Slashdot Mirror
Monitor Basics - LCD vs. CRT
Herbal V wrote in with a little article discussing the differences between LCD and CRT. Briefly summarizes all the major issues (Price, Refresh Rate etc). More of a beginner level piece, but as LCD prices are dropping like rocks, it's good to be aware.
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Typical, a story about monitors comes along, and mine decides to censor it.
liqbase
Monitors - LCD vs. CRT
As the technology has improved and the prices have come down, LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) monitors have rapidly been replacing CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) monitors on desktops around the world. ComputerWorld first reported that LCD sales would surpass CRT sales for the first time in 2003, a lead that it didn't hold for good. But according to DisplaySearch, a flat panel display market research and consulting company, the sales of LCD monitors regained the lead over CRT sales in the third quarter of 2004,a lead that it should eventually hold for good.
The question is why choose LCD over CRT? There are several pros and cons to consider, and a few items will be considered in this Tech Tip, such as: Price, Size, Image Quality, Energy Consumption, Personal Comfort, and Response Time.
Price
The price of LCD monitors is much lower than a few years (or even months) ago, but still far exceeds the price of a comparable CRT monitor. For example, I spent about $600 (US) on a Viewsonic VA-720 17" LCD monitor in early 2003, and see that the same model now sells for less than $300. A significant price drop, but in comparison a 17" Viewsonic CRT monitor can currently be purchased for less than $100. The ratio of prices may have narrowed from about 5:1 to 3:1, but the aging technology behind CRTs still allows it to hold the lead.
You can't even compare prices of CRTs to LCDs in ComputerGeeks.com's monitor section as they are right in step with the sales information provided above, and now only carry LCD monitors. Prices vary, even among LCD monitors of the same screen size, so there has to be something more to it than price.
Size
One reason that LCDs have gained in popularity is because of their small foot print. The overall size and weight of CRT monitors far exceeds that of LCD monitors. CRTs share the same image processing technology with tube televisions, and therefore share the same bulky style of housing. For example, the manufacturer's web page lists this ACER 19" LCD monitor as having a depth of a mere 6.9" (including the base) and a weight of 12.1 pounds. As a point of reference, a 19" ACER CRT is significantly larger with a depth of 16.86" and a hefty weight of 46.31 pounds.
Desktop real estate is precious, and an LCD will require only a small fraction of the depth that a CRT would require. And if there isn't even enough room on your desk for a slim LCD monitor, the low weight makes them perfectly adaptable to be hung on the wall, or off of a radial arm mount, such as this one from Office Innovations.
Image Quality
Image quality is generally considered to be better on an LCD, as each pixel is generated by a specific set of transistors in the screen, which produces a crisp image. But some features that fall under the general heading of image quality might not favor an LCD, including viewing angle, brightness, and contrast.
Early LCD monitors had a fairly narrow viewing angle that made clearly seeing the screen from anywhere but directly in front of it difficult. This has improved greatly, but still doesn't quite rival the viewing angle of CRTs which provide the same picture quality regardless of the angle. A monitor with a maximum vertical viewing angle of 120 degrees should not be hard to find at this point, with many monitors now being able to provide an even greater angle.
Brightness is an area that LCD monitors may have the edge over CRTs, but it varies widely from unit to unit. The standard measure for brightness is referred to as "nits", which have units of cd/m2 (candelas per square meter), where a higher number is better. Looking at three of the 17" LCD monitors currently available from ComputerGeeks.com as examples shows two with brightness specifications of 400 cd/m2 and one with a brightness specification of 250 cd/m2. As a comparison, the typical CRT monitor may provide half the brightness of an LCD, as confirmed at Viewsonic's Monitor University.
Contrast is similar to brightness in the fact that
And now, what was described as a quick and useful overview of LCD vs. CRT displays, has become neither.
Anybody else see the irony in this?
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
Thing even came with a wall mount, too bad I live in an apartment (though toothpaste does have its other uses...)
Size is great, too, because a 17" LCD is almost as big as a 19" CRT :-)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
but as LCD prices are dropping like rocks
Worst analogy. Ever.
Free XBox, PS2
Well, LCDs are clearly on the way out. I just hope all those CRTs will be recycled (including TVs) and not end up in our water supply etc. How do my fellow Slashdotters recycle their old CRTs?
I want to tell you about the differences between direct current and alternating current and why direct current should be used as the standerd for the United States Power grid.....
Sincerly,
Thomas Edison
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Everyone has been talking about LCD price drops for the past 2 years but it just has not happened. I've been in the market to buy an LCD monitor for the past 2 years and I have not seen any significant drop.
With all the news of companies dropping plasma, more LCD plants being opened, production being increased, technology improving, why hasn't the price of LCD monitors been cut in half?
I think it's because it has the cool factor that lets the companies sell it at whatever price they want.
Look at the quality of LCDs in some laptop and how cheap they are. OFten times a comparable LCD for a Pc would be more expensive than he laptop WITH the lcd.
The article only briefly mentions response time -- doesn't explain it. Response time was the reason I returned the LCD I bought and went back to my CRT -- DVD playback was awful. I imagine there are people who don't notice it, just as there are people who are more sensitive to lower CRT refresh rates, but it was hellish for me.
stripShow - Where WordPress meets webcomics
What good is a monitor... when you can't even read the article?
Ok, I have a serious question about LCDs. When I set up X11, it requires me to specify horizontal and vertical frequencies (and refresh rates). This is fine for my CRT, but do LCDs even have these frequencies? I've never seen them in any specs I've looked through.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
The biggest advantages of LCD over CRT are weight and space.
It's funny, the main reason why I dumped 3 of my 20" Sun monitors for an Apple Cinema Display was the health issues. Sure, we have herd all the stories about special cameras that can read the material on your CRT through walls (and the person sitting in front of it), but that didn't stop me. No, I went ahead and set myself up with enough radiation to cook lunch. 5 months later, I found myself having trouble shaking off common colds, and my appetite went down hill. People should be aware of the health issues, not just specs.
on a Slashdot Kids edition
Un ortun tely, my LCD sc een su fer fr m a h rible case of de d pixels. So tim s it is very dif cult to re ly to the any gre t ar icles on Sla dot and other f ne for ms. Oh wel , I will gladl pay the price j st so hat I may ska e on the e ge of the raz and la gh at t se moron with their big du b box . Ha Ha Ha !
