Are CRT monitors 100% dead ?

El Greco · 5th March 2007, 01:00 AM

I notice that most stores here have completely discontinued CRT monitors (last time I looked they still carried a couple of models). Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

Quote:

New LCD screens are less bulky and have a larger display area; as of mid-2006, LCDs have become directly comparable in price to CRTs of the same display area. In general, rear-projection displays and LCDs require less power per display area, but plasma displays consume as much as or more than CRTs. However, color CRTs still find adherents in computer gaming due to their high refresh rates and higher resolution per initial cost. CRT's are also still popular in the printing and broadcasting industries as well as in the professional video, photography, and graphics fields due to their greater color fidelity and contrast, better resolution when displaying moving images, and better view from angles, although improvements in LCD technology increasingly alleviate these concerns. The demand for CRT screens is falling rapidly, and producers are responding to this trend. For example, in 2005 Sony announced that they would stop the production of CRT computer displays. Similarly, German manufacturer Loewe ceased production of CRT TVs in December 2005. Considering the shelf life of a typical user's CRT-based unit is 5-6 years.

What I wonder is, doesn't anyone still need the ability to retain display quality in different resolutions ? Have LCDs (or monitors that use other digital technologies) improved in that area, or are they going to ? Are we soon going to reach a point where digital monitors will be better than CRTs in every aspect ?

Corpse Cruncher · 5th March 2007, 01:48 AM

I brought 1 LCD monitor, just because it took up less space. That said, I had 4 replacements of the same item, 1 and 3, blew up, 2 had huge pixel holes and number 4 is just fine. It does take getting use to. I found it odd compared to my old monitor. The picture does seem to better quality on the CRT but then I comment that it had an odd picture when I first got it.

These days size appears to matter, less is more or at least slimline is more beneficial.

I never played around with the settings of my old CRT monitor, what it was set to it stayed at. I suppose those with bad or weak eyesight might appreciate the CRT over LCD.

I tried to sell my old 14 inch Digital CRT but nobody wanted it. How silly is this, I put a £5.00 price tag on it- nobody wanted it. Surely it was worth that? My CRT is about 8+years old, I don't think my LCD will last that long, they seem flimsy and not built to last. I would keep my CRT but space is a premium and it has no place living with me any longer.

I do believe that the LCD market has effectively killed the CRT.

MRC_Hans · 5th March 2007, 01:53 AM

No, they just smell that way

.

OK, seriously: Apart from some marginal advantages in certain graphic appliations, the only advantage that CRT monitors still hold (but are rapidly loosing) is that of price. Oh, and viewing angle.

Yes, I think the CRT is finally in its death throes, but since some of the manufacturers are not producing flat displays, and numerous high-capacity facilities exist to produce picture tubes, we can expect them to hang on for dear life for quite some time. What will happen, however, is that nobody will invest in new designs or new production facilites, so eventually, they will disappear. I predict that 10 years from now you will be unable to purchase a CRT display from new.

.... That is, of course, unless some picturephile cult pops up, claiming that the only way to watch is with CTR monitors. Like the tube audiophools. Then you will be able to buy insanely expensive "high-end" CRT monitors.

Hans

MRC_Hans · 5th March 2007, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by Corpse Cruncher

I tried to sell my old 14 inch Digital CRT but nobody wanted it. How silly is this, I put a £5.00 price tag on it- nobody wanted it. Surely it was worth that?

Hehe, where I work, we recently migrated to flat displays (mine works just fine), so my glorious 24" flat-face CRT monitor got redundant. I had the opportunity to take it home for the price of carrying it, but although it would certainly have trumphed my old 16" CRT at home, I decided against it. It was simply too monstrously large and heavy. Everybody else seemed to feel the same way, so we ended up scrapping dozens of perfectly functioning CRT hulks.

Our landscape office has surely benefited from it. No more lumbering monsters on the desks, producing heat, high-pitch whines and, and ionized air.

Hans

El Greco · 5th March 2007, 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Apart from some marginal advantages in certain graphic appliations, the only advantage that CRT monitors still hold (but are rapidly loosing) is that of price. Oh, and viewing angle.

What about the ability to perform equally well in various resolutions ?

MRC_Hans · 5th March 2007, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by El Greco

What about the ability to perform equally well in various resolutions ?

Or equally poorly? Seriously, though, how many resolutions do you need? I just checked, mine works in three resolution settings and two color settings. What more do I need?

Hans

Corpse Cruncher · 5th March 2007, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Hehe, where I work, we recently migrated to flat displays (mine works just fine), so my glorious 24" flat-face CRT monitor got redundant. I had the opportunity to take it home for the price of carrying it, but although it would certainly have trumphed my old 16" CRT at home, I decided against it. It was simply too monstrously large and heavy. Everybody else seemed to feel the same way, so we ended up scrapping dozens of perfectly functioning CRT hulks.

Our landscape office has surely benefited from it. No more lumbering monsters on the desks, producing heat, high-pitch whines and, and ionized air.

Hans

I'll add mine to the destroy with hammer list. What a shame we have become such a wasteful society.

Mine didn't make a noise, my computer makes that. Heat I agree with, but on a cold morning when I used to work in a freezing office the old CRT monitor I had there was a welcome heat source.

Dark Jaguar · 5th March 2007, 03:22 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Or equally poorly? Seriously, though, how many resolutions do you need? I just checked, mine works in three resolution settings and two color settings. What more do I need?

Hans

If you play a lot of old timey computer games, more.

MortFurd · 5th March 2007, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Or equally poorly? Seriously, though, how many resolutions do you need? I just checked, mine works in three resolution settings and two color settings. What more do I need?

