Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Displays Technology

Are CRTs History? 895

Posted by Cliff from the vanishing-tubes dept.
DreamWheezer asks: "I work on a medical imaging program that uses CrystalEyes for high resolution true color stereoscopy. This program requires high resolution high frequency true color CRTs. Very recently, a vendor trend has developed: almost all are dropping out of the CRT market in favor of LCDs. Unfortunately, LCDs cannot render high resolution page sequential stereoscopy. The vendors have said that autostereo LCDs are on the way in 12 to 18 months, but what can I do in the meantime? Furthermore, does this mean the end is near for CRTs?" While there does still seem to be a market for CRTs, it seems to be dwindling to a narrow niche. Are LCDs ready to take over as the primary computer display or is the retirement of CRTs, premature?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are CRTs History? More

Are CRTs History?

Comments Filter:

  • Are CRTs on the way out? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:17PM (#12697211)
    After f*cking my back lifting a 21" bugger on to my desk. I really do hope they are.

    • It really is bad when my 19" monitor weighs almost as much as my server chassis fully loaded with all components, 3 HDs and 3 CD/DVD Disc Drives and a 550W Power Supply. However, until those LCDs really can improve their refresh rate to the point where you can reliably play video games on them without any weird visual effects, I'm stuck with the CRT myself.
      • Ditto. I've found that when I have to move my monitor, putting my chair up as high as it will go, sliding the monitor to the edge of the desk, and then just putting it on the chair does wonder for keeping my back in one piece. I had to have lower back surgery once already (unrelated to monitors), but I don't want to do it again. 21" is crazy heavy to lug around.

        With that said, however, I'd rather have to deal with a mountainous behemoth that looked good in games than one that was light and looked like
        • "I've found that when I have to move my monitor, putting my chair up as high as it will go, sliding the monitor to the edge of the desk, and then just putting it on the chair does wonder for keeping my back in one piece."

          you guys know you're just strengthening the "geeks are wimps" stereotype, right?

          Modern 21" monitors weigh less than 70 lbs and 19" less than 50 lbs (link [epinions.com] link [pcmall.com] link [epinions.com] link [epinions.com]), so you guys breaking your backs over 50 lbs are not exactly hitting the gym too often are ya?

    • Re:Are CRTs on the way out? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:29PM (#12697393)
      Indulging in buggery with something 21" long is bound to cause an injury.
    • For future reference... :-)

      Click here. [leeds.ac.uk]

      It took me a little while before I realized that the fact it's computer equipment didn't exempt us nerds from the laws of biology and physics.

    • Oddly enough, the same thing happened to my dad, and it resulted in a life-long, occasionally recurring back injury. In fact, he just recently threw his back out again, AND got a possibly herniated disk this time around to go with it.

      -Jay
  • I have three words for you: Cold Dead Hands!

    • Alpha ray sterilization.

    • Re:My CRT (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RetroGeek ( 206522 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:21PM (#12697275) Homepage
      Amen to that.

      I specifically got a CRT for development work. I can switch resolutions for testing, and still get high picture quality.

      Flat panel displays have a "sweet-spot" resulution. Anything outside that looks terrible.

      • Re:My CRT (Score:3, Informative)

        by sockonafish ( 228678 )
        Flat panel displays have a "sweet-spot" resulution. Anything outside that looks terrible.

        It's not a "sweet spot," it's the dimensions of the physical pixels on the display, also known as a native resolution.

        With that said, computer labs full of 1024x768 native res flat panel displays all set at 800x600 is one of the worst tech atrocities in the world.

  • Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pherthyl ( 445706 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:18PM (#12697222)
    Are you saying you have no way to get high res CRTs anymore? I somehow don't believe that. The medical market is pretty big and profitable, I hardly think vendors would completely drop CRTs if there is no replacement available yet.
    • The medical market isn't big. Or, rather, yes, the medical market is huge, but the medical market for CRTs is not big - not by comparison to the desktop PC market.

      Yes, the medical market is probably big enough to ensure that one or two players keep making CRTs. They will become specialty items, however.

      (Is there any reason that the medical market can't switch? Is there any reason that the medical market can't use CRTs?)

      • Re:No, it isn't. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by john82 ( 68332 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:39PM (#12697526)
        Yes, the medical market is probably big enough to ensure that one or two players keep making CRTs. They will become specialty items, however.

        Translation: They will become bloody expensive.

