Anyone still stubborn like me and prefer CRT over LCD?

[MaxDepth]

:thumbsup: to CRT TV

 

[mithrandir2001]

CRT analog TV and CRT analog computer monitors here.

LCDs are neat looking from a form-factor perspective, being svelte and all.

But CRTs provide a smoother, more balanced image, at a cheaper price to boot.

 

[KoolDrew]

I like CRT's because I'm cheap. The CRT I'm using now is a Mitsubishi Diamond Plus 200 22" that I bought for $90. 🙂

 

[JulesMaximus]

LCDs are smaller, lighter, brighter, easier on your eyes, have a larger viewing area for a comparably sized CRT and they consume less power. Hmm, I don't see a downside. Thanks anyway, but I'll stick with LCDs.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
LCDs are smaller, lighter, brighter, easier on your eyes, have a larger viewing area for a comparably sized CRT and they consume less power. Hmm, I don't see a downside. Thanks anyway, but I'll stick with LCDs.

IDK about ths larger viewing area, most 19in LCDs only run 1280x1024, every 19 in CRT that i have ever owned has run 1600x1200, yes they are smaller and i gues sif you have a tiny desk they work for you but i still love my dual 19in CRTs

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
LCDs are smaller, lighter, brighter, easier on your eyes, have a larger viewing area for a comparably sized CRT and they consume less power. Hmm, I don't see a downside. Thanks anyway, but I'll stick with LCDs.

IDK about ths larger viewing area, most 19in LCDs only run 1280x1024, every 19 in CRT that i have ever owned has run 1600x1200, yes they are smaller and i gues sif you have a tiny desk they work for you but i still love my dual 19in CRTs

..But 20" LCD run well 1600x1200. Don't tell me that UXGA on 19" CRT is usable. Been there, seen that. Even on 21" CRT 1600x1200 is a difficult because high refresh rate on high resolutions make image lack sharpness.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
LCDs are smaller, lighter, brighter, easier on your eyes, have a larger viewing area for a comparably sized CRT and they consume less power. Hmm, I don't see a downside. Thanks anyway, but I'll stick with LCDs.

IDK about ths larger viewing area, most 19in LCDs only run 1280x1024, every 19 in CRT that i have ever owned has run 1600x1200, yes they are smaller and i gues sif you have a tiny desk they work for you but i still love my dual 19in CRTs

..But 20" LCD run well 1600x1200. Don't tell me that UXGA on 19" CRT is usable. Been there, seen that. Even on 21" CRT 1600x1200 is a difficult because high refresh rate on high resolutions make image lack sharpness.

...but a 20 in LCD costs like 3x what a 19in CRT does

ive been running 1600x1200 on 2 19in CRTs for liek 6 years at 75-85Hz depending on the monitors themselfs, and things look great, hell i have a 17in CRT that will do 1600x1200 @ 75Hz, its pretty sweet

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
LCDs are smaller, lighter, brighter, easier on your eyes, have a larger viewing area for a comparably sized CRT and they consume less power. Hmm, I don't see a downside. Thanks anyway, but I'll stick with LCDs.

IDK about ths larger viewing area, most 19in LCDs only run 1280x1024, every 19 in CRT that i have ever owned has run 1600x1200, yes they are smaller and i gues sif you have a tiny desk they work for you but i still love my dual 19in CRTs

..But 20" LCD run well 1600x1200. Don't tell me that UXGA on 19" CRT is usable. Been there, seen that. Even on 21" CRT 1600x1200 is a difficult because high refresh rate on high resolutions make image lack sharpness.

...but a 20 in LCD costs like 3x what a 19in CRT does

ive been running 1600x1200 on 2 19in CRTs for liek 6 years at 75-85Hz depending on the monitors themselfs, and things look great, hell i have a 17in CRT that will do 1600x1200 @ 75Hz, its pretty sweet

I'm sorry but 1600x1200 on a 19" CRT is kind of small and on a 17" CRT is outright ridiculous. You must like making your eyes really focus and concentrate. LCDs' native resolutions are usually spot on with the balance between readability and real estate. For example, 19" LCD native res is 1280x1024, 19" CRT "default" res is 1280x960. Pretty close.

And as Jules said, they are brighter and much easier on your eyes. The perfect geometry is also really nice. I was home for break and used my father's 19" CRT for a week. It was fine and I had no problem with it, but when I came back to school and turned on my 19" LCD, I was like, whoa...forgot what this looks like. So crisp and bright and "up front."

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

The best redeeming point of CRTs is that I can get a Trinitron/Diamondtron tube 19" in decent condition for ~$10. Gotta love college towns 😛

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: Anubis
....

...but a 20 in LCD costs like 3x what a 19in CRT does

ive been running 1600x1200 on 2 19in CRTs for liek 6 years at 75-85Hz depending on the monitors themselfs, and things look great, hell i have a 17in CRT that will do 1600x1200 @ 75Hz, its pretty sweet

1. CRTs are no longer being developed (or pretty much made)
2. Barely twice the price... so GeForce 6200LE is much cheaper than 7600GS, which one would you want?
3. I can eat whole large pizza, it is sweet too, but useless as well.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: archcommus
I'm sorry but 1600x1200 on a 19" CRT is kind of small and on a 17" CRT is outright ridiculous. You must like making your eyes really focus and concentrate. LCDs' native resolutions are usually spot on with the balance between readability and real estate. For example, 19" LCD native res is 1280x1024, 19" CRT "default" res is 1280x960. Pretty close.

And as Jules said, they are brighter and much easier on your eyes. The perfect geometry is also really nice. I was home for break and used my father's 19" CRT for a week. It was fine and I had no problem with it, but when I came back to school and turned on my 19" LCD, I was like, whoa...forgot what this looks like. So crisp and bright and "up front."

1600x1200 on a 19" CRT is not small at all, in fact I find it kind of big. On a 17" CRT it's kind of small, but not too bad.
Pixel densities are decreasing as the more technophobic start to finally use computers and try to get closer to the absurdly large text sizes present in most movies so that the screen can be read without zooming to it.

I took a photo of the text in this forum on my 19" CRT (18" viewable) at 2048x1536, at standard 100% text size. Note that the resolution really is there, and it's totally readable. The photo looks brighter than the real thing, but you get the idea.

2048x1536

For the heck of it I went and added a photo of 2560x1600 (Apple 30" resolution), on my $169 CRT. Show me the LCD that will do this under $2000.

2560x1600

The real thing is totally clear. Unfortunately, my camera is not the greatest. That and I had to lower the shutter speed since I can only do 64Hz in that mode, and probably didn't hold the camera still enough.

For the truly insane, here is 2666x2000. The picture actually came out better than the 2560x1600 one, even though this is above the resolution of the 5 megapixel photo itself:

2666x2000

It is still quite readable, but lets just say the refresh leaves something to be desired, and the video card is finicky about even switching into that mode.

 

[SZLiao214]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
lcd takes up much less space and has a nicer viewing space (1680x1050) Crt's are just tough to look at having gone widescreen. There is no going back.

Sony WS CRT FTW 😉

24" of monsterous goodness :Q

Just looked one up, 108 pounds shipping rate :shocked:

 

[thescreensavers]

CRT PWN

 

[xcript]

I prefer the look of a good CRT display.

That said, I recently switched from a 17" MAG CRT to a 19" Dell E196FP as a) I got it for free, b) it's larger, and c) now all the stuff on my desk is black/silver. 😛