Hans

How about the ability to switch to a very low resolution? 800x600? Folks with really poor eyesight need for the text and icons to be large. Windows doesn't offer much in the way of scalable icons, and changing the default font size for Windows can really mess things up if you get a program that depends on the default font size. They shouldn't, but some do.

I like CRTs better than LCDs. The previously mentioned view angle problem drives me batty, and I do change screen resolutions relatively often.

LCDs aren't all that great for gamers, either. The "Overdrive" tricks the LCD monitor manufacturers use get the picture clear for rapidly moving objects come at the cost of delaying the video signal by a few frames. Only critical for high-end game freaks, I'll admit.

For office work on a DVI port, LCD is OK. If you go to doing graphics, they aren't so great. The colors depend somewhat on you being dead smack in front of the monitor, so color calibration is difficult and you have to be careful where you sit.

baron · 5th March 2007, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by MortFurd

If you go to doing graphics, they aren't so great. The colors depend somewhat on you being dead smack in front of the monitor, so color calibration is difficult and you have to be careful where you sit.

Not so. I'm a digital artist and swapped over from CRT to LCD a couple of years back. Proving you're looking at mid- to high-range models, LCD excels in practically every area. Base LCDs are horrific, admittedly, but so are base CRTs.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 5th March 2007, 05:20 AM

I have a 21" ViewSonic P815 that I purchased for $2,200 in March, 1997. I'd love to replace it with a 30" flat panel, but how can I toss it out? It's still beautiful. The current price is about $250.

~~ Paul

Corpse Cruncher · 5th March 2007, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by baron

Not so. I'm a digital artist and swapped over from CRT to LCD a couple of years back. Proving you're looking at mid- to high-range models, LCD excels in practically every area. Base LCDs are horrific, admittedly, but so are base CRTs.

Digital artist, excuse my shameless ignorance what is one of those?

Ripley Twenty-Nine · 5th March 2007, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by El Greco

What about the ability to perform equally well in various resolutions ?

The idea of having to run in 'various resolutions' is going to be outdated fairly soon.

New (and upcoming) Operating Systems, including Windows Vista and Apple OS X Leopard are essentially 'resolution independent'. The idea is that all bitmaps, controls and fonts will scale based on your resolution.

So on an 800x600 display, everything on screen will be the same size as with a 1280x1024 display; though obviously it will be much sharper on a higher resolution.

GregC · 5th March 2007, 06:54 AM

At work I have a 20" Sony Trinitron CRT, at home a 18" LCD. The Sony is far superior in quality to the LCD. Working with graphics most of the day I appreciate having the CRT. Some of the more recent purchases of LCD monitors are showing the progress being made in their design but they are still not as good as a quality CRT. I am anxiously waiting for the quality to equal so that I can gain back some desktop space.

bruto · 5th March 2007, 07:18 AM

I do a lot of photography, but I haven't gone digital yet. I scan a lot of negs and slides, and I've found that recent LCD monitors are not bad. I just got a new computer and a relatively cheap but decent 17 inch LCD monitor with it, and it's much better at resolving zoomed images than my old one, which produced choppy results. It's also much better off axis. The previous one was very difficult to use for photography because the image varied so much with viewing angle. I had to be really careful. I'm not a real color geek and have not spent huge amounts of time calibrating and fussing with color spaces, because my printer is also far from state of the art, and I usually find it's easier and more effective to compare a print with the slide and say "that is/is not close enough." Of course digital photographers do not have that option.

There are still some people holding out for CRT because it's possible to calibrate the color very precisely, and because of the CRT's ability to change resolution smoothly, but my guess is that they're on their way out as LCD's continue to improve. I'll never go back, in part because as displays get bigger, we get spoiled. I used to think a 14 inch monitor was fine, but now 17 seems none too big, and a CRT that size would not fit on my small computer desk!

MRC_Hans · 5th March 2007, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by MortFurd

How about the ability to switch to a very low resolution? 800x600? Folks with really poor eyesight need for the text and icons to be large.

Well, thats one of the resolutions that mine offers. All a flat really requires is that the resolution is a direct multiple of the max resolution. But then, CRTs also work best if you comply with that.

Hans

Learning Phase · 5th March 2007, 08:19 PM

I'm currently using CRT monitors on all my computers (Except laptops) and I'm considering changing them all soon to LCD.

A few days ago, my father (age 81) purchased a low priced 17 inch LCD for my mother (she's 76). With her poor eyesight, she's always used a CRT set at 800*600, which avoids the problems with changing fonts/icons to get them large enough with higher resolutions. The 17 inch LCD, however, gave constant warnings about using it at anything other than the 1280x1024 resolution recommended by the manufacturer. They wanted to set it up without my help, but finally ended up calling me to assist.

I spent a while attempting to make Windoze look good for her with the higher resolution, but she was never satisfied, as many of her favorite websites were set up for 800x600. Those websites and others didn't fill the screen, and often came out with tiny fonts that were impossible for her to read without squinting.

I finally set the thing to 800x600, and was surprised to find that the scaling caused vertical bands of fuzziness, about every two inches, 1/4 inch wide. While you could call it readable, it was very uncomfortable to read. Doing a quick search, I found out that I could make the thing readable and clear by changing the refresh rate to 72. I'd often changed refresh rates, but never thought it would clear up fuzziness in an LCD.

I then changed the monitor settings to eliminate the whining warnings about resolution.

She's thrilled.

DRBUZZ0 · 5th March 2007, 09:00 PM

For a while CRT monitors really held the ground when it came to quality of image and contrast, as well as the ability to sync natively to multiple scan rates and resolutions.

However, I think those days (for me) are past. While CRT's still may have more accurate color generation (it doesn't change based on the angle), the scaling and conversion of good high res LCD's has just about killed the whole multi-resolution argument.