        • Re:No, it isn't. (Score:3, Interesting)

          by painandgreed ( 692585 )
          The medical market is already "bloody expensive". Some Dome monitors and their video cards are going to cost you around $10k+ each and we need at least two for every radiological computer that we have a doctor reading images at. The license for the software is comparible. After all that, the actual cost of the computer is trivial (yet hospital admin still decides to skimp).
  • I've been using CRTs for years. Sure, they're big and bulky. Yes, they take a lot of power.

    But:

    They run very high resolutions and have very little latency (essential for gaming).

    They're also very cheap compared with LCDs.

    • LCD? No thanks! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Nik13 ( 837926 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:37PM (#12697501) Homepage
      It's not just that they have higher resolution...

      -They don't have a FIXED and lower resolution (and anything running at not-native res looks FUGLY, even with like ClearType and what not)
      -CRTs have a LOT more contrast
      -CRTs don't have/get dead/stuck pixels
      -CRTs have a good angle of view
      -CRTs don't have slow response delays (and LCD manufacturers that claim super low delays are using tricks to be able to claim those numbers)
      -CRTs aren't limited to 18 (eek) or 24bit color, tend to have better color accuracy, wider gamut...
      -Good CRTs have a long lifespan, not sure about LCDs

      Dtiching my perfectly find 21" CRTs for 21" LCDs would cost me an arm and a leg, would also require me to buy a newer and more expensive spectrometer too.

      As far as I'm concerned, that's a lot of money wasted to get inferior technology.

      Oh, and for those people that only talk about electricity savings, well, why not get rid of your SUV and buy a scooter instead? You'll save a LOT of gas and money (a lot more than swtiching monitors could ever make you save)! Oh, what's that you say? It's not quite the same? Exactly. LCD isn't nearly as good as CRT either.

      Unless you think your (reclaimed) desk space is worth 1000$/sq ft, or that you think LCD is better in a interior-designer standpoint, in which case I'll grant you it's a better buy for you.

      • Re:LCD? No thanks! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by RWerp ( 798951 )
        How much do you value you eyesight?

      • Re:LCD? No thanks! (Score:3, Informative)

        by sterno ( 16320 )
        Well obviously if you have a CRT right now that works perfectly fine, it'd be silly to get an LCD.

        As for your points:

        -CRT's have a lot more contrast, but the contrast of LCD's has improved dramatically and will continue to do so. Honestly I find the contrast on my LCD's to be far superior to any monitor I've owned.

        -CRT's do get dead or stuck pixels in manufacturing. Some manufacturers have begun to warranty against even one dead pixel. Once it's done and on your desktop you aren't going to lose additi
      • I know a little something about displays ;)

        -They don't have a FIXED and lower resolution (and anything running at not-native res looks FUGLY, even with like ClearType and what not)

        LCDs with decent electronics dont have much of a problem with this. I suppose if you buy no-name brand, it might.

        -CRTs have a LOT more contrast

        Not really. The contrast ratios for good LCDs are beyond what anyone needs. Black is black, white is white.

        -CRTs don't have/get dead/stuck pixels

        Neither do most LCDs these days..

  • They don't want your business. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by yotto ( 590067 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:19PM (#12697234) Homepage
    *The vendors have said that autostereo LCDs are on the way in 12 to 18 months, but what can I do in the meantime?*

    Find another vendor that wants to trade your money for their CRT monitors.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Why does someone always trot out this tired argurment against LCDs for gaming when there is a discussion about LCD monitors?

        Yes, when the refresh time on LCDs was 25ms or more the ghosting in games made them a less than desireable choice. Finding an LCD with a refresh time greater than 16ms these days is becoming increasingly rare, though.

        I have a Dell 2005FPW widescreen LCD. It has a native resolution of 1680x1050 and a refresh time of 12ms. There is absolutely no ghosting on it whatsoever. Doom3, Far

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Forced (Score:5, Funny)

      by PornMaster ( 749461 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:27PM (#12697349) Homepage
      CRTs will still be the best monitors out there for a lot of things, especially graphics

      Given the other uses for monitors, like babysitting the children and mowing the lawn, I'm glad I can still count on CRTs for graphics.

    • Re:Forced (Score:5, Insightful)

      by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@NOspAm.yahoo.com> on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:28PM (#12697371)
      Honestly I hate LCDs. Their color reproduction on all but the most expensive monitors sucks.

      Basically any MVA, IPS or Super IPS panel will render colors at least as well as any high-end CRT, and better than most mid-range CRT's (i.e. the ones most people use in their homes and offices). These panels are used in screens such as the Dell 2005FPW, which is a 20" widescreen LCD monitor that can be had for under $400 (with coupons applied).

