CRT's vs LCD...yes I'm serious.

[BFG10K]

"ghosting" was an issue with LCDs 5+ (rather 10+) years ago. Welcome to 2008. People talking about ghosting on LCDs probably never saw one of the recent 5ms (2ms g/g) LCDs.

Uh, what? Here's a 22" LCD roundup done in Dec 07:

http://www.behardware.com/arti...tors-the-3rd-wave.html

The perfect screen is the CRT at the top, with two discrete images.

Now scroll down the page. Not one of the LCDs tested can replicate that; all of them have afterglow images aka ghosting and there are plenty of 2 ms panels on that page.

Claiming you don?t notice ghosting is fine, but claiming it doesn?t exist is false.

 

[TonyB]

I have an Eizo FlexScan FX-E8 21" which i got in 1998 that I run at 1280x1024 @ 100hz refresh rate.

I also have a 21" F980 also from Eizo which can handle 1600x1200 @ 110hz

both monitors run flawlessly, my FXE8 is 10 years old now and still ticking. I consider myself a hardcore gamer and I always have VSYNC on and triple buffering enabled. my FPS caps at 100fps but I honestly cannot tell the difference between that and say 160FPS when I set my refresh to 160hz.

LCD's may be flatter, thinner, and power efficient but as a hardcore gamer I dont think those benefits are enough to sway me over to LCD at the moment and here is the reason why:

if you want fast response times <2ms and 0 input lag you have to sacrifice viewing angles and crappy color reproduction from using TN panels. well guess what, my CRT dominates all these features already, (fast response times 100hz refresh rate, 0 input lag, superior viewing angles and great color reproduction)

the other benefits that LCD's provide, flatter, thinner, power efficient, and flicker free. well I run at 100hz refresh rate so that rules out flicker, I got a huge desk that can fit a CRT and my rent includes electricity already. so there you have it, for me CRT > LCD.

if OLEDs turns out to be what its hyped up to be or whenever LCD's can support true 120hz refresh rate or higher with 100% color gamut, 0 response times, 0 input lag and 360 degree viewing angles, then yes i will buy that LCD, but for now my FX-E8 and F980 will suffice

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

CRTs for sale at huge US etailer = 5

LCDs for sale at huge US etailer= 200+

I see what you mean, those CRTs are catching on!

This is a strawman argument. Nobody claimed LCDs weren't more popular than CRTs; in fact nobody except you was discussing popularity given it?s irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The people that like the vinyl LPs say they sound better than digital music on a good stereo- how is this different?

It's different because LCD inferiorities can be objectively and scientifically proven, unlike CDs. For a start I don't even think vinyl?s frequency response can match that of a CD, not to mention the fact that vinyl?s sound quality degrades slightly each time you listen to it.

Ahh, but it's a good argument BFG, because the vast majority of the market either couldn't perceive the "provable differences", or didn't care about them enough to keep the CRTs alive.

99.99% of the world think LCDs are preferable and apparently don't care about these "measurable differences".

Do you honestly think if people were still buying CRTs all the companies would have stopped making them? Nobody cared about CRTs- everyone bought LCDs as fast as they could to escape the god awful 4:3 aspect ratio, tiny little screens that weighed 3X as much and took up 3X as much space and used double the power while generating double the heat.

Here's a story for you: When I used to show people my computer with the 22" NEC monitor, they'd look at me like I was a homeless guy, and say stuff like "I thought you were supposed to be this "hardware geek"- what's with the ancient monitor?!"

When I'd explain about the input lag and "how CRTs are really better for gaming" they'd look at me like I was a cult leader telling them to wait for the aliens to come get us.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: TonyB
I have an Eizo FlexScan FX-E8 21" which i got in 1998 that I run at 1280x1024 @ 100hz refresh rate.

I also have a 21" F980 also from Eizo which can handle 1600x1200 @ 110hz

both monitors run flawlessly, my FXE8 is 10 years old now and still ticking. I consider myself a hardcore gamer and I always have VSYNC on and triple buffering enabled. my FPS caps at 100fps but I honestly cannot tell the difference between that and say 160FPS when I set my refresh to 160hz.