I just recently purchased my first Mac. Scary I know but I promise not to become a Slashmacbot... Anyway, in line with the purchase I figured why not move to an LCD setup as well? This article explains several of my reasons for doing so but leaves one out...
Energy Consumption
LCD monitors definitely hold the edge over CRT monitors when it comes to being energy efficient. The huge tube in a CRT monitor is the source of most of its energy consumption, and a comparably sized LCD may use just a fraction of the electricity. Taking a look at this 19" Jetway LCD monitor shows that it consumes 48 Watts during normal operation, which is less than your typical light bulb. In contrast, a 19" CRT such as this one from Viewsonic may draw up to 160 Watts. Therefore the fraction of electricity used in this case is 3/10, and could translate to noticeable savings on your electric bill.
I currently have two 17" CRT monitors on my L-shaped desk. One is a newer model "flat screen" and the other was a freebie HP branded CRT. I know that they are sucking power and sending that power back out as radiation directly into the side and front of my face (as they are surrounding two of the three sides of my head). I have switched to a lot of energy saving bulbs in my house and I plan to switch more as the bulbs die off. I have switched to a programmable thermostat (that isn't 5 degrees off like the one that the original owners had) to save electricity/gas during the day and evenings. Why not my computer crap too?
I have even gone so far as to make sure that if I am not going to be home for more than 24 hours my non-essential computer equipment is off. A few bucks here and there equals beer later.
Personal Health and Comfort
The main benefit that LCDs have when it comes to comfort is the reduced strain on your eyes. The reduced glare on the screen's surface, and the elimination of a typical CRT's "refresh", can prevent your eyes from getting tired from extended use. A CRT monitor redraws the image on the entire screen as it refreshes, whereas an LCD monitor only changes the necessary pixels during a refresh.
There may also be the unquantifiable effect of reduced electromagnetic emissions on LCD monitors. The exact impact of electromagnetic emissions may not be fully understood, but in general less is considered to better, as addressed in this article. And, your back may also appreciate an LCD when it comes time to move, as the example above shows a 19" LCD monitor weighs about ¼ as much as its CRT counterpart.
What I have noticed is that using both at work (and now both at home) that I have significantly MORE eyestrain. Moving back and forth between the two seems more harmful than just sticking with one or the other. Sadly I am going to be in this situation at home for a while yet but at work I have only this 20" CRT to replace. The 23" LCD is in IT and waiting for install so it won't be too long. I was QUITE surprised when I went to pick up the 17" LCD at the FedEx hub that it fit easily in my trunk and was light enough for me to hold with one arm safely. I can't say that much about lugging my 17" CRTs around. Woo for that.
My other reason for loving LCDs is desk real estate. With my CRTs tons of desk space is lost to their screen, their rear ends, and their bases. With the new LCDs I have quite a bit more room to stack cans, plates, etc. It also makes me feel more "free" to move around in the tight space that my computer area is located.
I look forward to my second LCD at home and the savings in health, energy, and space it will give me.
Image quality on CRTs are still a hell of a lot better than LCDs, they scale resolutions nicer, and they are cheaper... Downsides are they are big, are a pain in the ass to set up geometry for, and don't look quite as cool...
Nuclear war would really set back cable. - Ted Turner
That synopsis makes my head hurt.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
In the computer labs at my school, all comps are using hp L1820 LCD's. I'm in my third year, and they've been here since I started. Lots of people have access to these monitors, and they are running 24/7. Lets just say that people aren't nice to them, ie, pressing as hard as they can on the screen to make 'cool' lcd effects, hitting the screens hard, drawing on them with pen, pushing them over, etc etc. Anyways, these things are like rocks! They take a beating, and still work. If I was going to buy a LCD, I'd look into hp.
Boxing Equipment Reviews
Kind of OT, but important - if you are running XP with an LCD screen, don't forget to turn on ClearType. ClearType dramatically improves the quality of text displayed on screen, to the point where my work laptop almost looks as good as my OS X box w/CRT at home.
ClearType takes advantage of the fact that LCDs make coloured pixels out of three adjacent sub-pixels (usually R-G-B), rather than a CRT which focuses all three of its guns on the same spot. By varying the intensity of the three colours in each pixel, ClearType effectively triples the horizontal resolution of type. The trade-off is some slight colour-banding in small fonts, but the payoff is a much more readable screen.
I stumbled across the settings by accident. With the increasing popularity of LCDs, I'm surprised that Microsoft doesn't promote it more.
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
Is it true that DVI is limited to 60hz, and so that even if LCD refresh times improve, DVI always will be limited?
Does anyone have recommendations for lower-end LCDs? I just bought a 17-inch LCD from Dell for my girlfriend for $300 (on sale from $350), and it seems pretty good.
Are prices going to continue to drop? I know people predicted they would hold steady for most of 2004--are the supply problems fixed?
I use only 22" CRT's. (I own about 100 or so of them)
Yeah, they're BIG, heavy, hot, power suckers, etc.. But, there is no way possible an LCD display can rival them, not no way, not no how.
LCD is for neophytes that want to be trendy.
In some cases they are called for, like space restricted areas or where you need a lot of them up at the same time, etc..
But, if you spend serious time (14-18 hours a day) looking at screens, you need top of the line CRT's. CAD, DTP, video production, etc..
Even hard core gamers will tell you that CRT is the only way.
Do you have a big desk?
Buy a CRT.
Spend the rest on booze and hookers.
Do you have limited space and/or need to move around.
Buy a LCD.
Pay for booze and hookers with a credit card.
Beep beep.
I'm about to invest in a nice 19-inch monitor, but I want a TV-Tuner built in and connections for my Consoles, anyone have a recommendation? The current winner is Samsung's Syncmaster 192MP
I remember reading literature on LCD flat screen TVs having low MBTF's to the point I was thinking we'd be buying new TVs every 4-5 years (the manufactures would like that!) I hope they come down in price 75% as some pundits predict.
Then again, wasn't this discussed in another slashdot article months back?
Try this article for a good overview of the different types of LCD panels (TN, MVA, PVA & IPS):
X-bit's Guide: Contemporary LCD Monitor Parameters and Characteristics
It weighs in at 27 pages, but if you really want to know what you're talking about when discussing LCDs, it's required reading.
Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
Here's some of my experiences buying an LCD monitor. If you're not picky, it's easy to buy one; if you're picky, well, it's not so easy.
Reasons I haven't switched to using LCD displays:
* Price: A 19" High Quality CRT w/ 18" viewable area, is hundreds of dollars cheaper than a high quality 17" LCD (with the ultra low response time, excellent colour, etc.)
* Sucky low resolution support: I maintain a Linux port of an adventure game system that runs at resolutions including: 320x200, 320x240, 640x400, 640x480, 800x600. Every LCD i've ever seen has one of two sucky ways of dealing with low resolutions: Stretch the image to fit, blurring the heck out of it, or displaying it at near postage stamp size.
Show me an LCD that solves both problems and I'll run to buy it in the very near future.
Mirror located here
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
my wife's more popular than me.
just kidding...!wife.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
A slow day at the office huh?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Only red and blue.
it costs about $1,400. my CRT 22" was about $290 and i am glad i stuck with that not only b/c of the price but b/c when play COunterstrike, need for speed, UT2004, Halo 2 the ghosting is there with the LCD(i have a 17" LCD). its non existant with the CRT. yeah its a hoss.. a monster.. i almost need someones help when i need to move it any kind of distance but i guess to each his own..
When I saw this article, I reminded myself that our tax refund is coming soon, so I decided to look in on the prices of LCD displays. I've got a 21" CRT that's been doing great for a while, but I can feel my vision starting to have problems, and so I've decided that I need to upgrade soon. The lower power usage would be nice too.
Anyway, I'm not a heavy gamer, but I do play some, so I don't want a ghosting monitor, which means I need a high-speed panel. Also, I'm very used to my huge screen real estate, so I'm not gonna be happy with anything less than a 19". Having a USB hub would also be very nice, as it'd help reduce some of my desk clutter.
Needless to say, shopping for these requirements has proven to be troublesome. Response time isn't shown upfront, nor is there generally a way to weed out monitors based on it, so shopping for a monitor that meets my basic needs alone is rather difficult, let alone finding one that has consistently good reviews and any other nice perks like a TV tuner or dual inputs.
It seems to me that manufacturers are still focusing on the coolness factor as priority #1. The most revolutionary changes I've seen in LCD displays in the last year come in the form of blue LEDs and "sleek" bezels...
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
the same reason my former gf dumped me for the next guy. the small footprint is the key...or rather the entire bodyprint.
I don't have numbers to back it up, but every CRT I have seen has been remarkably brighter than most LCD's. The only LCD's I have seen that could match a CRT are some of the new Sony's that are almost too bright.
Contrast Ratio:
The article mentioned something about CRT's only having a contrast ratio of 700:1. I was reading last week, and came across something that pegged a CRT's contrast ratio in the thousands to one, not hundreds to one.
Those are my biggest gripes about this article, but I agree with most what else they had to say.
I love LCDs myself and have replaced all of my monitors with LCD displays, but even to me this 'comparison' reads more like a fanboy article than an objective comparison.
CRTs certainly win out when it comes to contrast, yet the article only begrudgingly says that CRTs "may still have the edge". "May"? They absolutely do rule for contrast. When the electron gun turns off on a CRT the screen is black. On an LCD it's dark gray.
I believe CRTs also win for refresh/framerate. The 'reviewer' relies on manufacturer specs to evaluate transition times. Are these the same manufacturers who used to tell us that their 15" monitors were 17"? Or the same ones who would use inappropriate contrast tests in order to claim huge ratios? It's true that LCDs don't flicker, but a fast refresh CRT doesn't flicker either and the CRT can switch images very quickly. The best LCDs that I've seen are still inferior in this regard. I'd prefer to see independent testing to validate these claims of 16ms switching times.
Again, I love my LCDs and wouldn't trade them even though Doom III does smear a bit when I pan around. I love the low power consumption and I love the ease on my eyes, but it still doesn't change the fact that this article is just some fanboy fluff piece.
i didn't see it at the first glance, but did he remember that a 17" CRT monitor has less display space than a 17" LCD, for example?
yes they fixed the supply problems, thank cmdrtaco
i recommend the 17 inch lcd from dell for your girlfriend
you can get it on sale for $300
dvi is limited to 60Hz
even if your lcd refresh is on the order of nanoseconds, dvi is limited to 60Hz
of course lcds don't have an electron beam refreshing the screen
so there is no flicker
anyway
best of luck
in the university
and watch out, someone just stole your ipod
The price isn't dropping, that I can detect.
More importantly, the higher resolution monitors are still not available. As I type this on my 1920x1440 screen, I wonder why I would be motivated to pay a high premium for no more than 1280x1024 resolution. I do have one LCD panel that I like, it's only 1024x768, but it's mounted on my keyboard rack, and serves a specific purpose where low resolution is not a problem.
But everywhere else, virtual desktop real estate is much more important than physical desktop space, particularly with regard to the volume of the monitor. If anything, a flat panel is a net loss, because I lose the shelf that the display provides.
The other thing that stops me from buying an LCD is the ridiculous policy that "10 or less missing pixels" is not a problem. It would be a serious problem for me, to have missing pixels anywhere except *maybe* within a pixel or two of the edge.
Just maybe. I'd still be upset. But anywhere else, and I'd be sick about it.
Because of that, I don't buy an LCD panel. Maybe if I were to buy one from a brick/mortar store where I could test it before buying.
For what these things cost, I think I should be able to ask the merchant to test it, and know before sending the damned thing that it has 8 missing pixels.
I have a big problem with that policy. It tells me the manufacturer doesn't understand the process well enough to have sufficient quality control.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
On my IBM thinkpad anyway (ruuning in native resolution). I fiddled with it for about an hour trying to make it look decent.
I'm assuming the reason that 20" LCDs seem to be so much more than their 19" counterparts is precisely *because* of the native resolution... I've been considering going to an LCD for my desktop to replace my 21" CRT, but I've found no 19" LCDs that can do 1600x1200.
I'm sure that people will scoff at me for "requiring" 1600x1200, but once you get used to it, 1280x1024 seems cramped.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
I think it depends of guy.
My sight is sharp enough so that I perceive some "shading" on LCD even when ClearType (or Unix Subpixel rendering) is switched off!
ClearType/subpixel rendering irritates me even more...
