pixel wide lines at those specs you'd find the vertical lines were less bright than the horizontal.

That's one heck of a resolution for an analog output, certainly. What is that, like 230Mhz or more of video bandwidth necessary? Hope he's using shielded BNC cables.

 

[s8v4o]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Why are high end video cards coming with a VGA and DVI connector? Shouldn't they just give you dual DVI connections? You can go DVI>VGA with an adapter if you still have a CRT, but you can't do VGA>DVI. I have to buy a $600 card (X800XT PE) to get dual DVI. Or I can get a X850XT with a VGA and DVI connector for $470. WTH? Is it a money thing where it costs substantially more to implement a dual DVI solution?.

I'm sure cost is a major factor. The 15pin VGA setup has got to be cheap as hell to make as they have been around forever. Since DVI is newer it's naturally going to be more expensive. Hence not all cards being dual DVI. Plus I think it's a matter of supply and demand as well. That is of course unless VGA and DVI are about the same price to manufacture, which means we are really getting bent-over!

 

[cbehnken]

Why doesn't Mr. larry show me a CRT that doesn't blur over time?

I've never seen one that doesn't, no Trinitrons, Dimanondtrons, or Invar Shadow Masks.

They ALL blur overtime if you use them a lot. That's why I went LCD. There will never blur and will in almost all cases function just as new as long as there are technologically viable. (Many years)

You guys are like the old timers who said fuel injection would never be better than a carb.

Guess we see who won that arguement....

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Why doesn't Mr. larry show me a CRT that doesn't blur over time?

I'm not so sure that I understand your reasoning behind this comment.. would you likewise show me an LCD that doesn't have "backlight fade" over time? Oh, that's right, both CRT displays and LCDs (and their required backlights), both lose brightness over time.
As far as focus issues, that has to do with component aging over time too, and the circuits that drive LCDs can also suffer from component aging, although with some of those components being in the solid-state/digital realm moreso than CRTs, the likelyhood is greater than an LCD will just simply suddenly fail, rather than "grow old" like a CRT. Besides, CRTs can be tuned up and adjusted, although few do so because of the labor costs.

Btw, one of the things that can happen to LCDs as they age, is a "pixel registration" problem, where the signal used to drive particular pixels, gets offset by a sub-pixel width horizontally, because the sync-tracking PLL circuit components can age.

Most people don't realize this, since consumer-level LCDs are mostly a new technology, and there are few if any LCDs out in the field today that are > five years old.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
I've never seen one that doesn't, no Trinitrons, Dimanondtrons, or Invar Shadow Masks.
They ALL blur overtime if you use them a lot. That's why I went LCD. There will never blur and will in almost all cases function just as new as long as there are technologically viable. (Many years)

Hope you enjoy your LCD backlight fade. If you somehow don't believe that this happens, visit the "AVS forums", and do a search on "display longevity" of the various types. They have all of the tech info.

Originally posted by: cbehnken
You guys are like the old timers who said fuel injection would never be better than a carb.
Guess we see who won that arguement....

It's not always better - if your engine computer ("electronic multi-port computer-controller fuel-injection") gets screwed, you can't even manually fiddle with the carb and the throttle to get it started. But that analogy is a bit oblique to the CRT/LCD comparison.

 

[ZL1]

lol, wireless vcards out there ?
vga (video graphics adapter) connector is a category it includes dvi and d-sub


D

PS: about dvi vs d-sub, pro sector is on d-sub (ex Sony F520 CRT wins easily over most (any IMO) new LCD)