      I just get tired of hearing these same criticisms of LCD's that we've heard for the last 10 years - "their colors suck", "they're not fast enough", "their black level is bad", "they're expensive". I mean, do you go around criticizing DVD-ROM drives because they cost more than CD-ROM drives and only read at 1X? This is 2005, man. We're past all that and have been for years.

      (Note that CRT's are still perfectly fine for many things, and in fact I just bought one as an HDTV. But as generalized computer monitors - and in that I'm including common applications such as design or photographic work - LCD's work as well or better than CRT's and good ones don't cost much more, if any.)

      • Re:Forced (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dkone ( 457398 )
        Although I agree with everything that you said regarding LCD's, I must point out the one negative that you missed. When comparing a good flat panel (you indicated a Dell 2005FPW) to a high-end CRT, what you fail to mention is upper end of resolution display and the ability for the CRT to look good through out the entire range of resolution that it can display. The LCD falls painfully short here.

        DK

      • Re:Forced (Score:4, Insightful)

        by rsadelle ( 719824 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:53PM (#12697667)
        You missed thing I hate most about LCDs and color: The color is different depending on the angle you're viewing it at. This drives me bonkers. When I'm looking at a computer screen, I want to be able to see the same things in the same colors no matter where my head is in relation to the screen.

      • Re:Forced (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @06:20PM (#12699312) Homepage
        I'm including common applications such as design or photographic work - LCD's work as well or better than CRT's and good ones don't cost much more, if any.

        I just bought a new CRT (Samsung 997DF) for $179 that runs razor sharp at 1920x1440. The cheapest LCD I'm familiar with that gets close costs $1499 from Apple (for the 23 inch model). I consider 8X to be much more. Froogle lists your Dell LCD starting at $500 for 1680x1050; nearly three times the price for two thirds the pixels.

        What was that you were saying?
    • you're full of it. i know plenty of professional photographers using LCDs on their production machines.

      maybe you haven't looked at one in...oh....10 years.
    • I don't hate LCDs or anything, but for print publishing, CRTs are still the standard.

      I haven't found an LCD yet (including the otherwise beautiful Apple 30") with anything like the color gamut of even a mid-range CRT. This may not matter to most people, but if someone's doing color correction and wants to be able to see find gradations of color (especially in dark areas), there simply is no substitute.

      My favorite monitors right now are the high-end Sony and NEC 22" displays. The price doesn't matter to me
  • Maybe it's just me. But I can't stand LCDs for general computer use. They're harsher and grittier on the eyes, and they still-- even after all these years of development-- tend to suffer from ghosting.

    Am I the only one?
    • You're not the only one.

      I will only buy glass. Better resolution. Adjustable resolution. Better lighting in all situations. Easier to view from wide angles/side angles. Faster refresh. Cheaper.

      CONS: Heavy, power hungry, take up more space. Someone above was complaining about color. It may not be perfect, but compared to LCD? Gimmi a break. Show me an LCD that has better color than the equivelant glass.

      Once it's in place, most of those size problems are gone. Picture quality is something you have to loo

    • Re:I hate LCDs. (Score:5, Informative)

      by kannibal_klown ( 531544 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:38PM (#12697518)
      Maybe it's just me. But I can't stand LCDs for general computer use. They're harsher and grittier on the eyes, and they still-- even after all these years of development-- tend to suffer from ghosting.

      Am I the only one?


      Yes and no.

      If you use a DVI connection and run at the native resolution a half-way decent LCD looks perfectly clear. Add to that antialiased fonts and you're in for a winner on the eyes.

      However, at work we have analog connectors for our LCD monitors (actually, the monitors have DVI inputs but our desktops only have analog out). Even after "auto-calibrarting" the monitor like 20 times I get ghosting.

      DVI on an LCD can make all the difference in the world. Most people at work don't notice the oddities experienced with teh analog connections, but some of us can. Fortunately my new work machine will have a DVI out on the video card :)

      But if you run analog, or MOST IMPORTANTLY the non-native resolution it can look like utter garbage. DVI is pretty common on video cards now a days, and I believe it's getting more common on LCDs too.
  • For those of us who can put up with CRT, there are some great bargains to be had on eBay. My 17" CRT monitor recently died, so I was in the market for a replacement. I managed to get a nearly new 17" Dell monitor off eBay for £4! I had to collect it though, but it wasn't too far away.

