17in LCD vs 19in CRT (flat)

[stiltman]

Just wanted to know what you all would get. I was shopping for a new monitor as I only had a 15" Dell Trinitron. First I was planning on getting a 19" flat screen CRT like my old one, then I noticed all the sales going on for 17" LCDs. Well, I went for a 17" LCD (Samsung SyncMaster 175v) instead of a flat CRT. I know I lossed about 1" in viewable area, but I thought want the heck. I got the LCD for $269 (normally $400+)

I can already see some Cons to having this LCD, namely the refresh rate and text. The Pros are now I can do video editing without having magnifying glasses on becase the screen resolution is so small.

So what do you all prefer LCD or CRT (flat of course)? and what do you think of the one I got? Heck I can always return it.

[Faustus]

Samsung makes a pretty decent display, I wouldn't think there would be any real problems with it. And a 17" LCD is much bigger then a standard 17" CRT so your likely right about the losing about 1".

Personally? If I could afford and LCD and ensure its got a good contrast and at least a 20ms response I'd get the LCD.

[SLICK RICK]

I have a 17 in. crt and a 18 in. LCD, I much rather the LCD. Since the LCD monitor isnt so deep I can set it futher back on my desk, when I was using the CRT, the back of the monitor was against the wall but it was like the screen was still right there in my face, Very aggravating.

SLICK RICK

[redwudz]

I like the LCD because it takes up less space. The only obvious drawback I have found is wanting to use different resoulutions. For programs like Photoshop, and some word processing programs it is handy to jump the resolution up or down, depending on the application. I like the color spectrum of my partaicular CRT monitor better than the LCD, also. The LCD is pretty well stuck at it's native resolution. Of course I have a 15" LCD and if I were to upgrade to a 17" most of my complaints would dissapear. Even with all that, if my CRT dies, I would probably go with a LCD. They are getting cheaper and the image quality is improving.

[gmatov]

Correct.

They are getting cheaper.
However, for Flaystus, they are not all that much bigger. A 17 inch LCD IS 17inches, a 17inch CRT is usually about 16.1 inches.

About equivalent to a 20 inch versus a 19 inch TV. And at 2 or more times the cost.

But they're lighter, and more easily moved around. But how often do you pickit up and say,"Hmmmm, wonder what it would look like over there, in the atrium?"

And the manufacturers tell you that some defective pixels are the norm and only will be replaced if so many per square inch are burnt out.

I would buy better and larger CRT.

My opinion.

Cheers,

George

[stiltman]

This is the strange thing, the native resolution is 1280 x 1024.
Personally, I found 1024 x 768 to be cleaner and smoother with text and video. I have the refresh rate set at 70mhz, which kinda sucks. The max is 75mhz and it really didn't work well. The response time of the LCD is 25ms, so I guess you wouldn't be happy with it flaystus.

Some more Cons after the second day of use:
Black or very dark screens show the jitters (like a bad TV signal aka waves)
The video cable (analog only) is I assume unshielded (very thin) and can't be replaced it a better one. Like the one on my 15" Trinitron

Next up,
re-install ATI PCI card 16mb
re-install 15" Trinitron monitor

[Craig Tucker]

I think the only plus that an LCD has over a CRT is the size, but then sometimes that can be enough to tip the balance. I have a Samsung 21" Syncmaster 1100p at work (and a Syncmaster 17 GLSi at home). The screen on it is wonderfull but it takes up just about the whole desk . Helps keep the office warm in winter though.

I would consider an LCD for home to reclaim some desk space.

[Piccoro]

For me to actually buy an LCD, it would have to be a good one. I'm sorta picky on that.
I would never use a LCD with VGA (Analog) but rather DVI (Digital) connection. Noticable difference in clarity.
It would have to be fast enough refresh rate that I would not notice motion blur.
A nice Contrast Ratio is nice to have (higher = better). I've looked at them with around 500:1 ratio.
But more importantly is brightness. 250 will not cut it for me. 300 at least.

There is a very nice 17" Sony LCD we have at Compusa that is 600$ USD with 600:1 contrast ratio and about 400 brightness. Motion blur is almost gone in games that we have setup on the PC (e.i. tomb raider dx9 game).

