Explain flat panels

[nrc]

I have a Best Buy gift card to spend and I'm looking at a good old fashioned 19" CRT computer monitor. Standing at the display in Best Buy I'm just baffled. Why are people paying 3-4 times the price of a CRT for LCD displays? Obviously they take up less desk real estate, but that's a pretty steep price to free up a foot of space that's mostly just going to collect dust.

[Robstar]

A bit more stylish/modern maybe ? :confused:

[nz_climber]

Im not sure about all the advantages and all that technical stuff... but

I have a 17" LCD here at work, it gives you the same viewable space as a 19" CRT and alot better quality picture - no glare, and heaps better resolution ( i run mine at 1280*1024)

hope this helps? :)

[Robstar]

I have a 17" LCD here at work

Same actually - they do have great picture...

[nrc]

Im not sure about all the advantages and all that technical stuff... but

I have a 17" LCD here at work, it gives you the same viewable space as a 19" CRT and alot better quality picture - no glare, and heaps better resolution ( i run mine at 1280*1024)

hope this helps? :)

The 19 inch monitors I'm looking at have an 18" viewable picture. A 17" LCD gives you 17" image - better than a 17" CRT, but not quite up with a 19" CRT unless not adjusted to use the full screen.

Resolution is purely dependent on the device. The 19" monitor I'm getting will go to 1920 x 1440 and the dot pitch is .20mm compared to .26mm for most LCD displays.

Reduced glare is a real benefit. Doing some searching I find that the main benefits outside size are better contrast, no flicker and reduced energy consumption. The big trade-offs besides cost are less color clarity, some motion blur and limited choices of resolution.

Still, I have a hard time making the value equation work - under $200 for a 19" CRT (18" viewable) compared to $400 for a 17" LCD. :/

[racer2c]

I have a 17" Gateway LCD here at work and a 21" CRT at home. The dot pitch on this Gateway is horrid. Horrid! I can count the pixels three feet away. But, I have grown accustomed with the flatness and love the minimal space it requires.

[pfc_m_drake]

The reason most people prefer LCDs to CRTs is ignorance.

Few people have the wherewithal to properly adjust a CRT monitor. Straight out of the box a CRT will not be geometrically adjusted to fill the entire display, whereas an LCD is self-adjusting. Ergo there's the perception that an LCD is 'better' in this area, but in reality the problem is operator error.

Furthermore, and probably the worst complaint about CRT monitors, is that windows (by default) uses a 60 Hz refresh rate. This causes the flickering and eyestrain that most people complain about with their CRT. The refresh rate is easily modified within windows, but again, most people are completely oblivious to that fact. Any modern (circa 1998 or better) will likely support an 85 Hz refresh rate at a resolution of 1024x768 or better.

With regard to resolution (LCDs having a greater resolution than CRTs)...not a chance (well again, unless you have the world's worst CRT). In fact, LCDs have a native resolution, and typically if you operate the LCD at a resolution other than its native the display looks horrible. But any 17" or greater CRT worth its salt is going to support a maximum resolution of at least 1280x1024.

Two major *drawbacks* of LCDs are low response time (typically ~25ms in larger screen sizes) which causes ghosting, and dead pixels.

The major benefits are reduced glare, reduced desktop footprint, and I suppose reduced energy consumption. However, if you've got the desktop real estate, a properly adjusted CRT will destroy an LCD in every image quality catagory that you can think of. And the fact that comparably sized CRTs are cheaper than their LCD counterparts is a nice side benefit too.

[JoeBob]

My employer has recently made LCDs the corporate standard for a few reasons (in order):
1. Form Factor. LCDs take up less space and weigh a lot less. Greatly reduced risk of back injury to employees who move/set up/troubleshoot computers. (And less storage space needed, but the biggest reason I've heard for the push has been to reduce workplace injuries.)
2. Failure rate. LCDs last longer than CRTs.
3. Viewable Area/Screen Resolution. You can replace a 19 inch CRT with a 17 inch LCD, and the user will be able to run the same screen resolution comfortably.

When you take all 3 of the above into account, LCDs are now less expensive than CRTs. Of course, this assumes a corporate environment. For home use it is harder to make the numbers work. There, it comes down to "coolness factor."

[JoeBob]

I have a 17" Gateway LCD here at work and a 21" CRT at home. The dot pitch on this Gateway is horrid. Horrid! I can count the pixels three feet away. But, I have grown accustomed with the flatness and love the minimal space it requires.