But when it comes down to it, I find LCD's to be a lot easier on my eyes. Despite the contrast of a good CRT, the constant flickering of it, although not explicitly visible definitely does a number on my eyes after a while. Since LCD monitors don't "scan" in the same way a CRT does, the light is relatively constant. I find it much less straining.

But then again... that's just me.

Soapy Sam · 5th March 2007, 09:41 PM

I'm still looking for a way to run XP in greyscale. Can it be done on a CRT?
I can find no way to do it on an LCD.

a_unique_person · 5th March 2007, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by Corpse Cruncher

I brought 1 LCD monitor, just because it took up less space. That said, I had 4 replacements of the same item, 1 and 3, blew up, 2 had huge pixel holes and number 4 is just fine. It does take getting use to. I found it odd compared to my old monitor. The picture does seem to better quality on the CRT but then I comment that it had an odd picture when I first got it.

These days size appears to matter, less is more or at least slimline is more beneficial.

I never played around with the settings of my old CRT monitor, what it was set to it stayed at. I suppose those with bad or weak eyesight might appreciate the CRT over LCD.

I tried to sell my old 14 inch Digital CRT but nobody wanted it. How silly is this, I put a £5.00 price tag on it- nobody wanted it. Surely it was worth that? My CRT is about 8+years old, I don't think my LCD will last that long, they seem flimsy and not built to last. I would keep my CRT but space is a premium and it has no place living with me any longer.

I do believe that the LCD market has effectively killed the CRT.

People just leave them out the front of their homes around here, hoping someone will take it away.

bruto · 5th March 2007, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

I'm still looking for a way to run XP in greyscale. Can it be done on a CRT?
I can find no way to do it on an LCD.

Most CRT's I've had in the past would allow you to turn the color down to desaturate it, but this doesn't answer the problem of finding colors that don't turn the same shade of gray when they're desaturated. Windows 3.x used to have a grayscale color setting, designed for monochrome laptops and monitors, but I can't find anything like that in XP either in the themes for windows itself or in the video settings. I suspect you're out of luck.

Kopji · 5th March 2007, 10:35 PM

You could convert the VGA to composite video and display it on a black and white display.

I hate CRT's, good riddance. I give them maybe two more years, until the HDTV standard fully kicks in. Is anyone even making 16x9 CRT's?

Corpse Cruncher · 6th March 2007, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

People just leave them out the front of their homes around here, hoping someone will take it away.

Where I live it would be through my car windscreen. Selling a car with in thrown CRT screen is a lost cause I think.

RPG Advocate · 6th March 2007, 02:53 AM

LCD is the worst thing that's happened to the monitor market for people with low vision.

I recently bought an LCD monitor to replace my 19 inch Trinitron. I found out the hard way that with LCDs, you get a choice. Either use it at its native resolution or get fuzzy text. At the native resolution of 1600x1200, I can't read anything with my 20/100 vision. So I down-rez to 1368x1024. The display is now the proper size, but the text is ultra-fuzzy and hard to read. I could run it at 800x600 to get an exact multiple, but that would be ridiculously large. I run the CRT at 1024x768.

Now the LCD is sitting in a box, unused and I'm using my old CRT again.

For TV, I'm just going to avoid LCD technology altogether and get the smallest plasma I can find when I upgrade from my 27" CRT TV. You can get 40" plasma units for less than $2000 now. By the time I'm ready to upgrade in 2008, I bet they'll clear $1500.

wahrheit · 6th March 2007, 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by RPG Advocate

LCD is the worst thing that's happened to the monitor market for people with low vision.

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

I'm still looking for a way to run XP in greyscale. Can it be done on a CRT?
I can find no way to do it on an LCD.

You can do that with a mouse click on a Mac. Additionally, there's a contrast slider and a button to reverse to white font on black background. And a neat zoom feature. Since this is in the operation system, it works with everything, not just web pages.

baron · 6th March 2007, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by Corpse Cruncher

Digital artist, excuse my shameless ignorance what is one of those?

Basically like a traditional artist but instead of paint and canvas I use this ~
http://www.corel.com/servlet/Content.../1166553885783
and one of these ~
http://www.wacom-europe.com/int/prod...ex.asp?lang=en

Starthinker · 6th March 2007, 05:21 AM

I've found a problem with CRT's that no one has mentioned. The local dump wants $12 EACH! to drop them off. I have about 30 in perfect condition, 17" that no one wants and just to throw them away will cost $360 (how's that for a round number?). I can't give them away and even the thrift store won't take them as donations. If it's like this in other parts of the country I predict that you will start finding CRTs in ditches along with the old washing machines and tires.

Molinaro · 6th March 2007, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by Ripley Twenty-Nine

The idea of having to run in 'various resolutions' is going to be outdated fairly soon.

New (and upcoming) Operating Systems, including Windows Vista and Apple OS X Leopard are essentially 'resolution independent'. The idea is that all bitmaps, controls and fonts will scale based on your resolution.

So on an 800x600 display, everything on screen will be the same size as with a 1280x1024 display; though obviously it will be much sharper on a higher resolution.

Spoken like someone who doesn't play video games much. Taking a game designed for 800x600 and stretching it out to 1280x1024 would be a disaster. It would look far worse than a CRT that was in a native 800x600 resolution.

CRTs are still far and above the better choice with games. Very expensive LCDs are good enough, but still not the same.

baron · 6th March 2007, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by Molinaro

Spoken like someone who doesn't play video games much. Taking a game designed for 800x600 and stretching it out to 1280x1024 would be a disaster. It would look far worse than a CRT that was in a native 800x600 resolution.

It wouldn't be good, no, but 800x600 --> 1600x1200 would be fine because it's an exact multiple scale-up.

