What type will your next monitor purchase be?

[Redd]

Can't give up my games
Gotta be CRT.

[TBoneit]

Well I ended up, prompted by this discussion spending $290 for a 19" LCD. I now have more room available to me, the speakers aren't hanging precariously and leaving the resolution set to 1024 by 768, same as my 17" monitor was makes it slightly less sharp than it's native resolution would but as my eyes get weaker the larger picture helps since I keep an eye on the screen monitoring things progress whilest watching TV.

I'd swear it is brighter than my NEC 17" monitor was too.

Cheers

[Xylob the Destroyer]

...My cat will sit on my desk, follow cursor movement and occasionally take a swat at the cursor (grin). And if it was an LCD screen, she'd likely knock it over...

not to mention scratch the hell out of it and possibly ruin it
the screen surface is 'soft' and prone to scratching, unlike glass

[indolikaa]

This one.

ViewSonic P220F

[hrlslcbr]

Flaystus: The problems I've heard of are mainly related to dead pixels and backlighting.
btw, the dell one is 24", and the HP, apple, lg etc. are *just* 23"

[Zisguy1]

CRT... another Iiyama, if possible.

[V20]

Definitely another CRT.

Presently mine is a 19" and I'd like to go with something even bigger (20-22" CRT) next time.

[waheed]

Well, CRTs have higher resolution than LCDs.

[EddyH]

LCD all the god damn way. I've "just" (within the last 3 months) chucked my trusty 15" 1024x768 CRT in for a 19", 1280x1024 flatscreen. The improvement is incredible, both in space saving and in clarity of picture. Of course, if i drop to a lower rez, it looks a bit screwy, but the frequency with which I do that is.... well..... very near to zero. All I really need now is a better video card that can pump out 3D graphics at this res at an acceptable pace, so i dont have to drop back to 640x480 (the only lower size that looks acceptable).

Super crisp text, far easier on the eyes, far lower power consumption, much better use of space, larger visible area, smaller bezel, much lighter for carrying around, and thanks to modern LCD tech, no discernable difference in colour depth or accuracy, fidelity across the entire screen at normal angles, or in response time --- or even a great difference in price! Could quite happily use it as a television and barely realise that it wasn't a traditional tube.

Far less chance of being frotzed by beta radiation if i sit too close, too.

And it's quieter! (trust me)

Now, i've just got to find someone to buy my old 15" CRT (and a 17" that's also hanging round the house - I literally didn't have the desk space to use it) before they go terminally out of fashion and it becomes like trying to sell a car that runs on leaded petrol.

"CRTs have a higher resolution than LCDs" --- debatable. If you say an average CRT has a dot pitch of 0.26 - that is, each triplet group of R, G, and B phosphors is about a quarter millimetre diameter - the maths to find out the intrinsic rez of a particular visible-screen size shouldnt be too hard. But... I'm too lazy to do it myself right now

edit - actually, a quick estimate, for a cheap 17" screen with a 15" visible area (including black borders left at the edges of the image), for a slightly better than average 0.25 dot pitch - 1220 pixels horizontal, 915 pixels vertical. So the CRT is *slightly* higher resolution when you get to it's absolute ability - there's not many 15" LCDs higher than 1024x768 - but at that limit, it will seem slightly blurry as the scanning beam will not be hitting each pixel dead-on. Certainly won't be as crisp as a 1280x1024 17" LCD.

"The screen scratches more easily" --- well that depends if you DO things liable to scratch it. I have plenty of LCDs sitting around with plastic screens (computer, palm pilot, game gear, and so on - even my digital camera) which don't receive much abuse or are covered (ie palm pilot with flip case), and are perfectly scratch free. Then again i've got enough LCDs / CRTs with glass fronts that have received abuse and been damaged - a different, older palm pilot, my mobile phone, the old 15" CRT (had quite a few scratches), etc. Your mileage may vary.

[waheed]

I myself own a 17" LCD Monitor. But still say CRT have better clarity than LCD.

