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

[T-6000]

Anymore when I see any PC Gamer post their PC specs, or show pictures of their PC rig I see that they are using an LCD Monitor of some kind. It seems like most, if not all, PC Gamers are using LCD monitors anymore. Then there are people like me who are still using CRT monitors and haven't made the switch. Now why haven't I made the switch and am still using a CRT monitor? Ummm...........I honestly don't know, to tell you the truth. But I guess it has to do with me getting a new monitor back at 2005, when my monitor broke down. My brother and I had debated whether to get another CRT monitor or make the switch to a new LCD monitor, and after some time debating we decided to buy an LCD monitor at our local wall-mart. When I used it, however, it kinda didn't look right. The image quality wasn't as good as my older monitor and it looked like it had less of a refresh rate with movement appearing to be at 30 frames instead of 60. We returned the monitor and decided to just stick with the regular CRT monitors. Wall-Mart didn't have any CRT monitors in stock so we ordered one from New Egg. But looking back, I think the mistake was that we had gotten a crappy cheap LCD monitor and because of it's lack of quality it kinda put me off from getting an LCD. I'm still using the same CRT monitor I bought back at 2005 and it's still in good working quality. But if it does break down in the future, I think I'l be stuck in a rut once again and deciding weather to get an LCD or stick with CRTs, even though more people than ever have switched to LCD monitors.

So, anyone think I'm insane for still sticking with a CRT, or just a little too conservative?

 

[Sedako]

The only reason I switched from CRT was size. CRTs have superior color, blacks, refresh rate, and there is no such thing as a native resolution on a CRT. If you can deal with the size and space space they require, more power to you. I would kill for something like this though, 24" and almost 100lbs of badass:

 

[Vegeta897]

*looks at OP*
*sees wall of text with CRT and LCD sprinkled all over*

Eugh as if I'm reading that.

But to answer the thread title yes you are insane.

 

[VirusType2]

I use my computer a lot and I found the flickering of my CRT to induce migraines. It was also small, at only 16". And it was a monitor that came with a budget pre-built computer, so it was pretty low quality. Another thing is that it was very very hot. In my small computer room, it just chased me out of the room in the summer.

I got a 23" 1080p LCD and, while there are some annoying flaws in LCD - like viewing angles and color uniformity, etc. - overall, side-by-side with my old CRT, it's in a completely different league. It's so much better I wonder how I even got along. I would highly recommend one.

You should be able to get a pretty sweet one in October-December for only $100 or $150.

You can already have a look and see that they start at only about $105, and are expected to get cheaper this fall/winter: http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=20&name=LCD-Monitors&Order=PRICE

 

[HDXX]

i'd consider you a god if you use a CRT monitor cuz u can get as many fps as u want

 

[Quixoticism]

I voted 'Insane'

There's no reason for sticking with CRTs anymore. Picture quality on today's LCDs is great and response time and refresh rates are good too. Did I mention they weigh next to nothing(compared to CRTs) and use much less power too?

 

[Lucid]

Up until 2 years ago I was still using a CRT as well, I have it in storage now since my friend gave me his LCD.

 

[Dr.Demento]

The only reason I switched from CRT was size. CRTs have superior color, blacks, refresh rate, and there is no such thing as a native resolution on a CRT. If you can deal with the size and space space they require, more power to you. I would kill for something like this though, 24" and almost 100lbs of badass:

A flat tube Sony Trinitron > any LCD on the market video quality wise. Period.

I'm still waiting for OLED technology tbh. Any news on what's going on with that?

refresh rates are good too.

There's no such thing as a 'refresh rate' on LCD monitors. That's not a bad thing mind you.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Do you guys even have LCDs?

I mean, how can you think CRTs are better? There's a reason they don't sell anymore.

 

[Dr.Demento]

Do you guys even have LCDs?

I mean, how can you think CRTs are better? There's a reason they don't sell anymore.

I have a 1440x900 Samsung LCD, and I think it's video quality sucks. My friend has a 1200x1600 LE monitor and I think it's video quality also sucks.

The reason why CRTs don't sell anymore is because LCDs are cheaper to manufacture. It has nothing to do with video quality.