When I first got my LCD I thought the graphics looked slightly "blocky" at 1600x1200. Then I realised this was only because the display was so sharp I could clearly see each individual pixel.

bruto · 6th March 2007, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by Kopji

You could convert the VGA to composite video and display it on a black and white display.

I hate CRT's, good riddance. I give them maybe two more years, until the HDTV standard fully kicks in. Is anyone even making 16x9 CRT's?

The problem with that, as I found out many years ago when I got my first TV-monitored computer (a Tandy color computer) is that simply running iin B&W does not change the video output to compensate for colors that render the same in gray. You can't play chess in monochrome if the red and green pieces come out the same shade of gray!

Some of the same problems occur if you simply desaturate Windoze. The video output itself must be altered to produce distinctive shades.

Ripley Twenty-Nine · 6th March 2007, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Molinaro

Spoken like someone who doesn't play video games much. Taking a game designed for 800x600 and stretching it out to 1280x1024 would be a disaster. It would look far worse than a CRT that was in a native 800x600 resolution.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. What kind of games are you talking about?

Certainly not 3D games, considering the 3D engine scales the graphics to whatever resolution you want to run it in. I don't like running 3D shooters at really high resolutions because they don't scale the heads-up display properly, and it ends up being tiny on the screen. This solution would fix that.

2D games? Who would release a game that had a native resolution of 800x600? Especially considering most LCDs have a native resolution of 1280x1024 or higher, that would seem to be a pretty bad decision.

Or are you talking about old games? Well, who cares about them??

Molinaro · 6th March 2007, 09:23 AM

I am absolutely talking about old games. Lots of people care about them. And lots of people would avoid buying a new piece of hardware that would make a fair amount of their old software less usable.

bigred · 6th March 2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

New LCD screens are less bulky and have a larger display area; as of mid-2006, LCDs have become directly comparable in price to CRTs of the same display area.

? How do LCDs have a larger display area?

And LCDs are not comparable in price (yet).

wiki strikes again

I love my LCD mostly because it saves space, is lighter, and near as I can tell I have lost nothing in terms of picture quality.

And yes most stores (at least that I've been in) don't even sell CRTs anymore. They are all but dead..

Ripley Twenty-Nine · 6th March 2007, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Molinaro

I am absolutely talking about old games. Lots of people care about them. And lots of people would avoid buying a new piece of hardware that would make a fair amount of their old software less usable.

I understand. I was just being facetious anyway.

Most games run in a resolution independent of the Operating System anyway; which is why your monitor will go black and 'click' into the new resolution when loading a game.

Resolution independence for an Operating System would only apply to your desktop, and any programs running inside windows on the desktop. So King's Quest II would still run just fine on your 4GHz machine.

Joking again!

Ripley Twenty-Nine · 6th March 2007, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by bigred

? How do LCDs have a larger display area?

It's because of the 'bezel' of the monitor. The bezel is the frame around the viewable screen on a CRT or LCD monitor. When a monitor states the size as being 17", that usually refers to the viewable area, plus the bezel.

Bezels are typically smaller on LCDs, meaning the viewable area is actually much closer to the advertised size of the monitor.

nimzov · 6th March 2007, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

I've found a problem with CRT's that no one has mentioned. The local dump wants $12 EACH! to drop them off. I have about 30 in perfect condition, 17" that no one wants and just to throw them away will cost $360 (how's that for a round number?). I can't give them away and even the thrift store won't take them as donations. If it's like this in other parts of the country I predict that you will start finding CRTs in ditches along with the old washing machines and tires.

Again, why not use freecycle.

http://www.freecycle.org/groups/uscentral/#Iowa

Some people cannot spend the money for a new monitor.

Give it a try. In my region CRT monitors are changing hands very actively with freecycle,

nimzo

Soapy Sam · 6th March 2007, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by wahrheit

You can do that with a mouse click on a Mac. Additionally, there's a contrast slider and a button to reverse to white font on black background. And a neat zoom feature. Since this is in the operation system, it works with everything, not just web pages.

Danke, aber ich habe kein verdumplingischefriggendend Mac!

Modified · 6th March 2007, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by RPG Advocate

LCD is the worst thing that's happened to the monitor market for people with low vision.

I recently bought an LCD monitor to replace my 19 inch Trinitron. I found out the hard way that with LCDs, you get a choice. Either use it at its native resolution or get fuzzy text. At the native resolution of 1600x1200, I can't read anything with my 20/100 vision.

What OS are you using? In XP, from "Display Properties" , "Settings", "Advanced", "General", "DPI Setting", "Custom", use any DPI setting you want and all the fonts will adjust accordingly (except maybe in a few applications developed by absolute idiots). You can also up the desktop icon size from "Display Properties", "Appearance", "Advanced". Very few apps will adjust toolbar icons and other image sizes based on the DPI though.

Most other OSes have similar capabilities.

Molinaro · 6th March 2007, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Ripley Twenty-Nine

I understand. I was just being facetious anyway.

Most games run in a resolution independent of the Operating System anyway; which is why your monitor will go black and 'click' into the new resolution when loading a game.

Resolution independence for an Operating System would only apply to your desktop, and any programs running inside windows on the desktop. So King's Quest II would still run just fine on your 4GHz machine.

Joking again!

Don't worry I get the tone of your posts

I actualy upgraded my pc to an intel dual core 2 months ago.. and decided not to get an lcd. I'm using an old Dell Trinitron 19" tube that I bought 3 years ago.. used.. for $150. And as a backup I have my old, old, old trusty 16" tube

wahrheit · 6th March 2007, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Danke, aber ich habe kein verdumplingischefriggendend Mac!

Eder Strabnitz hüppensett! Der Wiener Schnitzel mit de Lavignetten und de Sauerkraut!

