LCD verses CRT

[fstime]

Originally posted by: Space Cowboy
So which one would make this Picture look the best?

Dell UltraSharp 2405FPW 24-inch Wide Aspect Flat Panel LCD Monitor with Height Adjustable Stand

NEC/MITSUBISHI FE2111SB-BK 22" SuperBright Diamondtron CRT Monitor

Hyundai L90D+19"

Personally, I would get a NEC CRT. Its cheaper than the Dell and bigger than the Hyundai. Not to mention CRTs are better overall in alomost every comparison.

 

[Hadsus]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker


8ms displays? Link.

As you can see, the curve didn't quite reach the 8 ms we were promised, but an explanation is in order. With the monitor pushed all the way to 100% contrast, we did get roughly 8ms at the ISO point (255 on the curve). The only problem is that the image is not usable; the color dynamics are completely wiped out. So we chose a more appropriate contrast adjustment, one that's closer to the actual conditions under which the display will be used. And that resulted in a latency reading of 10 ms in the best case.

Because they are so great and all. BTW- your particular model has an actual response time that closes in on 30ms depending on the situation- link.

I think we've all seen those links before. Once again you skew the picture with your verbage. Those screens have actual measured response times up to 27.5ms, as low as ~12ms (~9ms for 8ms rated screens). Despite the 'close to 30ms in worst-case situation' response times, I cannot discern ghosting on my 710T, and my vision is fine.

You seem to ignore Tom's conclusion as well, where he finds several new screens more than worthy enough to play games with:

In the multi-use category, the clear winner is the Samsung 710T. Its new 13 ms panel is responsive enough to make for good gaming, and it's even faster than the Hydis panel. The Samsung is as much at ease with office applications and multimedia use.

He even advised one of the LCD's for graphics professionals (for whom colour is everything):

Finally, for those who are more worried about color rendering than responsiveness, I'd advise buying the VX715. Its more traditional format and more acceptable latency make it a great candidate as a main monitor. We particularly appreciated the intensity of the colors and the wealth of shades this model offers. We'd advise it for graphics pros.

My issue with your comments Ben is that you're turning it into a, no pun intended, black and white situation where you say LCD's are inadequate ghosty shitboxes, while CRT's are, once calibrated, vastly superior in every single facet.

I disagree wholeheartedly. In my opinion, LCD's are better for 99.999% of home users out there. They're significantly smaller, text in far clearer and they display much sharper images. Warcraft III looked 10 times better even on my ghosty LCD's compared to my old 19" CRT. Doom3 looked like a blurry mess on my 191T (where black to grey transitions were in the 80ms ballpark), but looks gorgeous on my 710T.

I can't think of a reason that the vast majority of home users need the slightly better colour reproduction of CRT's versus LCD's. Especially the users starting most of these threads where the person asking is not a graphics professional.

LOL. Count me as one of those miniscule percent who chose CRT over LCD. I've owned both the Dell and NEC/Mitsu within days of each other. New monitor vs. new monitor. Old gen vs. new gen. Old gen wins. Sorry. Text easier to read on an LCD? Oh, you mean 1600X1200 type text that is much smaller than anything you pick up and read? Eh, no. You can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how kewl your Dell is while reading this microscopic text then wonder in a few years why you need Coke bottle glasses. It's just nuts that these LCDs which are so big display text so small. No choice, your resolution is stuck. Dial up Doom3 on an LCD and take a look at the background. Some grayish/whitish background that suppose to be black. Oh, yeah, that's kewl too. What else? How 'bout the silk screen effect (aka, SSE to those who read the HD TV forums). It's a pervasive sheen that is present on all LCD displays I've seen. Like there are some glowing particles on the surface of your screen. That can't be good for the eyes either.

Yup, we have fanbois of all type. Including LCD fanbois who just can't admit that bad blacks, microscopic text, fixed resolution, SSE, and motion blur on fast moving games is a bad thing. And this is the tech that is better for 99.99999% of the people. Am I suppose to take this seriously? And what are the negatives of CRT? You can't lift it with one hand? :laugh:

 

[ponyo]

Hadsus, your vision must be really bad if you think 1600x1200 text on 20" LCD is microscopic. If anything it's too big.

