CRT or LCD

[Royal Pineapple]

which do you perfer?
i will always go with the LCD, because wen i look at a CRT for hours at a time i ofteh get a kller headache. this doesnt happen with the lcd on my iBook.

[MacMaster]

Yeah...I get those headaches too. But, this CRT is all I have.:( I really want a new desktop with a LCD monitor!

[King Cobra]

I would much rather perfer LCDs. They use less electricity and are convenient enough in dealing with room.

Plus, I have OS 9 running on my CRT iMac and OS X on my LCD computers. :p

[Royal Pineapple]

Originally posted by King Cobra

Plus, I have OS 9 running on my CRT iMac and OS X on my LCD computers. :p
that is reason i itself to prefer an LCD

[Rower_CPU]

LCD all the way.

I hope to set up dual LCDs when I get a new Powermac.:D

[eyelikeart]

I like the convenience factor of LCD's...but CRT's give better color quality still...

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by eyelikeart
I like the convenience factor of LCD's...but CRT's give better color quality still...

Not for much longer.:)

[bousozoku]

CRT flicker is a killer. You can't make the refresh rate high enough to compete with an LCD.

Sam's Club keeps LCDs in stock at decent prices but I've only got one so far. Maybe when I'm working full time again, I'll have another and put the CRT in the other room on the old clone machine.

[ShaolinMiddleFinger]

Anyone have any suggestions for LCD monitor?

I know the cinema displays are cool but i think it's too high of a price for me

[awrc]

Originally posted by ShaolinMiddleFinger
Anyone have any suggestions for LCD monitor?

I know the cinema displays are cool but i think it's too high of a price for me

Don't buy anything that doesn't have a digital input. I've currently got a 17" Studio Display and a 17" Samsung Syncmaster 170T hooked up (ain't the GeForce 4 Ti great?), one through ADC, the other through DVI.

However, the Samsung also has a VGA input. I've tried it, it wasn't very impressive. If I had to use a VGA connector, unless there was a severe shortage of desktop space, I'd probably go with a good CRT, since there's enough fuzziness that you lose one of the primary advantages of having an LCD display.

[Rajj]

I prefer LCD, Cause they cause less strain on you eyes and they are more ergonomic:D

[edesignuk]

LCD without a shadow of a doubt....now at least, early LCD's were crap, poor viewing angles, pixelated (didn't have font/graphic smoothing etc) and dull.
But the newer LCD's look GREAT and beat CRT's anyday....all we need now is for them to come down to the price of their CRT counterparts ;)

[Royal Pineapple]

funny how only one person has voted fot the CRT, do ya think that this is due to us all being mac fans and apple only sells one computer with a CRT (eMac) all the other options are LCD.

[eyelikeart]

that would be my vote for CRT... ;)

if I could get a decent calibration for my TiBook then I wouldn't care as much...

[Str8edgepunker]

Has anyone ever stopped and thought about what the biggest issue with current LCD displays is? No. If you did, you would realize that LCD displays get stuck and dead pixels. Stuck pixels don't change color and dead pixels are, well, dead. Do you know how annoying that can be, especially if you just bought Apple's 23" HD display for $3500?! PIXELS GO DEAD, and when they do go dead, you have to replace the entire screen! Can someone say RIPOFF!

[awrc]

Originally posted by Royal Pineapple
funny how only one person has voted fot the CRT, do ya think that this is due to us all being mac fans and apple only sells one computer with a CRT (eMac) all the other options are LCD.
Well, not entirely - the Mac community's supposed to have more than its fair share of artistic types, and anyone who's planning to actually create art on a Mac for print, etc, is likely to want to have consistent color.

In addition to requiring calibration (hence eyelikeart's preference) CRTs have better consistency - on my Studio display, for example, there's noticable light and dark patches at the right hand side of the display (which I guess is due to how the LCD is fixed in its frame off-screen).

