Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Displays

Monitor Basics - LCD vs. CRT 521

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stack-'em-up dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Monitor Basics - LCD vs. CRT More

Monitor Basics - LCD vs. CRT

Comments Filter:

  • Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Funny)

    by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:10PM (#11422588) Homepage Journal
    Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

    Typical, a story about monitors comes along, and mine decides to censor it.
    • A slow day at the office huh?

      • Re:Geek news??? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:43PM (#11423037) Homepage Journal
        Actually, these beginner guides and technology simplified articles are handy for us geeks to have.
        Presenting facts and information to the layman can be a difficult task, and its good for us to see how its done.

        Instead of us all saying something like "let me try try to explain it" to a family member or friend, you can direct them to an article written with them in mind, and with enough information to answer most of their queries.

  • Full article before their servers crash (Score:3, Informative)

    by mwsmith824 ( 638640 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:11PM (#11422593)
    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

    • Don't forget ClearType on your LCD (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lev13than ( 581686 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:24PM (#11422783) Homepage
      Kind of OT, but important - if you are running XP with an LCD screen, don't forget to turn on ClearType [microsoft.com]. 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.

    • Re:Full article before their servers crash (Score:5, Informative)

      by molo ( 94384 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:49PM (#11423111) Journal
      I just got a 20" 1600x1200 LCD after years of using a 19" CRT in the same resolution.

      What this article does not talk about is color gamut. CRTs are able to display a much wider range of color compared to LCDs. Any application where color is important (desktop publishing, graphics work, etc.) will want to use a CRT for the forseeable future. On this LCD, whites are not really white, blacks are not really black.

      That said, the LCD display really does very well in two areas: 1) lack of refresh rate, even at 60Hz things are nice and solid. 2) lack of convergence artifacts. Because each pixel has seperate addressable color components, you don't have to worry about gun convergence like CRTs. Individual pixels are nice and sharp. On lower priced CRTs (particularly OEM ones) convergence is often never quite right. If the convergnce is adjusted properly for one area of the screen, it will be off in another. Buying a higher priced CRT will end up with better results, but be sure it is always transported in its original packaging, or else the convergence can get shot to hell.

      Both CRTs and LCDs have their probelms and benefits, and the choice between them depends on what your application is. For my purposes, I think I will end up going with a CRT and LCD dual-display system. I'll see how that goes.

      -molo
    • LCD's are great for:

      Programming (unless they are misaligned) and working in emacs

      CRT's:

      Web development, if you hike it to 100hz, the colours are beautiful and you can work nicely without the visible partitioning between pixels.

      My machine: the graphics card is loose, so it is like working in a disco, the screen is flickering, but this is my home machine, so I use it 5 mins a day.

      I would (and have) bought a new CRT over plasma/lcd or rear proj DLP.

      (unless you put your lcd flat against wall (which isnt a

  • Website go boom! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Trifthen ( 40989 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:11PM (#11422601) Homepage
    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?

  • 2 Years On, On LCD (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:11PM (#11422606) Homepage Journal
    2 Years and I still love my Samsung Synchmaster 172t, though my only gripe is it's TOO BRIGHT! Even on the lowest settings I think I'm getting some sort of tan. Manufacturers may wish to consider some users sit in dark rooms, plugging away at nefarious^H^H^H^H^Hworking very diligently on upstanding fine projects their mothers would be proud of!

    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 :-)

  • Worst (Score:3, Funny)

    by savagedome ( 742194 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:11PM (#11422611)
    but as LCD prices are dropping like rocks

    Worst analogy. Ever.
    • Droping like pieces of balled up paper would be about as useful...

      I still prefer my Sony 19" trinitron for games. And a sony 19" lcd at work which I like.

      I actually don't like most LCD's. I find most in the market work best at only one or two resolutions. And a lot of them aren't half as easy to look at as, say a cheap ViewSonic 19".
    • 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,

    • How about saying, of a piece of software, that it has "surprising equipment" -- just like that character in the crying game? [petting-zoo.net] 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.

  • CRT Trash Problem (Score:2, Interesting)

    by blahbooboo ( 839709 )
    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 give them to Goodwill. Seriously. Goodwill, Dell, and the city of Austin signed a deal [dell.com] last year whereby Goodwill accepts any computer products for recycling (or resale at their computer store in town). If I lived in Austin, they would even pick them up at my house.

      Central Texas residents outside the Austin city limits can also participate in the program by dropping off their unwanted computers at any of the 37 Goodwill locations in Central Texas.

      ^^ That's what we do. I used to give Goodwill the w

    • When I was a kid (Score:4, Funny)

      by khrtt ( 701691 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:49PM (#11423112)
      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:-)

  • Hello (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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

  • What drops? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Morgahastu ( 522162 ) <bshel@WEEZERroge ... ve bands n ame> on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:14PM (#11422650) Journal
    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.

