just brew it! wrote:
Good LCDs can beat CRTs
No they can't, except for geometry and power use. They're inferior in every other way.
That's a bit of a stretch.
They also: Weigh less (which means they cost less to ship); take up less desk space than a CRT with equivalent display area; emit less EMI and radiation (a CRT monitor is essentially a miniature particle accelerator); don't contain several pounds of hazardous lead (CRTs are made from heavily leaded glass); aren't affected by nearby magnets, electric motors, and other sources of magnetic fields; never need to be degaussed; don't suffer from ghosting, blurring, or other analog distortions (assuming you're using DVI); and when run at native resolution generally provide a crisper image than CRTs.
That's a pretty long list of exceptions to "every other way"! :lol:
Sony Trinitron 24" flat screen (about 90 pounds, CRT). Those are a joke compared to a proper non-TN panel.
Maybe I'm just spoiled with my two BenQ FP241Ws, but I was a CRT hold-out until I got them. Cost me about $1200+ with 3 year+ warranties, no dead pixel policy on shipment... i love them.
If you ran up on a desk with two BenQ FP241Ws and a single Sony Trinitron 24" or 22". .... you'd laugh yourself to sleep if someone thought the CRT was better. and that's 3 year old tech. i can't imagine the nicer non-TN panels now for $300-$600 a piece.
i do, however, agree, about 4-6 years ago, that 1600x1200 was brilliant with the 4:3 ratio, nice hz rate (85hz or 100hz) and great edge to edge coloring. that **** was epic.
those days are gone. it's not about flashing times (hz), it's about pixel changes, brightness, contrast. and if you are interested in movies or FPS or whatever, the new monitors make the old ones seem like crap. the new drivers for graphics cards are great too.CRTs... are DEAD