Is it time for me to give up CRT in favor of LCD monitors?

[Zenquin]

Recently, my beloved 21-in computer monitor died on me, forcing me to use a horrible 16-year-old, 17-in, Gateway 2000 monitor that cannot display better than 1024x768 at 70 hertz. My eyes start to bleed after an hour of staring at this flickering monster.

Therefore, I am now in the market for a new computer monitor. I immediately began looking for a new CRT monitor, but there really are not very many being made anymore. It seems that the world has switched to LCD monitors. Even Sony has completely abandoned consumer level CRT’s.

I find this confusing because as far as I can tell LCD’s still do not match the quality of CRT monitors. I have never seen a LCD monitor that I liked or thought was as good as a CRT. CRT images always look so bright and crisp to me. With CRT’s I can switch between resolutions with no loss in image quality (as I often need to when trying to improve the performance of 3D games), LCD’s look bad outside of their native resolution. A CRT can display an infinite variety of colors, but outside of the extremely expensive models, LCD’s can only display up to 24-bit color. Whenever I have played a fast-paced 3D game (such as Quake or Half-Life) on a LCD, the action was always slightly blurry, and not clear like a CRT. There are very few LCD’s (if any) that can consistently refresh their pixels at 10ms or below. Those that claim so fail to mention that the stated refresh time is only the average, and that the refresh for transitions from black to white, anything to grey and between colors are all very different. I hate how the colors and brightness look different in the corners of the screen and shift if you move your head. Not to mention the fact that LCD’s are still more expensive than CRT’s. It seems that all of the reviews of LCD’s I have read conclude with, “It’s practically as good as a CRT!”

I can understand the use of an LCD monitor in certain cases. If you are exclusively looking at static images then an LCD is a good choice. If heat production and power consumption are a major concern (such as in an office complex) LCD’s are better. Of course, LCD’s look better, weigh less and take up far less space.

So am I wrong in my assessment of LCD’s? Is it time that I joined what seems to be the rest of the world and abandon my search for a new CRT monitor?

[GepperRankins]

in my experience, LCDs can't live upto the refresh rate and picture quality of a CRT. unless you have serious deskspace problems or are making a projector i don't think there's any point

[Virtualbody1234]

I also prefer a CRT. The only reason for me to use an LCD would be if I didn't have the space on my desk.

[DarthInsinuate]

recently i've changed my preference to TFT. Moving in and out of Uni every year, and being lazy, their size makes it easier to move around.

i find, on a half decent TFT, you'll eventually get used to the motion-blur and won't notice it after a while

a minor thing, but, not having to tinker with the geometry settings on TFT is another benefit for me

also a 19" monitor looks pretty huge, but it's about the same size as a 17" CRT

[Shiranai_Baka]

the energy consumption would be less on a LCD I believe but then there is a limited amount of color an LCD can display so its not good for photo editing and etc. It all depends on what you are using your monitor for.

[Gripper]

I got lucky and picked up an acer al1711,brand new for £70,i've not got any issues with it so far