willbill <trek (AT) worldwide (DOT) net> wrote:
Because I won't be able to see the monitors in person. I want to see
them in person before I purchase. I want to be sure my eyes approve the
monitor.


Plus, shipping fees are expensive!!
--
"Not to engage in the pursuit of ideas is to live like ants instead of men." --Mortimer J. Adler
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
( )

Bob Myers wrote:


fwiw, CRT monitors are clearly still the best

i know that you know that, but it's clear to
me the bob myers is a fan boy of flat screen



fwiw, both my new Philips 22" CRT and 19" CRT
monitors are made in China

fwiw#2, i also have a very recent and very
decent 20" (4x3) Samsung 204B (1600x1200)

both Philips CRTs (shadom mask units) are
hands down better than the decent Samsung
204B flat screen, despite my aggrevation
with having to return them (the CRTs)
3x (so far)

no cost (for the returns) = no worries

assumming that the returned units will
give life for up to 10 years (like my
great ViewSonic 21" PT813 did)

i should be so lucky with the Samsung 204B

bill

Bob Myers wrote:


yes you are a "the"

do you still work for HP?

even if you don't, you clearly still
present youself as a "the"



very doubtful

in my extensive experience with the
web's usenet, yes you *are* a fan boy
of both flat screen PC monitors, and
also of Intel CPUs, even though you
very recently started an interesting
thread in the ..chips newsgroup
regarding you having actually
recently bought an AMD CPU/modo


what a bunch of crud!

again, do you still work for HP?



my very recent experience with CRT and
high end digital flat screen sez otherwize

the 800-pound gorilla is still the CRT
(in more ways than one). why is it that
you are so truly dumb on this?

you are a fan boy. admit it!

all ears

bill

"willbill" <trek (AT) worldwide (DOT) net> wrote

"Best" is a value judgement, and it clearly depends on exactly what
you're looking for in a monitor. There most definitely are some areas
in which the CRT excels - there are others where it doesn't. The right
choice of monitor depends on what each individual is looking for.

By the way, be a bit more careful with your attributions. I didn't
write anything you've quoted above. I THINK chrisv wrote the line
beginning with "Good luck with that...," and he's completely right.
It's hard to find retail outlets that are willing to give shelf space to
CRT products these days. Not impossible, just hard. The CRT
monitors which are available now are almost entirely low-cost, entry-
level products on which the retailer (and the manufacturer, for that
matter) sees very little margin. Not that LCDs are much more
profitable - monitor LCD panels, with the exception of the high end
of that market, are basically commodity items today, with prices
not much over manufacturing costs.

"The" bob myers? Wow...I'm a "the." But no, I'm not a "fan
boy" - I'm just someone who's been working in computer monitors
and other electronic displays for about 25 years now. The fact is
that the "flat screen," and specifically the LCD, is the 800-pound
gorilla in this market right now. It may not always be so (although
there's certainly nothing on the horizon which is going to challenge
the LCD in the short term), but for now, it IS the truth. The CRT
has had a long (over 100 years) and distinguished history - and as
I said, it IS still the best at SOME things. The problem is that those
"some things" are not sufficiently important to the overall market to
justify continued CRT production for mainstream products. Hence
we see CRT plants shut down. You might not like that, but that's
not going to change what IS.

Bob M.

"willbill" <trek (AT) worldwide (DOT) net> wrote


Yes, I do, although every time I say that I also need to note that
I do not speak for the company here or in any other newsgroup;
any opinions given here are strictly my own.


I suppose it depends on just what you mean by "fan boy".

Now you apparently have me confused with someone else
(not at all unusual, and there's even more than one person with
my name working for my employer). I have absolutely no
opinion on Intel vs. AMD CPUs, and I have never written
anything to a .chips newsgroup. Re flat screen monitors, I'm
not even really giving an opinion here on that - simply reporting
the realities of the market.

Not at all; if you have some reason for disbelieving my
professional background, you might want to give it here.

By "800 pound gorilla in this market," I refer to the fact that
LCD monitors presently account for well over 80% of the
worldwide desktop monitor market (by unit volume; in terms
of revenue, the LCD is already over 90% of the total dollar
volume of the market), and the share by both measures is
increasing. Almost all of the major manufacturers of high-end
CRT monitors have either exited the market or announced their
intention to do so (e.g., Sony, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Hitachi,
etc.); the remaining CRT displays in the desktop monitor market
are very low-end, entry level products, and a very, very few
high-end, specialized displays. If your "very recent experience"
contradicts any of this, then please state your case. Note that
this isn't about advantages or disadvantages in any given area
of performance - as I said, the CRT still enjoys some advantages
vs the LCD (or even other technologies). But even that situation
is very rapidly changing. And again, please note that I'm saying
nothing here regarding my own personal preferences (in point
of fact, I regularly use two different desktop monitors - one LCD,
and one CRT). But I also know the difference betwee personal
preference, and what's actually happening in the industry.

