4 ms·

> Computer quality has continuously improved since their inception. Not really. For example the switch to LCD monitors from CRT was a step back in quality. L

> Computer quality has continuously improved since their inception. Not really. For example the switch to LCD monitors from CRT was a step back in quality. LCD was just way cheaper and more convenient as in taking less space that regardless of worse quality it still took over. It took many years for the various aspects of image / video quality to catch up. There are plenty of similar examples where price decrease was what driving the industry rather than quality. In general, shrinking form-factor brought lots of drops in quality, because it's harder to make various electronic parts smaller and as durable. Opening markets to wider range of players (eg. "the PC revolution") is also bound to bring drops in quality as many inexperienced players will be seeking to enter the market and typically contest the lower bound of quality. It's only when the industry stabilizes on some standard and creates a group of experienced players who compete for the same niche is when it's possible for the quality to continuously increase. Did something like this happen in the 90s and 00s? -- I don't know. From software perspective, I think about those years as the time when the decline started to accelerate, and I see us still on the decline of software quality in general. But I don't know what the author is referring to.

mcv 3y ago
> LCD was just way cheaper and more convenient as in taking less space that regardless of worse quality it still took over. They were definitely not cheaper at first. But taking up less space is also a quality. You often get trade-offs like that. You often get things that are faster, but they produce more heat. Early SSDs were faster, but had less capacity than HDDs. It's still part of progress, and these technologies often exist side by side for a while before for a lot of people, the trade-off means they prefer the older tech, until the newer tech catches up on the attributes it was less good at. > In general, shrinking form-factor brought lots of drops in quality, because it's harder to make various electronic parts smaller and as durable. Again, different aspects of quality. The fact that computers now fit in your pocket instead of taking up an entire room is progress. It enables new ways to use them. Early laptops were not an attractive replacement for many desktop uses, but now they generally are. But still not quite for all (I just bought a new desktop PC).
- crabbone 3y ago
  Let's be adults here. When we are talking about a quality of monitor, we are talking about colors, refresh rate, precision etc. Form factor is one of the least important metrics. Don't even try to pretend they are somehow comparable in terms of quality. It's making an argument for the sake of making an argument. It's like claiming that fast-food may be better in quality than home-cooked food because it's faster to "cook".
zajio1am 3y ago
> Not really. For example the switch to LCD monitors from CRT was a step back in quality. LCD was just way cheaper and more convenient as in taking less space that regardless of worse quality it still took over. That pretty much depends on quality metric. I switched (in late 90s) from big 17" CRT to 14" (TN) LCD just because it has incomparably sharper image and no issues with refresh flickering. Yes, it has crap viewing angles and contrast (and probably also colors), but that does not really matter as much as sharp image.
- crabbone 3y ago
  > just because it has incomparably sharper image and no issues with refresh flickering. You probably had an extremely bad CRT, but got a very good LCD monitor. Typically, the situation would've been the exact opposite of yours. Early LCDs were incapable of supporting high refresh rates of high-end CRTs (that's why for a long time people in e-sports were using CRTs). Also, the physical "pixels" of best LCD monitors were still bigger than those of CRTs. This is what eventually resulted in OTF fonts adoption with a lot of trickery in sub-pixel interpolation... which sucked a lot when it just started, and still sucks, but not as much.

mcv 3y ago

> LCD was just way cheaper and more convenient as in taking less space that regardless of worse quality it still took over. They were definitely not cheaper at first. But taking up less space is also a quality. You often get trade-offs like that. You often get things that are faster, but they produce more heat. Early SSDs were faster, but had less capacity than HDDs. It's still part of progress, and these technologies often exist side by side for a while before for a lot of people, the trade-off means they prefer the older tech, until the newer tech catches up on the attributes it was less good at. > In general, shrinking form-factor brought lots of drops in quality, because it's harder to make various electronic parts smaller and as durable. Again, different aspects of quality. The fact that computers now fit in your pocket instead of taking up an entire room is progress. It enables new ways to use them. Early laptops were not an attractive replacement for many desktop uses, but now they generally are. But still not quite for all (I just bought a new desktop PC).

crabbone 3y ago
Let's be adults here. When we are talking about a quality of monitor, we are talking about colors, refresh rate, precision etc. Form factor is one of the least important metrics. Don't even try to pretend they are somehow comparable in terms of quality. It's making an argument for the sake of making an argument. It's like claiming that fast-food may be better in quality than home-cooked food because it's faster to "cook".

zajio1am 3y ago

> Not really. For example the switch to LCD monitors from CRT was a step back in quality. LCD was just way cheaper and more convenient as in taking less space that regardless of worse quality it still took over. That pretty much depends on quality metric. I switched (in late 90s) from big 17" CRT to 14" (TN) LCD just because it has incomparably sharper image and no issues with refresh flickering. Yes, it has crap viewing angles and contrast (and probably also colors), but that does not really matter as much as sharp image.

crabbone 3y ago
> just because it has incomparably sharper image and no issues with refresh flickering. You probably had an extremely bad CRT, but got a very good LCD monitor. Typically, the situation would've been the exact opposite of yours. Early LCDs were incapable of supporting high refresh rates of high-end CRTs (that's why for a long time people in e-sports were using CRTs). Also, the physical "pixels" of best LCD monitors were still bigger than those of CRTs. This is what eventually resulted in OTF fonts adoption with a lot of trickery in sub-pixel interpolation... which sucked a lot when it just started, and still sucks, but not as much.