I have friends that use 1024x768 on 21" CRT. I've no idea how they can stand it. Everything looks gigantic and nasty.

 

[Hadsus]

Read the forums....there are plenty of people who don't like the small text. And I didn't even touch on the brightness issue. Small text and blazing brightness=return of LCDs for many, many people. And if people are dialing in 1024X768 resolution on a CRT, that's their choice. LCD owners have no choice.

BTW, my vision is 20/15.

 

[Nebor]

Man, there must be at least 50 long threads like this. It's part of the reason I gave up the non OT forums. Some people like ketchup, some people like mustard. There's no point in arguing over which one's better.

 

[Space Cowboy]

Ok .. Looks like it's down to either the Dell 24" LCD or A very large CRT.

At least it's narrowed down some.

I'm leaning toward a CRT.

Which Large CRT is the best bang for the buck? And where can I find a smokin deal on it?


Thanks Allot
Cowboy

P.S. Graphic

 

[sellmen]

Originally posted by: Hadsus
Read the forums....there are plenty of people who don't like the small text. And I didn't even touch on the brightness issue. Small text and blazing brightness=return of LCDs for many, many people. And if people are dialing in 1024X768 resolution on a CRT, that's their choice. LCD owners have no choice.

BTW, my vision is 20/15.

Small text...come on. You can take 10 seconds and increase the font size in windows. A complete non issue.

"Blazing brightness" Again...weak. Take another 10 seconds, reduce the brightness. Brightness is one of the LCD's strongest points...after you've used a bright LCD, CRTs look so dull in comparison.

A good DVI LCD displays a sharper picture than any CRT I've seen. Text in particular...with cleartype enabled, it's so far superior to any CRT. I could never go back to CRT due to cleartype alone...

LCDs still have to catch up to CRTs in response time, but overall? I'd take an LCD any day...I could never go back to a CRT.

 

[Hadsus]

As I said in a previous message I changed the font to large....it's one of the first things I did. I DL'd and used Cleartype. But when you increase the browser font size (OS font size does nothing in your browser) it screws up the formatting of many web pages.

In the end, this LCD v. CRT pissing contest is useless. I've tried both...two new monitors and two of the better ones out there..... and chose CRT. There is *nothing* you can say to convince me that LCDs are better. And if you say LCDs have no brightness problems for many people (BTW, you decrease brightness on your LCD, you compromise it's range of colors...I toned my brightness considerably), that fixed resolution is not a problem for many people, or small text size (LCDs are not sharper with text IMO), or blacks which are really gray, or motion blurring on many twitch games, etc....then you are just burying your head in the sand. Fine with me....CRTs are immune to these things. Facts are facts and there is no getting around LCD faults. The coolness factor only goes so far and for me it came well within Dell's 3 week return guarantee.

 

[sellmen]

Originally posted by: Hadsus
As I said in a previous message I changed the font to large....it's one of the first things I did. I DL'd and used Cleartype. But when you increase the browser font size (OS font size does nothing in your browser) it screws up the formatting of many web pages.

In the end, this LCD v. CRT pissing contest is useless. I've tried both (two new monitors and two of the better ones out there) and chose CRT. There is *nothing* you can say to convince me that LCDs are better. And if you say LCDs have no brightness problems for many people, that fixed resolution is not a problem for many people, or small text size, or blacks which are really gray, or motion blurring on many twitch games, etc....then you are just burying your head in the sand. Fine with me....CRTs are immune to these things. Facts are facts and there is no getting around LCD faults. The coolness factor only goes so far and for me it came well within Dell's 3 week return guarantee.

You obviously have your head in the sand...complaining about insignficant, easily solvable problems like text size and brightness. It's obvious that many LCD bashers here haven't tried anything other than Dell LCD's. You also completely ignore LCDs advantages - flatter, perfect geometry, sharper, brighter.