In california, USA, 17" 1280x1024s are readily available for $299 or less "full retail", Tigerdirect has one for $190 right now, don't know how good it is. The 17" Hyundai at TD is $200.
2 years ago I paid $399 and waited months for a $100 Best Buy "rebate".
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
How about saying, of a piece of software, that it has "surprising equipment" -- just like that character in the crying game? Now you're talkin' bad analogies.
I also love it when I hear "out of the box." Because, you know, just using the dang analogy is a completely trite thing by now -- it's the hackneyed way of thinking inside the dang box, and has been since sometime in the 1980s when Deming really caught on in MBA jargon. The analogy that means exactly the opposite thing, yeah? That's got to rank.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The CRT is using its incredible weight to smash the LCD....but wait....LCD goes mega bright and washes out the CRT display with glare....boy we have a good one here tonight Nick.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
How do my fellow Slashdotters recycle their old CRTs?
Out the window, then drop a mallet on it (literally, out the same window), repeatedly, until the screen with the metal frame around it is the only part remaining, and the rest is pulverized. The screen will be the only part remaining, because it's a half-inch thick glass, as opposed to the wimpy glass in the back part of the tube, and the cheap plastic that the rest of the thing is made out of. Then take the screen, line it with a doormat, and ride it off snowy hill. Glass has a really small friction coefficient against snow.
Don't try this at home:-)
A 17" lcd is 17" viewable and a 17" crt can be from 15.5 to 16" viewable. What this means to you is that a $200 lcd is almost comparable in size to most 17" crt.
A 18" lcd is comparable to a 19-20" crt, depending on model.
So what this means is this guy is comparing different size monitors...so the price difference is actually somewhat less.
A lot of these articles tout the energy savings between CRT and LCD. How much does this save you, though? Even at what I'm thinking is a generous guess of $5 a month in saved energy costs, it could take you up to four years to break even on the cost difference between CRTs and LCDs. Are these kinds of points in there just so someone can justify buying a new toy with some practical reasons?
This summer the "Thin CRT's" are being released. It's pure CRT technology and only going to be slightly thicker than an LCD of today.
The initial asking price is going to be just slightly above the price for the same size LCD, but the price is expected to plummet since CRT technology is so proven and cheap to manufacture.
I am waiting to buy anything, because I'd much prefer CRT crisp and sharpness vs an LCD's.
Hmm..wasn't there almost the same story last week.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
We do a lot of color critical work and have given up on LCD as our main monitors (we have a couple people using Cinema Displays as second monitors). They are too bright in the hilites and at the same time to dark in the shadows to accurately replicate a printed proof. Even throwing in monitor calibration, they still make images appear more contrasty and heavy. All of our color folks use CRT monitors from Barco, they cost as much as a cinema display for a 21", but some of the best stability we have seen.
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
Don't give up, give a quality LCD a try first and you may never go back.
Response time is a critical feature for me. I won't buy any LCD screen unless it's in the 16ms-or-better range for typical pixel response.
My NEC LCD1760NX is great for games and movies. No hint of ghosting at all. Solid, bright, good footprint too. Digital/Analog connections as well.
LCDs still have problems with color correction for serious graphics work, or so I'm told. But you couldn't pay me to get in front of a CRT anymore. My eyes won't take it.
Why can't I find a SXGA+ (1400x1050) 15" or 17" standalone LCD display, while they are widely available for laptops?
A 17" LCD is closer to what is displayed on a 19" CRT monitor, from my informal measuring of monitors here with my tape measure. So I went to PriceWatch to check into some prices, and 17" LCD prices are very comparable to 19" CRT prices. I don't really think you can choose between the two based on price unless you are under a super tight budget and want to buy a POS low end CRT.
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
I take out the CRT and sell them as exotic fish tanks to Pakistani tourists.
My new concept is to sell them as early-warning devices for tsunamis in south-east Asia.
I use a 32" LCD TV as my main monitor (and a almost broken CRT as my second monitor). It's got a great picture. Playing games and DVDs is flawless and a total blast. Only thing hurting is my wallet.
Of course, you can still use VR goggles or poor-man's red/green glasses, but for professional 3D viewing, Active LCD glasses is the way to go.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
It is all in your head. I really suggest you read up more on this issue (on *informed* sources, not gossip) if you are truely worried about it.
See this source for example (emphasis mine):
"The dose to a person in the United States from working on a CRT for a year is less than a few mrem, which is about 1/10 of the dose from a chest x ray, or about the same amount you get in one day from natural radiation."
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1046.html
I have two questions that I couldn't find answers for, despite intensive googling.
1) Why larger (17"-19") LCDs always have 5:4 aspect ratio, as opposed to more conventional 4:3 that most CRT and most 15" LCD displays have? What is the reason - is it easier to produce, is there particular demand for more squarish displays, do they look better on a desk?
2) Why the highest resolution you can realistically get is 1280x1024 or 1024x768 (uless you pay $5000+)? Why are there almost no displays with 1600x1200 or 1440x1050 resolution, while such resolution is commonplace on laptops. Is there no demand for higher res desktop LCD displays? Did someone decided that people don't need that resolution? Is the demand for hi-res LCD panels from notebook manufacturers so high that there are no panels left for stand-alone displays?
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
To be fair, LCDs have gotten much better lately, but when it boils down to bang for the buck a good CRT is still the way to go. No contest.
All my computers (minus my Laptop) use CRT... and my TV's are all Tubes too...
but recently got an LCD TV!
17" Samsung... and I must admit I am impressed.
I wouldn't watch action movies on it... but it's bright, clear, sharp, and just absolutely great looking. I can't really find a complaint about it. It's sleek, stylish.
The picture quality IMHO is absolutely fine for normal TV use. If your a gamer, or watch lots of action movies, not for you, but for regular TV watching, perfect. The TV isn't used that often. Just on occasion. That's why it's an LCD... so it takes up minimal space, and doesn't stand out to much.
IMHO LCD's have pretty much come of age. There not ready for everyone...
But if you are willing to pay a more for a sleek looking TV... it's so worth it.
Electromagnetic emissions are quantifiable, and there are laws about emissions that are harmful to people (for example, high powered ones that might burn you, such as from TV transmitters or microwave ovens) and emissions that interefere with other devices (radios, TVs, speakers, digital electronics, etc.).
