ANova said:
Power is not cheap, at least where I live, and where prices will be increasing as much as 40% this year due to increased natural gas prices. It all adds up you know.
Too bad for you then.. if you have an intel prescott like golden does you have no room to argue
Sure CRTs don't take that long to setup, but LCDs require no setup at all.
Ya you're right, they always have washed out blacks and look worse at non native resolutions
Now lets talk about why CRTs are inferior. They emit radiation (long term use can adversely affect your eyes), they are big, heavy and take up desk space.
Eww radiation you say? Like my microwave? neato mr I have to blow things out of proportion in order to argue my point.
Their picture quality is a long shot from perfect since the digital signal must be converted to analog and then scanned onto a nonlinear surface.
Yet with this new technology the displays them selfs still are the problem.. great, you've upgraded the signal path while leaving inferior technology where the signal goes to
LCDs are straight digital to digital and pixel to pixel meaning its picture is close to perfect and is why a CRT's geometry and sharpness is no match.
Yes.. lcds are sharper and have better geometry.. we've already discussed this.
Brightness on CRTs fade after time, and while this happens on LCDs as well it requires a simple and cheap lamp replacement, CRTs cannot be fixed short replacing the cathode tube which costs as much as getting a new one anyways and which brings me to my next point, CRTs are polluting devices.
My HP CRT from 1998 is still bright and imo you really shouldn't have either display long enough for it to wear out.. just like you upgrade your computer you should update your display when the time comes.. my 8 year old crt is still doin great
The only true advantages a CRT holds above an LCD is contrast ratio like I mentioned and resolution scaling. The validity of the claimed contrast ratio on LCDs depends on the manufacturer, some of the newer ones do indeed approach what they claim and those coming out within the next year or so will be using LEDs, so I consider it a moot point.
Don't forget that contrast is a measure of the difference between the blackest blacks and the brightess whites, they may be reaching these high contrast ratios by using brighter blacklights, while still having washed out blacks which CRT users like my self despise.
I've said this before.. I will buy an LCD LED as soon as it becomes affordable... like under 300 for a 1600x1200 display that can run also run at 1280x960 if I need to (that is the res I should be using for a 1600x1200 display since it's a 4:3 display right?
As far as being an "LCD snub," I used CRTs for many years, then I noticed LCDs and watched as they became better, now I think their advantages far outweight their disadvantages; there's nothing snobbish about it. When I upgraded to my current LCD about a year back from my CRT, I was more than happy with the result and I do not regret doing so one bit. No, motion blur is not an issue at all. The only time I see it is on text when I scroll down a webpage very fast, and like I said, there are others which have much better reponse times then mine now. As far as multiple resolutions, well I have a 17", which means 1280x1024, so I haven't had too much trouble running games. Even when I do have to run a resolution lower I turn on AA, and it isn't that bad imo. Lower resolutions look bad in the OS UI, but not so much in games.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, just as I am entitled to think you're full of shit
.
No actually I just think you like the lcds because you can afford the compromise.
I play games at 1280x960 minimum, I aim for 1280x960 with 4x fsaa in games, if the game is running at like 70 fps then I'll bump it up to 1600x1200 and enjoy even less jaggies, while you'r stuck at 1280x1024, which btw isn't proper res.
LCDs are superior to CRTs in every way save two areas, for now; if you cannot see that then it is you who are helplessly ignorant.
CRTs
are superior to LCD save a few areas, for now; if you cannot see that then it is you who are helpless ignorant.
That's a bit of a broad statement. I've got a P4 (Northwood) overclocked to 3.4 GHz that is currently running at 35 C idle and never goes higher then 43 C under load using stock cooling. Then there is the Pentium M and the Core Duo which run cooler then anything AMD has.
Wow that's impressive.. 3.4 ghz you say?
Even more impressive is how your cpu fails to outperform an A64 several hundred mhz slower while consuming more power, while I don't care about power draw much, you do, so perhaps you should trade in that power hog for something that's faster and consumes less power? How bout it mate?
You didn't say what HSF you ran, my A64 3200+ winchester temp probe clames it idles at 30C and goes up to 37C underload with the thermal pad on.
As for the core duo, you won't hear any arguments from me.
It's what intels high end desktops should be using instead of the .65nm P4s which still run hot and consume excessive power.
