are crts bad

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by Anarchy99, Nov 5, 2004.

  1. Anarchy99 macrumors 6502a

    Dec 13, 2003
    im getting a dual 1.8 ghz g5 in a month or so and im a student and i cant afford an lcd especially apple's displays
    so i looked on ebay and i can get a 20-22" crt for real cheep at least half the price of a lcd i told my friend this and he said crts are bad and didn't give me a reason
    so my question is why are they so bad and cheep compared to lcds
  2. cluthz macrumors 68040


    Jun 15, 2004
    CRTs are big, not bad.
    Many graphics designers still use CRTs, because they are know the produce a more correct picture (if calibrated properly..)

    They take up a lot of space.
    Not so good for the eyes as the LCDs
    A quality CRT is half the price of a LCD
    They have better resolution scaling and supports higher resolutions
  3. cube macrumors Pentium

    May 10, 2004
    For how long has the monitor you are considering been used?
    What's the brand and model?
  4. Jo-Kun macrumors 6502a

    Dec 20, 2003
    lcd use less power, better for the eyes, more expensive, nice to put on a desk ;-)

    crt big big big (I have 2 CRT's on my desk connected to my G5)

    best crt with calibration possibilities: LaCie 19" & 22" not sure about US prices but the 19" is app 500 euro and the 22" 900 (apples 20" is 1600 euro and laCie's 321 lcd, best there is for color calibration: 1600 euro Lacie's lcd is 1600 x 1200 apples is lower...) allso look at Eizo they have allso a god lcd, but i think its even more expensive than LaCie/Apple...

    if I had money for a new screen I would get the 321 from LaCie, but for now I'll stick with my old crt or maybe get 2 19" LaCie's... time (and money) will tell ;-)
  5. brap macrumors 68000

    May 10, 2004
    No. So long as you get a decent one, a high-quality CRT will do just as well, if not better (OK, maybe I'm biased) than an LCD. Look into Mitsubishi Diamondtron, or Sony Trinitron tubes; the Iiyama pro line are very good indeed.
  6. cube macrumors Pentium

    May 10, 2004
    The LaCie is just a rebadged (and I think older) Mitsubishi.

    Better get the cheaper, newer and real thing: a Mitsubishi 2070SB (SB means the new SuperBright technology). I have one.
  7. jxyama macrumors 68040


    Apr 3, 2003
    CRT pros:
    -can produce true black
    -faster refresh rates
    -wide viewing angle
    -lasts longer

    -takes up a lot of space
    -uses more energy
    -images can burn in
  8. decksnap macrumors 68040


    Apr 11, 2003
    get the LaCie 22". CRTs are great if you have a nice deep desk.
  9. cube macrumors Pentium

    May 10, 2004
    Well, I don't notice the flickering on my monitor, even when I run it at a low refresh rate as 75 Hz.

    In addition:

    - no ghosting

    - you get irradiated

    Try to get a TCO '03 monitor. It has some additional environmental and ergonomic requirements
  10. GUSTO macrumors member


    Sep 23, 2003
    I am happy with my 17" Mitsubishi dimond plus 93sb, great price and all round good monitor for graphics and gaming. :D
  11. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    May 19, 2002
    Don't worry Sony (or NEC-Mitsubishi) just announced they were killing some of their CRT monitors.

    Sounded like the high-end CRTs would become scarce soon.
  12. cube macrumors Pentium

    May 10, 2004
    Toshiba, Matsushita and Sony are stopping *TV* CRT product lines. This was announced last year.

    Don't worry. Samsung is going in just the opposite direction. They are bringing to market a 1080 lines 32" CRT TV which is 38cm deep which will cost $1000. And they are gunning for 20cm for 2006/2007.
  13. dabirdwell macrumors 6502

    Sep 26, 2002
    Noone has really mentioned

    that LCDs are more environmentally considerate than CRTs.
  14. SpaceMagic macrumors 68000


    Oct 26, 2003
    Cardiff, Wales
    I often think this.. what about poor 'ol CRTs. I don't have the desk space for one, otherwise bigger screens, better resolutions, a lot cheaper = good buy!
  15. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    May 19, 2002
    So that was part of this at this past week....

    The end of the CRT era - Lionel - 06:37:54

    Source : (in ze French)
    After Sony, now Nec-Mitsubishi have announced the end of their CRT monitors (Trinitron, Flattron). Those were really at the top end of the CRT offerings, heavily used by video and design studios, the same people so reluctant to give LCDs a try.
    Here's to hoping LCD technology will improve by leaps and bounds, otherwise those CRT monitors will become really sought after and outrageously expensive on the second hand market.