  • No (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:20PM (#12697249)
    LCDs are certianly more popular these days but CRTs are hardly dead. NEC has a massive lineup of CRTs from low end consumer models to $1000+ professional models. Viewsonic likewise has a huge lineup, though theirs don't go to quite the same level as NEC. I personally just purchased a LaCie 22" CRT (NEC makes their monitors for them).

    CRTs are certianly falling in popularity, but they are by no means dead. LCDs still have flaws that are not acceptable for some appilcations. I imagine there'll still be major production of CRTs for another 5 years at least, and you'll still be able to get pro models for years and years to come.
  • I thought LCDs could achieve a higher resolution. There is a 22" 200ppi LCD that is something like 4000x2500 resolution, sold by IBM and Viewsonic.

    Granted, I don't know what sort of specialized use this is, if it uses uncommon technologies.
  • Yes they are on their way out but it's going to be quite some time so don't hold your breath. LCD, plasma, DLP technology has all made leaps and bounds over the past couple years. It's just a matter of time.

  • Imagine how I greased my gusset when a headcrab leapt out at me for the first time. It was two years before I could bring myself to continue playing the game, and then on easy level.

    Black & White was amazing with the glasses. But they gave me really bad headaches, and got ditched when I upgraded my graphics card.

  • I've got 18 21" CRT's I've gotta surplus in half an hour and I'd just as soon not move them.
  • Hey, I can get a 19" monitor for about $100 bucks, and the LCD version is still about twice that. You'd better believe CRT's aren't going anywhere.

  • Bah... (Score:2)

    by joto ( 134244 )
    Try another vendor...

  • CRTs are the awesome (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sumday ( 888112 )
    if i was going to chose between a 22" LCD and a 22" CRT, i'd take the CRT and upgrade my RAM or buy a big mofo of a hard drive with the spare money.

    but i guess it depends on how much space you have.

  • I sure hope so (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:22PM (#12697295) Homepage Journal
    Environmentally speaking CRTs are much worse than LCDs from points of view of production/disposition/power consumption
  • I for one would gladly sacrifice desk space for the refresh speeds of a CRT monitor.

    As nice as flat panel monitors are, compared to the CRT, the (pixel) refresh rate (don't jump to the conclusion I'm referring to the vertical/horizontal refresh rates which are meaningless on flat panels) is pretty bad and for movies and games, the last time I checked, there were artifacts and blurring due to the pixel recharge times (or whatever the technical term is).

    A CRT is still cheaper and people do want cheaper.

    No,
  • I've been watching the advances on displays, like nanotube based (these will be the direct replacements for CRT based, they use the same technology except for the electron emission), or OLED a.k.a. e-paper (will replace LCD's).

    But I give them 10 years to appear in the market. OK, OK 5 years maybe. But you know, it'll take another 3 or 4 additional years before the people can afford them.
  • HDTV. The market for these will eventually produce something high-enough quality for your needs, whether it be LCD or CRT.
  • welcome our new flat-panel overlords.

    More seriously, yes. CRTs will become a niche market as better displays are made more cheaply available. This is not shocking; it's not even really news. It's been predicted for a long, long time. There are a lot of drawbacks to CRTs, and for most uses current LCD technology is more than adequate and in some important regards better. Mainly, they use less power, take up less space, and produce a sharp, no-tuning-required picture.

    As refresh rates, color accuracy and pri

  • In fact, repackaging used equipment is not too uncommon.

    I know of a small company that sells a $1 million device to a very niche market. A certain component of this device is only manufactured by a few companies world-wide and requires huge technical know-how and manufacturing capabilities. None of the big boys will sell the component individually for various reasons including the fact that they don't offer this niche capability of the small company's product and are probably trying to develop it themsel
  • I am guessing that it will take at least that amount of time for factories to ramp up, TVs to convert and come down in price, etc.

  • OMG It's True! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nytewynd ( 829901 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:27PM (#12697361)
    I just went to Comp USA and they smashed all of their CRTs with baseball bats. There was a sign on the door that said, "From now on, only LCD monitors will be sold".

    To make things worse, on the way home the Public Emergency Broadcast System sounded, and the recording mentioned that if we didn't all buy LCD monitors, they would send signals through our power grids to fry our CRTs.
  • LCDs are on the shelves primarily because average-joe consumers think they look cool; it's as simple as that.

    I'm sticking with CRT for the time being because they're less expensive, allow for higher refresh rates, and can display in many resolutions without having to stretch/shrink/distort an image. When LCDs can match CRTs in those respects, I'll gladly convert.

