5 ms·

CRTs were really good. They really were. I remember back in the day the HardOCP forum[0] had massive threads about people buying the FW900 in the mid-2000s. It

by nickjj 6y ago

CRTs were really good. They really were. I remember back in the day the HardOCP forum[0] had massive threads about people buying the FW900 in the mid-2000s. It definitely achieved legendary status. Sadly I never had a chance to use one. I remember having a 21" NEC that let me play Quake 2 / 3 at 120hz at 640x480 in the mid-late 1990s and I think I paid like $120 for it back then from one of those refurbished monitor sites. It also did 1600x1200 at 60hz for non-gaming. I still don't know how those refurbished sites stayed in business because they offered free shipping, but a decently sized CRT back then used to weigh like 60 pounds (30 kg). Back then I remember waiting so many years to get an LCD because the input latency, refresh rates and color accuracy were horrendous for so long despite being 3x the price. [0]: https://hardforum.com/threads/24-widescreen-crt-fw900-from-ebay-arrived-comments.952788/ https://hardforum.com/threads/24-widescreen-crt-fw900-from-e...

indymike 6y ago
For a long time the big advantage of LCD was just size and energy use. You lost a lot of the clarity with the conversion from analog VGA or SVGA signal in devices that predated DVI and HDMI connectors. It would be really hard to trade in my 28" 4k display for any CRT I've ever had.
- nickjj 6y ago
  > It would be really hard to trade in my 28" 4k display for any CRT I've ever had. Agreed. I use an LCD today (25" 2560x1440) and I'm happy with it. But I did wait until about 2007 or 2008 to get my first LCD which was a 1600x1200 Dell FP2007 (which still works the last time I plugged it in a year ago as a very temporary 2nd monitor while I waited for a replacement).
- Sebb767 6y ago
  For work, LCD is absolutely superior. Gaming - especially shooters -, however, are a totally different use-case: Refresh rate is absolutely necessary for quick reaction times, while something like readability is not as big of a factor (Games tend to use big and easy-to-read fonts). Of course, you still need some color quality to spot enemies, but it's very different from reading text for several hours.
  - paulcole 6y ago
    > Refresh rate is absolutely necessary for quick reaction times This reminds me of weekend warrior bicyclists dropping $5k on components to save a few ounces of weight and go a tiny bit faster. Most people are average enough at video games (or whatever their hobby of choice is) that they’re still going to be average whether they have a CRT or an LCD (or whatever pricy pice of gear they “need”). Sure it’s fun to spend money on your hobby but to say it’s “absolutely essential” is a little silly.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      When one craves that trance or flow state possible in gaming, average or not, the low latency may be essential. Relative to elite players, it won't matter. In terms of the experience? It really can be. We all get old. Enjoying what potential we have on the way through can be worth a little money. "Need" and "want" can be blurred here and it is OK.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      > This reminds me of weekend warrior bicyclists dropping $5k on components to save a few ounces of weight and go a tiny bit faster. Was in a high end bike store in Philadelphia in around 2007 or so (pre-crash). There's a guy in front of me at the repair desk who is holding a carbon fiber bottle cage. The tech is looking at it, because it's cracked. He tells the guy that he probably overtightened the bolt holding it on ("very easy to do on the carbon cages") and suggests that he just puts a metal (even titanium!) washer between the bolt and cage, and everything will be OK. Guy says "yeah, but the extra weight of the washer that would mean that it was pointless to buy the lightest possible cage" I interrupt and ask the Guy if he ever adds slightly too much powder to his energy drink when going out for a ride. /badaboom
      - paulcole 6y ago
        If the guy in question was an optometrist with a beer gut, it would match the ridiculousness of the conversations I’ve heard in Portland’s high end bike shops.
    - 6y ago
- garaetjjte 6y ago
  > You lost a lot of the clarity with the conversion from analog VGA or SVGA signal in devices that predated DVI and HDMI VGA connection on non-crap hardware and cables should have identical image to digital connections.
hakfoo 6y ago
In 2005, I went and bought a $400 19" LCD. In 2006, I pawned it off on the family and bought a $65 21" Sun-branded Trinitron CRT. Used it for a couple years then sold it to a co-worker for $25. It wasn't til 24" 1920x1200 LCDs became available that I felt like there was a wild improvement over a CRT. Yeah, the FW900 would be the same story, but you never saw those for sale locally.
zargon 6y ago
I had three FW900s that I got used around 2007. One from Craigslist and two from a liquidator. The liquidator ones had taken a bit of a beating. The craigslist one was great except for a couple inch diameter splotch of tinted image in one corner. I got rid of them during a move. Now that I know more about electronics repair I think they all could have been fixed. Doh.