The reason to get an LCD, though, is not the imaginary health risks (as opposed to the real risk of being sedentary 8 hours a day), but the effect on radio reception. LCD displays are quieter than CRT's and produce less interference.
Plasma displays are the worst!
So if you're getting a flat TV for your house, get an LCD one instead of a Plasma one if you care about RF. (Or if your neighbors do -- by law, if your TV interferes with their radio, you have to turn yours off.
See Part 15.15(c):
Anybody else have black text on a black background with firefox. Great job poster, using IE to surf with. Dimwit. I noticed nobody else pointed it out. Afraid to admit that it didn't work right? Come on folks...its just html. Anyway, I fixed the display problem with a simple ctrl-A. With everything highlighted and inversed, it was much easier to read than the scattered links every so often down the page.
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
Sure, I spent USD 1700 (plus tax) on a 22" Samsung LCD TV in June 2004, but I have never regretted my purchase. HDTV is simply gorgeous, and makes viewing TV a pleasure again. CRT-based TVs are heavy, and only the really big ones can do HDTV. I'm spoilt to a point that I think DVDs are low-res.
For those who can afford to buy an LCD, I'd say spend some money and give yourself some peace. With 40+ inches LCD TV launching in the market in 2005, I finally see that LCD will overtake Plasma (at least until OLED, which combines the best of LCD and Plasma)
in the Desktop Preferences -> Font dialog, select 'Subpixel Smoothing (LCDs)' to get the same effect, and with the 'details...' button you can select the order of the rgb-pixels.
(You might think that a opthamologist, who has medical training, would be a better source than an optometrist. But it's my perception that optometrists actually do better with the little practical issues.)
Also note that a lot of people who don't need glasses for normal activities need them while they're sitting in from of a computer.
One mistake my optometrist did make was to recommend "task glasses" in place of my normal progressive lenses. These are glasses where the focus is optimized for your specific monitor setup. Possibly the right choice if you're a key-entry person or other person that never looks away from the screen. But if you stop to refer to books or write on paper, I think standard glasses arebetter.
I use large (21" and greater) B&W LCD and CRT monitors at work for ~8 hours/day, switching every month or so between the two types. I find that when I'm using the LCDs, the pictures seem sharper and brighter, but I seem to end up with daily eyestrain and headaches.
Part of it may be the ergonomics of my workstations, I suppose, but I don't think they're too different. Anybody else have a similar experience?
Does the moon exist when you're not looking?
Around 10+ years ago it was widely held that grayscale two-page displays were a better choice for people who needed text readability over vibrant colors such as authors like myself. With all this talk nowadays about using LCD subpixels to make text more readable I wonder, why not make each of those subpixels a grayscale pixel, thereby tripling resolution and eliminating color banding which occurs with Microsoft's Cleartype and other subpixel renderers?
This question is important to me because I tend to get severe headaches after gazing into my CRT monitor for hours on end and I know many other people out there share this problem.
This article looked to me like he was trying to justify to himself why he just spent so much more money on an LCD (probably one of the "17" LCD monitors currently available from ComputerGeeks.com") instead of buying a CRT.
Yeah LCD's are cool, and I use a Sun 24" LCD at work (which is Awesome), but until I can get the performance (talking video games here) out of an LCD that I get from a CRT - at a resonable price, CRT's will continue to get my money.
Bottom line Price and Performance beats Size and Weight anyday.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for the are subtle and quick to anger.
Sucky low resolution support
And prohibitively expensive high-resolution support. The cheapest high-res (above 1600 pixel width) LCD panel from NewEgg costs about four times as much as a comparible-resolution CRT. And there's nothing much you can do about it, from a manufacturer's stand point. Getting a chunk of live pixels that large costs money.
But golly, with an LCD I've got all this room to put loads of crap behind my panel. Yay! And it's so lightweight, for all those times when I'm moving my entire computer system around the house.
Next time you have a "bullshit!" response to something somebody says, stop to consider whether you're responding to what they actually said, or whether you're just lumping them in with somebody else who said something vaguely similar.
The article overlooks one of the biggest reasons to not buy an LCD monitor: The bad pixel problem.
Whether it shows up as a dark/missing pixel on brighter images, or a bright pixel on dark images, this persistent problem is an ugly side of LCD monitors.
Ever since buying an iMac with a single bright blue pixel on its LCD, I've resolved to never again buy another LCD that isn't warranted to be 100% defect-free. At least for now, no manufacturer except for Samsung (and only in S. Korea) seems to believe that more than zero bad pixels constitutes a problem.
The general line still is that a bad pixel or two is "normal". Well, it is as normal as an LP album with a scratch, a CD with an intermittent skip, or a dropped cell phone call. It happens, and much of the buying public accepts it, but it sucks and such garbage has no place in a quality product.
Vote with your pocketbook. I do. Caveat LCD emptor!
It turns out that this is a known phenomenon and is somtimes described in the manufacturers instruction leaflet. Like anyone reads that. Unlike a CRTs, it's reversible in many cases, which is a big plus.
Here's some guys DSL webserver for you to /. http://www.dslwebserver.com/main/lcd-screen-burn.h tml
This is not a sig
Points for effort too !
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
LCD will scale by half very well (actually is by dvidends of 2 so half, quarter etcetera). So a 1280x960 display can show a 640x480 image very well or a 1600x1200 will scale to 800x600 well.
The problem is very apparent- you almost never see 1280x960 instead it is 1280x1024 so that never scales well. 1600x1200 is expensive unless it is a laptop display.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
I am interested in world-wide pricing. Particularly Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Europe. To start: Atlanta, Georgia, USA. http://www.bestbuy.com MAG 17" CRT Monitor - Silver Model: 771FS-s Our Price: $99.99 We can handle the currency exchange rates. http://money.cnn.com/markets/currencies/ My guess, at this moment, is that it would be cheaper for Asian readers to purchase in the USA, and pay for shipping to their doorstep.
Your energy saving bulbs are essencially unfocused crt's.. sort of... They use high frequency radiation to excite mercury vapor into giving off an ultraviolet photon, which then strikes the phosphor coating (just like when an electron strikes the phosphor coating on your crt)
1 A drop in LCD prices, and I mean significant (who wouldn't)
2 Quicker response times (for people who like to watch DVDs or play games)
3 A change in number 2 should NOT change number 1 exponentially
4 KISS method of engineering. Worry about the DISPLAY, not what kind of speakers you can slap in the case and how many USB ports you can mount on the thing.