Try increasing the resolution on that thing. Many video cards default to a resolution smaller than the LCD is really made for.

[Sean O'Gorman]

I love my 19" CRT, the only problem is the size. This thing is huge! Its bigger than my fat Irish head!

[Ankf00]

an LCD is easier on the eyes and it's not bombarding you with x-rays constantly

[KLang]

We switched to LCD's at home. Reason: Size and weight.

[cart7]

Stop resisting change nrc. Breathe deep, accept all the compromises of LCD's and just buy the thing. You don't want to be the only one on the block with one of those glass CRT museum pieces do ya? Go with the flow!

I suppose you bought a Betamax vs. a VHS machine, like millions upon millions of others did, because it had a better quality playback picture and was overall, a better machine. :p

Seriously, as a Best Buy tech I'll fill you and everyone else in on a little insider info, the industry wants to eliminate all glass based CRT TV's and monitors within the next couple years. LCD's, regardless of their defiencies (motion blur is the most annoying) will be all you can get unless you want to spend some money on some imported, sweatshop built CRT set that will have the quality of a Yugo.

I'd still buy the CRT based 19" monitor, they're a steal right now and the picture quality blows LCD's away.

[Insomniac]

Try out an LCD and see how you like it. They have come a long way in the past few years. I had a 19" CRT and switched to a 17" LCD at work. I love it except I do have to run it at a lower resolution (1280x1024 instaed of 1600x1200). I personally will never switch back to a CRT. The increased desktop space (my LCD is now a foot further away), reduced eye strain and incredible display have swayed me. Based on price alone, the CRT is better. But, looking at one at a store and using one all day are two different things.

pfc: My CRT was properly calibrated. ;)

[nrc]

I picked up a SAMSUNG SyncMaster 997DF-T/T 19" DynaFlat CRT Monitor for $200 at Best Buy (less gift card, less reward cards). Ok, actually RaceGrrl is picking it up because it wouldn't fit in the Miata :):

CRT Type: DynaFlat CRT
Dot Pitch: 0.20mm (H)
Max / Optimal resolution: 1920x1440 @ 65 Hz / 1600x1200 @ 76 Hz
Frequency / Bandwidth: fh: 30~96kHz; fv: 50~160Hz / 250MHz
Features: DynaFlat, MagicTune, Natural Color Pro
Dimensions & Weight: 17.5" x 18.0" x 16.4" (WxHxD), 40.0 lbs
Manufacturer's Warranty / Phone No.: 3 year CRT, parts and labor

I was going to compare the cost of this with an LCD of comparable resolution, but I don't think it's possible. To get an LCD with a native resolution of 1600x1200 you pretty much have to go to a 20+ inch LCD display. At over $600 a 20 inch would match the number of pixels, but wouldn't match the resolution in dpi. My conclusion is that they simply can't because they all currently have a dot pitch of .26mm or more.

LCDs do have some selling points, but I suspect that shrinking profit margins for CRT monitors is the biggest reason the industry is anxious to see them go away.

For now I'll stick with the old fashioned CRT. Unless of course someone wants to send me the $500 difference for a good 20 inch LCD. :)

[indyfan31]

an LCD is easier on the eyes and it's not bombarding you with x-rays constantly

Hmm, I thought they were gamma rays.

[racer2c]

I picked up a SAMSUNG SyncMaster 997DF-T/T 19" DynaFlat CRT Monitor for $200 at Best Buy (less gift card, less reward cards). Ok, actually RaceGrrl is picking it up because it wouldn't fit in the Miata :):

CRT Type: DynaFlat CRT
Dot Pitch: 0.20mm (H)
Max / Optimal resolution: 1920x1440 @ 65 Hz / 1600x1200 @ 76 Hz
Frequency / Bandwidth: fh: 30~96kHz; fv: 50~160Hz / 250MHz
Features: DynaFlat, MagicTune, Natural Color Pro
Dimensions & Weight: 17.5" x 18.0" x 16.4" (WxHxD), 40.0 lbs
Manufacturer's Warranty / Phone No.: 3 year CRT, parts and labor

I was going to compare the cost of this with an LCD of comparable resolution, but I don't think it's possible. To get an LCD with a native resolution of 1600x1200 you pretty much have to go to a 20+ inch LCD display. At over $600 a 20 inch would match the number of pixels, but wouldn't match the resolution in dpi. My conclusion is that they simply can't because they all currently have a dot pitch of .26mm or more.