Also, although OS X has built-in color profiles for both my 17" Studio display and my Samsung Syncmaster 170T, colors appear quite differently on the two displays. Next to the Samsung, the Studio display has a hotter white point (I think - hotter = bluer and brighter, doesn't it?) which makes the difference very noticable, and there's nothing I can do to the brightness on either to get them looking even close.

What's oddest is that I believe the 17" Studio display uses a Samsung LCD, and thus might even be the same part as is used in the Syncmaster.

[kiwi_the_iwik]

I've got a great little 15" LCD - I love it. It really goes beautifully with the Cube...

[vniow]

I'd love to see somebody make a small DLP screen for a computer. The price would have to come down a lot though. The projectors may be cheaper than comparable LCD ones, but Hitachi's 55" DLP HDTV is $12,000 (cough, gag, choke). I personally have never seen one, but I've read that it produces blacks better than current LCDs. I wonder about the viewing angle though.
Oh, well. Just a thought. Time to float back down to reality now. Damn!

[peterjhill]

Since I don't imagine ever purchasing a desktop computer ever again, I guess it would be LCD. Although, I do like my 21 inch flatscreen CRT I have at work (as in the glass is flat in the front).

I hear that CRT's are better for people who need color accuracy. I believe that they can reproduce a larger spectrum of color, and are also able to be calibrated much better.

I was reading somewhere that someone is developing a LCD that stacks the colors on top of each other, so that each pixel is made up of on dot that can run the full gambit of colors.

[vniow]

Originally posted by peterjhill


I was reading somewhere that someone is developing a LCD that stacks the colors on top of each other, so that each pixel is made up of on dot that can run the full gambit of colors.
Where'd you hear that at, do you have a link? There's some interesting things going on in the world of displays. I'd watch out for organic LEDs. There's been quite a bit of research going on over in that little department. Anywayz, here's (http://www.dti3d.com/) a link to a company that is making 3D LCDs, don't know if they really work though. There's a few reviews on the web for these. Interesting, but incredibly expensive.

[kwajo.com]

i think LCD wins because of energy use alone. I don't mind CRTs at all, but to me anything that is better for the environment takes the cake

[AlphaTech]

I have the TiBook and a ViewSonic LCD (VG175) on my game system here at home... I had a demo ViewSonic LCD on my desk at work for a while, but then they wanted it back. It was a sad day when I had to ship it back and go to the CRT again (another ViewSonic).

I've also found that if you set the resolution on the crt too high, you get headaches. Set the resolution a little lower, and the headaches don't happen (1024x768 for a 17" crt, and 1280x1024 for a 21" crt). Also, by adjusting the frequency (60Hz-120Hz) you can reduce (or eliminate) screen flicker (and the headaches). ViewSonic screens seems to be flicker free (for the most part) at 60Hz.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Str8edgepunker
Has anyone ever stopped and thought about what the biggest issue with current LCD displays is? No. If you did, you would realize that LCD displays get stuck and dead pixels. Stuck pixels don't change color and dead pixels are, well, dead. Do you know how annoying that can be, especially if you just bought Apple's 23" HD display for $3500?! PIXELS GO DEAD, and when they do go dead, you have to replace the entire screen! Can someone say RIPOFF!

BFD...ever hear of or see color drift on a CRT. That crap is WAY worse.

"Oh no, I've got one dead pixel out of 2,300,000...waah.":rolleyes:

If there are more than a set number of dead pixels the display is considered defective and can be returned.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
BFD...ever hear of or see color drift on a CRT. That crap is WAY worse.

"Oh no, I've got one dead pixel out of 2,300,000...waah.":rolleyes:

If there are more than a set number of dead pixels the display is considered defective and can be returned.

When crt's go bad, it's never a pretty sight... :eek: I have seen all sorts of things happen when good crt's go bad... Everything from a color shift, to being dark on one side to very bright on the other. Even split screen effects that make the screen 100% unusable. Not pretty.

BTW, the proper term is "pixel anomaly" not dead or stuck (although people commonly use those terms). You can put "bright" or "dark" before "pixel" to better describe what is happening...

