Originally posted by: bocamojo
My 20.1" LCD is the equivelent of 22" CRT, in terms of screen size, and I paid a very reasonable amount (around 600 w/ shipping and tax). Also, I get no eye strain or any other problems with my LCD, and I use it a minimum of 10 hours a day. Lastly, my LCD runs very cool compared to a CRT, and does not raise the temps in my home office like a CRT would, and takes up a small footprint on my desk, allowing me to fill that space with other stuff. Face it, CRT's are old technology, and LCD's are the future.
Mine generates very little heat but you are correct it would be less. Your conclusion is also not incorrect, just incomplete. CRT is old technology and LCD MAY be the new technology but currently LCD is not even close to a CRT.
Originally posted by: Matthias99I'm not sure they cost "many times" more than an equivalent CRT monitor (a 20" LCD is about $500-700 now, and a good 21/22" CRT is still in the $300-400 range last I checked).
Agreed. But, get an equivilent CRT and you will pay well under 300-400. The problem you may have is finding a CRT with a .295 dot pitch. Thus, you may have to step up to a good (as you stated) monitor.
The best quality LCD that I could find was $700 and was 19". The CRT that I'm settling for (even though it is not as good as they were four years ago) is $650. The difference in quality is extreme.
Huh? Move the monitor back a bit if you think the pixels are too far apart (ie, you're sitting too close to the screen). On an LCD monitor you're seeing every pixel of the signal, whereas on a CRT you *can* lose detail if the dot pitch is too low.
When you need to see the pixels on a CRT the image can be magnified. The point is on a same sized CRT at the same resolution you can't see the pixels on a CRT but are plainly visible (in text) on an LCD.
Again, I'm confused. LCDs are a digital display, and display pixel-perfect razor-sharp 2D images. Text and 2D images on an LCD monitor should be flawless unless you're not running it at native res (and in that case, ClearType helps a *lot* for text).
Strange, if they are so razor-sharp how come graphics designers return them, text is difficult to read, software must be run to help make it more readable.
Many people find today's 12/16ms monitors to be acceptable in terms of refresh, and the newer 8ms displays are a step up from that. Hopefully the 4ms displays due out in a month or so will basically eliminate ghosting as an issue.
The 8 ms refresh are better but have too much ghosting. To get the refresh rates sacrifices have been made with how far the twisting of the LCD can be allowed. This cuts down on color and the viewable range. Again, more money and less quality.
They're cutting production because people want LCD monitors. Not the other way around.
By that logic people would flock to purchase the lower quality car but pay more for that the highest quality cars. If that ever becomes reality we are in big trouble!
Originally posted by: NokiaDude
You have to remember that LCD's are still a new technology. CRT's when first introduced SUCKED. Just give it some time. LCD's will definitely surpass CRT monitors in the long run.
Not a problem My question is most people flock to new technology because they had no substitute or the quality was much better. VCR's when there was no option. Disc beause the quality was much better. So, why would anyone want to pay $5,000 for a second generation VCR when they can purchase a $100 state of the art DVD. See, higher cost lower quality. At worst they would purchase a current generation VCR.
That said, CRT can suffer from burn-in where LCDs can not.
It is very difficult to burn in a CRT these days even if you don't use a screen saver. My Wifes monitor is always on with her desktop displayed. I have changed the screen color from white to black to avoid the added brightness. My guess is her monitor has been off less than 2 weeks total over the past 4 years. She uses the system about 2 hours each week. It has yet to burn in any icon.
Yet, LCD's can lose pixels and indeed most of them have already done so before being delivered to the store. There is even a minimum number that have to be damaged before it can be returned. Sad. Not all LCD monitors are bad out of the box, but what about in 4 years.
Originally posted by: jkyle
I dont miss giving 30% of my desktop area to it.
I dont miss the waves of heat coming out it.
I dont miss the lights not flickering when switched on.
I dont miss the impossability of having to ship it back somewhere for service.
I dont miss it at all
You should have gotten a better CRT! That is one of the reasons that I do buy the best instead of the cheapest. AS for the space. There is "footprint" and useable space. Are you really storing items behind your current monitor? The width does save you about 2" and if that is 30% of your desktop area you have bigger problems!
Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
I think this is what we call a "flamebait" post around here.
Anyways, everyone has their own preferences, and LCD's and CRT's both have their own strong points.
I used to be one of the biggest "fanboys" of CRT's. I briefly owned a 22" CRT that could do 1600x1200 at 109Hz and 2048x1536 at 86Hz, and while it was sweet for gaming, it was just not so hot for text....even slightly blurry,
Thanks! I really don't like the 21" or 22" monitors. Yeah, for gaming maybe! I will, based on your comment, not get a 22" and will get the 19". However, those refresh rates seem normal for todays CRT they are low for the CRT's of 4 years ago.
As for flamebait, perhaps. I see that LCD's are the rage and that "everyone" is buying them. So far the main reasons have been size and weight. No one has said the quailty is better or they were cheaper. My question was why? I have a friend that owns one but it is in a very special situation where there is not much more space than the size of the computer to place the system. The LCD is mounted on the wall.
