CRT or LCD?

[ZeroX]

I was wondering what you all like? Its hard for me since LCD gives off a better picture "SOMETIMES" But CRT I think have better qualtiy and you can touch the screen

[iago]

LCD's are far superior, in my opinion.  If you can afford it. 

[Armin]

If you don't need a skinny screen, go CRT. Every decent CRT monitor I've seen has better picture quality than the decent LCD monitors I've seen.

[rabbit]

PLASMA SCREEN FTW!!

[Chavo]

CRT's are generally equated to a LCD monitor with a 600:1 Contrast Ratio.  I have a 22" IBM CRT and a 19" Samsung LCD and the Samsung looks better (750:1 Contrast Ratio, 12ms response time).  It has a lot to do with the manufacturer though.  In my experience, Samsung, Sony, Dell, and NEC have had the best LCD monitors (in that order).

[Sidoh]

If you don't need a skinny screen, go CRT. Every decent CRT monitor I've seen has better picture quality than the decent LCD monitors I've seen.

You certainly haven't been around very many good LCD's, then.  I haven't ever seen a CRT monitor that matches my LCD monitors' picture.  I agree with iago; if you can afford them, get them.

[MyndFyre]

I've seen some really pimp LCD screens.  But if you have the money and need the space, go LCD.  Space is an important factor.  I have a 21" CRT.  But my desk fits perfectly into the corner of my bedroom, and the CRT fits into the corner part of the desk perfectly.

[igimo1]

If you don't need a skinny screen, go CRT. Every decent CRT monitor I've seen has better picture quality than the decent LCD monitors I've seen.

You certainly haven't been around very many good LCD's, then.  I haven't ever seen a CRT monitor that matches my LCD monitors' picture.  I agree with iago; if you can afford them, get them.

CRT's are known to have better contrast and quality, but it begins to fade after a while. I know a lot of people who do art and graphics design for a career, and they've always gone with CRT's.

[Sidoh]

CRT's are known to have better contrast and quality, but it begins to fade after a while. I know a lot of people who do art and graphics design for a career, and they've always gone with CRT's.

Within how many years?  Have you seen a new 19"+ LCD (new within the last two years).

[Eric]

The only reason why someone should buy a CRT is if price is an issue.  If you have the money, you should have no reason not to buy an LCD.  Yes, it is as simple as that.

[Armin]

If you don't need a skinny screen, go CRT. Every decent CRT monitor I've seen has better picture quality than the decent LCD monitors I've seen.

You certainly haven't been around very many good LCD's, then.  I haven't ever seen a CRT monitor that matches my LCD monitors' picture.  I agree with iago; if you can afford them, get them.

Ehh, maybe I'm just used to my really good CRT. I had a friend that owned a print shop that went out of business, and got a nice 21", $2100 monitor for $100.

[Sidoh]

The only reason why someone should buy a CRT is if price is an issue.  If you have the money, you should have no reason not to buy an LCD.  Yes, it is as simple as that.

Completely agreed.  CRT's are big, luggy and their picture is starting to pale in quality compared to LCD's.

Ehh, maybe I'm just used to my really good CRT. I had a friend that owned a print shop that went out of business, and got a nice 21", $2100 monitor for $100.

And I'm used to my really good LCD monitors.  I do dual monitors, I couldn't dream of doing that with CRT's with my desk space.  Plus, I truely have never seen a CRT with picture to match mine.

[Blaze]

I like CRT because it's familiar.  I have a very large desk so duel-weilding these babies isn't hard. 

[Joe]

I do dual monitors, I couldn't dream of doing that with CRT's with my desk space.

You have the smallest desk I've seen in many years, outside of a classroom. =p

EDIT -
As for my two cents, I use three or four computers daily. Two of them are LCD's (in school), and I *really* like them. My computer is a CRT, as is my brothers (the fourth). I dislike them. But it's not a big deal because I have a hugeass office desk (clicky) which currently has two CRTs, a stack of books/DVDs, some dishes, and a 12-pack of rootbeer on it, with room to spare. If I was offered a free LCD or a free CRT (the dude popped up at my front door out of nowhere, k?) I'd go with the LCD without even requiring though.

[Sidoh]

I'd much rather have LCD's, regardless of deskspace.  That's an added bonus, but the quality/clarity/size is much, much better on a LCD monitor.

[trust]

lcd

[Joe]

@Sidoh:
Same. I edited after you posted.

@Troost:
Yes, but why!!?

[Sidoh]

Also, my desk isn't that small.  It's narrow, true, but it's pretty lengthly.  I could fit all that stuff on my desk too.