LCD's may be flatter, thinner, and power efficient but as a hardcore gamer I dont think those benefits are enough to sway me over to LCD at the moment and here is the reason why:

if you want fast response times <2ms and 0 input lag you have to sacrifice viewing angles and crappy color reproduction from using TN panels. well guess what, my CRT dominates all these features already, (fast response times 100hz refresh rate, 0 input lag, superior viewing angles and great color reproduction)

the other benefits that LCD's provide, flatter, thinner, power efficient, and flicker free. well I run at 100hz refresh rate so that rules out flicker, I got a huge desk that can fit a CRT and my rent includes electricity already. so there you have it, for me CRT > LCD.

if OLEDs turns out to be what its hyped up to be or whenever LCD's can support true 120hz refresh rate or higher with 100% color gamut, 0 response times, 0 input lag and 360 degree viewing angles, then yes i will buy that LCD, but for now my FX-E8 and F980 will suffice

30" 25X16 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>20" 16X12

Hardcore gamers like detailed images and the level of immersion a larger WS monitor provides as well.

But as awesome as that sounds, 2048x1536 is no longer the holy grail of gaming?2560x1600 is.

No one is calling 16X12 the "Holy Grail" of anything- except 10 years ago.

It's pretty easy to see what provides a more realistic gaming experience

Dell enhances 30-incher: they call it 3007WFP-HC, we call it love

 

[Lithan]

Well look, if you still-frame and compare images, ghosting very likely will occur. What you are ignoring is that the monitors are designed with this in mind. It's the same reason old LCD's had greyish blacks. Because by pushing black closer to white, you can improve your white to black response time. Rather than actually making the monitor work properly, it was a band-aid that was required due to technological/production cost limits at the time. On quality monitors today (and really this entire century), rather than use a band-aid, they have their design teams use the magic of science to determine what is noticable. And then they tune the LCD's to get the best performance with no noticeable graphical anomalies. Now if it makes you feel better to claim that you're a superman whose brain doesn't interpret input from the eyes like every other human on the planet, feel free. But I'd bet the guys designing these things have miles of data to say otherwise. Of course I find it hilarious to see the guys bitching about how LCD's have all these graphical anomalies that their hawk-eyes can see promoting Trinitrons. Anyone who actually used Trinitrons back in the day understands why, but I'm curious if any of the guys in this thread know, so I'm not saying.

 

[Lithan]

TonyB, 360* viewing angle is asking a bit much.

 

[TonyB]

nobody ever claimed to have super-human eyesight, but to claim a blanket statement "I can't see the difference with my eyeballs so therefore nobody else can" is pretty ignorant of the fact that different people have different degrees of eyesight. As for me, i never owned a trinitron, all my EIzo's are shadow mask but i'm assuming you're talking about those two horizonal support wires that can be easily seen on a white background.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Lithan
Of course I find it hilarious to see the guys bitching about how LCD's have all these graphical anomalies that their hawk-eyes can see promoting Trinitrons. Anyone who actually used Trinitrons back in the day understands why, but I'm curious if any of the guys in this thread know, so I'm not saying.

Heh- I forgot about that!

The two grey damger wires that are plainly visible anytime the screen is a fairly light color.

That was pretty freaking annoying, along with the fuzzy text.

 

[shabby]

/me hugs his fw900

Until respons time and input lag is ironed out im never switching to lcd's... unless my fw900 breaks down.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: nRollo
My take on this:

I had a 22" NEC CRT, and feared the "input" lag and less dark blacks.

I am hear to tell anyone reading this that I would cut off my left foot if that was the price of the 3007 WFP-HC and NEC 22"CRT's came with the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders and a $10,000 mail in rebate.

There is no comparison whatsoever to gaming on little square CRTs and a 30" WS at 25X16. The level of immersion having the screen fill your field of vision, and the level of detail 25X16 provides make gaming worthwhile. I'm typing this on my son's 24" WS and I keep noticing the borders of the screeen- that is how much a difference it makes.

Screen and graphics to drive it are the only considerations in PC gaming anymore. I don't see "motion blur", I don't notice "input lag", and I for sure don't notice refresh rate. Read any review of any 25X16 monitor and you will only see the kudos I just heaped on LCDs repeated.

The tiny advantages of CRTs are totally inconsequential compared to the HUGE advantages of LCDs.

If I had to go back to CRTs, you wouldn't see me on the internet anymore- I'd be using my kids 360 on one of our HD TVs. The days of a tiny little window into the virtual world ended years ago.

I have to agree,CRTs just look out of focus compared to the razzor sharp image of LCDs,lets face it CRTs lose their focus over time no matter what brand you have,also don't get me started on how many CRTs I had to rebox and send back due to common problems with CRTs like focusing,geometry etc...

