Got 2x GDM-FW900's myself (for several years now). I also have a 24" LCD (Dell 2405FPW) and a 65" DLP HDTV compatible with 3D Vision.
Watching movies on the FW900 is breathtaking. CRT was always great tech for watching movies, and on this best-of-the-best-of-the-best CRT ever made, my jaws are always dropped when watching movies on it. One drawback though is that it's only 22.5" viewable size - my 24" LCD does feel bigger. Also, it's 16:10, not 16:9 (which would be even better for movies). Now I just watch movies on my 65".
What I still use the CRT for is fast-paced gaming, be it deathmatching, frag-fests, racing, or anything that requires twitch response with as little lag as possible. My 60Hz LCD has about 45ms of input lag - the response time was advertised to be about 16ms or so (I can't remember), but the manufacturer-advertised response time is almost never ever an accurate indication of the real response time with everything on the screen changing at once (like doing a 180-degree turn in a game). 60Hz is absolutely ghosty in that respect, too, due to the limitations of LCD tech grey-2-grey and white-2-black response times. Even 2ms is not ghost-free enough for perfect stereo 3D experience.
My 65" DLP has exactly 0.05ms response time due to the 10000rpm DLP color wheel, yielding exhilaratingly ghost-free stereo 3D. I've been playing S3D with my FW900 CRT for years, but the ghosting is bad. It's different from LCD tech, in that although the CRT has instant "fire-up" responsiveness in firing the phosphors to glowing intensity, there is a cool-down period for each individual phosphor to fade from white to black. Sometimes, moving the mouse cursor across a dark background will show a slight ghosting trail.
CRT's have a built-in bloom. At least it's not like LCD's backlight bleeding where there just cannot be true black level at all. Even with CRT's bloom, movies look 10x better quality than on LCD's in general. The pixellated nature of LCD's just don't mesh well with movie viewing experience, period. Also, I need 8x AA on the LCD to make look as smooth as 4x AA on the CRT. Sure, LCD's are a bit sharper even at 1920x1200 for games with detailed textures and stuff, but depending on the game, some games look just fine on CRT's even at 2560x1600 @ 68-69 Hz (which is the resolution I played Dead Space 1 and 2 at, due to the lack of AA for these deferred rendering games, etc..).
Increasing the refresh on CRTs to near 120 KHz (or vertical Hz refresh near the max for whatever resolution) increases the blurriness of text. Decreasing the refresh to just what is acceptable for your tastes makes it sharper... as long as the flicker does not give you headache. 2560x1600 @ 68 Hz was manageable for me, actually - I didn't notice the flicker at all while playing games. 60Hz is another story - just 10 minutes of 60Hz gives me a headache, literally.
140Hz for Stereo 3D is pretty cool, but that means 1280x800. I very much prefer 1504x940 @ 120Hz (which is almost the highest resolution for 120 Hz) or if you can handle a little flicker with the shutterglasses, 1680x1050 @ 108 Hz. Nvidia actually recommends 110Hz refresh rate for indoor environment that is lighted by 110Hz fluorescent bulbs/tubes (1600x1000 @ 110Hz) BTW, the aspect ratio of the CRT is actually more like 16:10.24 rather than 16:10, so doing desktop at a custom resolution with the aspect ratio in mind is ideal (like 1600x1024 or 2000x1280 or 2400x1536).
I also enjoy watching 3D movies at full 1080p @ 96Hz, which is a perfect 4x multiple of 24fps of these movies. The flicker does get noticeable, but it's not as bad as those 3DTV's on the store shelves today riddled with absolutely unbearable flickering!!!
For fast-paced gaming, I generally prefer 1920x1200 @ 95 Hz or 2048x1280 @ 90Hz - but sometimes I like to reduce it by 5 Hz for much more sharpness. Vsync can usually be disabled without noticing any tearing much at all at 90 Hz for many games, and makes most games that much more responsive.
What I love about CRT tech is that it allows for such a wide range of resolutions, refresh rates, S3D support, etc.. whereas on LCD, you're stuck to 1 resolution unless you want to suffer fugly pixel interpolation (if your video card isn't powerful enough to run it at the full rez).
In 2005, when 24" LCD's went for over $1500, Dell was the first to market an awesome 24" PVA panel for only $800. Now, 24" is ahem.. small. Right, guys?
That's the biggest issue I have with it. 22.5" viewable, warm-up time (10 minutes after powering it on for it to not be so blurry), moderate bloom about 1-2 inches around anything really bright, bad ghosting for stereo 3D that I had to put up with for many years with like 20 games or so in S3D - even though it gave me free "effective" 2x1 SSAA due to left and right converged images blending together and priceless depth. Plus the gamma ramp is just a tad bit low when it comes to the darkest greys being nearly invisible if you want the black level to be the blackest black.
What's the deal nowadays with the lack of real 120Hz panels? All of these BS 120Hz HDTV's just cannot handle true 120Hz input, after all these years. Even my 65" DLP does not do true 120Hz input either - it only handles stereo3D by checkerboard format of alternating L/R at 60Hz each, with slight reduction in sharpness.
I would've expected that by 2012, we'd be seeing everything 120Hz by now. Nope, we're still stuck in the dinosaur 60Hz era. Even the fastest 120Hz TN panel can only do true 6-7ms of response time, when no more than 0.5-1ms is acceptable for perfectly ghost-free S3D. That is exactly why I have flat-out refused to buy any new LCD/LED montiors or HDTV's since the last one from 7 years ago! 60Hz has got to die!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like 640x480 and 800x600 no longer being supported by Windows 8, 60Hz needs to go already, no matter what!!