LCDs do have some selling points, but I suspect that shrinking profit margins for CRT monitors is the biggest reason the industry is anxious to see them go away.

For now I'll stick with the old fashioned CRT. Unless of course someone wants to send me the $500 difference for a good 20 inch LCD. :)

My parents had a Samsung that was four years old and out of warrenty. It died one day and my dad boxed it up and sent it to the maufacturer. They sent him a brand new one, no questions asked. Weird.

To me it's all about dot pitch and XP's fuzzy thingy only helps a tiny bit for text. It really just makes it fuzzy.

[ilferrari]

"Your eyes are worth more than the cost of a monitor". That's the big reason I prefer LCD's, they are much nicer to use in terms of glare and picture sharpness. Motion blurriness, which is less and less of a problem these days, does not bother me as I am no gamer.

Something that in my experience can be just as important as a monitor is the display card, if you use an old old one the picture deteriorates alot and you are limited in terms of the refresh rates you can use.

Has anyone used an LCD monitor with a DVI cable? Is it any better?

[Insomniac]

I picked up a SAMSUNG SyncMaster 997DF-T/T 19" DynaFlat CRT Monitor for $200 at Best Buy (less gift card, less reward cards). Ok, actually RaceGrrl is picking it up because it wouldn't fit in the Miata :):

CRT Type: DynaFlat CRT
Dot Pitch: 0.20mm (H)
Max / Optimal resolution: 1920x1440 @ 65 Hz / 1600x1200 @ 76 Hz
Frequency / Bandwidth: fh: 30~96kHz; fv: 50~160Hz / 250MHz
Features: DynaFlat, MagicTune, Natural Color Pro
Dimensions & Weight: 17.5" x 18.0" x 16.4" (WxHxD), 40.0 lbs
Manufacturer's Warranty / Phone No.: 3 year CRT, parts and labor

I was going to compare the cost of this with an LCD of comparable resolution, but I don't think it's possible. To get an LCD with a native resolution of 1600x1200 you pretty much have to go to a 20+ inch LCD display. At over $600 a 20 inch would match the number of pixels, but wouldn't match the resolution in dpi. My conclusion is that they simply can't because they all currently have a dot pitch of .26mm or more.

LCDs do have some selling points, but I suspect that shrinking profit margins for CRT monitors is the biggest reason the industry is anxious to see them go away.

For now I'll stick with the old fashioned CRT. Unless of course someone wants to send me the $500 difference for a good 20 inch LCD. :)

I had the 955DF running at 1600x1200. A lot of people will tell you running a 19" (18" viewable) at 1600x1200 is too high a resolution. To me, if I can read things clearly, it is fine. ;) However, it seems the manufactures do agree somewhat. They don't give you very high refresh rates at those higher resolutions. You're getting 75Hz. Whereas, their 21" monitor will give you 95Hz at that resolution. You can get 19" LCDs that do 16x12 for ~$600. Which is a lot more.

My point was most people don't run their 19" display at 16x12, but rather 1280x1024 or even 1024x768. A 17" LCD for $300-350 can do those resolutions natively.

[Brickman]

Samsung SynchMaster 213T (21")

Why? Oh ****, I don't have a good reason except that I'm blind. ;)

http://hardware.earthweb.com/peripherals/article.php/3098681

[pfc_m_drake]

Here's a really good comparison of CRT monitors vs LCD flat panels.

http://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html

I'm not sure I like the fact that they consider the dead pixle issue a 'draw' between CRT and LCD, but that's ok - it's useful nonetheless.

Also, there's a couple other links at the bottom of that page that may be of use.

There's advantages and disadvantages to both. LCD is probably the way of the future, but as with many things, it's important to decide what the factors are for *you* before making a purchase.

[Insomniac]

Samsung SynchMaster 213T (21")

Why? Oh ****, I don't have a good reason except that I'm blind. ;)

http://hardware.earthweb.com/peripherals/article.php/3098681

I want the new 30" Apple Cinema Display. If you ever wondered why LCDs are better, these will answer all your questions. ;)

http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html

[Steve99]

Hmm, I thought they were gamma rays.

I'm hoping to turn into the Hulk.

[JT265]

I'm hoping to turn into the Hulk.

DON'T DO IT!!!!!!

I tried, but now all I get is government time signals from the bling/gold tooth I had installed last year.






:D