As to trinitrons etc...I hated those damper wires ,annoyed the hell out of me,I love my WS LCD and would never go back to ANY of the best CRTs I have had over the years.

I game all the time with my widescreen LCD and find it enjoyable with no real issues to complain about.I also use a ColorVision monitor calibration tool to get the best out of my LCD etc...

 

[toadeater]

All I'm going to say on this topic is that TN is an abomination. Please, stop buying TN. TN needs to be removed from the market. *VA should be the minimum acceptable quality for an LCD.

 

[taltamir]

I am surprised no one mentioned some of the numerous drawbacks of looking at a CRT:
1. The shake, there is a "shaking" effect to every CRT, the broken ones shake all over the place, but even a highest quality well shielded one "shakes", especially in the edges of the display.
2. It is practically impossible to get a perfectly square image, with an LCD you plug in a DVI cable and every spot is DEAD ON. With a CRT you have a million angle adjustments knobs to tweak, and no matter how much you tweak them it is NEVER perfectly leveled.
3. The flicker, oh how I hate the flicker. If your eyes are sharp enough to catch the ghosting issues and what have you not with an LCD, they should also be sharp enough to see that that each "dot" on the CRT is basically going on and off, flickering from black to color back and forth. This bothers me moreso than a little ghosting while scrolling (which actually I only find bothersome when dealing with TEXT, not with games or movies... Get a window full of text and scroll it down, it will create ghosting, especially if it is white text on black background, or plaids)

And really, manufacturing errors with a monitor, LCD or CRT are just part of life. If yours has a manufacturing error, replace it.
You shouldn't buy anywhere that has a rediculous policy like "minimum 8 dead pixels for return"... trying buying your monitor at COSTCO.com like i did...
90 days no questions asked moneyback AND they will even refund your SHIPPING COST if you bought it online!

I went through 5 monitors until I finally chose one... and they refunded me fully of each and every one of those.
I have to wonder about a company selling shitty hardware at a store that has such a generous return policy... one of them, a sceptre, was truly atrocious... buzzing noise, an auto brightness feature that went from 50% to 100% backlight every 5 seconds, odd clicking noise, improper DVI implementation meaning you had to use VGA for proper aspect ration (as noted in the MANUAL!), and other such atrocities... Worst monitor I have EVER seen in my entire life. Don't buy sceptre... anyways, I settled for a dell ultrasharp 24 inch monitor.


Anyways, nRollo made a very good point. If people didn't all prefer LCD to CRT then you would still be able to find CRT monitor's on store shelves.

 

[BFG10K]

Ahh, but it's a good argument BFG, because the vast majority of the market either couldn't perceive the "provable differences", or didn't care about them enough to keep the CRTs alive.

No, because it?s an appeal to popularity logical fallacy: ?most people do X, so X must be good?. Try looking at the facts instead.

99.99% of the world think LCDs are preferable and apparently don't care about these "measurable differences".

The same applies to TN panels yet better panels are being made. The same applies to 16 ms but then we got 5 ms or 2 ms. The same applies to ghosting yet we got overdrive. The same applies to scaling yet we got better hardware scalers.

Or how about the millions being invested into OLED?

So according to your reasoning since most people would be happy with 16 ms TN panels with crappy scalers said LCD improvements are not needed? And OLED is a total waste of time?

And again when we employ your appeal to popularity logical fallacies, 30? LCDs are crap since hardly anyone uses them. What 99% uses is the best right? That would probably be some 19? TN LCD that can do 1280x1024 so that rules out your Dell 30? and likewise tri-SLI and quad-SLI.

It?s funny how your popularity mantra goes out the window when it comes to extolling the virtues of your beloved hardware.

Do you honestly think if people were still buying CRTs all the companies would have stopped making them?

Many people buy LCDs because they don?t know better. They see they look flat and ?futuristic? so automatically assumed they must be better, and as time went on many had never seen a good quality CRT so they didn?t know what they were missing.

Remember, these are often the same people that use optical drives for cup holders; try explaining input lag or ghosting to someone like that.

Here's a story for you: When I used to show people my computer with the 22" NEC monitor, they'd look at me like I was a homeless guy, and say stuff like "I thought you were supposed to be this "hardware geek"- what's with the ancient monitor?!"

When I'd explain about the input lag and "how CRTs are really better for gaming" they'd look at me like I was a cult leader telling them to wait for the aliens to come get us.

Like I said earlier, most people don?t know better, and that?s mainly why LCDs flourish.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Anyways, nRollo made a very good point. If people didn't all prefer LCD to CRT then you would still be able to find CRT monitor's on store shelves.