But for a performance display I perfer CRTs, especially with an Aperture Grille.
Plus there is more color to CRTs although they are not so easy on your eyes.
I have 2 Viewsonic 17" CRTs for dual monitors. Link

But I would buy an aditional warranty/replacement plan from a retail store for a LCD. I think the 1 yr limited manufactures warranty is like 5-8 pixels in a row or 10-15 total. How likely do you think you will hit that before you will want to replace it?
With a replacement plan I could just bring it in and walk out with a new one if I ever had too many dead pixels that it bothered me enough.

[redwudz]

I suppose something else that would weigh in would be lifespan of the monitor. It seems like the newer CRT monitors run pretty hot, which in my book usually translates to shorter life. If I knew a quality LCD would last 5-6 years on the average while a similar CRT monitor would deterioate or malfunction in half that time, I would be more convinced. Unfortunatelly LCD monitors don't seem to have a much longer warranty. I admit I buy cheap CRT monitors, and sometimes a extended warranty if it's cheap enough, because I know they will fail within a couple of years. LCD monitors are cheaper to ship back for warranty work also. Even with all this, I imagine CRT monitors will fade away within a few years. I like both CRT and LCD, for different applications and in different locations.

[indolikaa]

I have a Sony CPD-G400 19" CRT and I am totally happy with it. I have debated getting an LCD panel but haven't seen one yet that would just make me push my Sony aside.

[stiltman]

Well, the vote is still out on this one.
I just can't seem to make up my mind. I difinitely see a difference between my old 15" trinitron and this LCD. The trinitron is way better on performance and text. I haven't cut the UPC off the box, so I know it's still returnable...It's a shame it just isn't a little better

[Piccoro]

There are models out there for LCDs that are very sharp for text.
I would give up on that model if I were you but keep looking.

But then again with that price, you got what you paid for.

[stiltman]

OK, I bailed on the LCD that I bought after standing in line for 1 1/2 hours

I traded it in for a Samsung SyncMaster 955df....I wasn't happy with it after I hooked it up and played with the settings....UNTIL I decided to bypass my Belkin OmniView 4 port........WOW what a difference
Now my refresh is set at 100mhz.....Guess I should of tested the LCD this way LOL, but now I have an extra inch in viewable area and the refresh rate is way past the LCDs ability....

BTW, should I've gotten the ViewSonic A90f+ for $30 more?

[Piccoro]

There is not much different between that samsung and viewsonic's A90f+ that I know of.
I had a A90f and loved it but that samsung looks like the same thing.

Glad you are happy anyway.

*
Checked out the mac switch video in your sig.
Seen it just earlier today from someone else who gave me the link. Funniest thing every.

Where is it from?

[stiltman]

Checked out the mac switch video in your sig.
Seen it just earlier today from someone else who gave me the link. Funniest thing every.

Where is it from?

Mine is linked to http://www.ancientspear.com/mac.wmv
But I've downloaded it just in case it disappears, and I have to put it up myself
I would hate to have TGPO's video not available for all to see

[gmatov]

Stiltman,

I don't want to nit pick, but you may have 100 hz available, 100 times per second, but not 100 mhz.

And a whole inch more area for 200 bucks more? About 27 ssquare inches more viewable area .

Personally wouldd have bought a larger CRT. But, hey, if you're happy, that's all that counts.

[stiltman]

Stiltman,

I don't want to nit pick, but you may have 100 hz available, 100 times per second, but not 100 mhz.

And a whole inch more area for 200 bucks more? About 27 ssquare inches more viewable area .

Personally wouldd have bought a larger CRT. But, hey, if you're happy, that's all that counts.

You're right about the hz instead of mhz....just used to putting that m in there all the time

No the monitor wasn't $200 bucks more than the LCD. The monitor was $200 without rebates and was on sale....The LCD after taxes was $505 with rebates offered it would come out to $269.....

The LCD was 17"
The monitor is 19"
So I gained an inch/better performance for $200, but I did give up a 5lbs LCD monitor though

[indolikaa]

Stiltman,

You should've splurged and gotten yourself a Sony GDM-90W11 24" Widescreen monitor. It even has the nice SGI logo.

Weighs about 2,000 pounds, though! :P