Unfortunately I don't follow the crowd and don't even follow the drummer. I really wanted to move to an LCD for all the reasons given. Fewer emissions, coolness, etc. But, the value and quality are not there.
This is not the case where other technology is absent. I do see that eventually (hopefully not 20 years) LCD technology will be MUCH better than it is today. I also see that LCD technology for the environment is MUCH better. Which is the primary reason that I really wanted to change. But, if this is the only reason to change then we really should get rid of the automobile!
Originally posted by: nyarrgh
What 17" monitor are you running at 1024 x 768 ? All 17" LCD's I've seen (at least the good ones) do not have 1024X768 native resolution. Running at other than native resolution is something LCD's do not do as well yet.
I'm hoping for a 17" or 19" LCD monitor with notebook type pixel density. I saw a dell laptop with a 14" (or was it 15) LCD running at native 1400x1050.
Actually, I used to run them at 1280x and now have to run them at 1152x unless designing a screen then they are run at 1024x.
The LCD monitors that I have checked were at their native resolution and looked terrible. I then went and read a lot about LCD's including user opinions. Then I went back to researching CRT's but... no reviews and the best CRT's are no longer made. Asking others whose opinons are different than mine and in a broad audience is a good way to find out if I have missed something. So far, no. Quality simply is not a concern of many.
Originally posted by: Bar81
Apparently, the OP is confused. Your question should have been why step BACK to CRTs?
nah. My title was unclear. It should have been Why step back in quality for monitors. I agree that CRT is older technology. The quality of the best LCD's appears worse than the worst CRT's. that is what I met.
Three, it doesn't simulate a thermonuclear reactor in its heat generation like my old 19" Mitsu CRT did, so I don't get heatstroke sitting in the same room as it.
Wow, everyone was having heat problems with their monitors. That make me concerned about this new monitor... In the past I have used Viewsonic and Hitachi. Neither had such issues. (Crossing fingers, and eyes.)
Five, no geometry issues (and NO, you can never get a flatscreen CRT to be perfect geometry wise no matter how hard you tweak it.)
Excellent point. I do use flat CRT's for that purpose and it is obvious that LCD will be much better in this area.
Seventh, LCDs don't have to ghost, if you select one that doesn't; if you think all LCDs ghost then you have no idea what you're talking about.
That is what the reviewers have said about the 8mm LCD's. I have seen the ghosting in the stores but only on games when a lot of action is going on. I only play AC and WoW but have played Quake and other similar games in the past. Perhaps it is like the lines on the Multisync. If I'm not looking for it it would not be noticed. Now, I'm wondering why the reviewers who are praising the monitors would mention the ghosting.
Eighth, HUGE decrease in eye strain when working with it all day. Let me repeat, HUGE decrease.
This and the emissions are one of the reasons why I wanted to purchase one. I program 8 hours at work (10 hours - less on-line breaks... no lunch), then work or play games at home 3-4 hours. On the weekend my time is about the same.
At work there is a lot of strain because the monitors are "cheap" at home the monitors create little if any strain. Put me on the Dell Latitude 7000 laptop for 2 hours and my vision is all screwed up and requires a break which requires closing my eyes and eliminating light.
Nineth, DVI-DVI interface reduces video degradation and reproduces accurate colors without tweaking.
Interesting, the reviewers have stated that calibration often requires tweaking at various color temperatures, brightnesses, and contrast to get the specific monitor to look right.
It's quite apparent that the OP has no clue when it comes to LCDs. Bright as the sun? Not clear text? Can see the pixels? Sorry guy, WAY off. A high quality LCD with a DVI-DVI interface exhibits none of these characteristics. Suggest you stop using 15" Walmart special LCDs.
Wow, first flame of the day. Well, it was a mild one! BTW, what is the brand of your LCD monitor. I will check it out at a store if one is available. Hopefully I can find a good one!
btw, OP, were the only LCDs you saw in a store? If so, to judge LCDs based on models and presentation in store is a mistake you should never repeat for any technology item.
More flames. ok, here is one for you. Unlike you I try to spend under five thousand dollars on computer equipment each year. Thus, I can't afford to mail order one LCD monitor after another to find out if one is good. Thus, I depend on the reviewers such as Anandtech, TomsHardware. You are the first to suggest that they don't know what they are talking about. I will take your inside knowledge upon advisement and file it immediately.
As for the stores, that is the only place that I can see the monitors. Perhaps breaking into homes is an alternative but that is not how I was raised. Heck, even all my software (shareware included) is paid for.
Originally posted by: fierydemise
Originally posted by: NokiaDude
You have to remember that LCD's are still a new technology. CRT's when first introduced SUCKED. Just give it some time. LCD's will definitely surpass CRT monitors in the long run.
That is dead on, I like my CRT now but in a couple years LCDs will have completely surpassed CRTs then I'll switch, until then I will take my NEC FE991 over almost any LCD.
I too look forward to changing. The benefits, once the image quality has improved, are SO much better. My friend also suggested an NEC. I will look at them again.
Thanks for all the responses. I have learned a few things, as expected, and that is always good.
Remember, if you only ask advice from people who think as you do then you never learn anything. Which is why I say to Michael Moore, "if you think Americans are bad and stupid then get a different group of friends."