[deadly7]

LCD.  My desk is literally bending down from my monstrous CRT monitor.  It's either really weak wood, a lot of strain from the heavy CRT, or both. :\

[Towelie]

I definently say LCD. When I bought my new computer, I was astounded at how much better quality I was receiving with my LCD. It was without a doubt this is the better way. My old CRT was a really crappy one, and that might be the problem, but LCD is clear and sharp as hell.

[Sidoh]

I definently say LCD. When I bought my new computer, I was astounded at how much better quality I was receiving with my LCD. It was without a doubt this is the better way. My old CRT was a really crappy one, and that might be the problem, but LCD is clear and sharp as hell.

I agree with you.  I used two 17" CRT's for the longest time.  I've gotten 19" LCD's two years in a row for my birthday; when the first one replaced my primary crappy CRT, I couldn't believe how much better the picture was.  The CRT I had wasn't bad (even though it was small), but the picture was so much worse.
 
I'm using a ViewSonic VX910 and a Samsung 913T, incase anyone is curious.  I'm pretty sure they are older models (especially the ViewSonic), but they're both very good monitors, in my opinion.

[Hitmen]

A few years ago I would have said CRT definately, but quality of LCD monitors has come a long long way since then, and I want one to replace my crappy old CRT. My brother just got a nice 19" LCD a month or two ago and it rocks.  Deskspace definately isn't an issue for me, my desk is monsterous (3' x 11') but yeah, LCDs are sexy.

[JTN Designer]

A few years ago I would have said CRT definately, but quality of LCD monitors has come a long long way since then, and I want one to replace my crappy old CRT. My brother just got a nice 19" LCD a month or two ago and it rocks.  Deskspace definately isn't an issue for me, my desk is monsterous (3' x 11') but yeah, LCDs are sexy.

I also agree with that, however I still go for the CRT option when I buy a monitor. More resoultion for your dollar.

[Sidoh]

I also agree with that, however I still go for the CRT option when I buy a monitor. More resoultion for your dollar.

Resolution isn't everything.  Personally, I like the sharpness of LCD's over one level of resolution that a big CRT provides.  I think 1600x1200 is hard to work on anyway.

[Armin]

My $2100 21" 1600x1200 resolution monitor has more sharpness than I've seen on any other monitor, no matter what the resolution. And it's flatscreen.

[Sidoh]

My $2100 21" 1600x1200 resolution monitor has more sharpness than I've seen on any other monitor, no matter what the resolution. And it's flatscreen.

That's disgusting, seriously.  I mean it's great that it's a good monitor, but I would never buy a damn anvil for $2100.  Hell, I wouldn't pay that much for an LCD.  I'd much rather put it into other hardware.  Two 19" LCD's outdo any combo I've ever worked on (including 21" CRT's, though I doubt they were $2100, that's pretty outrageous ).

[MyndFyre]

My $2100 21" 1600x1200 resolution monitor has more sharpness than I've seen on any other monitor, no matter what the resolution. And it's flatscreen.

You know what's really funny about that?  I paid $250 for my 1920x1440 21" flat-screen monitor.  And it kicks your monitor's ass.

[Sidoh]

You know what's really funny about that?  I paid $250 for my 1920x1440 21" flat-screen monitor.  And it kicks your monitor's ass.

hahahaha

[Joe]

If you look back, he paid only $100 for his.

[MyndFyre]

If you look back, he paid only $100 for his.

Perhaps, but my CRT was *never* priced at $2100.  Nor was it a hand-me-down.

[Armin]

I know I could get a larger monitor, but I would actually end up playing more money than I'm paying for the monitor I currently have, and my current one would be a HELL of a lot sharper than it. The $2100 is definately not just for Quanity, but Quality. Trust me, your monitor doesn't kick mine's ass. 1600x1200 at 21" is hard enough o the eyes already, but 1920x1440? That's just rediculous. I also find it quite funny that Joe noticed I didn't pay that much money for mine, but you and Sidoh didn't.

[MyndFyre]

I also find it quite funny that Joe noticed I didn't pay that much money for mine, but you and Sidoh didn't.

That's because I have better things to do than to read an entire thread about monitors, and Joe doesn't. 

[AntiVirus]

I like LCD.

[Sidoh]

I know I could get a larger monitor, but I would actually end up playing more money than I'm paying for the monitor I currently have, and my current one would be a HELL of a lot sharper than it. The $2100 is definately not just for Quanity, but Quality. Trust me, your monitor doesn't kick mine's ass. 1600x1200 at 21" is hard enough o the eyes already, but 1920x1440? That's just rediculous. I also find it quite funny that Joe noticed I didn't pay that much money for mine, but you and Sidoh didn't.