QFT-
It's always best to listen to nRollo!

JK of course. :beer:

I don't know why I always jump into these debates, another good one like this is the AGP vs PCIE debate.

Or the XP vs Vista debate.

Everyone knows the guys using the previous versions are holdouts on borrowed time, but we all go round and round on the pros and cons. Beats TV I suppose.

Oh well, I think I'm going to grab a beer and start backing up files, my 780A/AMD 9850 build begins tonight.

Been too long since I've sent the guys in Texas a few bucks and had "AMD Inside", I'm interested to see how this one goes.

 

[BFG10K]

Well look, if you still-frame and compare images, ghosting very likely will occur. What you are ignoring is that the monitors are designed with this in mind.

What you?re ignoring is that those pictures demonstrate objectively that ghosting is still around. The camera is picking up what the display is doing.

On quality monitors today (and really this entire century), rather than use a band-aid, they have their design teams use the magic of science to determine what is noticable.

Such as? Give us some examples please.

Because the ?magic of science? sure didn?t appear to have cured ghosting on those images I posted. The CRT based on 75 year old technology certainly had it cured though.

Now if it makes you feel better to claim that you're a superman whose brain doesn't interpret input from the eyes like every other human on the planet, feel free.

If it makes you feel better to think somehow those images aren?t real, feel free. You claimed ghosting isn?t an issue on modern LCDs but I posted irrefutable evidence that your claim was false. Again the only display that got it right on that page was the CRT.

Anyone who actually used Trinitrons back in the day understands why, but I'm curious if any of the guys in this thread know, so I'm not saying.

I use a Trinitron and my only complaints are geometry at the edges (slight pin-cushion in the far top-left) and the two faint lines.

Since I don?t look at the corners much and since I seldom notice the wires it?s a small price to pay for the benefits. The colors are great, I have zero ghosting, zero input lag and I can ran at whatever resolution I please as long it doesn?t exceed the monitor?s maxmum bandwidth (1920x1440x73 Hz).

2D text is razor sharp and I have no trouble viewing even 8 point text on a 1600x1200x87Hz desktop.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Ahh, but it's a good argument BFG, because the vast majority of the market either couldn't perceive the "provable differences", or didn't care about them enough to keep the CRTs alive.

No, because it?s an appeal to popularity logical fallacy: ?most people do X, so X must be good?. Try looking at the facts instead.

99.99% of the world think LCDs are preferable and apparently don't care about these "measurable differences".

The same applies to TN panels yet better panels are being made. The same applies to 16 ms but then we got 5 ms or 2 ms. The same applies to ghosting yet we got overdrive. The same applies to scaling yet we got better hardware scalers.

Or how about the millions being invested into OLED?

So according to your reasoning since most people would be happy with 16 ms TN panels with crappy scalers said LCD improvements are not needed? And OLED is a total waste of time?

And again when we employ your appeal to popularity logical fallacies, 30? LCDs are crap since hardly anyone uses them. What 99% uses is the best right? That would probably be some 19? TN LCD that can do 1280x1024 so that rules out your Dell 30? and likewise tri-SLI and quad-SLI.

It?s funny how your popularity mantra goes out the window when it comes to extolling the virtues of your beloved hardware.

Do you honestly think if people were still buying CRTs all the companies would have stopped making them?

Many people buy LCDs because they don?t know better. They see they look flat and ?futuristic? so automatically assumed they must be better, and as time went on many had never seen a good quality CRT so they didn?t know what they were missing.

Remember, these are often the same people that use optical drives for cup holders; try explaining input lag or ghosting to someone like that.

Here's a story for you: When I used to show people my computer with the 22" NEC monitor, they'd look at me like I was a homeless guy, and say stuff like "I thought you were supposed to be this "hardware geek"- what's with the ancient monitor?!"

When I'd explain about the input lag and "how CRTs are really better for gaming" they'd look at me like I was a cult leader telling them to wait for the aliens to come get us.

Like I said earlier, most people don?t know better, and that?s mainly why LCDs flourish.

BFG-
I see you're trying really hard here, but you're missing my point:

It's not that "everyone does this so it must be right".

It's Everyone wouldn't buy LCDs if the differences were as noticeable as you say they are"

People aren't all stupid BFG- they don't screw themselves, running like lemmings off a cliff.

What? You think you have some special knowledge? Errrr....why?

