Support NeoGAF

[Burger]

I need a new monitor, stat. I currently have a 17" Phillips 107 CRT monitor, but I've had it serviced once the contrast & gamma is totally up the shitter.

So, do I get this:

The Samsung 172x which I hear is pretty sweet.

NZ $1008

Or I could get:

The Samsung 955DF 19" True Flat CRT Monitor.

Half the price at $515 NZ

Or I could blow the budget totally and get:

The Samsung 193T 19" LCD Monitor

$1296 NZ

Odd that this thing is only a couple of hundred more than the 17" LCD. Any reason for this ??

I could get a much cheaper 17" LCD, but I don't want a piece of crap. Realestate is a bit of a concern, my old 17" CRT is pretty huge tho, so I'm sure I could fit a modern 19" in there.

Opinions ?

 

[Ferrio]

If you game get the CRT.

 

[Idle Will Kill]

I'd go with the LCD, but that's just me, I prefer LCDs to CRTs.

 

[Idle Will Kill]

If you game get the CRT.

I would change that to "If you are an extremely anal gamer get the CRT."

I played Halo and Castle Wolfenstein on my 15" Samsung Syncmaster 152t and never noticed any distracting ghosting or problems.

Unless those monitors have really crappy respnose times, I don't see a big deal.

 

[Deg]

An LCD will look better in the room and gives more space. Looks smarter. However a very good CRT is better for quality. LCD also seem to create less heat which is important for long sessions. I recommend LCD overall personally but it depends on what you want.

 

[maharg]

For that price, I should hope they have a good response time.

 

[Seth C]

I can't stand to look at LCDs. I think people have become a little hyped technology. It just doesn't look as good! Even if the 19" LCD was the same price, I'd choose the CRT. It's just easier on my eyes.

 

[Diablos]

I thought LCD was easier on the eyes.

 

[Burger]

Hmmm....

I would rather not spend a grand on a monitor, but if it's really worth it I will.

It will be used for gaming, and general desktop stuff. The 17" Samsung has 16ms response I believe.

 

[Seth C]

I thought LCD was easier on the eyes.

That's what they tell me. I've never understood it though. I can always see a moire pattern in every LCD I've looked at, and text seems to be "softer."

 

[Pochacco]

Go with the LCD - they're so much easier on the eyes, and sharper too.
But I don't understand why it's over a $grand. Jeez.

 

[Deg]

I thought LCD was easier on the eyes.

Definately! It causes less strain on your eyes.

That's what they tell me. I've never understood it though. I can always see a moire pattern in every LCD I've looked at, and text seems to be "softer."

It'll look pretty much the same as CRT's nowadays except at a step angle. An LCD is much betterif you use your pc regularly IMO. Go for CRT only if you are aiming for the very best in quality which most CRT buyers dont actually do.

 

[Burger]

Go with the LCD - they're so much easier on the eyes, and sharper too.
But I don't understand why it's over a $grand. Jeez.

NZ $1008 = NZ DOLLARS!

Which equals just under $500 of your US dollars.

 

[Seth C]

A CRT looks like one solid image. LCDs look like a bunch of pixels.

 

[Deg]

A CRT looks like one solid image. LCDs look like a bunch of pixels.

I think you saw an unussualy low res LCD. Nowadays they are very good res. Its fact that older LCDs are rubbish. The tech has moved leaps and bounds so fast lately! Its amazing looking at newer screens now and how far its gone.

 

[Seth C]

I think you saw an unussualy low res LCD. Nowadays they are very good res. Its fact that older LCDs are rubbish. The tech has moved leaps and bounds so fast lately! Its amazing looking at newer screens now and how far its gone.

I looked at the stuff they sell at Comp USA, as recently as two weeks ago. It's better, but still not as good. Not to my eyes. Hell, I immediately notice the moire even in LCD and Plasma TVs.

 

[Deg]

...

 

[xsarien]

I thought LCD was easier on the eyes.

They are. LCDs don't "flicker" to keep the image on the screen, individual pixels are updated and changed.

And, to Burger:
Once you go flat, you never go back. Get it, you won't be sorry. (Just jack it into a DVI output if you can help it.)

 

[Error Macro]

All of the "problems" with CRT's that people are mention are nonexistant on a quality monitor. I have a 19" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 920, which has a Trinitron tube, that has none of these problems. Run it at 85hz and there are no flicker issues. No ghosting, plus it has more vibrant colors, is sharper, and has wayyyyy better contrast than an LCD.

Really, if I was you, I'd get a 22" Mitsubishi for around $550-600.

 

[Doth Togo]

CRT for gamage.

LCD for business use.

 

[Burger]

Aaaarggghh... It's like a friggen tug of war...

 

[bionic77]

LCD. To me text and pictures look much better on LCD and if you get a good one then the refresh should be good enough to keep up with moving images (thought not as well as a CRT). Also they take up zero space, that was a big plus for me.

 

[Shompola]

I hope it isn't one of those LCD's with fixed resolution like my friends.

 

[Seth C]

I hope it isn't one of those LCD's with fixed resolution like my friends.

All LCDs have a fixed resolution.

