Once you go LCD... You wish you'd stayed with CRT

[NaOH]

I mainly game on my rig and there is no ghosting whatsoever. My screen only costed 300 and that is about how much CRTs used to be before LCDs were even out. For the portability and image quality, it can't be beat.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I love my lcd's and will never revert back to a crt monitor.

 

[pontifex]

i'll never go back crt.
i love my lcd

 

[erwos]

It's hard to compare, because as someone else pointed out, you're generally not comparing a $500 CRT to a $500 LCD. I've had the opportunity to use a > $1000 Viewsonic CRT before, and I didn't think it was all that and a bag of chips. Certainly, it was an impressive monitor, but using the huge maximum resolution meant you sacrified your refresh rate for it, and that hurts a _LOT_ on CRTs.

For an apartment dwelling couple like us, the size and weight benefits of an LCD totally obliterate any image quality loss or extra expense compared to a CRT. When we move (and that's a certainty), CRTs would be another couple hundred pounds of weight to carry. I laugh when people tell me they've got 60" rear-projector sets in their pads - you're just asking to get screwed by the moving company on "super-large item" charges!

You also can't find many widescreen CRTs. That's a big deal if you watch lots of 16:9 material (HDTV, DVDs, Xbox (360) games).

-Erwos

 

[NaOH]

I used to have a 20' High End Viewsonic CRT. It weighed a ton and took up all my desktop. UPGRADED to a 19' Viewsonic LCD and have no regrets. I gained back 80% of my deskspace and I can easily move it and adjust it. Colors are crisper and there is NO ghosting. Text is also sharper due to DVI. I used to have an NEC 17' at work, I had zero working space. We upgraded to Dell LCDs, I gained back 90% of my working space. Couldn't be happier.

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: WobbleWobble

Originally posted by: vertigofm
res is 1280X960 at 75hz... I dont know connection, it's the one that is standard for most monitors

That might be your number one problem. The native resolution on your LCD is 1280x1024, so your screen is likely stretching vertically.

Solved. That res is better suited to a 17" as the pixel pitch (spacing) is relatively large on a 19", resulting in less definition. VGA and particularly the multiple conversions reduces the quality and finally, setting to 960 while allowing stretching to fill 1024 reduces quality even more (blurring). To eliminate two of the three "problems", use DVI and set desktop to 1024. Driver and panel scaling can be disabled to view 960 using less area however there is no reason to do so for desktop. Apps (games) which do not offer the maximum res will of course benefit from themselves being set to 960 or whatever so as to avoid quality reducing scaling. As said, once those two problems are corrected, also try enabling ClearType and tuning to your liking.

 

[obeseotron]

It's gonna take one hell of deal to make me ditch my Dell P1130 (rebadged Sony) 21" CRT. If someone offered me a free swap with a Dell 2005, I'd think about it but I probably wouldn't take it. I'd definitely take it if I didn't play games, but I don't buy graphics cards fast enough to keep up with 1680x1050, much less 1920x1200 of a bigger LCD. I buy the lower clocked version of the best graphics card available every 2 years, right now it's a 6800gt that simply could not run games like FEAR or Call of Duty 2 well at the native resolution of a LCD. The ability to play some games in 1600x1200 and others at 1024x768 and have it look great either way is just not something I'm ready to give up.

 

[LiquidImpulse]

hehe, <3 CRT's <3

 

[Puffnstuff]

Well I went from a sony professional grade g400 19" crt to my planar pl201m 20.1" lcd with a .255 dot pitch and I don't regret it. I've since moved my kids to 19" lcd's and they love them.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

I actually like my LCD better. No refresh rate to give me eye strain and headaches

 

[Slugbait]

Space issues aside (it's too obvious a bonus...)

Today's LCD monitors are much better now...got a couple of Dell 20" lcds at work just a couple of weeks ago, but my main work monitor is still a Sony G520 just because of the deep blacks, and colors are richer without being brighter. One of the Dells is the secondary...SxS, the difference is pretty obvious, but I'm still impressed with the Dell simply because I've had older LCD monitors, and this one's a beaut. But it won't become the primary anytime soon.

My main monitor at home is a Sony F500, and it rips. Few LCDs can even compare.

If you know how to configure your videocard and monitor settings for CRT, and you have a decent model, the end result is still better than most lcds, imho. If you splurge for a decent LCD with DVI, then the differences start to even out.

 

[Powermoloch]

LCD ftw

 

[imported_goku]

Older LCDs I believe (I've yet to confirm this), the ones with only VGA connectors look better with analog than newer LCDs with DVI and analog that are using the analog connector as the new LCDs are meant to use the DVI interface while the older ones are meant to use the analog interface.

(If that is confusing, let me sum it up)
1999 LCD VGA Input Only, VGA Input=Should be decent.
2004 LCD VGA and DVI input, VGA Input=Usually Looks like ass, DVI=If it's not decent, it's the monitor's fault.

I've got a 1999 LCD with VGA and with an unshielded cable I get lines going down the screen and the text looked really blurry, I thought it was because the monitor was going bad, changed out the cable and the problem was alleviated... If you can go with a DVI cable first, otherwise get a shielded video cable, it really helps.

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Yeah, I'm really suffering with my LCDs. :roll:

Switch to 1280x1024@60Hz, autoconfigure settings, run ClearType tuner, use decent VGA cables.

- M4H

haha no kiddding. Use the settings that your LCD is suppose to use and you'll be good to go.

 

[chewyy01]

I not familiar with the quality of the newer high quality LCDs, but Iam use to knowing that a high quality CRT use to always beat a LCDs for image quality. I got my monitor in 2003. a Mitsubishi Diamotron 19in. Back then the quality of a CRT monitor wasg clearly better than a top end 17-19in LCD.

I know that an old low quality non flat screen CRT are definately not as good as a LCD screen. But do new LCDs have a monitor that can produce images as bright, vivid and life like as an old high end CRT. I have noticed on LCDs that the pixels are spaced further apart causing jagged blocky lines and the colour images just not reproduced perfectly.

What I want to know is are the latest LCDs really that good that people are saying that their new LCDs are better than their old high end CRTs? Is it only the newer LCDs that are catching up to the standards of top end CRTs? I ask these questions because I haven't seen a 17-19in LCD with clearer, sharper image quality than my CRT and if its true I would be interested in getting on of these new LCDs.

I defenitely would like to unclutter my desk with a quality LCD and save cash on the electricity bill. Also I hear that LCDs are easier on the eyes, supposedly.