Poll: Do you have an LCD or CRT on your primary Desktop computer?

[MacRumors]

Vote: Poll: Do you have an LCD or CRT on your primary Desktop computer? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=111&ref=forums.macrumors.com)

[janey]

both of course. the LCD's and CRT's go side by side-although the CRT's are a tad too big.

[Chaszmyr]

Both... I wish I had 2 LCDs, but I have one of each.

[Sedulous]

All LCD.

[Nermal]

CRT at the moment, but will be an LCD as soon as it gets here (ordered 2 hours ago) :)

[MacFan25]

My desktop is an LCD.

[FelixDerKater]

LCD for the Macintosh.
CRT for the PC.

I would prefer to have both of them be LCD's, but I don't use the PC enough to justify buying another monitor for it.

[-hh]

Originally posted by FelixDerKater
LCD for the Macintosh.
CRT for the PC.

I would prefer to have both of them be LCD's, but I don't use the PC enough to justify buying another monitor for it.

I agree money is an issue, probably the biggest.

At work, we only have one guy who has LCD's, and he's the one who has too many PC's crammed into his cubicle ... the alternative was to give him a bigger cubicle.

My office cubicle contains both a PC and a Mac, both with 17" CRT monitors. If I really needed more space, the first thing I'd do is to move their CPU towers off the desk and put them on the floor.

At home, my 6 year old Apple 1705 is still chugging along, and its tower also occupies desktop space. Considering that the Mac is hidden away in a small room that no one else sees, why replace its display simply on asthetics?

Sure, I wouldn't mind freeing up a little deskspace, but particulary on the home front, the "this works and its free" pragmatic approach to the discretionary budget for toys puts a lid on it.

And there's really two factors here at work.

The first is display size. Yeah, I know that a 15" LCD is supposedly the same as a 17" CRT, but buying a 15" means no real change in capability. So if I'm going to buy anything, I want to bump up a size to the 17" LCD. Otherwise, I'll spend my toy money on something more useful, such as that new peripheral I've been eyeing (a Nikon LS-4000 film scanner).

The second factor is price. I'm sorry, but not about to blow $1000 for a 17" LCD monitor.

W've been hearing for close to ten years that the prices on LCD's is going to come plummeting down "real soon", and sure, there have been some declines, but CRT's have come way down too: a 17" CRT today costs 70% less than what I paid for mine 6 years ago ($125 vs. $500).

As such, for an LCD to be really competitive, I feel that a 15" needs to be priced at $100, a 17" at $250, and a 19-21" around $500. For 16:10 widescreen ratio's, add no more than 50% to these prices: $150/$375/$750. Otherwise, I'll just accept the 1-2 square feet of deskspace that a CRT monitor requires.


-hh

[Bear]

As an odd thought on the debate between CRT and LCD displays for computers. Here are some differences I see between the technologies.


CRTs generate more heat, therefore requiring more cooling.
CRTs take up more desk space.
LCDs cost more to buy. However, this is offset by the lower operating costs.
LCDs seem to be easier on the eyes.


I know that it sometime is hard to get the upfront cost of an LCD, but at this point between space and heat issues (never mind the electricty differences), there's no question for me when I buy displays.

[OutThere]

crt built into my imac DV 15":(

[-hh]

Originally posted by Bear
As an odd thought on the debate between CRT and LCD displays for computers. Here are some differences I see between the technologies.


CRTs generate more heat, therefore requiring more cooling.
LCDs cost more to buy. However, this is offset by the lower operating costs.



I've edited the above to just the energy costs. After a bit of searching, I've found a webpage that identifies the cost differential. For a medium sized system, its ~$15/year in direct electrical consumption savings.

BTW, "beware" of the Apple power page, which overstates the case by comparing peak power, instead of average power consumption.

The cooling cost would be a pain to figure out quantitatively. If we assume its cost is equal to the direct electrical consumption, then we can just take that number and multiply it by the fraction of the year that we need to run A/C (otherwise it is no net change, or beneficial heating). A figure of 33% (4 months/year) is simple in that a third of $15/year is a nice round value of $5.

Keeping it simple, money calculations are ignored. This means that if you're only saving $20/year, it will take 10 years to achieve payback on a $200 differential in respective purchase costs.


The implications are that we need to keep our LCD display for the next ~10 years until its lower operating costs pay for itself...and that's just to reach break-even!

Overall, I think LCD's are going to have to be objectively justified on other characteristics . . . such as their "cool factor". For business, since they pay by the square foot of office space, the primary justification is that it allows smaller cubicles.

-hh

[yzedf]

at work... not so good 17" CRT

at home is a 13.3" LCD (not so good IBM laptop)

[moby1]

I spend alot of time looking at my LCD laptop sceen. I don't get the eye strain like I used to with CRT's.

I know some video pros & publishing houses still like CRT's but it's LCD all the way for me.

[garzy]

i use CRTs
i want to buy a LCD, but I cant justify paying for something that expensive without it being able to produce the same quality of color as a CRT

color is a critical issue in my work

btw, if anyone knows any LCDs that can produce color as well as a CRT please make a suggestion

[vniow]

Originally posted by FelixDerKater
LCD for the Macintosh.
CRT for the PC.


Same here.

[wdlove]

CRT at the moment, but am dreaming of a 23" Display with my next Power Mac. All up to Steve!

[AssassinOfGates]

17" Samtron (never heard of it either, but it was cheap and looked good) CRT, combined with a 15" NEC CRT that I used to use for my old PowerMac 7500... even though the quality is bad on it, its nice having the extra desktop space.

[crazytom]

....I'd have a LCD and upgrade it every year when something newer and better came out...other than that, working in video, I can't deal with the ghosting/color issues.

[scem0]

17" apple CRT studio display. It is really nice, the only problem is
that it is displaying Windows XP ;).

[peteMG]

Originally posted by scem0
17" apple CRT studio display. It is really nice, the only problem is
that it is displaying Windows XP ;).

Yeah, I used to have a 17" Studio Display (blue) and found it was the only way to make windows look somewhat respectable. Damn fine display. Then it started to get finicky in hot temperatures :(

LCD on my TiBook, and a 19" Dell M991 CRT that gets shared between a Dell, my linux box, and the tibook when it gets dual-screen ambitions.

[beez7777]

17" widescreen LCD.
yeah, scem0, i agree those apple CRTs are really nice lookin.

[wdlove]

I like the look of my 17" CRT, very impressive!

[pimentoLoaf]

Big ol' NEC MultiSync 17" on my antique powerMac 6100 -- and heavy, too.

[sandro]

My primary unit is a LCD