    • I've been in the market to buy an LCD monitor for the past 2 years and I have not seen any significant drop.

      The price for craptacular 1280x1024 displays has been dropping, but if you actually want to use those 19 inches of screen real estate with, say, a higher resolution (say, 1600x1280) you're still looking at just under a grand. Which is absurd. Most good CRT's go up to 2048x1536, and can down-res when needed (higher framerates for games, for instance), yet cost half that.
    • Of course prices has dropped.

      But then, sizes have also increased to compensate for those price drops. A 21" LCD is now $700. In 1995 a 17" CRT was $700.
    • The prices of the Apple Cinema displays almost halved a couple of weeks ago - and they are among the more expensive LCDs available (although having worked on one for a little while I found myself very impressed by the quality).

    • Re:What drops? (Score:5, Informative)

      by sootman ( 158191 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @03:03PM (#11423332) Homepage Journal
      I've been in charge of buying flat panels for my company for the last few years. In that time, 20" LCDs from Dell have gone from $2000 to $599 [dell.com]. In the same time, high-end Apple LCDs have gone from 22" 1600x1024 for $4000 to 30" 2560x1600 for $3000 (plus a $600 video card to run it.) If you haven't seen any drops, you haven't been looking very hard. As for your last point, I can go to CompUSA and buy a 17" LCD for $279 or a 15" laptop for $649.

  • Response time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Monkey Angst ( 577685 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:15PM (#11422661) Homepage
    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.

    • Re:Response time (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:36PM (#11422932)
      The manufacturers don't give enough specifications to evaluate the response time properly. The response times refer to a fully-off to fully-on step transition, which is actually the fastest response a CRT has. A change from 50% gray to 51% gray will be very slow, by comparison, and that's much more important for video. Some LCD displays have circuits that intentionally overdrive the pixel to get faster small-signal response, but it is difficult to find out which manufacturers to this. The best way is to hook up a video source and just watch it.

    • Re:Response time (Score:2, Informative)

      by legirons ( 809082 )
      "The article only briefly mentions response time -- doesn't explain it."

      TomsHardware (don't pretend you need a link) have been plotting response-time against brightness change in their reviews recently, showing the advertised 14ms (or whatever) on the black-white transition, and response times increasing for changes of greyscale (with a peak somewhere around the 25% brightness change of maybe 30ms for a "14ms" monitor)

      Comments on aria also mention that images seem to linger longer when there is blue invo

    • Good pixel response == great gaming on LCDs (Score:4, Informative)

      by MooseByte ( 751829 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:51PM (#11423151)

      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.

    • Re:Response time (Score:3, Informative)

      by kmo ( 203708 )
      Response time was the reason I returned the LCD I bought and went back to my CRT -- DVD playback was awful.

      A response time of 40ms means it takes a pixel 40 milliseconds to change color. At that rate, it can change 1/.040 times per second, or 25 frames/sec if new images are perfectly in sync (and they never are). That's slow enough that most people will notice rapidly changing images bleed into one another as the pixel is given a new value more rapidly than it can change. Thus a 40ms LCD is a poor choice

  • 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.

  • The biggest advantages of LCD over CRT are weight and space.
    • and power savings. My 21" trinitron heats up a lot and over time I have seen CRTs go bad a lot more often than LCDs. There's more that can go wrong.

      Given enough time maybe I'll see more LCD screens fail. Under normal conditions though I don't think I've seen any LCD have issues other than every once in a while you'll have a dead pixel out of the box.

  • Health Issues (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Drexus ( 826859 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:17PM (#11422696) Homepage
    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.

    • Re:Health Issues (Score:5, Interesting)

      by .orvp ( 208389 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:34PM (#11422904)
      I switched to an LCD for health reasons as well, just a different one. Mine dealt with the refresh of a CRT. When in college, I had a 19" CRT that I would program on. At night, I was having a hard time falling to sleep, and so when I couldn't sleep, I went back to programing. This really messed up my sleep patern to the point I was at a 26 hour day (where I could only fall asleep every 26 hours). That doesn't really help when trying to go to classes.

      After a while, I would just fall asleep at random points because of sleep deprivation, missing classes and all. When I finally went to a sleep doctor, I learned it could be from the refresh of my CRT. I then moved to an LCD and haven't had that problem. I can now sleep 10 minutes after getting of the computer where as before I would need to wait 90 minutes for my brain to wind down.
      • ...THANKS.