Enjoy your CRT, maybe someday you'll try a *quality* LCD.

 

[Hadsus]

My NEC is not flat (yes it is)? Geometry not perfect (BTW, my NEC setup includes geometric grids.....does your monitor?....and, oh, yes, it is perfect), sharper (in your opinion....baseless)?, brighter (my monitor two 'superbright' modes, which i never use)? In your opinion. Tell me more fiction.

I'll try another LCD when they fix their problems. The black issue itself ensure that color reproduction is inferior with LCDs. In the meantime, congratulate yourself in joining the new pop-culture of computer monitor buyers. I'll just stick with what's better.

 

[sellmen]

Originally posted by: Hadsus
My NEC is not flat (yes it is)? Geometry not perfect (BTW, my NEC setup includes geometric grids.....does your monitor?....and, oh, yes, it is perfect), sharper (in your opinion....baseless)?, brighter (my monitor two 'superbright' modes, which i never use)? In your opinion. Tell me more fiction.

I'll try another LCD when they fix their problems. The black issue itself ensure that color reproduction is inferior with LCDs. In the meantime, congratulate yourself in joining the new pop-culture of computer monitor buyers. I'll just stick with what's better.

LCDs are flatter than CRTs, enough said. The flattest CRT is still not perfectly flat.

Geometric grids? LOL...LCDs don't need anyone - they have perfect geometry. CRTs don't, again enough said.

LCDs with DVI are sharper, expecially on text. Pure digital vs analog...no contest.

My CRT also had a "super bright" mode, on a CRT all that does is wash out the screen.

Pop culture...LOL. You are truely clueless. LCDs have some significant advantages, if you are willing to spend some money and get a decent one.

 

[Spike]

I don't really care about all these points people bring up in both camps, I did all sorts of reading up and decided to just give LCD's a try and guess what, I am LOVING it. I currently dual screen my 21" Nokia CRT and my Dell 2005 fpw and would not have it any other way. To me, the LCD is better than the CRT for watching movies, reading text, picture editing (better in the clarity arena, not if you include alot of darks), video editing, and gaming. The only times I set my CRT as primary monitor is when I am playing older games that can't do widescreen, other than that the LCD wins in every area.

No, I am not a fanboy, I get what I think looks good and either return it or love it, with the LCD it happens to be the latter. I would be lying if I said it was perfect, there are definitly some down sides. I don't like always have to use the native res, thankfully this monitor scales very well compared to some other LCD's I have tinkered with. Yes, the blacks are not as beautiful which is a bummer for someone like me who is an aspiring photographer.

Overall though I find it a very nice step up from the CRT, even with it's downsides. If those downs sides are uber important to you then by all means do NOT get an LCD. Theres no point in all this bickering back and forth and it's quite annoying. Are LCD's POS new tech that amount to tiny (size) wastes of money? NO! Are CRT's old useless tech that deserve to be turned into fishtanks, NO! Currently both have their place so live with it.

-spike

 

[sellmen]

Originally posted by: Spike
I don't really care about all these points people bring up in both camps, I did all sorts of reading up and decided to just give LCD's a try and guess what, I am LOVING it. I currently dual screen my 21" Nokia CRT and my Dell 2005 fpw and would not have it any other way. To me, the LCD is better than the CRT for watching movies, reading text, picture editing (better in the clarity arena, not if you include alot of darks), video editing, and gaming. The only times I set my CRT as primary monitor is when I am playing older games that can't do widescreen, other than that the LCD wins in every area.

No, I am not a fanboy, I get what I think looks good and either return it or love it, with the LCD it happens to be the latter. I would be lying if I said it was perfect, there are definitly some down sides. I don't like always have to use the native res, thankfully this monitor scales very well compared to some other LCD's I have tinkered with. Yes, the blacks are not as beautiful which is a bummer for someone like me who is an aspiring photographer.

Overall though I find it a very nice step up from the CRT, even with it's downsides. If those downs sides are uber important to you then by all means do NOT get an LCD. Theres no point in all this bickering back and forth and it's quite annoying. Are LCD's POS new tech that amount to tiny (size) wastes of money? NO! Are CRT's old useless tech that deserve to be turned into fishtanks, NO! Currently both have their place so live with it.