 

[Viperidae]

I mean, how can you think CRTs are better? There's a reason they don't sell anymore.

Demento's right. For colour quality, CRTs are unmatched. No serious film/photo editor uses an LCD.

 

[VirusType2]

I'm still waiting for OLED technology tbh. Any news on what's going on with that?

Rumor has it, OLED degrades fairly rapidly. (It's organic, after all) Also, it's not really here yet and expensive. It will be useful for an application where you can roll the monitor up, or ... I don't know, make a digital flag out of it. It won't be replacing LCD.

There's no such thing as a 'refresh rate' on LCD monitors. That's not a bad thing mind you.

They have a refresh rate. It is commonly 60hz (NTSC). The new gaming, 3D, and/or very high end LCD monitors are 120hz or 240hz.

The LCD backlight, however, is constant, thus you don't see the image flicker.

However, you can see the same problems we had with CRT where a fast moving screen updates non-uniformly (like how you would enable V-Sync). Example:

 

[Emporius]

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=172883

 

[Raziaar]

I was still using a CRT around May of this year.

So the answer is yes.

 

[Ren.182]

I haven't used a CRT for about 4 years or so. I don't think I could go back to be honest. I had a 20" CRT and it took up so much space and was really hard to move due to the weight and size.

I have a 22" LCD (1920x1600) and a 17" LCD (1440x900) and love them. I think the video quality is fine on both, though the colours are better on my bigger one since it has a better panel.

 

[Druckles]

I was reading a bit ago about a new form of CRT where each pixel of the screen was drawn with individual electron tubes. It means you get a much thinner monitor with excellent colours. Expensive, though.

It's difficult finding a panel with a good compromise between colour, viewing angle and response times. My 24" has great colours and almost perfect viewing angles, but it's a bit slower than your average TN panel. 24", but it's still lighter than a standard 19" CRT.

*looks at OP*
*sees wall of text with CRT and LCD sprinkled all over*

Eugh as if I'm reading that.

You can't be bothered to read the thread but you can be bothered to post?

 

[Warbie]

I would kill for something like this though, 24" and almost 100lbs of badass:

:cheers:

That's what I use. It is the best gaming monitor bar none. Motion is pin sharp and smear free, response time instant, inky blacks, and you can use any resolution and it still looks great. CRTs are ugly and heavy, but picture quality and motion handling wise they blow away any panel.

It's worth shopping around - you can often find these on ebay or in the local papers. I got mine for £100 from some guy who inherited it from a design firm that closed - he didn't have a clue!

 

[VirusType2]

Don't recommend to buy a used CRT. They get dimmer all the time. Especially one that is on 9am - 5pm Monday-Friday (or whatever). In a few years time it'll be giving you eyestrain.

One reason I went with LED backlit, is so it would never get dim. LEDs have the half-life of uranium. (half-life = half lit, in this case)

The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years and that of uranium-235 is 704 million years

However it may stop working altogether at any time, really. That's electronics for you. Point is, it won't get dim.

 

[Vegeta897]

You can't be bothered to read the thread but you can be bothered to post?

drakls trol u

Really can we have a rule against saying this? So damn annoying.

I responded to the thread's topic, what more do you want from me? That part of my post was mostly humor. Because the truth is, it didn't matter what he said in that huge mass of text, there's no reason to not get an LCD these days.

I have a 22" LCD (1920x1600)

And then Ren.182 invented the 6:5 aspect ratio.

 

[Warbie]

Don't recommend to buy a used CRT. They get dimmer all the time. Especially one that is on 9am - 5pm Monday-Friday (or whatever)

You have to check them out first, and some refurbs are in excellent condition still.

If my FW900 died i'd have to source another - it's the most important component for me when gaming. Especially fast paced fps.

 

[VirusType2]

Another thing, the Trinitron label has been around at least 25 years. My Dad had a Trinitron television since I was like 9. That thing went to the dump recently.

So you should recommend a specific model.