From this site:

CRT vs. LCD - The Pros and Cons of Each

Resolution & Viewing Quality
Resolution on a CRT is flexible and a newer model will provide you with viewing resolutions of up to 1600 by 1200 and higher, whereas on an LCD the resolution is fixed within each monitor (called a native resolution). The resolution on an LCD can be changed, but if you're running it at a resolution other than its native resolution you will notice a drop in performance or quality.

Both types of monitors (newer models) provide bright and vibrant color display. However, LCDs cannot display the maximum color range that a CRT can. In terms of image sharpness, when an LCD is running at its native resolution the picture quality is perfectly sharp. On a CRT the sharpness of the picture can be blemished by soft edges or a flawed focus.

A CRT monitor can be viewed from almost any angle, but with an LCD this is often a problem. When you use an LCD, your view changes as you move different angles and distances away from the monitor. At some odd angles, you may notice the picture fade, and possibly look as if it will disappear from view.

Refresh Rate
Some users of a CRT may notice a bit of an annoying flicker, which is an inherent trait based on a CRTs physical components. Today's graphics cards, however, can provide a high refresh rate signal to the CRT to get rid of this otherwise annoying problem. LCDs are flicker-free and as such the refresh rate isn't an important issue with LCDs.

Dot Pitch
Dot pitch refers to the space between the pixels that make up the images on your screen, and is measured in millimeters. The less space between pixels, the better the image quality. On either type of monitor, smaller dot pitch is better and you're going to want to look at something in the 0.26 mm dot pitch or smaller range.

Screen (viewable) Size
Most people today tend to look at a 17-inch CRT or bigger monitor. When you purchase a 17-inch CRT monitor, you usually get 16.1 inches or a bit more of actual viewing area, depending on the brand and manufacturer of a specific CRT. The difference between the "monitor size" and the "view area" is due to the large bulky frame of a CRT. If you purchase a 17" LCD monitor, you actually get a full 17" viewable area, or very close to a 17".

Physical Size
There is no denying that an LCD wins in terms of its physical size and the space it needs. CRT monitors are big, bulky and heavy. They are not a good choice if you're working with limited desk space, or need to move the monitor around (for some odd reason) between computers. An LCD on the other hand is small, compact and lightweight. LCDs are thin, take up far less space and are easy to move around. An average 17-inch CRT monitor could be upwards of 40 pounds, while a 17&-inch LCD would weigh in at around 15 pounds.

Price
As an individual one-time purchase an LCD monitor is going to be more expensive. Throughout a lifetime, however, LCDs are cheaper as they are known to have a longer lifespan and also a lower power consumption. The cost of both technologies have come down over the past few years, and LCDs are reaching a point where smaller monitors are within many consumers' price range. You will pay more for a 17" LCD compared to a 17" CRT, but since the CRT's actual viewing size is smaller, it does bring the question of price back into proportion.

Do a google search, and you'll find most sites do favour CRT for quality over LCD. Another example from this site:

Colour Purity: This is where the CRT monitors take a clear advantage. However the best LCD monitors are very good and for an average user the difference is hardly noticeable in side by side comparison. The difference can vary from slight to significant depending on the quality of the LCD monitor used in comparison.



Contrast: Traditionally the CRT monitors always had better contrast and LCD monitors were lagging behind. Recently some of the best LCD monitors have come very close and according to some they match what the CRT is capable of in terms of contrast. This aspect of the monitor helps in correct tonal characteristics in low light situations. A high contrast monitor is likely to produce black as black rather than dark grey. High contrast is most important for gaming and movie playback.

[Shocker Milwaukee]

I'm going big. Probably something like this:

[EddyH]

I really can't see how you can say a CRT is sharper full stop. They offer a "smooth" picture and a consistent level of sharpness over a much wider range of resolutions, sure, but the very nature of how a multi-rez / multi-sync (and even many single-sync i.e. television) picture is made on a colour screen leads to lower definition and fuzziness. Very few of the pixels on that screen will be hit dead-on. You take a magnifying glass in turn to a CRT and an LCD showing the same picture (with the LCD at it's native resolution) and you'll notice the CRT is far fuzzier.