I have two pixel anomalies on my TiBook (each being one pixel) which is well below the minimum required to get a replacement on the LCD.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
When crt's go bad, it's never a pretty sight... :eek: I have seen all sorts of things happen when good crt's go bad... Everything from a color shift, to being dark on one side to very bright on the other. Even split screen effects that make the screen 100% unusable. Not pretty.

BTW, the proper term is "pixel anomaly" not dead or stuck (although people commonly use those terms). You can put "bright" or "dark" before "pixel" to better describe what is happening...

I have two pixel anomalies on my TiBook (each being one pixel) which is well below the minimum required to get a replacement on the LCD.

pixel anomaly...hmmm, sounds like a Star Trek term.:D

Is that the verbage used in the tech docs that Apple distributes?

I'm just a lowly, non-certified tech, so I'll stick with the jargon I'm comfortable with.:p

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
pixel anomaly...hmmm, sounds like a Star Trek term.:D

Is that the verbage used in the tech docs that Apple distributes?

I'm just a lowly, non-certified tech, so I'll stick with the jargon I'm comfortable with.:p

It's better then going to warp 10+. :eek: :p :D

It is the term used by the certified techs, as well as Apple's site (look at some knowledge base doc.'s and you will see the term).

However you play your flute, Sparky... :eek: :eek: :D :cool:

[iJon]

I personally like the CRT a little bit more. i work at an apple authorized dealer and once i saw the emac's screen i liked it a whole lot more. dont get me wrong, the lcd's are fantastic, but the crt's seem more crisp, maybe just be me. for you people thinking about getting an emac, dont. wait for a revision. if you get a good emac you are very lucky. probably 50 percent or more of the emacs that we have sold have been brought into be repaired within a month. Everyone had the same problem. screen flickers to much and shrinks down to 80 percent. they all have been logic boards. and i know for a fact that it is happening with a lot of them because now logic boards are on back order from apple service so we have a lot of customers who wont have a computer for a while. just thought i would let you guys know that.

iJon

[Royal Pineapple]

i have one pixel anomely on my ibook
it is right over where the close button is if i have any thing full screen and it really bothers me. but i will get used to it

[blufire]

Personally, I like CRTs for a few reasons: 1. LCDs can have dead/hot pixels. 2. there are always backlight inconsistencies, so when you view a black/dark screen, you can see the backlight warp. 3. CRTs still have the best viewing angle. 4. They are MUCH cheaper. for only about $250, you can get a very nice Sony 17" CRT (I personally prefer Sony CRTs over any other monitor for their image quality and stability). 5. They're still more consistent and easier to calibrate color-wise. That said, LCDs have been moving on up, but many have really slow response rates compared to others (although they're pretty much all TFT now). If I were to ever buy a 23" monitor, I'd definitely get an HD display, simply because they don't weigh a billion pounds :D but I'd never have that much cash to throw around :(

[Royal Pineapple]

who voted other?
what other ones are there?

[blufire]

Well, there's always the plasma displays, in addition to projectors and HDTVs... I'm waiting for Holographic Technology to show up :D

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by blufire
Personally, I like CRTs for a few reasons: 1. LCDs can have dead/hot pixels. 2. there are always backlight inconsistencies, so when you view a black/dark screen, you can see the backlight warp. 3. CRTs still have the best viewing angle. 4. They are MUCH cheaper. for only about $250, you can get a very nice Sony 17" CRT (I personally prefer Sony CRTs over any other monitor for their image quality and stability). 5. They're still more consistent and easier to calibrate color-wise. That said, LCDs have been moving on up, but many have really slow response rates compared to others (although they're pretty much all TFT now). If I were to ever buy a 23" monitor, I'd definitely get an HD display, simply because they don't weigh a billion pounds :D but I'd never have that much cash to throw around :(

Here we go...
1: true, but high quality LCD's have far fewer then ones of lower quality (hence my recommendation of ViewSonic).
2: False, in a huge way, goes back to quality, either they have it or they don't. QUALITY LCD screens have stable lighting all the way across the display.
3:FALSE, check out the viewing angles of either the TiBook or on ViewSonic's LCD's... If you think you need a wider angle, you are only fooling yourself.
4: true, for now at least.
5: You CAN calibrate LCD displays just as easily as CRT's, provided you get one with on screen controlls (like the ViewSonic's have).