-spike

Well stated...CRTs have their upsides, as do LCDs. I'm sure there are more than a few LCD users viewing this thread...and wondering WTF the LCD crappers are talking about.

 

[Hadsus]

I'm not crapping on LCDs.....just facts. Fixed resolution. Bad blacks and therefore inferior imaging compared to the better CRTs. Small text because of fixed resolution. Mucked up webpages because of fixed native resolution (virtually none optimized for high resolution LCDs). Silk-screen effect. Oh, and motion blurring on one of the most popular shooters of all time (UT), not to mention others I haven't tried. These are inarguable facts. I'm glad you like these things....I sure wish I could join in the fun with my crappy CRT.

 

[Space Cowboy]

Oh Geese .. and just when I thought I was narrowing it down you make some good points about LCD's

Lets try this??

Why would anyone want a wide screen over a square one?

For instance the Dell 24" wide or a Samsung 21.3T

I did see the Samsung next to this new Sony19" and I hate to say it but the Sony looked better to me. To bad it costs so much.

Thanks .. This is good stuff
Cowboy

 

[sellmen]

Originally posted by: Hadsus
I'm not crapping on LCDs.....just facts. Fixed resolution. Bad blacks and therefore inferior imaging compared to the better CRTs. Small text because of fixed resolution. Mucked up webpages because of fixed native resolution (virtually none optimized for high resolution LCDs). Silk-screen effect. Oh, and motion blurring on one of the most popular shooters of all time (UT), not to mention others I haven't tried. These are inarguable facts. I'm glad you like these things....I sure wish I could join in the fun with my crappy CRT.

You are clueless...still harping on the "small text" and the "mucked up webpages", neither of which I have experienced. Bad blacks? Maybe on some...quality LCDs can now display accurate blacks and whites. Silk-screen? No idea what you are talking about.

Could you please list the LCDs you have tried?

 

[Space Cowboy]

Originally posted by: Space Cowboy
I had a AG Neovo F-419 19in LCD Monitor. Nothing but problems. Maybe it was just the brand but it had great spec's and reviewed well all over the net? The first one I recieved was defective and would randomly get strange lines thru the screen that wouldn't go away till I rebooted. Then when ZipZoomFly finally sent out the replacement (a month later) it had some major backlight issues. When the screen was black it was all washed out around the edges. So they told me to ship it back and then they told me there was nothing wrong with it and gave me two options. Take it back or get a refund. So I went for the refund and they charged me a restocking fee? So all said and done I lost my shirt on that deal. The shipping costs alone was a little over $60.00 and the process took around 3 months all together.

Anyway .. does anybody know what the DPI is on the Dell's. It looks like they have a no question return policy and they pay the shipping. At least thats what their sales department told me over the phone.

Thanks Allot
Cowboy

Just got a email from ZipZoomFly .. They are starting to get on my nerves. For some reason they don't seem to understand English and keep referring me to a long distance toll number? They promised me a credit for the shipping cost but now they are renigin.
Just what I need .. more problems.

 

[Hadsus]

Originally posted by: sellmen

Originally posted by: Hadsus
I'm not crapping on LCDs.....just facts. Fixed resolution. Bad blacks and therefore inferior imaging compared to the better CRTs. Small text because of fixed resolution. Mucked up webpages because of fixed native resolution (virtually none optimized for high resolution LCDs). Silk-screen effect. Oh, and motion blurring on one of the most popular shooters of all time (UT), not to mention others I haven't tried. These are inarguable facts. I'm glad you like these things....I sure wish I could join in the fun with my crappy CRT.

You are clueless...still harping on the "small text" and the "mucked up webpages", neither of which I have experienced. Bad blacks? Maybe on some...quality LCDs can now display accurate blacks and whites. Silk-screen? No idea what you are talking about.

Could you please list the LCDs you have tried?