I'm not making this up (it's the reason I mentioned it), my brother gave me an old used Trinitron VGA and it was the dimmest monitor I've ever seen. It was older - you know - manila colored and not a flat screen, but I couldn't even barely see it in the dark with the brightness all the way up. It was completely unusable.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

If there was anything beyond hurting my eyes that CRTs were good at, I was too young to remember. It was a good NEC monitor though, eventually broke. Still have a less awesome Dell sitting around. Though for the first time in years that I've had this 22" LCD, I'm noticing the angle issue because of this new table (fortunately it's temporary). Gotta sit up straighter when watching shit (the horror).

 

[Sedako]

Another thing, the Trinitron label has been around at least 25 years. My Dad had a Trinitron television since I was like 9. That thing went to the dump recently.

So you should recommend a specific model.

I'm not making this up (it's the reason I mentioned it), my brother gave me an old used Trinitron VGA and it was the dimmest monitor I've ever seen. It was older - you know - manila colored and not a flat screen, but I couldn't even barely see it in the dark with the brightness all the way up. It was completely unusable.

You do know that LCDs lose brightness over time too, right? Arguably faster than CRTs do for some models, but that depends on too many factors to really consider.

 

[Schall]

Demento's right. For colour quality, CRTs are unmatched. No serious film/photo editor uses an LCD.

I disagree. Most serious editors would invest money into their career and get a 26"+ screen with 1080p picture quality.

 

[Vegeta897]

I disagree. Most serious editors would invest money into their career and get a 26"+ screen with 1080p picture quality.

Well of course a 26" is going to be at least 1080p, but that's not really "picture quality". There are very expensive LCDs that offer the color quality of CRTs though.

 

[VirusType2]

You do know that LCDs lose brightness over time too, right? Arguably faster than CRTs do for some models, but that depends on too many factors to really consider.

Please provide a source for that. (I see nothin')

Get LED backlit, because as I stated, it takes millions of years to reach half brightness.

And, even without that, I could compensate by turning up the brightness if necessary, because the LEDs make this monitor one of the brightest available. I would have to wear sunglasses to use this at full brightness. That's not an exaggeration; I fell to the ground yelling and shielding my eyes when I first turned it on.

 

[Sedako]

Please provide a source for that. (I see nothin')

You didn't look hard enough:

http://www.ledjournal.com/images/PDFs/Online Issues/Articles/LED_MJ08_Osram.pdf

lamp life: 10k - 30k hours for CCFL

http://www.ide-usa.com/forms/CCFL.pdf

average life: 10k - 40k hours

http://www.allegromicro.com/en/products/categories/Sanken/CCFLs/CCFL_h1-l04ec0.pdf

Definition of End of Life of CCFL
1) Luminance falls to 50% or less of the initial value.
2) Normal lighting is no more available. (*)
3) Lamp voltage or Lighting start voltage exceeds the specified value.

 

[VirusType2]

You said LCD. This is not describing LCD, but CFL backlighting, which doesn't apply to LED monitors. Which made me confused as to why you tried to correct me. I thought maybe you knew something about LCD itself dying. And I'm aware CFL sucks, that's why I never bought an LCD monitor until recently, when they invented LED backlighting.

 

[Sedako]

You said LCD. This is not describing LCD, but CFL backlighting, which doesn't apply to LED monitors. Which made me confused as to why you tried to correct me. I thought maybe you knew something about LCD itself dying. And I'm aware CFL sucks, that's why I never bought an LCD monitor.

Yeah, I meant it in the context of a standard CCFL back-lit LCD.

 

[VirusType2]

Yeah, I meant it in the context of a standard CCFL back-lit LCD.

OK, fair enough. That's like 99% of LCD monitors.

Anyway. I got concerned when you said that, because I don't know a lot about LCD itself. Liquid Crystal Diode. I guess I could research it. Does it fade, die, etc. ??

 

[Sedako]

OK, fair enough. That's like 99% of LCD monitors.

Anyway. I got concerned when you said that, because I don't know a lot about LCD itself. Liquid Crystal Diode. I guess I could research it. Does it fade, die, etc. ??