 

[Shompola]

Really? Well that sucks then.

 

[Kiriku]

Maybe I'm way off here, but isn't the resolution on an LCD screen locked?

Anyway, I'd go with the CRT. Except if you need more space around your computer, I can't see any reason to choose an LCD screen. CRT is still substantially cheaper, and when you crank it up to 85 Hz (on a decent CRT monitor) you'll be hard-pressed to see any flickering at all. For me, LCD screens are just a waste of money.

EDIT: Seems like my question was already answered. And I agree, it sucks.

 

[AntoneM]

yep LCD's are "locked" to native resolutions due to the way they work, rather than "shooting' one pixel at a time to the spreen like CRT they actually display all pixels at the same time. I won't go into to details because I don't want to be bothered to search for the info and then copy/paste it into this post. The bottom line is that LCD's can display different resolutions but anything outside it's native resolution won't look good. CRT can display many different resolutions but it is a little harder on the eyes (for extended sessions) and they take up more space. As was said above... for business (surfing the web, word processing, ect.) go with LCD for gaming or even graphic art go CRT.

 

[xsarien]

All LCDs have a fixed resolution.

Yes and no. They have set resolutions, as in, they're designed to operate and generate the best picture at one specific resolution. My display's native setting is 1280x1024. If I dip below that, everything - at worst - may just get a little blurry.

 

[Shompola]

Yah with fixed resolution I of course ment the native resolution but you all understood it anyway. So yah I tried to change the res on that LCD and it looked like the picture got blurry and washed out. So you guys think there will be some kind of flat monitor with several different native resolution suppot in the near future?

 

[Seth C]

Yah with fixed resolution I of course ment the native resolution but you all understood it anyway. So yah I tried to change the res on that LCD and it looked like the picture got blurry and washed out. So you guys think there will be some kind of flat monitor with several different native resolution suppot in the near future?

Not if it's an LCD. That's just the nature of the beast. The actual screen is actually made up of all those little pixels. It has a certain number of them, and that's that. It doesn't project light on to a curface like a CRT. It lights up the pixels. No room for adjustment.

 

[Error Macro]

When you run in anything other than the LCD's native resolution, it interpolates the pixels. On most LCD displays, this looks like ass, although some of the newer/more expensive units manage to make it look less assy. Although it's still ass compared to a good CRT.

I think most of the people praising the LCD's were upgrading from cheap CRT monitors that were, infact, total pieces of shit. So naturally a decent LCD would be an upgrade from a bargain-basement, curved, shadow mask.

Trust me, no one that cared about image quality could go for an LCD over a good aperture grille monitor. It comes down to whether or not you want an LCD display for it's lower real estate requirements and it's debatable "cool" factor.

 

[shoplifter]

I've got a 17" SyncMaster 172N. I love it very much.

 

[xsarien]

When you run in anything other than the LCD's native resolution, it interpolates the pixels. On most LCD displays, this looks like ass, although some of the newer/more expensive units manage to make it look less assy. Although it's still ass compared to a good CRT.

I think most of the people praising the LCD's were upgrading from cheap CRT monitors that were, infact, total pieces of shit. So naturally a decent LCD would be an upgrade from a bargain-basement, curved, shadow mask.

Trust me, no one that cared about image quality could go for an LCD over a good aperture grille monitor. It comes down to whether or not you want an LCD display for it's lower real estate requirements and it's debatable "cool" factor.

My CRT just didn't age that well, it was fantastic the day I got it. But, likewise, I think anyone who disputes the clarity of modern LCDs hasn't seen - or used one for more than five minutes - one on a digital connection.

 

[Culex]

I went from an Sony Trinitron 17'' CRT to a Samsung 19'' LCD. I thought the quality was good on the Sony, but hot damn, the picture is outstanding on my 192N! I'm never going back to CRT ever, ever again.

 

[Error Macro]

My CRT just didn't age that well, it was fantastic the day I got it. But, likewise, I think anyone who disputes the clarity of modern LCDs hasn't seen - or used one for more than five minutes - one on a digital connection.

No, I'm not disputing the image quality of a good LCD screen; I have seen many. What I am saying is that LCD has, in my opinion, a long way to go before it tops the best CRT monitors. I don't think anyone will or can dispute that fact.

 

[GG-Duo]

I am reading this thread from a SyncMaster 955DF right now, which was bought 2 months ago when I moved here from Toronto.

At work, I use an ibm LCD monitor. So I have daily experience with both of these...

And to be honest, I really think you should get the LCD monitor.
1.) the SyncMaster is really big and really friggin' heavy.
2.) it has "curl marks" when your video resolution approaches the maximum.
3.) it makes this nasty radiation sound when you turn it on/off
4.) my last monitor was also a syncmaster ... which started to BUZZ after 1.5 years of operation.

 

[Error Macro]

I am reading this thread from a SyncMaster 955DF right now, which was bought 2 months ago when I moved here from Toronto.

At work, I use an ibm LCD monitor. So I have daily experience with both of these...