Speaking of clueless, *ALL LCDs*, repeat ALLLLLLLL are inferior with regard to black. They do not display true blacks......none of them. Even the highest of the high end LCD HDTV monitors do not. Every hear of something called 'contrast ratio?' LCD contrast ratios are measure in the hundreds. With CRTs it's the thousands. Quantifiable. Indisputeable. You are wrong. This is not even something worth arguing. In the world of LCD monitors, black = gray. That's the best they can do.

With regard to small text, if you do not increase text size with large fonts or your browser text size then you are fine. I made that point early on. I can't read 8 pt. text without difficulty @ 1600 lines of resolution. All the yahoo news stories are 8 pt. text.

Regarding widescreen vs. traditional screen, I can't comment on whether widescreen is preferred because I haven't seen one. Lots of people like 'em. I can see their advantages, especially the 2405 where you can see two web pages side by side. I was really torn between the 2001fp and the 2005fpw and opted for the square screen. I could have gone either way.

 

[sellmen]

Originally posted by: Hadsus

Originally posted by: sellmen

Originally posted by: Hadsus
I'm not crapping on LCDs.....just facts. Fixed resolution. Bad blacks and therefore inferior imaging compared to the better CRTs. Small text because of fixed resolution. Mucked up webpages because of fixed native resolution (virtually none optimized for high resolution LCDs). Silk-screen effect. Oh, and motion blurring on one of the most popular shooters of all time (UT), not to mention others I haven't tried. These are inarguable facts. I'm glad you like these things....I sure wish I could join in the fun with my crappy CRT.

You are clueless...still harping on the "small text" and the "mucked up webpages", neither of which I have experienced. Bad blacks? Maybe on some...quality LCDs can now display accurate blacks and whites. Silk-screen? No idea what you are talking about.

Could you please list the LCDs you have tried?

Speaking of clueless, *ALL LCDs*, repeat ALLLLLLLL are inferior with regard to black. They do not display true blacks......none of them. Even the highest of the high end LCD HDTV monitors do not. Every hear of something called 'contrast ratio?' LCD contrast ratios are measure in the hundreds. With CRTs it's the thousands. Quantifiable. Indisputeable. You are wrong. This is not even something worth arguing. In the world of LCD monitors, black = gray. That's the best they can do.

With regard to small text, if you do not increase text size with large fonts or your browser text size then you are fine. I made that point early on. I can't read 8 pt. text without difficulty @ 1600 lines of resolution. All the yahoo news stories are 8 pt. text.

Regarding widescreen vs. traditional screen, I can't comment on whether widescreen is preferred because I haven't seen one. Lots of people like 'em. I can see their advantages, especially the 2405 where you can see two web pages side by side. I was really torn between the 2001fp and the 2005fpw and opted for the square screen. I could have gone either way.

It is irrelevant whether LCDs can display a true black. What is relevant is whether the black level is distinguishable from a CRT - I have seen enough LCDs to know that some can accomplish this, while some can't. It appears that you have looked at one LCD, didn't like the black level or the text, and now you crap this thread with your unsubstantiated nonsense.

If small text really bothers you, get a 19" LCD which runs a 12x10 resolution. If black levels bother you, spend some money and get a higher quality screen. Dell LCDs are very well priced for their screen size...they do not by any means have the best image quality. Check some of Anands reviews for proof on this.

So again, can you list the LCDs you have tried?

 

[EightySix Four]

I have used quite a few LCD's, ranging from a 30 inch apple, to little 15 inchers, and I will agree blacks aren't black, but that's to someone who works in photoshop and 3ds max a whole lot and cares ALOT about how well the image that is to be printed is displayed on the screen, hence why I have a few NEC 21inch crts around.

 

[Hadsus]

Originally posted by: sellmen

Originally posted by: Hadsus

Originally posted by: sellmen

Originally posted by: Hadsus
I'm not crapping on LCDs.....just facts. Fixed resolution. Bad blacks and therefore inferior imaging compared to the better CRTs. Small text because of fixed resolution. Mucked up webpages because of fixed native resolution (virtually none optimized for high resolution LCDs). Silk-screen effect. Oh, and motion blurring on one of the most popular shooters of all time (UT), not to mention others I haven't tried. These are inarguable facts. I'm glad you like these things....I sure wish I could join in the fun with my crappy CRT.