        I've been having incredible trouble sleeping for about a year, and now I remember that is was just about a year ago that I bought a new 20" CRT so that I could run at a higher resolution for, believe it or not, programming. I ran into the whole 30-40 hour day problem last semester and my GPA's still bugging me about it... I'll try using my laptop more.

        Thanks again
    • I did as well, but for a differnt reason. I went from 3 Viewsonic 21" monitors to 3 Compaq 19" TFT's because of headaches.

      I switched everyone in the company to LCD's, and people that had problems with headaches (accountant, ISO Quality Control) all got 19" TFT's. The headaches went away almost immediately, and haven't returned.
      • Were you workign under flourescent lights? Was the monitor referesh rate still defaulted at 60hz? If so it's no wonder people were getting headaches. Cranking the refresh rate up to 85Hz or so will do wonders for reducing eyestrain.

    • Re:Health Issues (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Photon Ghoul ( 14932 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:47PM (#11423088)
      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.

      I'm not trying to troll here, but maybe... just maybe.... those health issues aren't from sitting around in front of 5 CRTs necessarily, but maybe years of just sitting around, period.

      Exercise improves your health and your appetite.

  • Too Cool for School (Score:5, Funny)

    by MrAsstastic ( 851637 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:18PM (#11422709)
    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 !

  • Save you energy, health, and space! (Score:5, Informative)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:19PM (#11422718)
    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...
    • The "image quality" is only better on CRT if you are talking about video or photography. If you're talking about text or line art, the image quality it far far higher on LCD. Why? Because, as you mention, you can never get the geometry of a CRT quite right, and it never paints the same point of light in quite the same place. An LCD's pixels simply do not move. A CRT's pixels *do* move. You don't notice on videos and photos, but on text you surely do.

  • What? (Score:2)

    by tbase ( 666607 )
    That synopsis makes my head hurt.
  • 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?
    • since LCD is active matrix, refresh rate isn't as big of a deal. it simply means the pixels can only change values once every 60 Hz or whatever the refresh rate is, but unlike CRT, pixels will always be "on" until the next refresh. so there's no "flicker."
    • I believe that was DFP, an older standard, but I could be wrong.

    • Re:LCD refresh, pricing (Score:3, Informative)

      by khrtt ( 701691 )
      Is it true that DVI is limited to 60hz, and so that even if LCD refresh times improve, DVI always will be limited?

      LCD refresh rates won't "improve", so you can stop worrying about that.

      The reason that they won't improve is that 60Hz refresh is plenty enough for an LCD monitor, even with fast motion video on it. The CRTs need a faster refresh rate because they flicker, i.e. each pixel's brightness gradually falls off from refresh to refresh. LCDs don't flicker, i.e. a pixel stays at the same exact brigh
  • 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 gam
    • "not no way, not no how"? You are an amazing sayer of sooth. I agree that CRTs are still better in several ways (and worse in others), but I certainly don't believe that LCDs will never improve and become better than CRTs. Making such a grossly broad statement will only guarantee that you'll be proven wrong in the future....

  • It's easy. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Realistic_Dragon ( 655151 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:26PM (#11422802) Homepage
    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.

  • Instead of a summary.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Elledan ( 582730 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:31PM (#11422862) Homepage
    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 [xbitlabs.com]

    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.

  • Some of mine (Score:3, Informative)

    by SteveX ( 5640 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:31PM (#11422863) Homepage
    Here's some of my experiences buying an LCD monitor [stevex.org]. 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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eviltypeguy ( 521224 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:32PM (#11422875)
    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 [mirrordot.org]

  • Probably the same reason... (Score:3, Funny)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:33PM (#11422892) Homepage Journal
    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.

    my wife's more popular than me.

    just kidding...!wife.

  • 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
  • Brightness:
    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

  • Fluffy comparison (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mundocani ( 99058 ) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @02:38PM (#11422973)
    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?
  • 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
    • You should check out the Apple Cinema displays. They have a great picture and are 1920x1200. The newest one is even higher res, but I'm not sure if a PC can drive it. Regardless, they look great and have very high resolutions. Mine also has no dead or stuck pixels and I don't know if the "10 or less" policy can be said of the industry as a whole or only of a few manufacturers. I don't think the Apple displays generally suffer from this problem though.

      Of course, if you really want your CRT for the "she
    • I agree that B&M are the only places to get LCD's. I went with my not-so-tech-savvy roomate so he could get an LCD. He was going to drop a grand, on a 19" sony. We had to open up 7 different LCD boxes before we found one that did not have a dead, or stuck-on pixel. There was even one monitor, where the corner was a little brighter. This was due to the frame of the LCD being pressed up against the screen. If you ever have dragged your finger across an LCD and noticed the lightshow, think that, exce
  • 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.
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.
  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T

Close