Well, the LCD panel itself can't "fade" per se, as it emits no light. However, over time the individual pixels may wear out, producing an effect similar to what you see with stuck or dead pixels. It's not very likely though, as I'm sure almost 100% of LCD failure is related to the CCFL or it's inverter.

 

[VirusType2]

Seems Liquid Crystal Diode is a common misconception. Just want to correct myself there, it's actually Liquid Crystal Display.


One thing I can say about LED is that it is vulnerable to heat. To what degree, I don't know. However, they use LED in newer traffic signals (in fact that was one of the examples they used in the article I read, which discussed this heat vulnerability), and those are out in >100F heat for many hours of the day, so I think that I won't have to worry about that. The other thing is that my LED LCD came with a power brick, which allows me to put the hot power pack far away from the monitor itself (and away from myself, which is nice too)

 

[Sedako]

Seems Liquid Crystal Diode is a common misconception. Just want to correct myself there, it's actually Liquid Crystal Display.


One thing I can say about LED is that it is vulnerable to heat. To what degree, I don't know. However, they use LED in newer traffic signals (in fact that was one of the examples they used in the article I read, which discussed this heat vulnerability), and those are out in >100F heat for many hours of the day, so I think that I won't have to worry about that. The other thing is that my LED LCD came with a power brick, which allows me to put the hot power pack far away from the monitor itself (and away from myself, which is nice too)

I doubt that heat would be a concern unless you live in the desert and have it in direct sunlight.

 

[T-6000]

Great input from all of you guys, and interesting to hear different opinions and aspects of CRT vs LCD. I forgot to mention that the monitor I have is a 17 inch AccuSync 700. It's so far lasted a little over 5 years because I tend to turn the monitor off when I am not playing any games, saving a bit of power and giving the monitor longer life. I prefer to stick with a basic 17 inch (non-wisdescreen) monitor because I've had a habit of playing shooters where I can see as much of the environment as I can with a smaller monitor. This way if an enemy is moving as a distance or at the corner of the screen I can catch him better and "deal" with them before they became a problem. I performed this experiment with a large 22 inch flat screen monitor that belonged to my sister's fiance. I borrowed it and played through Call of Duty World at War, and almost every single time Japanese soldiers were able to get the jump on me and kick my ass. Same when I fired up F.E.A.R. 2, Replica soldiers were able to take a huge chunk of armor and even take my health down when I could normally deal with them early and take 'em out before they became problematic. And in Left 4 Dead the special infected always got the better of me, when it would be a split 50/50 when I would get them before they got me. So I switched back to my 17 inch monitor and my gameplay skills were instantly better. And thus the conclusion I was able to get was that with a smaller, more narrow screen I was able to detect enemy movement easier and sooner, and thus deal with them sooner and get the jump on them first. But that's just me and I guess some people prefer to play with really big monitors.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand with CRT monitors and LCDs. It's not that I am super obsessed with CRT monitors, I think it is more along the lines of me sticking with something that works instead of just jumping to a new type of tech. It's been something I've debated for awhile since I see many PC Gamers switching to LCD monitors for gaming. I was thinking about ditching my CRT next year and get a good gaming monitor but I'm thinking I just may keep my CRT monitor for awhile longer since it's still in great working condition. It seems like even New Egg doesn't sell CRT monitors anymore and so I'll inevitably have to make the jump to LCD monitors. So in case my monitor does break down in the near future, what good gaming monitor would you recommend that is between $100-$200?

 

[Sedako]

So in case my monitor does break down in the near future, what good gaming monitor would you recommend that is between $100-$200?

Most monitors at that price point are better for gaming than more expensive monitors. Let me explain:

LCD panels are manufactured in a variety of ways. They all produce the same results, but how they do it is key. The cheapest LCD monitors use TN panels, which have the fastest gray to gray response time at the expense of color accuracy. This is what you want if you play a lot of FPS games. Next up in price are MVA/PVA panels, which offer better color accuracy, but take a hit in response time. These panels are decent for general gaming that doesn't rely on clutch reactions. The most expensive LCD panel technology is IPS, which has a color accuracy close to that of CRT monitors, but the response time is also usually the slowest.