It's your mistake, not ours.  You typed it wrong.  Perhaps it was another monitor.  As MyndFyre has already said, I don't take it upon myself to memorize the contents of every damn thread on these forums.

Give me your monitor's M/N and manufacturer.  I'd like to see a fucking monitor that's worth $2,100, regardless of what you paid for it.  Unless it's a damn widescreen 60" TV, I'd never pay that much for a display device.  That's outrageous.

I've worked on a lot of CRT monitors (some of which have been 21", made by various companies: Sun, Dell, Gateway and ViewSonic).  None of them defeat the overall greatness of a quality LCD monitor.

[Blaze]

2048x1536 works fine for me, it's just that only one of the monitors I have can do it, so it's annoying.  DPI == 120 

[Sidoh]

Another thing to take into consideration is that CRT's are heavily influenced by the presence of an electromagnetical field.  Speakers, cell/cordless phones(speakers ) and many other ordinary devices can have this property.

[Super_X]

I have only CRTs at my house, just your old, shotty CRTs. Like, a 16" and a 18" or some shit.

I like that you can put sharpie on them to pwn no scope in CS and you can clean it off easy with isopropyl. But if I was offered either for free, I'd go with the LCD.  Something about "Liquid" and "Crystal" get me so  horny.

[Armin]

http://www.windowsmagazine.com/library/1999/0201/rev0032.htm
The prices went down a bit.

[Eric]

Another thing to take into consideration is that CRT's are heavily influenced by the presence of an electromagnetical field.  Speakers, cell/cordless phones(speakers ) and many other ordinary devices can have this property.

The newer devices (monitors, speakers, etc. made within the last ~3 years) have built-in shielding to protect against the majority of that.  I placed two unshielded speakers next to an unshielded CRT television when I was about 13.  It definately had an interesting affect on the television.

[Sidoh]

http://www.windowsmagazine.com/library/1999/0201/rev0032.htm
The prices went down a bit.

The price has gone down 25%.  That's more than "a bit."

Additionally, that's still an outrageous price for a display.  If you pay that much money for an LCD monitor, I'm positive you could get one that beats its performance.

The newer devices (monitors, speakers, etc. made within the last ~3 years) have built-in shielding to protect against the majority of that.  I placed two unshielded speakers next to an unshielded CRT television when I was about 13.  It definately had an interesting affect on the television.

I'm aware of this, but it's still a potential weakness.

[Armin]

Wow, I never knew my monitor could go to such high resolutions when in a custom mode. I got it up to 2048x1536 at 60 Hertz. Damn factory defaults.

[Sidoh]

Wow, I never knew my monitor could go to such high resolutions when in a custom mode. I got it up to 2048x1536 at 60 Hertz. Damn factory defaults.

Cool?  That's great and all, but I've worked on 1600x1200 before.  It's too small (even on large monitors).  1280x1024 is optimal for me.

[Armin]

Get a monitor with a 21" screen and you'll see that 1600x1200 is the 1280x1024 on 21".  On a side note, I got my monitor up to 2304x1728. The overhead is to guarentee clearness and sharpness at a suitable resolution. I'm almost positive that this is as good as a monitor gets for image quality. Now size of the monitor, that's another story.

[Sidoh]

Get a monitor with a 21" screen and you'll see that 1600x1200 is the 1280x1024 on 21".  On a side note, I got my monitor up to 2304x1728. The overhead is to guarentee clearness and sharpness at a suitable resolution. I'm almost positive that this is as good as a monitor gets for image quality. Now size of the monitor, that's another story.

Did you read your own article?

Diagonal viewing area   19.7"

CRT's ALWAYS have a large discrepancy from their list display and their actual viewable display.

Additionally, I'm almost positive a 21" CRT isn't as good as it gets for image quality.  For one, it isn't high definition (unless, of course, it is and I'm wrong ).  In addition, you can get a picture as clear as you want, but the clarity isn't going to go to use if you don't have enough space to display it on.  You can take a massive resolution JPEG and shrink it down to 100x100.  Is it still that awesome resolution you once had?  No.  You lost quality because there isn't enough room on the canvas to display it.

[Armin]

Get a monitor with a 21" screen and you'll see that 1600x1200 is the 1280x1024 on 21".  On a side note, I got my monitor up to 2304x1728. The overhead is to guarentee clearness and sharpness at a suitable resolution. I'm almost positive that this is as good as a monitor gets for image quality. Now size of the monitor, that's another story.

Did you read your own article?

Diagonal viewing area   19.7"

CRT's ALWAYS have a large discrepancy from their list display and their actual viewable display.