    Last year Sony had announced the end of the low-end monitors, stuff 19-inch and under. Didn't really follow much after that.

    But we really don't get much news on CRTs in the US any longer, since we're no longer a big CRT market.
  16. cube macrumors Pentium

    May 10, 2004
    Well, I guess we depend on Samsung improving shadow mask over aperture grille.
  17. jxyama macrumors 68040


    Apr 3, 2003
    in terms of operating the finished product, yes - notably, LCDs consume less energy. but at the production level, they are both pretty nasty/wasteful stuff to make.
  18. cube macrumors Pentium

    May 10, 2004
    Electricity. That's what nuclear power plants are for.
  19. ewinemiller macrumors 6502

    Aug 29, 2001
    west of Philly
    They really aren't that much better in power for similiar size. While trying to justify replacing my current CRT with an LCD I compared my Nokia 445 21" CRT to a Dell 20" 2001fp LCD, 160 vs 90 watts.

    At current power costs and usage, it was going to take 142 years to pay for itself. It's much more effective to replace just a single incandescent light with a flourescent if you're looking for power savings.

    I bought the LCD anyways because the LCD takes up so much less space and throws off much less heat in an already hot office, but you can't justify it with power savings.
  20. tom.96 Suspended

    Jun 13, 2003
    No CRTs are not bad. I use one at work for 7 hours a day, and one at home on my G3 imac and of course my TV has a nice big 28" widescreen CRT.

    As long as you have one with a high refresh rate (I use 95hz on my mac) and a quality picture then you should be happy. LCDs are very nice, but can be very expensive. A decent CRT is good enough for me, and I would imagine most people would be happy enough with one.
  21. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Aug 15, 2001
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    The production process is an important factor, and as pointed out the power savings aren't huge, but don't forget that the glass of each CRT contains several pounds of lead (as well as some other unpleasant heavy metals), which is why they're so darned expensive to get rid of when they die.

    And, of course, part of the reason for all that lead is radiation shielding. That radiation, along with eyestrain (I've been amazed at how much easier an LCD is on my eyes after switching), is a significant reason to consider a flat panel.

    There are still refresh rate and color advantage to CRTs, but at this point I think the crispness, brightness, eye-ease, and low radiation output of LCDs makes them the clear choice for all but the most hardcore gamers and graphics professionals (heck, even the gamers I know are buying LCDs now).
  22. tech4all macrumors 68040


    Jun 13, 2004
    That is true, but at my college, on our Apple 17" LCDs they have this "special" login screen that just stays on and it actually left an 'image' of it burnt onto the screen (very annoying since graphic designers, web designers, etc. use them). So I think LCDs are subject to images being burnt in as well.
  23. kylos macrumors 6502a


    Nov 8, 2002
    [Strong Bad]
    Yes, yes they are.
    [/Strong Bad]

    They're bad for your eyes. I am extremely glad that I have lcds at work. Better detail, crisper image, all that. Though crt's would be better at non-integer proportion scaling. However, all the really important criteria are won by lcds.
  24. Rod Rod macrumors 68020

    Rod Rod

    Sep 21, 2003
    Las Vegas, NV
    LCDs cost more to make and there is higher demand for them, so those two factors keep their prices higher. Before demand dropped, CRT monitors were (relative to today) very expensive.

    I have a 21" IBM P260. My 12" PowerBook (lid closed) is connected to its VGA input, and my Power Mac G4 is connected to its DVI-I input. At the same brightness and contrast settings, the VGA side seems brighter and slightly fuzzy, whereas the DVI side is neutral and just transparently clear and sharp. This monitor cost me less than $200 shipped.

    The VGA input allows higher maximum resolution, 2304x1728 @ 60Hz, while the DVI input is limited to 1920x1200 @ 76Hz. I usually work with 1600x1200 @ 90Hz.

    I'd like to buy an LCD but for now my priority is to get as fast a CPU as I can for the money, so my CRT is a stopgap solution. This monitor is huge, but I have my desk about 10" away from the wall behind and it sort of hangs / extends in that space (with the monitor's base completely on the desk, of course).

    I have a USB switch to share the keyboard and mouse with both computers, so the setup works nicely.

    When I get an LCD it's likely to be the HP L2335 23" LCD. It has component, composite, s-video, VGA and DVI inputs, and competitive (some better, some not) specs than the Apple 23" Cinema Display.
  25. cube macrumors Pentium

    May 10, 2004
    That's not true. For example, the best CRTs display 85% of the NTSC color gamut. The best LCD, only 76%.

    What's the point of having an SGI with 12-bit per component framebuffer and DACs, if you're going to connect an 8-bit LCD to it?

Share This Page