You are clueless...still harping on the "small text" and the "mucked up webpages", neither of which I have experienced. Bad blacks? Maybe on some...quality LCDs can now display accurate blacks and whites. Silk-screen? No idea what you are talking about.

Could you please list the LCDs you have tried?

Speaking of clueless, *ALL LCDs*, repeat ALLLLLLLL are inferior with regard to black. They do not display true blacks......none of them. Even the highest of the high end LCD HDTV monitors do not. Every hear of something called 'contrast ratio?' LCD contrast ratios are measure in the hundreds. With CRTs it's the thousands. Quantifiable. Indisputeable. You are wrong. This is not even something worth arguing. In the world of LCD monitors, black = gray. That's the best they can do.

With regard to small text, if you do not increase text size with large fonts or your browser text size then you are fine. I made that point early on. I can't read 8 pt. text without difficulty @ 1600 lines of resolution. All the yahoo news stories are 8 pt. text.

Regarding widescreen vs. traditional screen, I can't comment on whether widescreen is preferred because I haven't seen one. Lots of people like 'em. I can see their advantages, especially the 2405 where you can see two web pages side by side. I was really torn between the 2001fp and the 2005fpw and opted for the square screen. I could have gone either way.

It is irrelevant whether LCDs can display a true black. What is relevant is whether the black level is distinguishable from a CRT - I have seen enough LCDs to know that some can accomplish this, while some can't. It appears that you have looked at one LCD, didn't like the black level or the text, and now you crap this thread with your unsubstantiated nonsense.

If small text really bothers you, get a 19" LCD which runs a 12x10 resolution. If black levels bother you, spend some money and get a higher quality screen. Dell LCDs are very well priced for their screen size...they do not by any means have the best image quality. Check some of Anands reviews for proof on this.

So again, can you list the LCDs you have tried?

2001fp....two of them. Regarding text size and brightness issues, go to www.hardforum.com and look at the displays section. There are literally hundreds of pages of posts written about the Dell monitors. And many many complaints about the issues I have brought up, especially brightness. And not just the Dells, but other monitors too (especially Viewsonics).

I've said all I'm going to say on this issue. SpaceCowboy, I hope you are satisfied with whatever you choose. Good luck. Dell has a good return policy but their customer service is painful. Start with the LCDs if you are leaning that way and if you don't like 'em, send 'em back. That's what I did. :thumbsup: Newegg is where I got my NEC/Mitsu. When I ordered (last week) they had $.99 shipping and the monitor itself was price well vs. their competitors.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

So which one would make this Picture look the best?

CRT without a doubt- particularly in the shadowing on the side of her face, looks like crap on a LCD. If I was you I would try and find a 2141 instead of the 2111. They cost more and are hard to find, but they are a better display.

He even advised one of the LCD's for graphics professionals (for whom colour is everything):

Versus the other LCDs, not compared to a CRT.

My issue with your comments Ben is that you're turning it into a, no pun intended, black and white situation where you say LCD's are inadequate ghosty shitboxes

And how exactly are they not?

Warcraft III looked 10 times better even on my ghosty LCD's compared to my old 19" CRT.

Remember to only compare exact vintage displays. If you are talking about a six year old CRT you need to compare it to a six year old LCD. Check out a remotely decent CRT lined up to your 710T and then compare.

I can't think of a reason that the vast majority of home users need the slightly better colour reproduction of CRT's versus LCD's. Especially the users starting most of these threads where the person asking is not a graphics professional.

From the OP-

I'm not a gamer but I like graphics and video's.

For graphics, a CRT is easily superior- and it isn't really a contest.

You have some truth in what u are saying.