  • CRTs still rule some markets (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sakusha ( 441986 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:28PM (#12697380)
    In many segments of the market, CRTs are still the standard, and as long as these markets demand CRTs, there will be a supply. For example, most critical prepress, photography, and design work is still best done on CRTs, LCDs don't have sufficient gamut, color accuracy, or consistency across the entire screen compared to CRTs. So manufacturers like LaCie are producing CRTs with advanced color calibration features that are unmatched by any LCD on the market.
    I'll stick with CRTs for now. I'm still using a Sony Multiscan 300sf that I bought for big money sometime around 1994, it's still in perfect shape. I don't expect any LCDs to hold up for 10 years. I first used this screen on a Mac IIcx, then on a Mac 8100/110, and now on my dual 1Ghz G4. I expect to use it when I buy a new dual G5 Mac in a few months. Hell, I expect it might still be in perfect shape when I buy a G6. Sony Trinitrons last forever. Best money I ever spent.
  • I hate LCD's!

    I cannot stand the burned out pixels, and don't say that "new" lcd's don't burn out. My laptop is only 6 months old and has about 4 on the screen - they drive me nuts, but are "within manufacturer specs".

    That and the resolution, with a little fiddling, linux works amazing at the highest resolution my 21" monitor will go(windows sucks) but LCD don't come near that resolution for the same bucks. I was just quoted a 21" flat screen CRT to replace my lightning killed one, and it's only $480CDN, I
  • what can I do in the meantime?

    Isn't it obvious? Rent a storage shed and load it up with current models. They can only increase in value while no other alternative is available.

    Oh, and start planning your retirement. You leave the day the last box leaves your hands.

  • There will always be people who hold on to their love for CRTs, just like there will always be those chubby chasers who have a fetish for fat people.
  • The vendors have said that autostereo LCDs are on the way in 12 to 18 months, but what can I do in the meantime?

    Stock up on CRTs at closeout prices?

    The main problem I have with CRTs is getting them to die so I can replace them with an LCD. By the time they die, maybe OLED will be out. I'd love to have an OLED laptop display that doesn't wash out in even indirect sunlight.

  • Are you serious? (Score:5, Informative)

    by kebes ( 861706 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:31PM (#12697426) Journal
    I don't understand this article. Is it hard to buy a high-quality CRT these days? No. Just surf over to Viewsonic [viewsonic.com] or NEC. [necdisplay.com] Seems like many companies are still manufacturing CRTs right now, which means they will be available from the manufacturer for at least 4 years, and could still be purchased second-hand for (I'm guessing) another 15 years. If in 15 years LCDs still don't meet your needs, I imagine it won't matter, since your particular application will have long since been replaced with something different.

    Sorry, but this seems like a non-issue to me.

    • Re:Are you serious? (Score:5, Informative)

      by tdsotf ( 316796 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @06:15PM (#12699261)
      I don't think he's looking for any old CRT. He probably needs a CRT that'll do 1024x768@120Hz or 1280x1024@120Hz. The CrystalEyes are shutter glasses that alternately shut an eye in sync with the monitor. He's probably rendering a scene for the left eye and one for the right eye. To keep the motion from being jittery and the shuttering from being noticeable, he needs to render each eye at 60Hz. Which means he needs a monitor that can display at 120Hz.

      I've done stereo on a monitor that does 96Hz, but the flickering from the shutter is noticable and hurts your eyes after a while.
  • As long as there is still consumer demand for CRT monitors, someone will make and sell them.

    Personally, I prefer CRT monitors. Although I seem to be in the minority with everyone I know. There is something about LCD monitors that just doesn't sit well with me. But I'm also the same person who can't stand flat screen CRT's as well.

    Give me a "bubble" CRT and I'm happy. :)
  • The thing that is holding LCD back from filling the 3d stereoscopic role is the refresh rate. OLED screens inherently have a much higher refresh rate and manufacturers are just starting to come out with products.

    This Company [emagin.com] is coming out with a 3d stereoscopic visor (HMD) for just the type of application that the poster mentions.