5th March 2007, 01:00 AM	#1
El Greco Summer worshipper Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Παρά θιν'αλός Posts: 14,311	Are CRT monitors 100% dead ? I notice that most stores here have completely discontinued CRT monitors (last time I looked they still carried a couple of models). Here's what Wikipedia has to say: Quote: New LCD screens are less bulky and have a larger display area; as of mid-2006, LCDs have become directly comparable in price to CRTs of the same display area. In general, rear-projection displays and LCDs require less power per display area, but plasma displays consume as much as or more than CRTs. However, color CRTs still find adherents in computer gaming due to their high refresh rates and higher resolution per initial cost. CRT's are also still popular in the printing and broadcasting industries as well as in the professional video, photography, and graphics fields due to their greater color fidelity and contrast, better resolution when displaying moving images, and better view from angles, although improvements in LCD technology increasingly alleviate these concerns. The demand for CRT screens is falling rapidly, and producers are responding to this trend. For example, in 2005 Sony announced that they would stop the production of CRT computer displays. Similarly, German manufacturer Loewe ceased production of CRT TVs in December 2005. Considering the shelf life of a typical user's CRT-based unit is 5-6 years. What I wonder is, doesn't anyone still need the ability to retain display quality in different resolutions ? Have LCDs (or monitors that use other digital technologies) improved in that area, or are they going to ? Are we soon going to reach a point where digital monitors will be better than CRTs in every aspect ?
	__________________ "Robbing a bank is no crime compared to owning one" - Bertolt Brecht "Let it go and come to bed already, El Greco" - MoeFaux

5th March 2007, 01:48 AM	#2
Corpse Cruncher Guest Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: In the great cooking pot in the sky. Posts: 3,811	I brought 1 LCD monitor, just because it took up less space. That said, I had 4 replacements of the same item, 1 and 3, blew up, 2 had huge pixel holes and number 4 is just fine. It does take getting use to. I found it odd compared to my old monitor. The picture does seem to better quality on the CRT but then I comment that it had an odd picture when I first got it. These days size appears to matter, less is more or at least slimline is more beneficial. I never played around with the settings of my old CRT monitor, what it was set to it stayed at. I suppose those with bad or weak eyesight might appreciate the CRT over LCD. I tried to sell my old 14 inch Digital CRT but nobody wanted it. How silly is this, I put a £5.00 price tag on it- nobody wanted it. Surely it was worth that? My CRT is about 8+years old, I don't think my LCD will last that long, they seem flimsy and not built to last. I would keep my CRT but space is a premium and it has no place living with me any longer. I do believe that the LCD market has effectively killed the CRT.
	Last edited by Corpse Cruncher; 5th March 2007 at 01:51 AM.

5th March 2007, 01:53 AM	#3
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,602	No, they just smell that way . OK, seriously: Apart from some marginal advantages in certain graphic appliations, the only advantage that CRT monitors still hold (but are rapidly loosing) is that of price. Oh, and viewing angle. Yes, I think the CRT is finally in its death throes, but since some of the manufacturers are not producing flat displays, and numerous high-capacity facilities exist to produce picture tubes, we can expect them to hang on for dear life for quite some time. What will happen, however, is that nobody will invest in new designs or new production facilites, so eventually, they will disappear. I predict that 10 years from now you will be unable to purchase a CRT display from new. .... That is, of course, unless some picturephile cult pops up, claiming that the only way to watch is with CTR monitors. Like the tube audiophools. Then you will be able to buy insanely expensive "high-end" CRT monitors. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

5th March 2007, 02:01 AM	#4
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,602	Originally Posted by Corpse Cruncher I tried to sell my old 14 inch Digital CRT but nobody wanted it. How silly is this, I put a £5.00 price tag on it- nobody wanted it. Surely it was worth that? Hehe, where I work, we recently migrated to flat displays (mine works just fine), so my glorious 24" flat-face CRT monitor got redundant. I had the opportunity to take it home for the price of carrying it, but although it would certainly have trumphed my old 16" CRT at home, I decided against it. It was simply too monstrously large and heavy. Everybody else seemed to feel the same way, so we ended up scrapping dozens of perfectly functioning CRT hulks. Our landscape office has surely benefited from it. No more lumbering monsters on the desks, producing heat, high-pitch whines and, and ionized air. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

5th March 2007, 02:03 AM	#5
El Greco Summer worshipper Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Παρά θιν'αλός Posts: 14,311	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Apart from some marginal advantages in certain graphic appliations, the only advantage that CRT monitors still hold (but are rapidly loosing) is that of price. Oh, and viewing angle. What about the ability to perform equally well in various resolutions ?
	__________________ "Robbing a bank is no crime compared to owning one" - Bertolt Brecht "Let it go and come to bed already, El Greco" - MoeFaux

5th March 2007, 02:08 AM	#6
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,602	Originally Posted by El Greco What about the ability to perform equally well in various resolutions ? Or equally poorly? Seriously, though, how many resolutions do you need? I just checked, mine works in three resolution settings and two color settings. What more do I need? Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

5th March 2007, 02:11 AM	#7
Corpse Cruncher Guest Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: In the great cooking pot in the sky. Posts: 3,811	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Hehe, where I work, we recently migrated to flat displays (mine works just fine), so my glorious 24" flat-face CRT monitor got redundant. I had the opportunity to take it home for the price of carrying it, but although it would certainly have trumphed my old 16" CRT at home, I decided against it. It was simply too monstrously large and heavy. Everybody else seemed to feel the same way, so we ended up scrapping dozens of perfectly functioning CRT hulks. Our landscape office has surely benefited from it. No more lumbering monsters on the desks, producing heat, high-pitch whines and, and ionized air. Hans I'll add mine to the destroy with hammer list. What a shame we have become such a wasteful society. Mine didn't make a noise, my computer makes that. Heat I agree with, but on a cold morning when I used to work in a freezing office the old CRT monitor I had there was a welcome heat source.