by nickjj 6y ago

indymike 6y ago

For a long time the big advantage of LCD was just size and energy use. You lost a lot of the clarity with the conversion from analog VGA or SVGA signal in devices that predated DVI and HDMI connectors. It would be really hard to trade in my 28" 4k display for any CRT I've ever had.

nickjj 6y ago
> It would be really hard to trade in my 28" 4k display for any CRT I've ever had. Agreed. I use an LCD today (25" 2560x1440) and I'm happy with it. But I did wait until about 2007 or 2008 to get my first LCD which was a 1600x1200 Dell FP2007 (which still works the last time I plugged it in a year ago as a very temporary 2nd monitor while I waited for a replacement).
Sebb767 6y ago
For work, LCD is absolutely superior. Gaming - especially shooters -, however, are a totally different use-case: Refresh rate is absolutely necessary for quick reaction times, while something like readability is not as big of a factor (Games tend to use big and easy-to-read fonts). Of course, you still need some color quality to spot enemies, but it's very different from reading text for several hours.
- paulcole 6y ago
  > Refresh rate is absolutely necessary for quick reaction times This reminds me of weekend warrior bicyclists dropping $5k on components to save a few ounces of weight and go a tiny bit faster. Most people are average enough at video games (or whatever their hobby of choice is) that they’re still going to be average whether they have a CRT or an LCD (or whatever pricy pice of gear they “need”). Sure it’s fun to spend money on your hobby but to say it’s “absolutely essential” is a little silly.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    When one craves that trance or flow state possible in gaming, average or not, the low latency may be essential. Relative to elite players, it won't matter. In terms of the experience? It really can be. We all get old. Enjoying what potential we have on the way through can be worth a little money. "Need" and "want" can be blurred here and it is OK.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    > This reminds me of weekend warrior bicyclists dropping $5k on components to save a few ounces of weight and go a tiny bit faster. Was in a high end bike store in Philadelphia in around 2007 or so (pre-crash). There's a guy in front of me at the repair desk who is holding a carbon fiber bottle cage. The tech is looking at it, because it's cracked. He tells the guy that he probably overtightened the bolt holding it on ("very easy to do on the carbon cages") and suggests that he just puts a metal (even titanium!) washer between the bolt and cage, and everything will be OK. Guy says "yeah, but the extra weight of the washer that would mean that it was pointless to buy the lightest possible cage" I interrupt and ask the Guy if he ever adds slightly too much powder to his energy drink when going out for a ride. /badaboom
    - paulcole 6y ago
      If the guy in question was an optometrist with a beer gut, it would match the ridiculousness of the conversations I’ve heard in Portland’s high end bike shops.
  - 6y ago
garaetjjte 6y ago
> You lost a lot of the clarity with the conversion from analog VGA or SVGA signal in devices that predated DVI and HDMI VGA connection on non-crap hardware and cables should have identical image to digital connections.

hakfoo 6y ago

In 2005, I went and bought a $400 19" LCD. In 2006, I pawned it off on the family and bought a $65 21" Sun-branded Trinitron CRT. Used it for a couple years then sold it to a co-worker for $25. It wasn't til 24" 1920x1200 LCDs became available that I felt like there was a wild improvement over a CRT. Yeah, the FW900 would be the same story, but you never saw those for sale locally.

zargon 6y ago

I had three FW900s that I got used around 2007. One from Craigslist and two from a liquidator. The liquidator ones had taken a bit of a beating. The craigslist one was great except for a couple inch diameter splotch of tinted image in one corner. I got rid of them during a move. Now that I know more about electronics repair I think they all could have been fixed. Doh.