1) Apparent sharpness. I gave up a nice 21" trini to use my laptop's built-in LCD. Two weeks now, and I don't miss it.
2) The effect of flicker on my eyes/brain. Programming for a living has me staring at a screen for 10+ hours a day. There's a hypnotic quality to CRT's that I find LCD's (happily) lacking.
With the CRT, I was much foggier and "out-of-it" at the end of the day than I am now that I use LCD all the time. Just my subjective opinion, but I think my increased mental clarity is due to the lack of screen flicker.
3) EMF's. I know these are highly disputed, but all I can say is "I don't miss 'em!" If there's anything to the concerns about EMF's, I am under much less exposure. I won't even mention X-rays.
-----------------------
I'm kind of surprised no one else has mentioned these factors in the CRT vs LCD debate.
While I am fascinated by the current standard of 3D realism, I still find that the complete absence of graphics yields a more submersive experience, as one's imagination becomes more engaged.
Same reason I lean more towards books than movies.
The old "hot" media vs "cool" media debate - see McLuhan et al.
I was always interested in the game mechanics (programmer-mind is hard to suppress).
For years I've been meaning to take some time and analyze the differences between the d20 system, where all results are of equal probability (need tables to weight the odds) and the 3D6 system found in Steve Jackson's The Fantasy Trip and GURPS games, where the results form a natural bell curve.
Not having played D&D since *long* before WotC took over, I have no experience with the current d20 system. My impression is still that GURPS is more elegant and potentially realistic (especially when enhanced with tbone's Gulliver extensions - http://www.io.com/~tbone/gurps/).
OK, I admit game systems were my hobby-horse of choice before I discovered operating systems.
Slashdot Mirror
My biggest complaints with CRT's are:
1) Apparent sharpness. I gave up a nice 21" trini to use my laptop's built-in LCD. Two weeks now, and I don't miss it.
2) The effect of flicker on my eyes/brain. Programming for a living has me staring at a screen for 10+ hours a day. There's a hypnotic quality to CRT's that I find LCD's (happily) lacking.
With the CRT, I was much foggier and "out-of-it" at the end of the day than I am now that I use LCD all the time. Just my subjective opinion, but I think my increased mental clarity is due to the lack of screen flicker.
3) EMF's. I know these are highly disputed, but all I can say is "I don't miss 'em!" If there's anything to the concerns about EMF's, I am under much less exposure. I won't even mention X-rays.
-----------------------
I'm kind of surprised no one else has mentioned these factors in the CRT vs LCD debate.
While I am fascinated by the current standard of 3D realism, I still find that the complete absence of graphics yields a more submersive experience, as one's imagination becomes more engaged.
Same reason I lean more towards books than movies.
The old "hot" media vs "cool" media debate - see McLuhan et al.
For years I've been meaning to take some time and analyze the differences between the d20 system, where all results are of equal probability (need tables to weight the odds) and the 3D6 system found in Steve Jackson's The Fantasy Trip and GURPS games, where the results form a natural bell curve.
Not having played D&D since *long* before WotC took over, I have no experience with the current d20 system. My impression is still that GURPS is more elegant and potentially realistic (especially when enhanced with tbone's Gulliver extensions - http://www.io.com/~tbone/gurps/).
OK, I admit game systems were my hobby-horse of choice before I discovered operating systems.
"Gimme a G!
"Gimme an E!
"Gimme another E!
"Gimme a K!
To this customer, Opera beats IE in that it provides: