monitors...

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by garetjax

Excuses? Why would I make excuses for CRT technology? Please, by all means, I invite you to tell me what "excuses" for CRT's exist and are not valid anymore. Please refrain from using words like "almost" or "nearly" and expressions such as "as good as" or "just about" when describing the advantages of LCD monitors over CRT's.

CRT monitors are just not a consideration anymore. The argument that CRTs are better for gaming isn't true. A high quality CRT monitor is going to cost you just as much as an LCD. Also with a CRT you are pretty much stuck buying it locally unless you want to pay high shipping cost.

[Lead Head]

Dunno about you, but this 19" Sony Trinitron CRT destroys ANY LCD i have ever seen.

One of the best reasons I see for gettting a CRT is by the fact they they don't really have a native resolution, they look good on pretty much ever resolution.

If you get a game that taxes your system to much, you either lower the settings and make the game look like crap, or lower the resolution to lower then your monitors native, and distort the pixels, and make it look like crap.

While on CRTs, you can just lower the reso and it will look just as good as a higher res.

[OCNoob]

Originally Posted by garetjax

Excuses? Why would I make excuses for CRT technology? Please, by all means, I invite you to tell me what "excuses" for CRT's exist and are not valid anymore. Please refrain from using words like "almost" or "nearly" and expressions such as "as good as" or "just about" when describing the advantages of LCD monitors over CRT's.

Go ask monitor experts. I haven't seen a CRT review in a LONG while.. and it seems they don't want CRT's for their displays anymore. Even though LCD's have response times, they're so incredibly slow, they emulate a CRT's performance. It's not like ghosting can't happen on CRT's either, I've seen it happen on mine (which I am using now and I desperately need to upgrade). Even though it's not a aperture grille monitor, at least it doesn't have the two faint lines going across the screen.

I'll leave the contrast and brightness discussion to the people who know how to evaluate that fairly.

[gvblake22]

Like everything in the computer world, there are going to be products that excel in their family, and others that are just a poor excuse for a computer part; and monitors are the same way. I think we can all sit here and argue in favor or against CRT's or LCD's, but the fact of the matter is that there can easily be very nice quality CRT's that outperform average LCD' just as there can be very high quality LCD's that outperform average CRT's. I have a 4 year old 15" LCD and I use a comparitively newer 21" CRT at work and I actually prefer the picture quality of my LCD to the CRT I use at work.

With that said, I honestly think you can get great image quality from both LCD's and CRT's (just depends on the particular monitor). But because of the sheer size, weight, and power consumption of CRT's, I just have a hard time recommending it over an LCD of equal quality.

[screwballl]

When speaking about mid to high range items, yes, CRTs are no better than LCDs. But when you are talking about a budget range like many of us, $200 can get you a ghosting LCD that sucks for games but is fine for non-gaming usage or $200 can get you a helluva nice CRT.
It all depends on your budget and use.

[Captain Crunch]

All most everyone has had a crt and now and LCD........Personally I don't know to many people that would go back to an crt.........I do some photography and still wouldn't go back to a crt. NO WAY!!!
Plenty of good brads out there I personally have 2 BenQ's but lot of good brands..........in this case reading the review eggs is a good idea..I don't like dell but they do make good monitors... BenQ ,viewsonic, Samsung, Septre gets pretty good reviews

[pc_guy]

I agree with most of the previous posts.

CRT IS DEAD!

I recently looked at some cheap LCD's in the $180 range, and they look amazing compared to only 2 - 3 years ago.
Over the years, LCD monitors have dramatically improved.

I will never go back to CRT.

EDIT:
For those CRT fan boys out there, CRT monitors are only needed, I repeat, only needed in a professional environment or multimedia company doing publishing layouts and/or video editing because of their higher color gamut.

[Captain Crunch]

For those CRT fan boys out there, CRT monitors are only needed, I repeat, only needed in a professional environment or multimedia company doing publishing layouts and/or video editing because of their higher color gamut.

And even they are starting to go LCD now!!

[garetjax]

Originally Posted by gvblake22

...but the fact of the matter is that there can easily be very nice quality CRT's that outperform average LCD' just as there can be very high quality LCD's that outperform average CRT's.

Correct. But not everyone can afford a very high quality LCD that can outperform an average CRT.

Originally Posted by screwballl

When speaking about mid to high range items, yes, CRTs are no better than LCDs. But when you are talking about a budget range like many of us, $200 can get you a ghosting LCD that sucks for games but is fine for non-gaming usage or $200 can get you a helluva nice CRT.
It all depends on your budget and use.

Exactly!

[Capper]

I'd highly recommend a good LCD over a CRT. In a pinch a CRT is fine (tight on money), but for under $200 you can get a very good 19" LCD monitor with a 12ms or better response time

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824116014
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824116011
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824254001
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824254011
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824009083
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824116353

You aren't going to get much ghosting in LCDs anymore.....the days of 15-20ms response times are long gone, and anything under 12ms should eliminate ghosting....as a matter of fact, i think the highest response time of those monitors posted was 8ms, most were 5ms