5 ms·

> I mean CRT is inherently bulky, it's hard not to see why LCD panels became popular. But going from, say, a Sony Trinitron CRT [1] to one the first LCD was a

> I mean CRT is inherently bulky, it's hard not to see why LCD panels became popular. But going from, say, a Sony Trinitron CRT [1] to one the first LCD was a huge step backwards, which is what GP is saying. I did wait for the first LCD with DVI support before switching: for the difference in crispyness between an analog video cable and a DVI one was night and day (I also won many points when I helped friend set up a startup in southern california and we realized one person out of two had picked the VGA cable instead of the DVI one when setting up its desk / computer: so with the CTO late at night we went through every PC and changed all those with VGA cables to the DVI ones). We're not saying modern days flat monitors aren't better than old CRTs: we're saying the first flat screens were complete suckage. [1] even though on a Trinitron you could see two faint horizontal lines (Trinitron were still amazing)

LargoLasskhyfv 25d ago
DVI or not didn't matter that much when your VGA had a good RAMDAC, and you had a good cable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAMDAC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAMDAC Which of course you could only see in direct comparison. Which most ppl didn't have the opportunity to do, so you needed experience instead to judge that. Which most ppl also didn't have, because they've been exposed to cheap stuff only.
- jaffa2 24d ago
  Matrox used to have the best back in the day. Ai were ok and Nvidia were the worst. Even a lay person could see that difference between the tnt out put vs a millenium. It was so great that i used to use an older matrox card think it was the g450 since it worked great under Linux and the pq was amazing.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 23d ago
    Yes. Matrox was very good. But so were later Voodoo3. I know, because I've driven a https://crtdatabase.com/crts/hitachi/hitachi-superscan-21-cm2112mu https://crtdatabase.com/crts/hitachi/hitachi-superscan-21-cm... with it. At 1600x1200@75Hz. Crystal clear and sharp. I also had something by ELSA with a S3 and a translucent blue RAMDAC by IBM. Same thing. But only 2MB VRAM, and PCI. So only useful for testing purposes. Regarding the usability under Linux, or rather support by XFree86, Matrox accelerated some graphics primitives in the DDX-layer, or whatever that was called then. So did the Voodoo3's! Independently of that Glide stuff for 3D. Really nice to have.

LargoLasskhyfv 25d ago

DVI or not didn't matter that much when your VGA had a good RAMDAC, and you had a good cable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAMDAC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAMDAC Which of course you could only see in direct comparison. Which most ppl didn't have the opportunity to do, so you needed experience instead to judge that. Which most ppl also didn't have, because they've been exposed to cheap stuff only.

jaffa2 24d ago
Matrox used to have the best back in the day. Ai were ok and Nvidia were the worst. Even a lay person could see that difference between the tnt out put vs a millenium. It was so great that i used to use an older matrox card think it was the g450 since it worked great under Linux and the pq was amazing.
- LargoLasskhyfv 23d ago
  Yes. Matrox was very good. But so were later Voodoo3. I know, because I've driven a https://crtdatabase.com/crts/hitachi/hitachi-superscan-21-cm2112mu https://crtdatabase.com/crts/hitachi/hitachi-superscan-21-cm... with it. At 1600x1200@75Hz. Crystal clear and sharp. I also had something by ELSA with a S3 and a translucent blue RAMDAC by IBM. Same thing. But only 2MB VRAM, and PCI. So only useful for testing purposes. Regarding the usability under Linux, or rather support by XFree86, Matrox accelerated some graphics primitives in the DDX-layer, or whatever that was called then. So did the Voodoo3's! Independently of that Glide stuff for 3D. Really nice to have.