3 ms·
I suspect only people who've never used a CRT would use this sort of thing ;) I used CRTs for years (naturally... I'm in my late 30s) and, without fail, they s
by to3m 12y ago
I suspect only people who've never used a CRT would use this sort of thing ;)
I used CRTs for years (naturally... I'm in my late 30s) and, without fail, they sucked. If they weren't long-persistence, they were flickery; if they were, they were smeary, even by the standards of ancient mono laptops. If they were flat-screened, focus was inconsistent. Large ones were expensive (and by "large" I mean "19 inch"), and you lost some screen area from the bezel.
If you found one that didn't have any of these problems, it was probably enormously expensive. But even your enormously expensive one wouldn't look quite pin-sharp at 1600x1200. (Unless it was truly enormously expensive, and was a 22+ inches diagonal.)
And whatever you did, they took up a huge amount of space, used a vast amount of electricity, and emitted a lot of radiation (though nobody ever seemed to be quite clear on whether this was actually bad for you).
And what nobody seems to remember is how rather unreliable they are. Failure rate for the LCDs I've owned: 0%. For the CRTs? 100%. None made it past six years.
If you like them for games, great. Enjoy your youthful ability to detect those extra 10ms of latency while you still have it, that's what I say! But for a terminal? You're nuts.
- 13 12y agoI'm not sure they ever released that much radiation. It's hard to find non crackpot sources of information, but in mono displays there's surely not high enough voltages for that. The back of my oscilloscope (a mono display pretty much) mentions X-ray emissiom but on some ridiculously small scale.
- chadillac 12y agoI bought a "decommissioned" Sony Trinitron monitor for $200 from a company I worked at at the time. It was 27" flat screen, and glorious, was amazing for gaming and counter-strike. Now, carrying it up 3 flights of stairs on the other hand almost made the cheap price not worth it. That thing must have weighed 50lbs.
- to3m 12y ago27"! I never saw a monitor that large. I think 22" was the largest. Even TVs didn't go all that much larger than 27", particularly 4:3 ones. And a Trinitron too! That must have been spitefully expensive to buy...
- disposablename 12y agoSony definitely made a 24" Trinitron monitor: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00004YNSR/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00004YNSR/ and a 34" widescreen TV: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0002NDFKM/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0002NDFKM/
- to3m 12y agoCRTs that large were pretty rare, though. Monitors tended to stop at 21" (by which point they were a good foot deep, if not more...), and I'm less certain about TVs, but I'd be surprised if even 34" ones were all that common. If nothing else, they're an absolute bugger to move. My parents' 31" widescreen CRT was an absolute monster... my back still twinges just thinking about it.