5 Digital and Analogue ports on ALL LCDs. Let the buyer decide which one they would like to use.
I just turned it on and the difference is insane, especially in IE with it's microscopic fonts (not that I use IE, just testing). Kind makes bigger fonts look a little fuzzy, but on small fonts it is amazing! Also makes for weird colors when the cursor is over a letter...
Is this available for Win2000 so I can use it at home once my Dell 2005FPW 20" widscreen ($600 after 2-day shipping and Texas tax) shows up? Gotta love 30% "small business" discount coupons...
I just bought a BenQ FP71G, for $450 CDN it's 17 inches. Response time is 12ms and I find that more than adequate for UT2004 and similar games, although my friend who is pickier about these things says he notices the ghosting. Still, if there is any ghosting it is hard to notice, not at all like the horrible problems you had a few years ago.
I'd say my motivations for buying went something like: 50% for less eye strain, 25% for desk space, 25% for toy value.
One thing I didn't know before buying that suprised me is the whole native resolution thing: if you run it at its native resolution, you get crystal clear pixels. But run it at a lower res, and from what I can tell it does a hardware interpolation of some sort. It looks really bad frankly, like half the pixels on the screen have been shaded for anti-aliasing or something. Very noticable even on non-graphically intensive apps. Not really a problem as long as you run in native res, but good to be aware of. All that having been said, I'm happy with the purchase.
Is pixel size. As your price goes up, the size of each individual pixel decreases, on average. However, I have yet to see an LCD where the dot pitch (pixel size) is less than .24 mm.
:) (And yes, I am 15...)
My Samsung SyncMaster's dot pitch is 0.18 mil. While this may not sound like a huge difference, it really is. Running at 1600 by 1200, detail is very, *very* crisp, with no smearing at all, and the low pixel size is a major contributor to this.
As a rule, imo, CRD >>> LCD at a comparable price. Sure, the Apple 30 inch LCD monster may be better than this thing, but this was £200 from a local shop about 6 years ago. I also don't have to worry about dead pixels, and all that jazz.
The only reason I'd get an LCD is if I needed the small footprint, or the lack of electrical noise. But I don't.
So CRTs for me
My UID is prime. Is yours?
This is hardly an extensive comparison and the guy's information is really outdated. For one he never mentioned anything of the 6bit gama chip that a lot of manufacturers have started using for lcds and this is actually the biggest problem when it comes to lcds. Not some imaginary responce time when the latest models easilly support 12ms and bellow.
I bought a 17" Samsung Syncmaster 172V in the January sales. I unboxed it, hooked it up, loaded a photo to work on, boxed it back up after fifteen minutes messing and disbelief, and returned it to the store.
The reason? Viewing angle, contrast (or lack of) and gamut.
Sharpness was superb -I could love that. It almost made me keep it.
Contrast I could just about live with, but then I couldn't. I do a lot of image editing, and I wasn't sure what the monitor was reproducing was on the screen.
Gamut: the colour space of cheaper LCDs appears to be quite a bit smaller than even a cheap CRT. This only bites you when you run them side by side and see stuff in the CRT that isn't there in the LCD.
The killer: viewing angle. By raising my head 1 inch, bright reds washed out towards white. Lowering it washed out to black... I can't live with that... Every time I played with levels or a curve, I'd be unsure whether the monitor was showing me what the results really were.
So, for me, a cheap LCD was no good. An LCD that does appeal is the Samsung 213T, but given the price of those compared to a CRT capable of doing an arguably better job of displaying images for photo work, I can't justify one.
Shame, really. the form factor appeals, but the technology isn't quite there yet for me.
I've been thinking about this recently. Since LCD's are becoming more and more popular (and multisyncing monitors are becoming more and more rare): Would it make sense to just render games at whatever resulution (320/640/800/1024H) internally, and having the computer's internal video processor handle scaling to the native resolution? If the pixel aspect ratio is the same, it shouldn't blur if the computer handles the stretch internally, right? (I up-scale video pretty regularly, and it doesn't seem to tax the CPU.)
Scaling video resolutions up doesn't seem to tax the system much when I do it. (Although I'll admit that I don't know much about video). Since you maintain a game that is dependent on resolution, what do you think? It's clearly becoming an issue for more than a few people.
-Turkey
Shit was self-adhesive, specially when it comes to walls or floors.
Why on earth would your monitor care whether you were playing a 3D game or a 2D game?
While hp may not make their own LCD's, their service plans are great for their products.
They're running a special right now, selling it for only $600. Would really like to replace my 2 older Hitachi 19" CRTs (1600x1200) with 2 of either this model or the new widescreen Dell (2005FP?). But it's still a little on the pricey side for me.
Klein bottle for rent - inquire within.
I have the Dell 2005fpw which has the same panel as the Apple 20", and I paid $599 for it. :D
Anyway, Morrowind, HL2, NWN, Doom3, and Farcry all run at 1680x1050 for me. I imagine it'll just get more common over time.
I was gonna RTFA but there was this horrible add with two close-up pics of Michael Jackson. Yuck.
All the CRTs I see these days are TCO'99 or better certified. That means they are allowed to emit essentially zero radation. You can look up the specs for thre precise amount allowed, but it's tiny.
Also, thus far, all medical research indicates that it's not a problem anyhow. People whine and worry on about living under powerlines and the use of cellphones, however all research done on the topic indicates it's not a health problem.
Personal experience isn't valid evidence. You are looking at a single data point, with no consideration for confounding factors. As an equally invalid counter exaple: I've been using computers since I was 5, always CRT. I spend most of my time at home in front of my 19" CRT. For a few years, I worked with 2 22" CRTs on my desk. I suffer from no appetite problems, on the contrary I eat too much. I am also very resiliant to illness, often going over a year between getting sick.
Oh and PS, tempest systems (the stuff that reads through walls) works just fine on LCDs. Works on keyboards too.
LCD monitors just have bad contrast ratios. 400:1 - 700:1 can never compare to the thousands:1 that CRT screens have. Blacks are truly black and whites are whites. This issue still has not been solved even in the newer Lcds.
