Would you consider me insane if I was still using a CRT monitor?

[Asus]

I don't think smaller transistors give off more heat but that the heat is not as spread out and harder to cool. Which is why we now have heatspreaders on our CPUs and we didn't before.

 

[VirusType2]

I have a 19" LCD and 17" CRT (2 actually but one is not being used). I actually tried a Viewsonic before I stuck with the Samsung I have now. The viewsonic was WAY too bright and the color was WAY off, especially side by side with my CRT. You couldn't even see objects in shadows that you could on the CRT. This Samsung I have was still off but a lot less so. I lived with it because it was bigger than the CRTs I owned so it was an 'upgrade'. But I actually paid more for it than a 19" Viewsonic CRT would have been...why did I do such a thing...
The CRTs I own are not standard types but an aperture grille type. Up to 1792x1344 rez and 160hz (not at the same time. I run it at 1280x960 @ 85hz).
Also, both my CRT and my LCD consume 40 watts (measured with my kill-a-watt) so this particular LCD is not saving me any power over the CRT.

CRT monitors are still king for most aspects of gaming (too bad you can't really buy one). But consumers like bright pictures and marketing. They like widescreen yet 90% of PC content is vertical in nature (made up stat of course). IMO most LCDs are too bright and yet show horrible black levels. People look at contrast numbers (which tell you nothing) and response time numbers. Some people are adopting 16:9 for PC monitors over 16:10 because "1080p" and "Full HD" are stamped on the bezel of the 16:9 screen while the 16:10 actually has more pixels. People like to be given something to buy and want a stamp of approval to show off what they got. Same thing with "gaming" motherboards or whatever else is out there being marketing for the buying fools.
(I'm not saying all of these kind of products are bad but it is bought without question more often because of marketing than it would have otherwise)

The contrast and blacks on my LED LCD monitor are quite good, and much better than any other TV or monitor I've ever seen.

Can't agree at all about the stamp thing. People buy 1080p because they are much cheaper than 16:10; because there is much more selection of monitors to choose; because they like to watch movies in full resolution; because high end console games are designed in the 16:9 aspect, so the image fills the screen without letterboxing, without stretching; because gaming monitors (less ghosting) are almost always 16:9, and not 16:10; because much of Television is available in 16:9; because widescreen allows you to fit more stuff on a computer 'desktop' than fullscreen.

If 16:10 was competitively priced and had a selection that included things like LED backlighting, I would have bought one. Another thing that 16:9 1080p movies will influence is 3D monitors. I doubt you will find a 3D television or monitor in 1200p.

 

[Asus]

LCDs have improved. My personal example was 2003/2004 LCD tech vs CRT. The viewsonic was a TN and my Samsung is a MVA. It was a side by side comparison in the same pictures and games.
From reviews I've seen LCDs are close but still can't hit what a good CRT can. It's a limitation of the LCD tech. OLED will be a ton better than LCD (don't confuse OLED with LED LCDs).

Yeah, I know there tons of factors on why people buy what they do. All I'm saying is there are a bunch of reasons people use when they do not really know their options and the products. Sometimes people make up their own reasons which are almost superstitious which keep them from buying a brand/product or praising another. Branding and marketing play a big roll.

But TBH 16:9 taking market share of PC monitors is not because of any feature but for cost to the manufacturers. Whether they get fewer good panels with 16:10 or because it is cheaper for them to focus on 1 ratio IDK.
If cost was not an issue for manufactures 16:10 would still be here 100% on all PC screens. The market would stick with the most versatile widescreen ratio for PC use with cost out of the picture. More vert. space for your page viewing needs, more area for games (few were 16:9 a year or so ago) and more than fits a 16:9 movie. When cost and branding are on the same side then of course panels will transition quickly from 16:10 whether that was your reason or not. I'm not saying the cost choice is illogical but a lot of people don't understand the whole choice. So they side with cost and therefore they are not choosing a product but a price.

That is just one example. LCDs brighter than CRTs got people thinking they must be the best at color. "wow look at these pictures pop!". But that is an uninformed assumption or a preference based on impression rather than fact.
scroll to bottom with LCD vs CRT image. CRT sees the guy first.

 

[VirusType2]

Yes, LCD has improved substantially over the years, while CRT probably remained the same.

I don't think OLED will replace LCD for desktops or televisions any time this decade, or even the next. It will need some major improvements first, I think some of them can be fixed by further development of current technology (for example, a color correction auto-tuner), but others, I'm not sure. It will always have some disadvantages.

It's a shame we don't have a perfect technology with the advantages of all the different display technologies combined.

LCD will be very stubborn to phase out, I predict. They need to retool to make OLED monitors which is very costly while LCD will continue to get cheaper, making the price difference quite substantial. And Samsung owns thousands of patents in this area as well, which I think means there won't be as much competition and selection.

Yeah, LCD has serious flaws. But I like my LED LCD about 100 times better than any CRT I've ever seen, overall. It's just so much clearer, brighter, vivid, and has so much more contrast. The colors are amazing on this thing. It made XP look like Vista, if you follow. There's just no way I would ever want to use a CRT again. I have visited those LCD tuning sites and all everything went pretty well. It's not perfect.

I'll just say that you should take a look at the LED LCD monitors in person. Play some games on it, you'll see things you didn't even know where there. I could use a lot of hyperbole sounding adjectives, but it just looks 'amazing', how about that?

But TBH 16:9 taking market share of PC monitors is not because of any feature but for cost to the manufacturers.

And this goes for CRT as well, LCD is so much cheaper to ship because it's lighter and smaller.

It's often talked about that it's cheaper for them to make 16:9 than 16:10. But I wouldn't say "not because of any feature", but that they won't give us those features, so we don't have a choice. When I was looking for 16:10 monitors, there was only one or two that were under $300, compared to over one hundred 16:9 monitors under $300. So, if it's cheaper for them, it's cheaper for us as well.

 

[YROC]

I was using an IBM crt monitor until march of this year. That's when I bought my first LCD (HP). A 5:4. Then I bought a 16:10 LCD (Samsung) and it's now my primary monitor. And there's no going back. The 5:4 is my secondary monitor.