And to be honest, I really think you should get the LCD monitor.
1.) the SyncMaster is really big and really friggin' heavy.
2.) it has "curl marks" when your video resolution approaches the maximum.
3.) it makes this nasty radiation sound when you turn it on/off
4.) my last monitor was also a syncmaster ... which started to BUZZ after 1.5 years of operation.

I think the moral of this post is: DON'T BUY A SYNCMASTER. Seriously, don't write-off all of CRT's because of your bad experiences with a bad line of monitors.

 

[golem]

I think the moral of this post is: DON'T BUY A SYNCMASTER. Seriously, don't write-off all of CRT's because of your bad experiences with a bad line of monitors.

:rolleyes dude! thats exactly what you (and other LCD fud spreaders) are doing with LCDs.

neither technology is perfect, its just what kind of of limitations you are willing to live with. you (most likely) arent gonna get perfect geometry/convergence on CRTs, refresh rate flicker will always be there, they're gonna hog up your desktop space, give off lots of heat, etc etc.

personally for me, ive had trinitrons, fd trinitrons, suns, worked with cornerstones and syncmasters, and right now i prefer LCDs for everyday use. if you are really torn, give the LCD a shot, but get it from somewhere with a generous return policy.

 

[NetMapel]

I've got a ViewSonic 17inch and I love it very much. Much better monitor than my old CRT. There really isn't any ghosting as far as I can see, and the image quality is great even if you view the monitor from a steep angle.

 

[Error Macro]

:rolleyes dude! thats exactly what you (and other LCD fud spreaders) are doing with LCDs.

Uhhh, no it's not what I'm doing with LCDs. Like I said, I've tried many; the best of the best. The tecnology is just not there yet.

Dammit, where the hell is Shadow to back me up on this, and straighten you bitches out.

 

[GG-Duo]

I think the moral of this post is: DON'T BUY A SYNCMASTER. Seriously, don't write-off all of CRT's because of your bad experiences with a bad line of monitors.

well, he WAS comparing against a SyncMaster... so I'm just gonna tell him what he wants to know.

 

[Error Macro]

well, he WAS comparing against a SyncMaster... so I'm just gonna tell him what he wants to know.

Sorry, bud. You're ok. It's these LCD zealots that have got me riled up. I live, breathe, eat and sleep new technology. But by God, LCD display technology just isn't there yet.

 

[maharg]

All of the "problems" with CRT's that people are mention are nonexistant on a quality monitor. I have a 19" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 920, which has a Trinitron tube, that has none of these problems. Run it at 85hz and there are no flicker issues. No ghosting, plus it has more vibrant colors, is sharper, and has wayyyyy better contrast than an LCD.

Really, if I was you, I'd get a 22" Mitsubishi for around $550-600.

Whether you actively see the flicker or not doesn't matter. It's there, all the time, and it DOES cause eyestrain to a degree that LCDs just plain don't. CRTs will always have this problem, so for those of us who are now suffering from the results of that (and I certainly didn't cheap out on my CRTs), no matter what you say, looking at any CRT for more than an hour kills our eyes.

 

[Matlock]

I work on a very sexy 15:9 15.4" widescreen LCD.

Love it to death.

 

[Red Dolphin]

I'm seriously considering one of those Samsung 172x's. Damn they are sexy.

 

[Error Macro]

Whether you actively see the flicker or not doesn't matter. It's there, all the time, and it DOES cause eyestrain to a degree that LCDs just plain don't. CRTs will always have this problem, so for those of us who are now suffering from the results of that (and I certainly didn't cheap out on my CRTs), no matter what you say, looking at any CRT for more than an hour kills our eyes.

Well, I'm in a heap of shit then, because I look at a monitor probably 10-16 hours a day.

 

[maharg]

Well, I'm in a heap of shit then, because I look at a monitor probably 10-16 hours a day.

Sooner or later.

 

[EviLore]

My Diamond Pro 930sb is a damn nice CRT, and displays a better picture than any LCD I've seen of the same display area at more than twice the price. So yeah, if space isn't a concern, and any gaming is on your to-do list, I'd go with a high end CRT.

 

[Seth C]

Whether you actively see the flicker or not doesn't matter. It's there, all the time, and it DOES cause eyestrain to a degree that LCDs just plain don't. CRTs will always have this problem, so for those of us who are now suffering from the results of that (and I certainly didn't cheap out on my CRTs), no matter what you say, looking at any CRT for more than an hour kills our eyes.

Been looking at CRTs every day for 4-10 hours a day for at least 7 years. I'm still 20/15.

 

[maharg]

Been looking at CRTs every day for 4-10 hours a day for at least 7 years. I'm still 20/15.

I didn't say anything about the quality of my eyesight. I've been looking at computer screens for around that much a day for about 10 years now and my eyesight hasn't changed in that time.

What has changed is that I now get headaches and eye-fatigue after about 2 hours of looking at any CRT, and if I use CRTs for a whole week I need to basically take a day off them altogether.

Look, it's not as if this is some amazingly new thing, and I'm not saying it gives you cancer. CRTs cause eye-fatigue, whether you visibly notice the flicker or not. It may affect different people at different rates, but it definitely has an effect.

Jeez I never thought I would meet monitor-type fanboys. What's next, toaster oven fanboys?