The author is also a bit wrong in writing that the brighter the monitor, the better. Actually, some LCD monitors can be just too bright. You have to remember that LCD works by blocking light generated by lamps, so if the lamps are too bright, you won't block enough light to make black appear really black (it is especially visible in darkened room). Another caveat is that LCDs perform worse at representing a whole spectrum of colors (they're worse at representing warm colors). And that modern LCDs often do not show full 16.4 million RGB spectrum, only a subset of it and interpolate inbetween, which makes gradients worse.
Having said that, I wouldn't give back my 17" LCD for any CRT, my eyes are too precious for me.
I bought a model that was reviewed on newegg.com by umpteen people and many said they had no dead pixels.
I tend to ignore such reviews. First of all, I have no guarantee that shop owners do not edit/cut out bad reviews. Second, a sizeable chunk of the reviews is written like "Hey, I just bought it 4 hours ago and it looks GREAT!!!! No more headaches and the fonts look so sharp!! Whopeee!". Sorry, this is not my idea of a noteworthy review.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
The guy's a turkey for comparing a 17" CRT to a 17" LCD. This guy doesn't know a 17" LCD is the rough equivalent of a 19" CRT?? WTF?
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
The author shows his ignorance by comparing the price of a 17" LCD with that of a 17" CRT. Hello the viewable area of a 17" LCD is that of a 19" CRT. He compared apples to oranges. Not only that did he discuss the difference in viewable area between LCD and CRT at all?
Let's say you get a 50 ms LCD so that means it refreshes every 1/.050 times or the Hz is 20.
So a 50ms LCD is like a 20Hz monitor(not taking into account the fact of diodes lingering on).
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Response time does not say everything about ghosting on an LCD screen.
The panel type is much more important. If you look a little around on the net, you will see that a 25 mS S-IPS will beat the shit out of any 16 mS panel of other types. Your Dell has a 16 mS S-IPS panel which is even better.
One of the reasons is that S-IPS can show 24 bit color. Some other panel types can only show approx. 18 bit colors and emulates 24 bit by rapidly changing forth and back between two colors. These panels can have good response times when switching from black to white (which are both within their native 18 bit colors), but when they have to switch from one 24 bit color to another, they are much slower than their response time would indicate.
LCD hands down. Recycle the CRTi ng
Call around, you might not need to pay $50.00 like I did twice.
http://www.google.com/search?q=CRT+recycl
Note: I do not play computer games any more, so I do not keep on FPS, or refresh rate, 3M liquid cooling etc...
http://www.hardocp.com/
Peace.
Plasma is modified CRT.
Each pixel is a seperate CRT, of which they can control the color/contrast/etc.
The question is why choose LCD over CRT?
Isnt the real question: why choose CRT over LCD? Everybody knows that LCD is generally better. What some people dont know is that LCD is better for some things (representing page print color for one).
Just make sure you know what you're paying for your energy savings.
I use compact flourescents for lighting at home also. I like the 5000-hour bulb life, and I like the reduced energy usage. And the light actually pays for itself in energy savings.
I pay about 8cents per kilowatt-hour.
Normal bulb: 5000 hours at 100watts = 500 kilowatt-hours @ $0.08/kilowatt-hour = $40. (plus cost of bulb)
Compact flourescent = 5000 hours at 27 watts = 135 kilowatt-hours @ $0.08/kilowatt-hour = $10.80.
Difference of $29, and the compact flourescent costs less than $20. (2-packs for $12 now, or so?) So that saves money as well as energy.
19" CRT vs 19" LCD? That's harder, because it includes "How long do you use it per day?" to decide when/if it pays for itself.
Assume 8 hours per day of usage.
CRT: Base cost, $150.
LCD: Base cost, $300 (for cheap ones) or $500 (for pricier ones)
So... at 8 hours per day, how many days to make up that $150, or, worse, than $350, in initial price difference?
energy difference is 160 - 48 = 112 watts @ 8 hours/day = 0.896 kilowatt-hours per day. Or $0.07168 a day.
$150 / $0.07168/day = 2092 days.
Used every day... Your cheap LCD pays for its higher initial cost in only 5.7 years. Your pricier LCD pays for itself in... 13.3 years.
How often do you replace your monitors? It better be less than every 6 years, or you're losing money on your "savings" here.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
The article didn't mention one aspect where CRT monitors have the definate advantage, and that's colour acuracy. The same colour on an LCD can look different, sometimes significantly so, on different areas of the monitor. It's getting better on LCDs, so much so that the university I attend is considering them for New Media design labs. Right now, they use CRTs simply because the colour is the most true.
I used to have constant migraines before switching to an LCD monitor too. I used to get one every two or three months(crippling!). Now, it's been a year or more since I had one.
Also, one funny thing - I bought a cactus, and put it in front of my CRT monitor, a few years ago. It was small, still growing. After a few weeks of exposure to my always on CRT, it began to mutate, or grow. It grew as thin, but very very long strand. I'm talking about 35 cms vertically. It was also very yellow and, well, for a cactus, it didn't look exactly healthy. Very brittle. That sent a message.
LCD is the way to go.
As to helping newbies, that's now how Geeks do it. To be a true Geek you must spout a bunch of confusing sounding opinions. Correctness is less important than keeping up a good Geek image. Handing out links to soft articles like this really lets the side down.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Something tells me this does not exist. All the 19" monitors I see are 1280x1024. That's a ridiculous resolution for such a huge display -- even my 15" PowerBook's 1280x854 resolution is silly and feels cramped.
There are 20" monitors running at 1600, but the corresponding jump in price (eg., an Eizo L887) means they are out of my league.
Answer already in this thread.
To sumarize: plenty.
There probably isn't a market for it, but it would be cool if you could get a 20" plasma screen designed for use with computers. This would combine the best qualities of LCD's and CRT's.
Why was that load of crap given a +3 insightful?
> Buy and use a calibration sensor
Wrong. LCD's can't do black. Period. No LCD can block 100% of the backlight. Buying extra software and hardware doesn't change reality.
"ClearType" means the new anti-aliasing algorithim being used by XP, verses "font smooothing" which is the old algorithim. The new algorithim is much more like the ones being used by Xft on Linux and by OS/X.
ClearType can do sub-pixel rendering for LCD screens, but that is not it's only function. It also does much better antialiasing than the old scheme even when limited to gray pixels.
On early screens the pixel actually lit up when the signal came from the computer and faded over time, exactly like a CRT, so refresh rate mattered.
