5 ms·
To sellers, yes. The drop of visual quality when the top-down LCD push began was staggering.
by krige 25d ago
To sellers, yes. The drop of visual quality when the top-down LCD push began was staggering.
- deleted 25d ago[deleted]
- LargoLasskhyfv 25d agoDepended very much on the CRTs used, there were very wide gaps in quality. Even a now obsolete HP ZR2240w (24" 1920x1200@60Hz) was a huge upgrade from a 21" Hitachi Superscan Supreme https://crtdatabase.com/crts/hitachi/hitachi-superscan-21-cm2112mu https://crtdatabase.com/crts/hitachi/hitachi-superscan-21-cm... That thing was at least Trinitron equivalent, if not better, because it lacked the thin wires holding the mask from within. Now you are talking about the start of all that, OFC there were bad and cheap ones, but there was also very good stuff from the beginning by Eizo, Sharp, NEC, and many more. Just as with CRTs. I don't miss them.
- rcxdude 24d agoTo buyers as well. I don't recall the switch to LCDs being particularly pushed, though I was admittedly quite young at the time. Especially keep in mind that people today are generally comparing the absolute top-tier of CRTs which were not what the average person had. (Another thing to keep in mind is that the systems of the time generally could not drive the kinds of resolutions and framerates that make those CRTs shine in some of today's comparisons. At the time the difference in quality in practice was lower because of this)
- aleph_minus_one 24d ago> (Another thing to keep in mind is that the systems of the time generally could not drive the kinds of resolutions and framerates that make those CRTs shine in some of today's comparisons. At the time the difference in quality in practice was lower because of this) For desktop applications, the systems could. For 3D games, keep in mind that CRTs (in opposite to flat screens) could also diplay every other supported resolution sharply. The reason why many people think that CRTs were worse in practice is that many graphics cards of the time simply had a low-quality VGA signal generators built-in.
- anilakar 23d agoI owned a 17-inch Trinitron and very much preferred it over the early slow and small LCD panels. I did get a 15-inch Samsung VGA LCD panel for free later, but only kept it as a LAN party display as it folded completely flat for storage and transport.
- tom_ 24d agoWas there a top-down push? In general, people on average never really actually liked CRT displays all that much. They are annoyingly deep; they are heavy; the screen is flickery, or not quite pin sharp, or both; they use up a lot of power; they fail in annoying ways, and they're expensive to fix - and they have magnets in them.
- thfuran 24d agoAnd they make a constant shrieking sound.
- mrob 24d agoOnly SD CRTs make an audible shrieking sound. LCD computer monitors were replacing VGA or better CRTs with a horizontal refresh rate of >30kHZ. Maybe they could annoy your dog but no human could hear it.
- NathanielK 24d agoI still use a 130kHz CRT monitor sometimes. There's no 15kHz whine, but there's audible harmonics. It depends what you're looking at at and how hard you're pushing it.
- BigTTYGothGF 24d agoI had multiple mediocre-to-crappy CRTs in the 90s and 00s and was glad to move away from them. I think the last one I owned was even one of the fabled trinitrons, and it was acceptable.
- AnotherGoodName 24d agoYeah i had a trinitron and i still had bloodshot eyes after a few hours that i never got with LCD screens. Everyone was aware that CRTs sucked terribly for eye strain. The tradeoffs moving to even the early LCDs was well worth it. I remember people spending effectively double on LCDs at the time over higher specced and larger CRTs and being delighted with the result. eg. early LCDs were just 14inch, low res, low refresh rates when you could get a 17inch CRT higher specced in every way. People were still opting for the early LCDs. Your eyes are important!