Don't you think if these issues you point out were as bad as you make them out to be, tech sites, IT industry people, and even just end users would have gotten the word out "Hey don't buy these LCDs! They really suck!"?

Do you honestly think the whole world could be so easily deceived, and only and a few other enlightened one know the truth and shake your heads sadly while the rest of the world is degraded by these supposed flaws?

Uh huh.

You see BFG, it doesn't matter at all if the difference is measurable and in CRTs favor, if the difference in use isn't great enough for people to care, "perception is reality".

That's what you don't get about this issue.

The world not only didn't care, the world opinion turned on CRTs toward LCDs so fast they eradicated CRTs from the planet in a few short years. Gone. Extinct.

The press fell in love with LCDs. The OEMs fell in love with LCDs. The public fell in love with LCDs.

So you can sit on the other side of the planet saying 'CRTs are superior!" till time ends, but only a handful of people will ever believe you.

It's antiquated tech, most of them are in landfills.

Sorry dude, as they say, "That ship has sailed".

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: Mem
I have to agree,CRTs just look out of focus compared to the razzor sharp image of LCDs,lets face it CRTs lose their focus over time no matter what brand you have,also don't get me started on how many CRTs I had to rebox and send back due to common problems with CRTs like focusing,geometry etc...

As to trinitrons etc...I hated those damper wires ,annoyed the hell out of me,I love my WS LCD and would never go back to ANY of the best CRTs I have had over the years.

These are largely legitimate issues on CRTs, and the reason why I said earlier that there is no optimal solution right now. You're looking at tradeoffs on everything out there.

The issue of losing focus over time can be countered if you have a monitor that allows easy access to the controls. Unfortunately, this is very rare. I have only ever seen two models that let you do it, either by putting holes for a screwdriver on the cabinet (like mine) or allowing the focus to be controlled electronically through the OSD.

As for the quality control, I can certainly attest to that. When I first got mine in early 2005, I did three exchanges before I finally got a good one, and they were all brand new ones too. This is a common situation with even the flagship models, and is the main reason why I don't recommend CRTs to anyone these days unless they have already decided that they want one.

I do notice the AG lines on a light background and they occasionally get in the way, even thought I have used this monitor for a long time now. I don't like shadow mask CRTs for other reasons though.

Anyways, nRollo made a very good point. If people didn't all prefer LCD to CRT then you would still be able to find CRT monitor's on store shelves.

By that logic, TNs must be vastly superior to any other type of LCD panel technology, right?

IPS panels are encountering exactly the same problem today that high end CRTs faced four years ago. The vast majority of people don't care about the image quality improvements and are not willing to pay a higher price for them, to the extent that IPS models are disappearing from the consumer market and are being replaced by TNs (and to a lesser extent xVAs) at most sizes. The expensive 30" monitors are basically the only way to get them now without dealing with a panel lottery or paying a huge premium for a professional LCD. As far as I know, LG-Philips is the only one panel manufacturer left who still makes IPSs today.

I think what will lead to the rapid adoption of OLEDs is how they can be made extremely thin. That is precisely the sort of thing that average buyers will pay for. The image quality benefits will merely be a side effect and will not factor into most people's buying decisions.

 

[BFG10K]

It's Everyone wouldn't buy LCDs if the differences were as noticeable as you say they are"

How can you make that inference? What if they've never seen a good quality CRT to compare it too? It's kind of like saying "people wouldn't buy donkeys if they were really inferior to cars". What if the people buying donkeys have never seen a car?

People aren't all stupid BFG- they don't screw themselves, running like lemmings off a cliff.

I beg to differ.

What? You think you have some special knowledge? Errrr....why?

So you think the average "cup-holder" consumer understands the concept of input lag?

Don't you think if these issues you point out were as bad as you make them out to be, tech sites, IT industry people, and even just end users would have gotten the word out "Hey don't buy these LCDs! They really suck!"?

The general ignorance of the tech sites doesn't change anything. I keep linking to behardware because they're one of the few that do it right. You can see ghosting and input lag objectively proven time and time again on displays people claim are a non issue.

Do you honestly think the whole world could be so easily deceived, and only and a few other enlightened one know the truth and shake your heads sadly while the rest of the world is degraded by these supposed flaws?

Absolutely - just look at politics or religion. The masses are easily swayed, just give them something shiny and they?ll gladly follow you to the ends of the Earth.

In this case ?the shiny? for LCDs is a flat screen so they must better because they?ve seen the Jetsons use them.

