Anybody use 24"+ CRT/LCD widescreen monitors?

[Jackyl]

After serving me well for 4 years or so, my buddy Sony FW900 (24" Widescreen Trinitron CRT) is starting to fail... ; ;

I've been a devout CRT fan despite the trend of LCD monitors for the last 10 years or so. I was just wondering, what moniors do you guys use? Particularly I'm interested in 24"+ widescreen monitors. From what I've seen so far, an LCD can be quite nice when displaying still images, but they just can't compare to a high quality CRT monitor when it comes to high FPS/movement games and movies.

Any suggestions?

Dell UltraSharp 3007FPW looks kinda tasty...

[Alleya]

LCD has had par response time with CRT for about 4 years now.

[Sonomaa]

3 19LCDs and 1 17LCD, no wides yet, but the dell ones are really awesome

[killerc4]

I switched from a 22" NEC FE1250+ to a Dell 24" 2405FPW, it was really really bright for a little bit but after a week i got used to it XD. Pretty happy with the switch.

[kareface]

LCD has had par response time with CRT for about 4 years now.

No.. no they haven't. The latest "gaming" model sony boasts a response time twice that of my CRT. My friend went to CPL being sponsored by sony, they provided those LCD's as part of the deal. They did well in CPL but they said that those LCDs are still nothing like a CRT. LCD responce times in reality are the best times they could they could achieve in the ideal environment. In heavy movment the delay is still noticeable.

[Zigma]

LCD has had par response time with CRT for about 4 years now.

No.. no they haven't. The latest "gaming" model sony boasts a response time twice that of my CRT. My friend went to CPL being sponsored by sony, they provided those LCD's as part of the deal. They did well in CPL but they said that those LCDs are still nothing like a CRT. LCD responce times in reality are the best times they could they could achieve in the ideal environment. In heavy movment the delay is still noticeable.

Most of the manufacturers have come up with very fast response times and gamers can now consider buying an LCD monitor. As far as photo editing goes, there are some of us who still have to rely on the CRT monitors since the ultimate color purity that the CRT offers for editing colors cannot be had in an LCD monitor. This color purity issue prob have already been addressed in the manufacturer’s labs but a commercially viable product which an average Joe can afford has not yet hit the market.

The "gamers" needs have been adequately addressed as the LCD monitors available in the market have very fast response times – as low as 12 ms and getting better. These response times are fast enough to even satisfy die hard gamers who want the best and are not willing to compromise.

[kareface]

LCD has had par response time with CRT for about 4 years now.

No.. no they haven't. The latest "gaming" model sony boasts a response time twice that of my CRT. My friend went to CPL being sponsored by sony, they provided those LCD's as part of the deal. They did well in CPL but they said that those LCDs are still nothing like a CRT. LCD responce times in reality are the best times they could they could achieve in the ideal environment. In heavy movment the delay is still noticeable.

Most of the manufacturers have come up with very fast response times and gamers can now consider buying an LCD monitor. As far as photo editing goes, there are some of us who still have to rely on the CRT monitors since the ultimate color purity that the CRT offers for editing colors cannot be had in an LCD monitor. This color purity issue prob have already been addressed in the manufacturer’s labs but a commercially viable product which an average Joe can afford has not yet hit the market.

The "gamers" needs have been adequately addressed as the LCD monitors available in the market have very fast response times – as low as 12 ms and getting better. These response times are fast enough to even satisfy die hard gamers who want the best and are not willing to compromise.

The gamers needs have been adequately addressed as the LCD monitors available in the market have very fast response times – as low as 12 ms and getting better. These response times are fast enough to even satisfy die hard gamers who want the best and are not willing to compromise.

You could at least quote the artical you stole that from:
http://www.pcreview.co.uk/articles/Cons ... CD_vs_CRT/

[Avvesione]

I perfer FFXI on my new LCD screen (even though it is darker and my PC is much better) but when I'm seriously editing photos or doing something important, I'll go back to my old computer with its CRT monitor and do things on it.

As far as gaming monitors, I'll stick with LCD because I'm use to them now.

Btw, this monitor is 8ms, but I can't tell the difference really between this and a 12ms monitor.

[kareface]

Here, to make it clear:

http://www.maxpc.co.uk/tips/default.asp ... tionid=542

This is a great artical and helps explain what I was talking about eariler.