5th March 2007, 03:22 AM	#8
Dark Jaguar Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,666	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Or equally poorly? Seriously, though, how many resolutions do you need? I just checked, mine works in three resolution settings and two color settings. What more do I need? Hans If you play a lot of old timey computer games, more.

5th March 2007, 03:40 AM	#9
MortFurd Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: An American in Germany Posts: 1,975	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Or equally poorly? Seriously, though, how many resolutions do you need? I just checked, mine works in three resolution settings and two color settings. What more do I need? Hans How about the ability to switch to a very low resolution? 800x600? Folks with really poor eyesight need for the text and icons to be large. Windows doesn't offer much in the way of scalable icons, and changing the default font size for Windows can really mess things up if you get a program that depends on the default font size. They shouldn't, but some do. I like CRTs better than LCDs. The previously mentioned view angle problem drives me batty, and I do change screen resolutions relatively often. LCDs aren't all that great for gamers, either. The "Overdrive" tricks the LCD monitor manufacturers use get the picture clear for rapidly moving objects come at the cost of delaying the video signal by a few frames. Only critical for high-end game freaks, I'll admit. For office work on a DVI port, LCD is OK. If you go to doing graphics, they aren't so great. The colors depend somewhat on you being dead smack in front of the monitor, so color calibration is difficult and you have to be careful where you sit.

5th March 2007, 05:08 AM	#10
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by MortFurd If you go to doing graphics, they aren't so great. The colors depend somewhat on you being dead smack in front of the monitor, so color calibration is difficult and you have to be careful where you sit. Not so. I'm a digital artist and swapped over from CRT to LCD a couple of years back. Proving you're looking at mid- to high-range models, LCD excels in practically every area. Base LCDs are horrific, admittedly, but so are base CRTs.
	__________________

5th March 2007, 05:20 AM	#11
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	I have a 21" ViewSonic P815 that I purchased for $2,200 in March, 1997. I'd love to replace it with a 30" flat panel, but how can I toss it out? It's still beautiful. The current price is about $250. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

5th March 2007, 06:24 AM	#12
Corpse Cruncher Guest Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: In the great cooking pot in the sky. Posts: 3,811	Originally Posted by baron Not so. I'm a digital artist and swapped over from CRT to LCD a couple of years back. Proving you're looking at mid- to high-range models, LCD excels in practically every area. Base LCDs are horrific, admittedly, but so are base CRTs. Digital artist, excuse my shameless ignorance what is one of those?

5th March 2007, 06:48 AM	#13
Ripley Twenty-Nine Muse Join Date: May 2005 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 867	Originally Posted by El Greco What about the ability to perform equally well in various resolutions ? The idea of having to run in 'various resolutions' is going to be outdated fairly soon. New (and upcoming) Operating Systems, including Windows Vista and Apple OS X Leopard are essentially 'resolution independent'. The idea is that all bitmaps, controls and fonts will scale based on your resolution. So on an 800x600 display, everything on screen will be the same size as with a 1280x1024 display; though obviously it will be much sharper on a higher resolution.
	__________________ Ripley 29 "Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?" "Yes I would, Kent."

5th March 2007, 06:54 AM	#14
GregC El Presidente Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Back at the front Posts: 3,244	At work I have a 20" Sony Trinitron CRT, at home a 18" LCD. The Sony is far superior in quality to the LCD. Working with graphics most of the day I appreciate having the CRT. Some of the more recent purchases of LCD monitors are showing the progress being made in their design but they are still not as good as a quality CRT. I am anxiously waiting for the quality to equal so that I can gain back some desktop space.
	__________________ "At 1.07 million pounds, the Skywalk is about as heavy as four Boeing 757 jets stacked atop one another." - 3/8/2007 AP report on the Hualapai skywalk over the Grand Canyon.

5th March 2007, 07:18 AM	#15
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,191	I do a lot of photography, but I haven't gone digital yet. I scan a lot of negs and slides, and I've found that recent LCD monitors are not bad. I just got a new computer and a relatively cheap but decent 17 inch LCD monitor with it, and it's much better at resolving zoomed images than my old one, which produced choppy results. It's also much better off axis. The previous one was very difficult to use for photography because the image varied so much with viewing angle. I had to be really careful. I'm not a real color geek and have not spent huge amounts of time calibrating and fussing with color spaces, because my printer is also far from state of the art, and I usually find it's easier and more effective to compare a print with the slide and say "that is/is not close enough." Of course digital photographers do not have that option. There are still some people holding out for CRT because it's possible to calibrate the color very precisely, and because of the CRT's ability to change resolution smoothly, but my guess is that they're on their way out as LCD's continue to improve. I'll never go back, in part because as displays get bigger, we get spoiled. I used to think a 14 inch monitor was fine, but now 17 seems none too big, and a CRT that size would not fit on my small computer desk!
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

5th March 2007, 07:34 AM	#16
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,602	Originally Posted by MortFurd How about the ability to switch to a very low resolution? 800x600? Folks with really poor eyesight need for the text and icons to be large. Well, thats one of the resolutions that mine offers. All a flat really requires is that the resolution is a direct multiple of the max resolution. But then, CRTs also work best if you comply with that. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