I would say that the best type of LCD monitor for all types of gaming would be a 16:10 TN panel. I absolutely love my 24" 16:10. The only issue with that is that you pay premium for the 16:10 ratio. If you're willing to sacrifice a greater viewing area, 16:9 should suffice. I would definitely not recommend skipping out on widescreen altogether though.

As far as brands go, Samsung, Asus, and BenQ are what I would recommend.

 

[T-6000]

Most monitors at that price point are better for gaming than more expensive monitors. Let me explain:

LCD panels are manufactured in a variety of ways. They all produce the same results, but how they do it is key. The cheapest LCD monitors use TN panels, which have the fastest gray to gray response time at the expense of color accuracy. This is what you want if you play a lot of FPS games. Next up in price are MVA/PVA panels, which offer better color accuracy, but take a hit in response time. These panels are decent for general gaming that doesn't rely on clutch reactions. The most expensive LCD panel technology is IPS, which has a color accuracy close to that of CRT monitors, but the response time is also usually the slowest.

I would say that the best type of LCD monitor for all types of gaming would be a 16:10 TN panel. I absolutely love my 24" 16:10. The only issue with that is that you pay premium for the 16:10 ratio. If you're willing to sacrifice a greater viewing area, 16:9 should suffice. I would definitely not recommend skipping out on widescreen altogether though.

As far as brands go, Samsung, Asus, and BenQ are what I would recommend.

Interesting. Thanks for that bit of info.

 

[Warbie]

I was thinking about ditching my CRT next year and get a good gaming monitor

Don't make the mistake of thinking LCD is better than CRT for gaming. It's quite the opposite. Aesthetically they're nicer to look at, much easier to find (especially if you want widescreen and over 20"), and they're easier to maintain, but place the best LCD money can buy next to a FW900 and you'll have no doubts at all as to which is the better gaming monitor. Having said that, there are some very nice LCDs around these days that can be had for a great price, are good for gaming and, imo, are better for general browsing and work.

Here's hoping oled matures soon and that it delivers in giving us the best of both worlds.

 

[VirusType2]

I haven't compared a lot of monitors, honestly, but every Samsung I have seen has looked superior to other brands I have compared them to (and that goes for their CRT and LCD monitors). But you should consider others if you see them on a good sale.

One thing you can do is look at the monitors, sort order "most reviewed". Then you can get an idea of what everyone else is buying. It sort of takes the research work out of choosing a monitor. Like so: http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=20&name=LCD-Monitors&Order=REVIEWS

So then you just have to decide what size and resolution you want, and what kind of inputs you want. (1 HDMI; 1 DVI, for example) I personally recommend 1080p or 1200p if you will be using a strong video card. It just looks brilliant. Stunning.

I also like LED, but that is relatively new technology and is more expensive. Whether it's worth it or not is up for debate. I am fairly convinced it was worth the extra money I spent, but that is a personal opinion.

Then there is 3D, which is mostly only going to appeal to people who are interested in this feature, however, at twice the refresh rate, it will provide an improvement for fast moving (non-3D) games as well. Again, it costs more.

For both LED and 3D monitors, the selection is very small at this point in time.

 

[Asus]

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)

 

[kazsymonds]

Seems Liquid Crystal Diode is a common misconception. Just want to correct myself there, it's actually Liquid Crystal Display.


One thing I can say about LED is that it is vulnerable to heat. To what degree, I don't know. However, they use LED in newer traffic signals (in fact that was one of the examples they used in the article I read, which discussed this heat vulnerability), and those are out in >100F heat for many hours of the day, so I think that I won't have to worry about that. The other thing is that my LED LCD came with a power brick, which allows me to put the hot power pack far away from the monitor itself (and away from myself, which is nice too)

Traffic ones are massive though, in comparison.

My LCD TV gives off quite a lot of heat from the front of the panel which is quite a worry! This is the same problem that has stopped the exponential growth in CPU speeds, smaller transistors as a whole give off more heat than one big one. A traffic light sized section of an LCD display will give off more heat than a traffic light I think, although there are probably more factors at work.

Don't know if that is relevant to displays, but it makes sense (IMO).