Monochrome CRTs may still have the edge in some situations, and used to be the professional's screen of choice (for CAD, publishing, etc) but that was a while ago, when a portrait 864x1152 screen (for 8.5x11.5 at 96dpi) was considered incredibly high res. Now I can, if I'm using 11 or 12 point text (or 10 at a push), use this ultra crisp 1280x1024 display and have two similar pages side-by-side in word - and comfortably type into them. I guess I'm young and have good eyes - but there's no real need to drop the rez and get fuzziness. Use a larger screen font setting, or zoom in to have just half of one page visible (zooming to just one is of no use, as two side-by-side take up almost the entire height anyway), as was the default at 800x600.... or save for a larger screen (at a lower rez if you like - the 20 inch 4:3 panels being used for televisions are only 1024x768 native)! It's not going to take any extra room on the desk apart from being slightly wider.
Course could have done that on the 17" CRT as well (it would do 1280x1024)... but it would have taken a monster amount of room and power, been worse for the eyes (emissions, flicker - not just the tiring effect of it, but how it needs to go from dark to brighter than an LCDs steady glow on each cycle to appear constant - as it could only sustain about 70hz at that rez) and so on.

As for the colour depth thing, I really can't comment - except to say that the growing display of choice in medical imaging (a field in which i'm currently training) is the multi-megapixel, large-panel LCD, in either monochrome or colour, offering digital connection and 10-bit or greater colour resolution / greyscale definition. X-rays, MRI / PET / CT, Nuc Med, all things where you really can't afford to have a sub-optimal image.

Home consumer panels of course aren't quite so exacting or advanced, but they're derived from the same pool. Most crappy LCDs these days will end up in flat-panel TVs (and not just the cheap ones! some pricey models i was browsing through at the electronics store today had horrific picture / panel quality..) and those tacky chinese hand-held DVD players (which, to be frank, suck.... i'd love to have one, but i'd sooner watch a film on my cellphone's 128x128 postage stamp). My monitor wasn't exactly a bank breaker but it's easily the equal of a comparable CRT in terms of picture quality - including colour fidelity. The only real thing that's noticable is that pure greens aren't *quite* so bright, but that's actually a step forwards in the realism stakes.

edit: a thing you can't do with a CRT is turn it on it's side... or use XP's Cleartype. I'm not sure which of the two to take advantage of at work, with the 1024x768 panels that are on their computers. They rotate 90 degrees you see, and windows can be set to take advantage of that. You then have a 768x1024 screen.... Which approximates to the 1280x1024 cut in half, once you allow for sidebar toolbars, etc - I.E. a full portrait page of readable text in word. Or when the eyes aren't so good in the early morning, landscape, with Cleartype turned on, to make that half page look *very* smooth and high fidelity... (suddenly, the horizontal resolution is approximately doubled when working with B/W text, because of the screen rendering software taking advantage of the very regular nature of an LCD - a fantastic thing, particularly with sizes 8 thru 14)

[GKar]

If my 21" CRT would die today I would get the ImageQuest L90D+ 19" LCD Monitor w/ Speakers, 8ms and DVI.
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=24-179-014&DEPA=0

[Conquest10]

That 23" Apple Cinema is friggin awesome. WAY too expensive and still not too sure about image quality compared to the old Apple displays (they sucked!) but looks cool.

Widescreen, baby. Get that if you can. Works great with After Effects, Photoshop and the like.

I'm still recommending CRT over LCD. More bang for the buck (way more).

[SEALs1230]

CRT's are the huge ones that stick out in back right??

[adcvideo]

I use LCD for the main use, but my next purchase may be a used CRT for video playback. Most sytems allow dual monitors, so why not use both? I still find the CRT better for watching video, the colors are richer, and the response time for motion is way better (at least compared with my budget BENQ LCD).

Cheers

[jakol]

hi,
how about plasma with DVI input?

[Noahtuck]

CRT's have a faster refresh rate and look WAY smoother on fast moving video... espc. games!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll live with the bulk on my desktop's of a 19" +!!!!!!!
Yes, i said desktops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
as in more than one 8)

I'm going big. Probably something like this:

U.T.!!!!!!! Oh baby!!!!!!!!!!!! and i thought the 54" looked great with U.T. :P

[trossin]

CRT as the image is more important than the case. I just replaced a 21" CRT at work with an LCD because that was the only choice and I'm not at all happy with the aliasing of the display. The CRT performs real time anti-aliasing of the image the the LCD does not. I got an HP 1940 19" LCD display and I can see the individual dots. It sucks!