Last year, I picked up a ViewSonic VG175 (http://www.viewsonic.com/products/lcd_vg175.htm) display for less then the Apple 17" LCD. Zero pixel anomalies, great lighting consistancy, and sweet resolution. With it set the way I do, I have just as much screen real estate as a 21" CRT does. It produces a fraction of the heat, and uses a fraction of the power of a CRT. Both of those make them more environmentally friendly. Also, they don't have the nasty chemicals that CRT's have inside them. Plus, they weigh far less then a CRT of the same display size. Considering how a 19" CRT runs about 50 pounds (or more) and the 17.4" LCD that is on my desk runs under 19 pounds...

[blufire]

Thanks for clearing up some of those, AlphaTech, except I have one question: Is the Apple HD Cinema display considered "not a high-quality display"? Because in the reviews of it, the testers (MacAddict) found backlight inconsistencies even in the HD display, which I would not expect from a $3,500 display...

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by blufire
Thanks for clearing up some of those, AlphaTech, except I have one question: Is the Apple HD Cinema display considered "not a high-quality display"? Because in the reviews of it, the testers (MacAddict) found backlight inconsistencies even in the HD display, which I would not expect from a $3,500 display...

I have yet to see one of those, so I cannot comment on their quality. I do know, that if you call Apple and tell them that the display is not 100% they WILL repair/replace it until you do get one that is right. Another reason to have AppleCare...

[firewire2001]

Originally posted by edvniow

Where'd you hear that at, do you have a link? There's some interesting things going on in the world of displays. I'd watch out for organic LEDs. There's been quite a bit of research going on over in that little department. Anywayz, here's (http://www.dti3d.com/) a link to a company that is making 3D LCDs, don't know if they really work though. There's a few reviews on the web for these. Interesting, but incredibly expensive.

does anyone remeber those old rumors about apple creating a stereo display thing.. :p :rolleyes: ...

[lemmon]

how about the best of both worlds....
lcd size and crt precision?

sony is working on a new (plug in 3 letters here, i can't remember them) display that is roughly 3 or 4 inches thick and is a true crt, everything is just rearranged and the tech is rethought.

seems like this one and the oel displays (if they ever come out, i hear they are having problems producing an equally vibrant blue, and that's about all that's keeping them from rolling out) are the new things on the horizon.

so watch for the bottom to fall out on lcd prices when either one of these is introduced.

[Dr_Floyd]

"I have yet to see one of those, so I cannot comment on their quality. I do know, that if you call Apple and tell them that the display is not 100% they WILL repair/replace it until you do get one that is right. Another reason to have AppleCare..."

What? thats not true

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Dr_Floyd
"I have yet to see one of those, so I cannot comment on their quality. I do know, that if you call Apple and tell them that the display is not 100% they WILL repair/replace it until you do get one that is right. Another reason to have AppleCare..."

What? thats not true

Real specific there doc... :rolleyes:

I HAVE seen an Apple display get repaired/replaced because it was not 100%. The client had purchased the Applecare protection plan. Apple sent an overnight box to them for the display, repaired/replaced it and shipped it back to them. The one that came back (not sure if it was the same one or not) functioned many times better.

There were not pixel anomalies on the display, but a color shift happening (it also couldn't maintain a color calibration). All issues were fixed while the display was at Apple...

[Dr_Floyd]

thats alittle different then just pixels

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Dr_Floyd
thats alittle different then just pixels

Pixel anomalies have to be 10 or more pixels (I believe) in order to warrant replacement... One or two random pixels on a screen does NOT warrant replacement (by any LCD manufacturer).