But as said many times, MOST people are goign to want the 24" dell over any CRT you can muster.
Its that simple. And for these reasons that no one has shot down:

perfect geometry- LCD (NEVER loses focus over the years)
16.7million colors- LCD and CRT
crystal clarity from DVI- LCD (its a digital interface for a digital screen)
easy on the eyes- LCD with DVI and cleartype enabled (its like looking outside at the beach compared to CRTs)
size- LCD
cool factor- LCD
heat- LCD
energy savings- LCD
environmentally friendly- LCD
large screen size- LCD BY FAR, theres the Apple Cinema 30", Dell 24" and you can use most 1080 HDTV's as screens and they are beautiful that go as big as you want
response rate- LCD and CRT (no difference in the new 12ms and 8ms panels from CRTs)
weight- LCD (a 20" lcd weighs like 12lbs. a 20" CRT weighs like 80LBS!)
best black reproduction- CRT
resolution scaling- CRT (while CRT wins this one, LCD does just great check my post about playing 160x200 games on a 20" LCD.. beautiful, hence scaling from 1600x1200 on a LCD to 1042x768 is only a problem for the most anal people)

Pretty much no one has shot down this list.

Cuz its JUST THE TRUTH.


One thing that people (I hope) are smart enough to see is that BenSkywalker spends 12 hours calibrating his color perfectly.

Let me put it this way for people:
IF YOU HAVE EVER IN YOUR LIFE SPEND EVEN CLOSE TO 12 HOURS CALIBRATING A MONITOR, YOU SHOULD CONSULT HIM ON MONITOR PURCHASING DECISIONS WITHOUT QUESTION.
Seriously.

If you havent done such, you are 100% more likely to prefer a high quality LCD.

Theres no argument about it.
People like Ben are just right in their views.. but their views are extremely limited to a very, very small part of the population and enthusiast community.


People have embraced LCDs, as has the industry.. the CRT is just inferior technology overall.
Check the comparison list to see why.

 

[kmmatney]

I've never noticed the "black" issue. Black looks prety darn black on my LCD.

I have an eye disease (Keratocous) and I'm pretty sensitive to displays. The 19" LCD displays with larger pixel sizes are great for me. Good riddance to CRTs.

Screen resolution scaling had never been an issue with me. I use fixed-aspect ratio scaling and games look great.

Well, I guess I've become an LCD fanboy....

I can see Hadsus point about small text. With my eyes, I'd probably have the same problem with the smaller pixels on the 2001FP. Tha's one advantage on the 19" LCDs - larger pixels.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: kmmatney
I've never noticed the "black" issue. Black looks prety darn black on my LCD.

I have an eye disease (Keratocous) and I'm pretty sensitive to displays. The 19" LCD displays with larger pixel sizes are great for me. Good riddance to CRTs.

Screen resolution scaling had never been an issue with me. I use fixed-aspect ratio scaling and games look great.

Well, I guess I've become an LCD fanboy....

I can see Hadsus point about small text. With my eyes, I'd probably have the same problem with the smaller pixels on the 2001FP. Tha's one advantage on the 19" LCDs - larger pixels.

Thats cuz you are correct.

The black "problem" on LCDs isnt that much of a problem. But I gotta give credit to CRTs, they DO look a bit better in games like Doom3.

But its not worth giving up the perfect geometry, the DVI clarity w/cleartype, size, heat reduction, energy savings, larger screen sizes by far, vastly reduced weight and not to mention the environmental disposal..

some might not care about the environment, but I for one, kinda like to breathe. Either way, the CRT is a thing of the past no one wants those big ugly squares anymore.

Half Life2 and World of Warcraft is simply amazing in widescreen.

I'm with you man, good riddance to bad rubbish.

I have all kinds of money, why wouldnt I purchase the best technology?? If CRTs were better for gamers you dont think I'd have one?? DUH

I think a nice 24" widescreen Dell mops the floor with every CRT out there for gaming.
Not to mention its actually desirable.. no one wants those old CRTs.. thats why they discontinued the best CRT line ever, the Diamondtrons from NEC/Mitsubishi.

 

[Space Cowboy]

CAn you hook This up to use as a computer monitor?

Would it be better than the 24" Dell?