Skip to main content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Post

Do you like CRT or LCD monitors better?

CRT
38% (5 votes)
LCD
62% (8 votes)
other
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 13

Comments

CRT or LCD

CRTs have a better quality. LCDs have little black lines everywhere.

Re: CRT or LCD

"a thing" wrote:

CRTs have a better quality. LCDs have little black lines everywhere.

Not something I've ever seen or heard of in my computing experience. Maybe you bought a production dud?

Either way, I simply must have an LCD. I get headaches when using CRTs, albeit flatscreen CRTs are better on my eyes, but they just delay the time it takes until I get a headache. I love my flat screen. :smiling:

Just one distinction. Could people actually vote when they've used both. No point saying A is better than B if the person voting has only tried A. Cheers.

 

I like LCD, so much nicer, and flatter Laughing out loud

LCD's take so much less space tho Laughing out loud

Re: CRT or LCD

"klepas" wrote:

Either way, I simply must have an LCD. I get headaches when using CRTs, albeit flatscreen CRTs are better on my eyes, but they just delay the time it takes until I get a headache.

Try a higher frequency than 60 Hz Rolling Eyes .

Good CRTs have much better colors than good LCDs, but there are LCDs that are better than many CRTs. Also, CRTs look the same from any direction.
I heard plasma screens are very good too, but they're too damn expensive.

I have a laptop. I wouldn't like it to have a CRT Sticking out tongue

I haven't ever had an LCD yet, but from what I've seen elsewhere (like web caffes and such) they have some disadvantages though they sure have some advantages. It probably depends on what you need. For example, it is obvious you'll be using LCD if you have a laptop or if it's a PC maybe you just prefer a thin screen, but otherwise I think CRTs are generally just as good in picture quality while being less expensive.

I have an old CRT monitor that can do 1024x768 on 75 Hz vertical refresh rate and it's pretty good.

I don't think it would make much of a different for causing headaches if you use the right vertical refresh rate. When that's too low then sure, you have a chance of developing headaches, but I think anything above 70Hz is tolerable. If you can have more than 85 or 100 it's perfect, like a picture on the wall. Eye

Cheers
Daniel

Also LCDs can't go above a certain resolution.

There are pros and cons to both, both my monitors are CRT, one flat screen and the other is an old standard one. Out of both the older standard one has the better colours, but from time to time gives me a headache.
Both my parents have LCD screens, they are okay and one is better than another - mainly since it's larger and more expencive, the colours are good on the more expencive one.
I like the fact that they take up much less space than CRT monitors - which is a real boon for people with small amounts of space.
One of my gripes with LCD though is the fact some pixles die or are always on which is annoying.

dylunio

 

usually with a good screen the pixels don't die, until about 100,000 hours. I have a LCD in my room, becase it is a 9x9 room, and dont have that much space, and it is a nice LG flatron monitor, well, I think it rocks, 1280x1024 res and 24-bit colour

I've gotten a headache with an LCD. I think the real problem is people not realizing that monitors are more like lightbulbs than paper, so they make bright backgrounds.

"Maddox" wrote:

When I go to a web site, I WANT TO READ THE CONTENT. Trust me, that micro-font everyone uses isn't nearly as original as they think. I've chosen a black background for most of my text because it's easier on the eyes than staring at a white screen. Think about it: your monitor is not a piece of paper, no matter how hard you try to make it one. Staring at a white background while you read is like staring at a light bulb (don't believe me? Try turning off the lights next time you use word processor). Would you stare at a light bulb for hours at a time? Not if you want to keep your vision.

"a thing" wrote:

I've gotten a headache with an LCD. I think the real problem is people not realizing that monitors are more like lightbulbs than paper, so they make bright backgrounds.

Technology moves forward. Will we always consider our monitors to be a bunch of very small lightbulbs? You have a point there a_thing when it comes to some older monitors that just can't have higher vertical refresh rate or are just poor quality, but good monitors with high refresh rate indeed do tend to look more like "pictures on the wall" and should not cause any headaches except if you really overdo it with flashy stuff on your screen. You choose your backgrounds, choose what makes you feel good (in all aspects) at the time.

I don't think it *has* to be dark for it to be healthy on your eyes, except on old low quality monitors.

Just IMO.

 

My LCD monitor seems to be really good, although it only does 60hz, because it isnt too bright you dont notice.

 

I only own CRT monitors myself, and i think i would buy one again simply because LCD monitors are too expensive. But i do think LCD monitors generally look nicer.

"onlinebacon" wrote:

usually with a good screen the pixels don't die, until about 100,000 hours. I have a LCD in my room, becase it is a 9x9 room, and dont have that much space, and it is a nice LG flatron monitor, well, I think it rocks, 1280x1024 res and 24-bit colour

I have a 3m by 3m room. Sticking out tongue

A CRT would simply not fit on this tiny desk, plus in 25-40 degrees throughout most of the year having another big hardware cube in my room would not serve to cool things down. Smiling

Call me old school, but I like CRTs. Especially since I can get them for free.

I prefer LCDs, slightly.
They are nice and compact, and my subjective impression is that the light isn't as intensive as CRTs. I like to have some distance to my monitor that was not possible with the CRT I had. LCDs may be fixed to certain resolutions, but cheaper CRTs aren't nearly as clear as LCDs of similiar class and size at high resolutions.