3 ms·

LCDs had much less screen real estate compared to CRTs which could run much higher resolutions. The first generations of LCDs were quite inferior on everything

by tjoff 9y ago

LCDs had much less screen real estate compared to CRTs which could run much higher resolutions. The first generations of LCDs were quite inferior on everything but form factor and power consumption.

dsego 9y ago
Much higher resolutions at lower refresh rates and way too much flicker.
- tjoff 9y ago
  Depends on the display, yes you could run too high of a resolution on many CRTs but a good one maintained flicker-free operation and focus.
Nursie 9y ago
> LCDs had much less screen real estate compared to CRT Oh sure, in terms of resolution I went from the CRT being able to do 1600x1200 back to an LCD that could do 1280x1024 (IIRC). But the physical screen sizes were bigger very quickly, that's what I meant. CRTs were certainly superior in terms of image, response time and resolution. But when I could buy a larger flat panel at 1280x1024 with a 16ms response time for a couple of hundred pounds... buh-bye forever CRT.
- tjoff 9y ago
  In practice CRTs went up tp 22", LCDs eventually matched that with the 20" displays, but that didn't exactly happen overnight. You are comparing an old and small CRT to an LCD of a different era. You could have bought a better and just as big CRT instead if you had wanted to. (Not saying that you should have, but I find it weird to state that LCDs were bigger, that happened when the 24" widescreens arrived (at a ludicrous price)).
  - Nursie 9y ago
    >> In practice CRTs went up tp 22" Yeah but they were massive and still heavy. I'm not sure I ever met a CRT monitor over 19". LCDs larger than that became cost effective sometime around 05-06 ish. It wasn't much after that I got a widescreen too.
    - rlonstein 9y ago
      > I'm not sure I ever met a CRT monitor over 19". Many years ago I delivered and set up 22" and, I think 24", Cornerstone and Sony branded monitors for banking, drafting, and medical use when I worked for VARs. They were beasts to lift but beautiful displays. I personally bought and used for many years a Mitsubishi Diamond CRT display with the NEC version of the Trinitron tube because it had multiple inputs (and I had all kinds of adapters) and would happily sync to nearly anything- Sun, Mac, SGI, pc, composite.
      - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
        I used to work on an Iiyama Pro 510 22". It weighed more than 70lbs and literally bent my (very 90s) trestle desk. The image was fine, but not memorably outstanding. I remember colour calibration was a real problem. I wasn't unhappy when LCD monitors took over.

by tjoff 9y ago

LCDs had much less screen real estate compared to CRTs which could run much higher resolutions. The first generations of LCDs were quite inferior on everything but form factor and power consumption.

dsego 9y ago

Much higher resolutions at lower refresh rates and way too much flicker.

tjoff 9y ago
Depends on the display, yes you could run too high of a resolution on many CRTs but a good one maintained flicker-free operation and focus.

Nursie 9y ago

> LCDs had much less screen real estate compared to CRT Oh sure, in terms of resolution I went from the CRT being able to do 1600x1200 back to an LCD that could do 1280x1024 (IIRC). But the physical screen sizes were bigger very quickly, that's what I meant. CRTs were certainly superior in terms of image, response time and resolution. But when I could buy a larger flat panel at 1280x1024 with a 16ms response time for a couple of hundred pounds... buh-bye forever CRT.

tjoff 9y ago
In practice CRTs went up tp 22", LCDs eventually matched that with the 20" displays, but that didn't exactly happen overnight. You are comparing an old and small CRT to an LCD of a different era. You could have bought a better and just as big CRT instead if you had wanted to. (Not saying that you should have, but I find it weird to state that LCDs were bigger, that happened when the 24" widescreens arrived (at a ludicrous price)).
- Nursie 9y ago
  >> In practice CRTs went up tp 22" Yeah but they were massive and still heavy. I'm not sure I ever met a CRT monitor over 19". LCDs larger than that became cost effective sometime around 05-06 ish. It wasn't much after that I got a widescreen too.
  - rlonstein 9y ago
    > I'm not sure I ever met a CRT monitor over 19". Many years ago I delivered and set up 22" and, I think 24", Cornerstone and Sony branded monitors for banking, drafting, and medical use when I worked for VARs. They were beasts to lift but beautiful displays. I personally bought and used for many years a Mitsubishi Diamond CRT display with the NEC version of the Trinitron tube because it had multiple inputs (and I had all kinds of adapters) and would happily sync to nearly anything- Sun, Mac, SGI, pc, composite.
    - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
      I used to work on an Iiyama Pro 510 22". It weighed more than 70lbs and literally bent my (very 90s) trestle desk. The image was fine, but not memorably outstanding. I remember colour calibration was a real problem. I wasn't unhappy when LCD monitors took over.