5 ms·

1. they're Thinner And Lighter™ 2. ...err... 3. ...that's it...

• tshaddox 4y ago
  And also vastly higher resolution, pixel density, contrast ratio, brightness, color depth, and display sizes. Oh and vastly lower energy consumption and heat output.
  • ahartmetz 4y ago
    No to contrast ratio and color depth. Contrast: The electron gun can turn off (OLEDs as well btw), LCDs will always bleed some backlight (although they have region dimming now). Color depth: only limited by GPU's RAMDAC, 10 bits were available in some Matrox cards.
  • dncornholio 4y ago
    No no no, CRT's weren't THAT bad. They were actually pretty good on all your points except energy. We definitely made some compromises on resolution, color depth, latency on LCD's.
• andsoitis 4y ago
  More comprehensive list or trade offs between the two: https://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html https://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html
  • marcinzm 4y ago
    That seems to be a decade out of date at this point.
    • andsoitis 4y ago
      What is the latest in CRT technology so that one can compare?
  • qayxc 4y ago
    Wow, that list is so outdated, it's not even funny. Most of the negatives listed on the LCD side have been non-issues for years (e.g. viewing angles).
    • washadjeffmad 4y ago
      There are many different panel technologies, and some do have poor viewing angles as a tradeoff for other features. I own a 10-bit 4K Innolux VA panel from 2013 that washes out with vertical orientation, and a similar spec LG TV from 2019 that does the same. Both are better than TN panels but still make it hard to look at while standing or laying down.