CRT vs LCD monitors

  simon_lambert 00:41 15 Mar 2007

I can't for the life of me understand why CRT's are being chucked in skips now, 'outdated technology', and LCD's have got a huge price tag and are all the rage!

My family just bought a PC package with a LCD, sure it takes up less space, but it was more expensive, has three v annoying dead pixels, blurs when playing fast games, the colour is not as good, goes blurry when the resolution is changed, and more!

My CRT's never had this problem!

I am just having trouble adjusting to the fact that the CRT is dead, and we are taking a step backwards by making the LCD standard.

I have just bought an IBM 22" Flatscreen CRT, and it is immense, and was only £50.

Long live the CRT!

  woodchip 08:38 15 Mar 2007

Well I just bought a 32" Funai LCD yesterday and the picture is much better that my 32" Crt but then it does have lots of refinements for picture quality. But got it from Warehouse a £600 TV for £352 inc vat

But if it was only for viewing TV then as you say I don't think the price justifies it. But see my other post above "PC to TV"

  Southernboy 14:47 20 Mar 2007

I have a 17" Mitsubishi CRT and I cannot fault it. I have looked at LCD monitors and the reduction in space is good, but the LCDs just look flimsy, cheap and nasty.

As you say, with LCD the colour is inferior, dead pixels are a pain and you have to look at it straight on the be able to read it. There does not seem to be a clean, bright white background, but the thing that knocks it on the head for me is the resolution. LCD text is just too tiny to read comfortably with my usual reading glases and the increase in the amount of such tiny text is totally confusing.

Frankly, I get totally hacked off with the way good, reliable equipment is dumped when something new comes along. Try to buy a film camera now, and yet film cameras are perfectly fine for those with a reasonable amount of knowledge. Why pay several times more unless you are a professional for who time is of the essence, or you are an incompetant snapshotter who never bothered to learn a few simple rules to enable you to take good photographs. By the same token, I run a VCR alongside my CD player and still find a lot of use for it. Have you tried modern VHS cassettes? They are crap alongside the TDK casettes I bought nearly 20 years ago and still work well. The answer here is that VCRs require better workmanship whereas any sweat shop can sling a CD player together for a few quid.

You will never overcome the mentality of those who must have the latest thing, whereas I believe that if an artifact does what you want it to do, why change?

  Mr Mistoffelees 18:00 20 Mar 2007

I have a Samsung SM930BF 19" LCD monitor. This is my second LCD, the first was a 17" Philips which replaced a 17" CTX CRT monitor with an excellent Sony FD Trinitron tube. I can think of no earthly reason why I should want to go back to a CRT.

  JYPX 19:56 20 Mar 2007

This debate will run and run! I can assure you that I have no reason to hang on too long to old technology.I simply use my eyes and my instincts above all other considerations. I bought a very expensive 19" TFT from John Lewis and it was back in the box (and back to the shop) within a couple of days. Found it generally harsh to look at and too bright (to an almost ridiculous degree) even at settings below 10%. I replaced it with a CTX flat screen CRT at less than one third of the cost. It is superb in every way. I can have any resolution I want. I don't need the space (and as I have not yet seen a desk which is 4" deep I don't understand that argument anyway....)
The whole thing kind of reminds me of another "digital" debate some years ago when Phillips introduced the compact disc. The early players were horrible and harsh. It took about 10 years before we had players trying to imitate the smoothness of analogue. Companies like LG are now trying to produce TFT's which are "easy on the eye" with clever use of backlighting etc. I will watch these developments with interest and I have not a single doubt that in two years time TFT's will be vastly superior to the ones currently available. And at that point the very idea that 3 dead pixels staring back at you is in some way "acceptable" will be treated with the ridicule that it currently deserves.

  freaky 20:45 20 Mar 2007

Where I live they built a factory for LG to manufacture CTR Monitors, paid for by the government (via the tax payers).

It never reached full production, and closed last year. The factory is huge and now lies empty!

Why did this happen, because CRT's are dead!

We have 3 TFT monitors, and they are excellent....I would never consider a CRT again because they are obsolete technology.

There are a lot of companies making inferior TFT's in order to cash in on the boom. So it's a case of "buyer beware".

  hssutton 22:14 20 Mar 2007

I agree with Mr Mistoffelees, I have a Formac Gallery 20" with a resolution of 1600 x 1200 it blows my Sony trinitron out of the water. This monitor is used mainly for Photoshop work.

No way would I contemplate returning to a CRT.

  Stuartli 22:53 20 Mar 2007

My 21in Belinea CRT monitor will serve me for some considerable time yet - the display is excellent.

However I do enjoy using various TFT monitors on a regular basis during the week on other systems.

  dagbladet 13:43 21 Mar 2007

Am also stubbornly hanging on to my CRT. The picture is crisp and clear, also like another poster said, my desk is about 3 feet deep so the size isn't a problem. If it died tomorrow I would certainly look at TFT, but I'm guessing that i'd be looking at £200 as opposed to £50 for a CRT. Incidentally my current CRT cost 99p on Ebay, it was boxed with all the original polystyrene, packaging and instructions and looked brand new. The lovely lady said it came with their new family PC but they had gone and got a TFT "to keep up with the times". She then disappeared to get something from the kitchen, only to re-appear with my 1p change. Ouch.

  [email protected] 14:12 21 Mar 2007

It's not fair to compare a low end TFT to a high end CRT. Buy a good TFT and there will be no noticeable blurring on fast moving images, the colours will be rich and the chances of getting any dead pixels are slim. Some manufacturers also offer a no-dead-pixel guarantee.

The only major advantage that CRTs have over TFTs in my opinion is the ability to display a range of resolutions without a drop in image quality.

  simon_lambert 15:18 21 Mar 2007

Find me a high end TFT (equivalent to the CRT mentioned above in both screen size and resolution etc) and I am willing to bet it will cost you about £300.

"Buy a good TFT and there will be no noticeable blurring on fast moving images, the colours will be rich and the chances of getting any dead pixels are slim. Some manufacturers also offer a no-dead-pixel guarantee."

Buy a cheap CRT, and there will be no blurring on fast moving images, the colours will be rich and the chances of getting any dead pixels are zero. And there is no such thing as a dead picture element on a CRT!

So why pay £300 when you can pay £0.99?!

Also the manufacturers who offer no-dead pixels will charge more, and theres no guarantee a pixel isn't going to die while you own the monitor.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Galaxy Note 8 vs iPhone X

Awful clip art from 1994 is being tweeted every hour by a bot

iPhone X vs Samsung Galaxy Note 8

Les meilleurs navigateurs internet 2017