Support NeoGAF

[Seth C]

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?

That's funny. I consider you LCD freaks the fanboys. I'm just trying to calm some of the hype machine.

 

[maharg]

That's funny. I consider you LCD freaks the fanboys. I'm just trying to calm some of the hype machine.

It's pretty simple: If it weren't for my LCD on my laptop, I would have to cut back on using computers to a handful of hours a week. If anything, that makes me a fanboy of computers.

I don't appreciate people telling me I'm wrong about my own eyes. Do you want a pat on the back because you apparently don't get eye fatigue?

There are two sides to every story, and both sides have been told here. There's hardly any need for a devil's advocate position to be taken. If you really believe that CRTs are so much better than LCDs in image quality, argue image quality. Don't argue eyestrain.

 

[JackFrost2012]

I like the way LCDs look better than CRTs. *shrug*

Honestly, as long as the monitor's refresh rate isn't too slow for whatever sort of PC gaming you do, go with whichever you want. Given how much most of us use a monitor, you should choose the one that YOU think looks great, not what other people insist is the best.

I have a question, though:

The Samsung 173S is $150 less than the Samsung 172X. What's the difference? X is a cooler letter than S, but 173 is a larger number than 172! There's also the Samsung 173P. I don't understand!

It looks like the 172X has the fastest refresh rate, and both the X and P have DVI (which my card supports and sounds like a must). Should I go with the 172X, then? Or is the 173P a better choice?

 

[JackFrost2012]

That's funny. I consider you LCD freaks the fanboys. I'm just trying to calm some of the hype machine.

There are good and bad LCDs and CRTs. I think it would be a lot more productive to figure out what he wants/needs to use the monitor for - what he's looking for - and make a recommendation based on that, rather than saying "LCDs are crap, get the CRT!!"

I don't think anyone here is has been acting like an "LCD freak." They've just spoken out in favor of LCDs and said that, subjectively, they think LCDs look superior to CRTs. (And I happen to agree.) You should go with the monitor that feels/looks right for you, is easiest on your eyes, and fits your needs - not the one that Tom's Hardware has "proven" is superior to all others.

 

[Sai]

Eh, weren't you guys goin' on about LCDs with DVI input a little while ago? Does the DVI connection improve upon the problems(whatever they hell they may be) present with LCD monitors?

 

[DaCocoBrova]

It improves the IQ tremendously if your card has DVI out. If you use an adapter, you're still using an analog signal. The refresh rate, however, is another issue, and is IMO what one should focus on if they like games and movies on their PC.