3 ms·

> They seem obsessed with simulated really bad CRTs. Good PC flat screen CRTs towards the end of the CRT era looked as good as you could ask for. By modern sta

• hulitu 4y ago
  There were some who could do 120 Hz although for small resolutions. But hidpi was common. It took LCD monitors 10 years to catch up with hidpi and the colours are still problematic on the majority of LCDs.
  • gattilorenz 4y ago
    120Hz was not that uncommon in the last years of CRTs, they could actually go higher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySQzXpYETXc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySQzXpYETXc I guess it all depends on what you define as "small resolutions". My stupid ADI monitor from 97 could do 1024x768@85Hz
• ogurechny 4y ago
  > 120 Hz It always irks me that everyone seem to have completely forgotten that CRT monitors were routinely used in 75 Hz and 85 Hz (and even higher rates) and with various resolutions instead of the one and only 60 Hz in native resolution as with most LCD monitors. 60 Hz meant “I can't configure Windows” or “my video card or monitor can't handle more than that with resolution that high”.
  • 323 4y ago
    Because it sacrificed pixel accuracy - the horizontal lines were a continuous signal and the pixels kind of blurred into each other. Looking at a CRT monitor side by side with a LCD one was quite revealing - even a last generation 2005 CRT monitor with digital controls and OSD was a blurry mess. If you want both fast refresh rates and pixel accuracy, well, you kind of need today's technology. Not possible back then.