I believe all modern LCD screens however have pixels that change when the signal comes in and then stay constant until the next retrace. On these the refresh rate does not affect pixels blinking at all.
If I bought an LCD that had a TV tuner, would this be a good monitor to use with an Amiga, since it could be able to sync horizontally to NTSC resolutions but would also work in the productivity resolutions as well?
one additional drawback that LCDs have, is that the image quality is dropping severly, if you dont run it on the "native resolution". while this may be not a great issue when using the LCDs mainly for desktop applictions, but in case of computer games you may want to reduce the screen resolution in order to gain some extra FPS. the reduced screen resolution will lead to blurry images due to interpolation, so you might want to stick with your old CRT if you are a 3d gamer.
another reason why you might want run a game on alower resolution is that in some games, parts of the game screen are fixed in size. thus the "radar map" or the "health bar" might look incredibly small on 1600x1200 while on 800x600 it almost covers half of the screen. interesting side effect of screen resolutions not growing proportionally with screen size in inches.
But while the better LCDs are becoming acceptable for gaming in terms of refresh rate, the rest of our time is spent developing web sites. We haven't yet seen an LCD that's anywhere near the quality of our CRTs in terms of colour depth and range. When you need black to = black and white to = white and a huge range inbetween, LCDs just aren't there yet. So we wait.
If that's what he meant, then the NEC/Mitsubishi CRTs I listed have about 1700 dots from left to right and the Samsung has very close to 2048 (2032 calculated, but width and dot pitch are rounded).
So I (may have) named one. But the point of the great grandparent was that decent CRTs can be set to 2048x1536. Will a photo or video at this resolution looked focked up because of insufficient "dot pitch"?
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
About dead pixels: Samsung has announced a strict no-dead-pixel policy late last year. For people worried about this, the solution is simple: buy a Samsung-branded LCD manufactured in 2005.
My main gripe with LCDs is that affordable pannels lack high enough resolution at a reasonable price to make them useful for me so I will have to pass until affordable UXGA/WUXGA pannels become available. (My preferred resolution on my 19" CRT is 1600x1200x85Hz because pixels start blurring beyond this. For games, I use this fact as free anti-aliasing and run them at 2048x1536.)
Sharpness: When run in its native resolution, an LCD screen is sharper than a CRT can ever be. A black pixel is all black (well, nearly), while the white pixel next to it is all white; there's no smearing, as on a CRT. This more than makes up for the ostensibly lower contrast ratio of LCD.
Geometry: Straight lines on an LCD are really straight, every time. Lines on a CRT curve (always, to some degree, no matter how "flat" the display) and wiggle (not infrequently).
Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Yes, as soon as I had posted it, I sat here wondering why I had written millisiemens all over the place.
Call me an old fart if you will, but I prefer real text for email, usenet news, and everything else that doesn't require GUI (spreadsheet, web-browsing, etc). That was one of the things that drove me to linux. I flip back and forth from X to text console at will. Console mode apps just aren't being written for Windows any more.
On linux, "VGA=6" in lilo/GRUB sets the text console to 640 pixels X 480 scalines. The standard 8 X 16 VGA font gives 80 columns X 30 lines. Ye olde CGA font (8 x 8) gives 80 columns X 60 lines, but it's painful to read. There are intermediate fonts available. I prefer 8 X 10 fonts for an 80 columns by 48 row display. It's *MUCH* nicer than "mode co80,50" on DOS/WIndows (640 pixels X 400 scanlines using 8 x 8 font).
Does anyone have any experience with *TEXT CONSOLE* modes other than 80 X 25 on LCDs?
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Didn't even mention DVI.
I used to be a LCD hater, because I didn't like the fragility, price, and color saturation...
... I went with the BenQ and am happy.. was going to get another dp930 but the desk space is nice....
But they really are on par now with CRTS and are almost cheaper... Example.. I can get the Diamond Pro 930SB Mitsubishi 19" which is only 18" viewable for $429.00 or the BenQ T903 19" flat panel (16MS response, 1280x1024, 450:1 contrast, Dual inputs)
I'd say its almost 1:1 if you are comparing high quality CRT vs LCD.
At least this is one step in the generally right direction... but might mean I should have said "stay away" from Samsung instead if all their good pannels go to Korea first.
I wonder what the defect stats look like now. A few years ago, four defects per pannel were standard fare with many manufacturers not offering replacements until a dozen defects - how (un)usual is it to get a "perfect" LCD today? They used to be fairly rare but appear to have become far more common over the last 2-3 years.
It was only a few years ago that you couldn't buy a crt for under $300 and I mean 15". Now you can get them for $150. When the electronics industry would complain they couldn't make any money and that's why everything costs so much. It is now clear that the induwstry was soaking the consumer for the $150 difference because they certainly didn't discover in the last five years how to half the cost of crts. Everyone (almost) is buying LCDs and since noone really wants a crt they have to lower the price.
The trick now is for everyone to say. "we don't want LCDs, we'll buy crts because they are so cheap," and then the price for LCDs will drop and be where we want it.
One other thing: your numbers are off. Visible width of my 22" -> 19.5". Dot pitch -> .24mm. 19.5" == 495.3 mm. 495.3mm/.24mm = 2063.75.
Is it ok if we use someone else's home? One question...does it only work with old CRTs? Or can we use this method even with our neighbor's new CRT?
Also, what time of the day would you advise as optimal (prefereably when friend is not home)?
One big problem of LCDs is the Resolution Lockin - if you try to use anything except the device's native resolution, the quality of the display degrades quite a bit. The manufacturers seem to want to cram the largest number of pixels onto the screen - at first thought, not unreasonable, but ...
For those of us with somewhat less acute eyesight - due to age or other reasons - this manufacturer recommended resolution produces text and pictures that are too damn small!!
I run my 17 inch CRT at 800x600 to get comfortable viewing. Most 17 inch CRTs would not work well at this setting. You would need one that had 1600x1200 (if such existed at all, it would certainly be one of the more expensive ones) to be able to do 800x600 reasonably, and then I'm not sure how good it would look (still, probably better than trying to force a 1024x768 down to 800x600).
I intend to stick with CRTs as long as I can still get them, even if LCDs become as cheap or cheaper, because CRT's provide flexibility in setting the display the way I want it.
Teen Angel - a Ghost Story