Additionally, I'm almost positive a 21" CRT isn't as good as it gets for image quality.  For one, it isn't high definition (unless, of course, it is and I'm wrong ).  In addition, you can get a picture as clear as you want, but the clarity isn't going to go to use if you don't have enough space to display it on.  You can take a massive resolution JPEG and shrink it down to 100x100.  Is it still that awesome resolution you once had?  No.  You lost quality because there isn't enough room on the canvas to display it.

Sorry, didn't know you'd get so techincal. Just act as if I didn't say "screen" after 21". Also, your analogy isn't really that good of an analogy. You're basically saying that if something is bigger (CRT monitors), they'll be better, but if you have an LCD, the image is crappy, but you can fit them in smaller places?

And what do you mean by a high definition monitor? TVs are the only things that are high definition (as I know of), and my monitor still goes to a higher resolution than even 1080p for HDTVs. My 1080i HDTV downstairs can only reach 1100x700 (somewhere around there).

[JTN Designer]

My $2100 21" 1600x1200 resolution monitor has more sharpness than I've seen on any other monitor, no matter what the resolution. And it's flatscreen.

You know what's really funny about that?  I paid $250 for my 1920x1440 21" flat-screen monitor.  And it kicks your monitor's ass.

Where'd you get that from? I may buy one.

[ink]

It all really depends on the situation at hand which needs a monitor.
This question immediately came to mind:
What is going to be the main function of the P.C. that will be using

A gamer would probably want a CRT since LCD screens present the ghosting effect
LCD definately displays better still-picture quality, on the other hand.

So besides these, personal preference comes into play and it's all up in the air.

[Sidoh]

It all really depends on the situation at hand which needs a monitor.
This question immediately came to mind:
What is going to be the main function of the P.C. that will be using

A gamer would probably want a CRT since LCD screens present the ghosting effect
LCD definately displays better still-picture quality, on the other hand.

So besides these, personal preference comes into play and it's all up in the air.

They used to have an apparent ghosting effect.  Gaming LCD monitors (actually, standard LCD monitors now) have an 8 ms response time, so it's virtually impossible to identify this affect.

[MyndFyre]

They used to have an apparent ghosting effect.  Gaming LCD monitors (actually, standard LCD monitors now) have an 8 ms response time, so it's virtually impossible to identify this affect.

z0mg lern2grammar n00b.  Effect is the noun (unless you're talking about effecting something into happening or existing), and affect is the verb (unless you're talking about the psychological synonym for feelings).

I still have problems with the LCD monitor at work and looking at it from other angles.  Not so much my laptop screen, though.

[Sidoh]

z0mg lern2grammar n00b.  Effect is the noun (unless you're talking about effecting something into happening or existing), and affect is the verb (unless you're talking about the psychological synonym for feelings).

Is it just me or is this getting annoying?

I know the damn difference, it was a simple mistake.  If you know what I mean, I don't see the point in wasting time correcting such issues when it's obvious that it was a simple typing error (or failure to re-read the sentence; if I would have read over that, I would have noticed)...

I still have problems with the LCD monitor at work and looking at it from other angles.  Not so much my laptop screen, though.

It must suck, then.  I don't have a single problem using my monitors at any reasonable angle (IE, not laying on the floor, where it's hard to read anyway).  Thew viewing angle on any good LCD monitor is 180 degrees, which is obviously the maximum without the presentation of an additional engineering problem.

[MyndFyre]

Is it just me or is this getting annoying?

I know the damn difference, it was a simple mistake.  If you know what I mean, I don't see the point in wasting time correcting such issues when it's obvious that it was a simple typing error (or failure to re-read the sentence; if I would have read over that, I would have noticed)...

Hehehe, it was meant as a joke specifically about this remark, which was still fresh in my mind. 

I don't mind poor spelling as much as I do poor grammar (to an extent, of course).

It must suck, then.  I don't have a single problem using my monitors at any reasonable angle (IE, not laying on the floor, where it's hard to read anyway).  Thew viewing angle on any good LCD monitor is 180 degrees, which is obviously the maximum without the presentation of an additional engineering problem.

Yeah it probably does.  I can't read some things at about 15 degrees.

[Sidoh]

Hehehe, it was meant as a joke specifically about this remark, which was still fresh in my mind. 

I don't mind poor spelling as much as I do poor grammar (to an extent, of course).

I also said this:

I don't understand purposeful lack of grammatical flow in communication just because data is transmitted digitally instead of across paper or pressure waves.

Don't make such hastey conclusions!  Just because we've insulted your purposeful horrid grammar (that you're not using anymore; we're appreciative of that) doesn't mean we don't care what you think.  Maybe we think it's what's best for you.

I wasn't being hypocritical.  It was an honest mistake.