    The OLEDs will certainly be higher end to start like every other new technology, including LCD. But I think we should see OLEDs being the best of both worlds with fast refresh

  • In a word - "Yes". In two, "Not Yet". (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pla ( 258480 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:35PM (#12697475) Journal
    CRTs still deliver a few perks that LCDs cannot: Price, as the single most important; Response time without blurring (your panel may say 12ms, but that means time to turn a pixel on, not black to white and back to fully black again, which usually takes 5-10x as long); decent sync from an analog signal (getting MUCH better, but only if you turn off ClearType or the like first); Behavior of a "dead" pixel; washability (go ahead, try to thoroughly clean an LCD screen... Windex destroys them, water doesn't work and the wiping action itself will harm them, and the specialty LCD cleaning solutions that cost a fortune work marginally well but nothing like Windex-on-glass).

    For now, CRTs enjoy popularity mostly for price and for the highest quality images. LCDs will catch up in both those areas over time, but if you only worry about the 18 month timescale, I'd say you have no need to fear. Looking at 5 years out, I'd worry a LOT more, but not yet.
    • I think it's extremely dependent on exact model of LCD you choose. Current mid-range LCD displays seem to have none of the problems you mention except price. In particular, the one my work got me is an NEC LCD1760, which has excellent contrast, no blurring at all, and syncs perfectly (and yes, I'm still using sub-pixel rendering for fonts).

      The analogue syncing was my greatest concern (because early LCDs were so incredibly crappy when running off a standard analogue video signal), and the reason I didn't

  • Preference for CRT (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Amich ( 542141 )
    I'm a gamer, and a game developer in training. Personally, I have found very few LCDs that I can tolerate.

    My primary gripe is the depth of black - on an LCD, a pure black looks more like a dark grey, where on a CRT a black looks, well, black. Go play DooM 3 on a CRT and then on an average LCD and you'll see exactly what I mean.

    Furthermore, most LCDs tend to wash colors out a bit. Taking the game Morrowind as an example, on my six year old Samsung 19" CRT, the colors are deep, saturated, and the

  • Reality check (Score:2, Interesting)

    by GlL ( 618007 )
    It sounds to me like your vendor is playing a little loosely with facts. There are plenty of purchase points for CRTs. I like http://www.newegg.com/ [newegg.com] for hardware purchasing, but also check out http://www.buy.com/ [buy.com] and http://www.cdw.com/ [cdw.com]. Those are the major vendors, but there are tons of others out there that will sell you the high quality CRTs that you need, and won't BS you about CRTs going away. As many of the other articles are saying LCDs may be popular, but CRTs are still the better, and more cost eff
  • Just like the floppy still hasn't died completely, I don't see CRTs being completely replaced...even in the next 10 years. The number of manufacturers may drop and we may get to a point where CRTs become more expensive that their equivalent LCDs brothers, but there are enough projects/programs/industries around that require CRT displays I find it hard to believe that there will no CRT manufacturers--probably just high priced/specialized ones.

  • Are LCDs ready to take over as the primary computer display

    I think they have already. My last two monitors at home were LCD, as well as my work PC. The only reason CRTs are around in the consumer world is that some people haven't bought new computers in the last few years - or they wanted a really cheap system.

    But that doesn't mean CRTs are dead. If your profession needs CRTs, someone will make them for you. You might have to pay a little more than you do now, but not more than when CRTs were reall

  • My experience replacing CRT with LCD (Score:3, Informative)

    by Concern ( 819622 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:50PM (#12697640) Journal
    I just replaced an aging but beautiful high-end CRT, and when I started looking, I found high-quality straight-digital (i.e. DVI) LCD screens, 1280x1024 at 19" in size, sporting pixel switch rates of 8ms... For about $350.

    All of the reasons to avoid LCDs are evaporating: price, smearing/update speeds, resolution...

    End-to-end digital video is startlingly noticeable if you are used to CRTs, even good ones.

    Really excellent LCDs are now well within the price range of what I used to pay for premium CRTs.

    I don't see myself buying another CRT, pretty much ever.

  • Why CRT's and not LCD's for stereo and regular dis (Score:3, Interesting)

    by t35t0r ( 751958 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @06:47PM (#12699555)
    I also use stereo on SGI's Sony GDM CRT monitors and Viewsonic PF221 CRT monitors using Nuvision 3D's [nuvision3d.com] technology. They are about 1/3 of the price of CrystalEyes solutions and Nuvision3D glasses work with CrystalEyes stereo emitters too. The glasses are lighter too.

    The problem with all these fancy schmancy LCD stereo displays is that they're made just for stereo (i.e. they look like shit if you try to use them for regular viewing, see this article [tomshardware.com]). So why not get a nice CRT monitor (for no more than $600) with a larger viewable area that does regular viewing and stereo rather than an LCD that does stereo for probably more than triple the price?

Slashdot Top Deals

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Close