5th March 2007, 08:19 PM	#17
Learning Phase Scholar Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 92	I'm currently using CRT monitors on all my computers (Except laptops) and I'm considering changing them all soon to LCD. A few days ago, my father (age 81) purchased a low priced 17 inch LCD for my mother (she's 76). With her poor eyesight, she's always used a CRT set at 800*600, which avoids the problems with changing fonts/icons to get them large enough with higher resolutions. The 17 inch LCD, however, gave constant warnings about using it at anything other than the 1280x1024 resolution recommended by the manufacturer. They wanted to set it up without my help, but finally ended up calling me to assist. I spent a while attempting to make Windoze look good for her with the higher resolution, but she was never satisfied, as many of her favorite websites were set up for 800x600. Those websites and others didn't fill the screen, and often came out with tiny fonts that were impossible for her to read without squinting. I finally set the thing to 800x600, and was surprised to find that the scaling caused vertical bands of fuzziness, about every two inches, 1/4 inch wide. While you could call it readable, it was very uncomfortable to read. Doing a quick search, I found out that I could make the thing readable and clear by changing the refresh rate to 72. I'd often changed refresh rates, but never thought it would clear up fuzziness in an LCD. I then changed the monitor settings to eliminate the whining warnings about resolution. She's thrilled.
Learning Phase Scholar Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 92	__________________ "The United States has become a place where entertainers and professional athletes are mistaken for people of importance." Robert A. Heinlein

5th March 2007, 09:00 PM	#18
DRBUZZ0 Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: The Command Bunker Posts: 3,320	For a while CRT monitors really held the ground when it came to quality of image and contrast, as well as the ability to sync natively to multiple scan rates and resolutions. However, I think those days (for me) are past. While CRT's still may have more accurate color generation (it doesn't change based on the angle), the scaling and conversion of good high res LCD's has just about killed the whole multi-resolution argument. But when it comes down to it, I find LCD's to be a lot easier on my eyes. Despite the contrast of a good CRT, the constant flickering of it, although not explicitly visible definitely does a number on my eyes after a while. Since LCD monitors don't "scan" in the same way a CRT does, the light is relatively constant. I find it much less straining. But then again... that's just me.

5th March 2007, 09:41 PM	#19
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	I'm still looking for a way to run XP in greyscale. Can it be done on a CRT? I can find no way to do it on an LCD.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

5th March 2007, 10:10 PM	#20
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,337	Originally Posted by Corpse Cruncher I brought 1 LCD monitor, just because it took up less space. That said, I had 4 replacements of the same item, 1 and 3, blew up, 2 had huge pixel holes and number 4 is just fine. It does take getting use to. I found it odd compared to my old monitor. The picture does seem to better quality on the CRT but then I comment that it had an odd picture when I first got it. These days size appears to matter, less is more or at least slimline is more beneficial. I never played around with the settings of my old CRT monitor, what it was set to it stayed at. I suppose those with bad or weak eyesight might appreciate the CRT over LCD. I tried to sell my old 14 inch Digital CRT but nobody wanted it. How silly is this, I put a £5.00 price tag on it- nobody wanted it. Surely it was worth that? My CRT is about 8+years old, I don't think my LCD will last that long, they seem flimsy and not built to last. I would keep my CRT but space is a premium and it has no place living with me any longer. I do believe that the LCD market has effectively killed the CRT. People just leave them out the front of their homes around here, hoping someone will take it away.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

5th March 2007, 10:23 PM	#21
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,191	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam I'm still looking for a way to run XP in greyscale. Can it be done on a CRT? I can find no way to do it on an LCD. Most CRT's I've had in the past would allow you to turn the color down to desaturate it, but this doesn't answer the problem of finding colors that don't turn the same shade of gray when they're desaturated. Windows 3.x used to have a grayscale color setting, designed for monochrome laptops and monitors, but I can't find anything like that in XP either in the themes for windows itself or in the video settings. I suspect you're out of luck.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

5th March 2007, 10:35 PM	#22
Kopji Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Mogollon Rim Posts: 7,697	You could convert the VGA to composite video and display it on a black and white display. I hate CRT's, good riddance. I give them maybe two more years, until the HDTV standard fully kicks in. Is anyone even making 16x9 CRT's?

6th March 2007, 01:18 AM	#23
Corpse Cruncher Guest Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: In the great cooking pot in the sky. Posts: 3,811	Originally Posted by a_unique_person People just leave them out the front of their homes around here, hoping someone will take it away. Where I live it would be through my car windscreen. Selling a car with in thrown CRT screen is a lost cause I think.

6th March 2007, 02:53 AM	#24
RPG Advocate Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 279	LCD is the worst thing that's happened to the monitor market for people with low vision. I recently bought an LCD monitor to replace my 19 inch Trinitron. I found out the hard way that with LCDs, you get a choice. Either use it at its native resolution or get fuzzy text. At the native resolution of 1600x1200, I can't read anything with my 20/100 vision. So I down-rez to 1368x1024. The display is now the proper size, but the text is ultra-fuzzy and hard to read. I could run it at 800x600 to get an exact multiple, but that would be ridiculously large. I run the CRT at 1024x768. Now the LCD is sitting in a box, unused and I'm using my old CRT again. For TV, I'm just going to avoid LCD technology altogether and get the smallest plasma I can find when I upgrade from my 27" CRT TV. You can get 40" plasma units for less than $2000 now. By the time I'm ready to upgrade in 2008, I bet they'll clear $1500.