When you are shopping for an LCD screen, the first thing the manufacturer will tell you, after the diagonal size, is the response time in milliseconds. Now you probably think that if the pixels take 25ms to change state, then that means your screen can update at 40 frames a second, which is just about okay for games. However, this is because you are a Naïve Fool who has swallowed The Marketing Lie. That 25ms is the time it takes for pixels to change from black to white. If the pixels are changed to an intermediate grey, the response time is much, much longer because the liquid crystal molecules take a while to settle down at their new arbitrary rotation angle.

If you are scrolling black on white text on your LCD monitor (as I am now), the response time may be acceptably fast. But if you are playing Thief, where everything is a shade of dark grey, you’ll see response times as high as 90ms on some panels. That’s just 11fps. Or it would be if it was constant across the whole screen.

Even will really low rep. LCDs, the more action and color changes you have on your screen, the higher your response will be. 12ms is under the "Ideal" conditions, and if your playing a game, even the fast LCDs can shoot up to 40+ms delay.

Edit: typo

[Meilyn]

Do what I do: Dual monitor display, CRT on one side for things where it matters, LCD on the other for things where it doesnt. Works perfect for me.

[RustyMetal]

dell 24" widescreen

[Toadicus]

Since we're on the topic of monitors, can anyone explain to me why the native resolution of most LCD monitors are 1280x1024 when that's not a 4:3 ratio? 1280x960=800x600=1600x1200, why did every manufacturer use an odd size that is more of a square?

[Volken]

LCD has had par response time with CRT for about 4 years now.

No.. no they haven't. The latest "gaming" model sony boasts a response time twice that of my CRT. My friend went to CPL being sponsored by sony, they provided those LCD's as part of the deal. They did well in CPL but they said that those LCDs are still nothing like a CRT. LCD responce times in reality are the best times they could they could achieve in the ideal environment. In heavy movment the delay is still noticeable.

Most of the manufacturers have come up with very fast response times and gamers can now consider buying an LCD monitor. As far as photo editing goes, there are some of us who still have to rely on the CRT monitors since the ultimate color purity that the CRT offers for editing colors cannot be had in an LCD monitor. This color purity issue prob have already been addressed in the manufacturer’s labs but a commercially viable product which an average Joe can afford has not yet hit the market.

The "gamers" needs have been adequately addressed as the LCD monitors available in the market have very fast response times – as low as 12 ms and getting better. These response times are fast enough to even satisfy die hard gamers who want the best and are not willing to compromise.

The gamers needs have been adequately addressed as the LCD monitors available in the market have very fast response times – as low as 12 ms and getting better. These response times are fast enough to even satisfy die hard gamers who want the best and are not willing to compromise.

You could at least quote the artical you stole that from:
http://www.pcreview.co.uk/articles/Cons ... CD_vs_CRT/

Zigma = http://www.google.com ?

[Genosync]

The only good explaination:

Zigma wrote that article.


NEXT!

[mrfridays]

You could at least quote the artical you stole that from:

This is a great artical and helps explain what I was talking about eariler.

What the fuck is an "artical"?

[kareface]

+

=
artical

Its alot like an article, only with more e-penis.

[Zigma]

LCD has had par response time with CRT for about 4 years now.

No.. no they haven't. The latest "gaming" model sony boasts a response time twice that of my CRT. My friend went to CPL being sponsored by sony, they provided those LCD's as part of the deal. They did well in CPL but they said that those LCDs are still nothing like a CRT. LCD responce times in reality are the best times they could they could achieve in the ideal environment. In heavy movment the delay is still noticeable.

Most of the manufacturers have come up with very fast response times and gamers can now consider buying an LCD monitor. As far as photo editing goes, there are some of us who still have to rely on the CRT monitors since the ultimate color purity that the CRT offers for editing colors cannot be had in an LCD monitor. This color purity issue prob have already been addressed in the manufacturer’s labs but a commercially viable product which an average Joe can afford has not yet hit the market.

The "gamers" needs have been adequately addressed as the LCD monitors available in the market have very fast response times – as low as 12 ms and getting better. These response times are fast enough to even satisfy die hard gamers who want the best and are not willing to compromise.

The gamers needs have been adequately addressed as the LCD monitors available in the market have very fast response times – as low as 12 ms and getting better. These response times are fast enough to even satisfy die hard gamers who want the best and are not willing to compromise.

You could at least quote the artical you stole that from:
http://www.pcreview.co.uk/articles/Cons ... CD_vs_CRT/

don't be jealous that I know how to use the internets better then you.

[vudoodoodoo]

Most people won't even notice the difference probably. They just wanna show off their OMG 8ms l337 response time yo.