Windows has AA fonts but I also access my UNIX machine via Reflection X and there are no such fonts for HP-UX so characters look like crap.

3D graphics and pictures look good but I'll be honest. I got a headache my first day using the thing until I reduced the brightness down to 20% and moved the damn thing 9" away from my head.

The case looks really cool but who gives a F if it rots your eyes. Cathode Rays rock!

[ChrissyBoy]

CRT hurt my eyes.... LCD only for me.

[Gritz]

I've had this Syntax Olevia 26" for about 2 weeks, and I'm not sorry. I read somewhere that the screen is made by Phillips, but I haven't been able to verify it yet. $849 at RcWilleys. I can use it as a monitor and I don't need my glasses anymore, or as TV. Native resolution is 1280 x 768 and it has good contrast and brightness. The only lan game we've played so far has been Wild Metal Country ... an old multiplayer tank game and I haven't noticed any blurriness with it, nor on the component input from my DVD player. I have seen a little spotty pixelation with some of the local HDTV programs ... but then I'm picking up the signal through some trees and we've had a lot of wind lately ... so I'll have to wait and see on that. Response time is 12 ms. HD is definitely nice. It has 9 inputs, one of which is a DVI. For me this is an intermediate step to HDTV, since I can pick up all the digital stations on my old attic antenna, which are about 32 miles away. When the kinks are out of HDTV this will probably go on a wall somewhere ...but until then, I'm content to use it as my monitor.

[Noahtuck]

The case looks really cool but who gives a F if it rots your eyes. Cathode Rays rock!

CRT's blow LCD away... period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for now anyways...... plain simple fact!!!!!!!!!!

[EddyH]

what the ****, people

CRTs with higher refresh rates than LCD, better looking picture, etc?

get with the program and buy a decent flat panel rather than 2001's cast off stock, and set the resolution / refresh up right

oh, and unless you were meaning that each pixel is insanely large (rather than sharply defined), i'd count being able to see each one clearly as a benefit. makes text and edges crisper, but you can't tell the difference on a continuous image. the "anti aliasing" on a CRT is only there because the image is blurry, not because the tube does any magic trick to make things better. and it can't be so great anyway otherwise we wouldn't have PC video cards from the 100% CRT era, and TV (much more CRT than PCs are, still) based consoles that boast quite powerful antialiasing features.

My LCD runs 1280x1024 at 75Hz, which is actually better than any CRT i've had (i've had 75hz up to 1152x864 before, 1280x1024 at 66hz, and 1024x768 at 85, but nothing that made a happy marriage of it all), and it responds fast enough that strobing effects in music videos are 100% faithful and actually capable of giving you a headache - i.e. the response time probably outstrips that of a CRT, which is obligately a little worse than 30hz / 25hz, at least when going light to dark.

the sharpness of text etc is fantastic, but unless i get my nose up quite close to it i can't tell individual pixels on anything but non-AA text or jaggie edges. indeed one advantage of the thinness is that i can locate it in a place that allows me to sit a little bit further away than i otherwise might; the increased visible size per cross sectional acreage makes up for that.

noahtuck, please to explain your statement?

oh, and i certainly give a **** if the tube rots my eyes. raster strobe eyestrain, particularly from rates of 72hz or less, is nothing to play around with (even if it just gives you headaches, like a 60hz picture very quickly does to me), nor is the beta/X-radiation dose if you're too close. how are you going to play your game or otherwise use your PC / watch TV if you can't see, or any longer bear to look at it? same as music fans who play their tunes too loud and damage their ears - you'll be crying later.

*final part goes here but im tired and i forgot it*

hm that reminds me of my work at the nightclub - simultaneously with posting up a warning printout from a webpage about the dangers of tinnitus and hearing loss from working in a noisy environment, they remove the box of free earplugs (hardly anyone used them except me and a couple door staff) and crank the music from 11 to 11.5.... goodbye aural nerve.