I'm not a gamer in the least bit, not even Solitare, so I am not concerned with how games perform on LCD displays. The current cost/benefit analysis has to be reconciled by each individual, but I will
NEVER go back to a CRT if I can't help it.
I am now using a couple of different NEC LCDs - a $5,300 LCD2110 and a $1,000 LCD1830. All I can say is that if I could personally buy any display I wanted, it would be the LCD2110, hands down. I had a Sony GDM-FW900 that I thought I would take to the grave with me, and as CRTs go, it's probably the best one out there. I'm here to tell you now that I no longer use an FW500, because the LCD2110 simply blows it away. Is it worth $5,300? Not if it were my money, but I'm not reviewing it based upon its price. Pricewise, you can buy three FW500s and have money left over for a GF3, but that's irrelevent.
Also, to address the issue of LCDs supporting multiple resolutions - it can't happen, not theorhetically at least. An LCD has a
fixed number of crystals, unlike a CRT which simply, for lack of a better word, project an image onto the screen. Here's a quote from my
Epinion on the NEC MultiSync LCD1830:
"This is because, unlike a CRT (a regular TV-like monitor), an LCD's resolution is made up of a fixed number of crystals that can not change dynamically. A CRT (Cathode Ray Tube, a 70-year-old technology) actually "projects" (without getting technical) pixels onto your screen. When you try to operate an LCD flat panel at a resolution lower than its "maximum" it has to interpolate (or guess, really) what that resolution should look like and then, while still technically displaying at 1280 x 1024, show you what it thinks that lower resolution looks like. This is why an LCD flat panel looks so crummy in anything but its highest possible resolution. In other words, if you are someone who doesn't like small icons, text, etcetera, then you'll either need to avoid using a flat panel display or get one with a lower display resolution."
LCDs do have their drawbacks and limitations, which as demand increases and technology advances will rapidly disappear. They're still not at a cost/benefit level where they're a wise investment, as a general rule. In many environments, they're the only solution because they will operate in places where a CRT can not (by an MRI for example). Also, they consume less power, generate less heat, emit no radiation (
every CRT emits harmful radiation, TCO or not), take up substantially less desk space, create far less eye strain, are much more portable, can typically "pivot" between portrait and landscape modes, do not distort around the edges, provide more viewable area and just look so much cooler ;-)
So y'all can keep your stone age CRTs and club eachother for raw meat. I'll kick back, sip some Peet's and be cool. <grin>
Facebook
Twitter