 

[taltamir]

while people are stupid, they are not THAT stupid. Again and again I see things fail epicly because consumers just prove smarter then they are given credit for (crysis is a perfect example, although they are scapegoating piracy; second best example is crappy movies, where the industry execs said "in the past a crappy movie would have at least broke even in the first few days, now people text each other from their cellphones during the first 10 minutes and nobody goes to see it, so we end up loosing a lot of money on bad movies")...
Keep in mind that the loud obnoxious stupid customers are NOT representing the majority of consumers... even the most ignorant person should know SOMEONE who can give them good advice about what to buy.

Anyways, CRTs are not better, for anything. They have pluses and minuses, just like LCDs, and I enjoy the pluses of LCDs a LOT more then that of CRTs. And I would surmise most other people do as well based on the selling figures...

As to why "most sold LCDs are cheap TN panels"... that is simple, it is because IT IS CHEAP! most people KNOW that there are better things out there, it is just out of their budget. It actually makes sense considering how fast those things become obsolete. pay for a slightly less good product today, upgrade next year, and the next year, and the next year and so on.

 

[BFG10K]

As to why "most sold LCDs are cheap TN panels"... that is simple, it is because IT IS CHEAP! most people KNOW that there are better things out there, it is just out of their budget.

Again are you really suggesting ?cup holder Joe? knows what the different between a TN panel and the others is? Of course not. He?ll look at the size and the price. If the bigger display is cheaper then he?ll buy it.

If CRTs were still being sold Joe would pick the LCD because it was flatter so it "must be better because it?s from the future".

You give these people way too much credit. Even many AT regulars don?t know about things like input lag and they?re considered ?geeks? compared to Joes.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Don't you think if these issues you point out were as bad as you make them out to be, tech sites, IT industry people, and even just end users would have gotten the word out "Hey don't buy these LCDs! They really suck!"?

The general ignorance of the tech sites doesn't change anything. I keep linking to behardware because they're one of the few that do it right. You can see ghosting and input lag objectively proven time and time again on displays people claim are a non issue.

Derek uses a 25 X16 monitor for his reviews, and I bet he does for his gaming as well.

Is this site included in your condemnation of the tech sites?

 

[BFG10K]

Derek uses a 25 X16 monitor for his reviews, and I bet he does for his gaming as well.

Is this site included in your condemnation of the tech sites?

:roll:

LOL, nice try.

Has Derek even reviewed any monitors?

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

As to why "most sold LCDs are cheap TN panels"... that is simple, it is because IT IS CHEAP! most people KNOW that there are better things out there, it is just out of their budget.

Again are you really suggesting ?cup holder Joe? knows what the different between a TN panel and the others is? Of course not. He?ll look at the size and the price. If the bigger display is cheaper then he?ll buy it.

If CRTs were still being sold Joe would pick the LCD because it was flatter so it "must be better because it?s from the future".

You give these people way too much credit. Even many AT regulars don?t know about things like input lag and they?re considered ?geeks? compared to Joes.

Cup holder joe is still going to look at the following:
19 inch monitor for 150$
24 inch monitor for 250$
19 inch monitor for 500$
24 inch monitor for 700$
30 inch monitor for 1500$

And you know what he is gonna think? gee I bet those damn expensive 19, 24, and 30 inch monitors are some fancy higher quality stuff, but really I look at them and they are really very similar as far as I can tell, I reckon I'll buy a bigger but cheap monitor since they go down in price so fast, and honestly a big ol screen is so much more important then minor performance difference.

He doesn't need to know any jargon or to know WHY it is better to surmise that there is at least SOME difference... and unless he is completely blind, he should be able to tell that the much more expensive units are better looking.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Derek uses a 25 X16 monitor for his reviews, and I bet he does for his gaming as well.

Is this site included in your condemnation of the tech sites?

:roll:

LOL, nice try.

Has Derek even reviewed any monitors?

I don't know BFG- but he's one of the review sites not warning us to stay away from LCDs, and using them himself.

You said the tech sites are ignorant for using LCDs and not warning us, have you changed your mind and now they don't have a reason to warn us, or a reason to use CRTs?

We are not bothered by input lag, but competitive gamers depend on every potential advantage they can get, so 20 or 40 ms can and will make a difference.

So the AT video crew isn't bothered by the input lag, and says it straight out.

Like I said BFG, if it's not a big enough deal to notice, no one cares.

 

[Continuity28]

Does any company still make high-end CRTs?

I hear some professionals use CRTs today, are they all old, or is there still a supplier?