6th March 2007, 03:34 AM	#25
wahrheit Pac-Man Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,591	Originally Posted by RPG Advocate LCD is the worst thing that's happened to the monitor market for people with low vision. Originally Posted by Soapy Sam I'm still looking for a way to run XP in greyscale. Can it be done on a CRT? I can find no way to do it on an LCD. You can do that with a mouse click on a Mac. Additionally, there's a contrast slider and a button to reverse to white font on black background. And a neat zoom feature. Since this is in the operation system, it works with everything, not just web pages.
wahrheit Pac-Man Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,591	__________________ For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing continued to happen. D. Adams -- THHGTTG You're a sick man. The Atheist

6th March 2007, 04:44 AM	#26
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by Corpse Cruncher Digital artist, excuse my shameless ignorance what is one of those? Basically like a traditional artist but instead of paint and canvas I use this ~ http://www.corel.com/servlet/Content.../1166553885783 and one of these ~ http://www.wacom-europe.com/int/prod...ex.asp?lang=en
	__________________

6th March 2007, 05:21 AM	#27
Starthinker Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,014	I've found a problem with CRT's that no one has mentioned. The local dump wants $12 EACH! to drop them off. I have about 30 in perfect condition, 17" that no one wants and just to throw them away will cost $360 (how's that for a round number?). I can't give them away and even the thrift store won't take them as donations. If it's like this in other parts of the country I predict that you will start finding CRTs in ditches along with the old washing machines and tires.
	__________________ \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth.

6th March 2007, 05:41 AM	#28
Molinaro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,032	Originally Posted by Ripley Twenty-Nine The idea of having to run in 'various resolutions' is going to be outdated fairly soon. New (and upcoming) Operating Systems, including Windows Vista and Apple OS X Leopard are essentially 'resolution independent'. The idea is that all bitmaps, controls and fonts will scale based on your resolution. So on an 800x600 display, everything on screen will be the same size as with a 1280x1024 display; though obviously it will be much sharper on a higher resolution. Spoken like someone who doesn't play video games much. Taking a game designed for 800x600 and stretching it out to 1280x1024 would be a disaster. It would look far worse than a CRT that was in a native 800x600 resolution. CRTs are still far and above the better choice with games. Very expensive LCDs are good enough, but still not the same.
	__________________ 100% Cannuck!

6th March 2007, 06:19 AM	#29
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by Molinaro Spoken like someone who doesn't play video games much. Taking a game designed for 800x600 and stretching it out to 1280x1024 would be a disaster. It would look far worse than a CRT that was in a native 800x600 resolution. It wouldn't be good, no, but 800x600 --> 1600x1200 would be fine because it's an exact multiple scale-up. When I first got my LCD I thought the graphics looked slightly "blocky" at 1600x1200. Then I realised this was only because the display was so sharp I could clearly see each individual pixel.
	__________________

6th March 2007, 08:15 AM	#30
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,191	Originally Posted by Kopji You could convert the VGA to composite video and display it on a black and white display. I hate CRT's, good riddance. I give them maybe two more years, until the HDTV standard fully kicks in. Is anyone even making 16x9 CRT's? The problem with that, as I found out many years ago when I got my first TV-monitored computer (a Tandy color computer) is that simply running iin B&W does not change the video output to compensate for colors that render the same in gray. You can't play chess in monochrome if the red and green pieces come out the same shade of gray! Some of the same problems occur if you simply desaturate Windoze. The video output itself must be altered to produce distinctive shades.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

6th March 2007, 09:09 AM	#31
Ripley Twenty-Nine Muse Join Date: May 2005 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 867	Originally Posted by Molinaro Spoken like someone who doesn't play video games much. Taking a game designed for 800x600 and stretching it out to 1280x1024 would be a disaster. It would look far worse than a CRT that was in a native 800x600 resolution. I'm not sure I understand your argument. What kind of games are you talking about? Certainly not 3D games, considering the 3D engine scales the graphics to whatever resolution you want to run it in. I don't like running 3D shooters at really high resolutions because they don't scale the heads-up display properly, and it ends up being tiny on the screen. This solution would fix that. 2D games? Who would release a game that had a native resolution of 800x600? Especially considering most LCDs have a native resolution of 1280x1024 or higher, that would seem to be a pretty bad decision. Or are you talking about old games? Well, who cares about them??
	__________________ Ripley 29 "Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?" "Yes I would, Kent."

6th March 2007, 09:23 AM	#32
Molinaro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,032	I am absolutely talking about old games. Lots of people care about them. And lots of people would avoid buying a new piece of hardware that would make a fair amount of their old software less usable.
	__________________ 100% Cannuck!

6th March 2007, 12:10 PM	#33
bigred Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USA Posts: 12,542	Quote: New LCD screens are less bulky and have a larger display area; as of mid-2006, LCDs have become directly comparable in price to CRTs of the same display area. ? How do LCDs have a larger display area? And LCDs are not comparable in price (yet). wiki strikes again I love my LCD mostly because it saves space, is lighter, and near as I can tell I have lost nothing in terms of picture quality. And yes most stores (at least that I've been in) don't even sell CRTs anymore. They are all but dead..

6th March 2007, 12:19 PM	#34
Ripley Twenty-Nine Muse Join Date: May 2005 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 867	Originally Posted by Molinaro I am absolutely talking about old games. Lots of people care about them. And lots of people would avoid buying a new piece of hardware that would make a fair amount of their old software less usable. I understand. I was just being facetious anyway. Most games run in a resolution independent of the Operating System anyway; which is why your monitor will go black and 'click' into the new resolution when loading a game. Resolution independence for an Operating System would only apply to your desktop, and any programs running inside windows on the desktop. So King's Quest II would still run just fine on your 4GHz machine. Joking again!
	__________________ Ripley 29 "Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?" "Yes I would, Kent."

6th March 2007, 12:24 PM	#35
Ripley Twenty-Nine Muse Join Date: May 2005 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 867	Originally Posted by bigred ? How do LCDs have a larger display area? It's because of the 'bezel' of the monitor. The bezel is the frame around the viewable screen on a CRT or LCD monitor. When a monitor states the size as being 17", that usually refers to the viewable area, plus the bezel. Bezels are typically smaller on LCDs, meaning the viewable area is actually much closer to the advertised size of the monitor.
	__________________ Ripley 29 "Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?" "Yes I would, Kent."