Bob M.

"willbill" <trek (AT) worldwide (DOT) net> wrote

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the "gray
scale" is better - a better response curve, greater
dynamic range, what? Better blacks - unless you're
using the CRT under dark-room conditions, where the
lower black level is actually perceivable, I doubt this;
but if you ARE using the CRT in the dark, it should be
noted that this remaining advantage of the CRT is
rapidly going away. The CRT is no longet the champion
in terms of contrast/dynamic range (it's not the LCD, either
current, but LCDs ARE rapidly getting better in that regard).
By "response," I can only assume you mean response time -
and that is the other remaining major difference between the
two technologies. CRTs are faster in terms of response, but
it's also a very different sort of response - the CRT being
a true raster-scan device, while the LCD basically is a
"write and hold" sort of display. LCDs are now widely
available with response times well under a video frame
time - down in the 5 ms range and under - but the "hold"
behavior still makes for a different "look" to the display.
Various techniques are now being used to improve what's
called the "motion picture response time" - different from the
simple on/off transition rate - but those have to date mostly
been used in TV panels. They're only starting to trickle into
the monitor market.

But even that shows a very significant difference between the
two technologies - significant development is still going on in
the case of the LCD and other types. I can't recall the last
truly significant paper I saw on a new development in CRT
technology. R&D dollars go where the future is.

Bob M.

Bob Myers wrote:


congrats, and i really mean that

otoh and imo and fwiw, your open anti
CRT position may risk your job



agreed

you've been very upfront with stating
that every time i've seen



to me "fan boy" means:
one who supports a future position even
though it isn't merited in the present

that was especially true 3 years ago,
when you posted strongly in favor of
flatscreen; also i'll grant that it's
a still closer call (against you) today



interesting

we have a jerk by your name on the ..chips
n/g posting to his now being an owner of AMD
mobo/CPU, but still being a believer of Intel. :\

(see: Re: My lack of enthusiasm for AMD
dated: 1/12/2007)



still sez to me that you are a flat
screen fan boy

i have a very recent Samsung 204B 20" flatscreen
(1600x1200) and a recent Philips 22" and 19" CRT

both CRTs get my vote over the 204B flatscreen

am i missing something?

bill

/Bob Myers wrote:



interesting you'd focus in on my last sentence

this is my recent experience with my 22"
Philips CRT

it does better blacks and gray scale and
response, and has usable res up to 1920x1440
(actually to 2048x1536, but i've not (so far)
pushed it to that)

ok, exactly how long has it been since you've
used any CRT for over a month? my bet is years

meaning you don't make judgements like this
in an hour or a week or even a month

also, the OP is pretty clearly goning to
buy a flat screen, so why are you posting?

let's see: because *i* am in favor of CRT?

why is it that you feel sooo threatened by
anyone openly posting in favor of the CRT?

i mean, CRTs are clearly in their death thros (sp?)



"rapidly going away" is true

meaning that the CRTs that are still left, have
merit over the best/latest flat screens, but not
as much as a year or two ago

meaning that you have been (3 years ago,
when flat screen had limited merit over CRT)
a major fan boy of flat screen PC monitors

i simply don't get it



geez

flat screen fan boy sums it up



the issue in this thread isn't where
the R&D bucks are going

the issue is if the last of the CRT monitors
still have merit over flat screen monitors

my vote is that they still do

bill

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease (AT) address (DOT) invalid> wrote


[...]

Ain't that the truth. I'm so glad I got my 19" Mitsubishi Diamond Digital
just before they disappeared.

"willbill" <trek (AT) worldwide (DOT) net> wrote


Sorry, but you're still confused about this; nothing I'm saying
here has to do with "my" position one way or the other. I
am merely reporting what IS already going on in the market,
and what we can reasonably expect to happen in the future.
My personal preferences don't enter into that.


OK - but in that case, I would say you've yet to show why
anything I have said about the future of this industry isn't
merited.

So let's see how things are going here - you're saying that
3 years ago, I posted "strongly in favor of flatscreen,"
which I'm assuming means I posted something suggesting that
the non-CRT display types (and specifically the LCD) would
take over the market. They've done exactly that. Three years
ago from right now - in other words, early 2004, the CRT was
still just barely the #1 display in the market in unit-volume terms.
It had already lost that position in terms of revenues. It lost the
unit-volume leadership by the end of that year, and now enjoys
an under-20% (and declining) market share. So what, exactly,
did I say 3 years ago that was incorrect?


Could very well be; I'm certainly aware that my name isn't
all that unusual. I know of three "Bob Myers" in my local
area besides myself, and as many as FIVE of us have worked
for my present employer at the same time. I, of course, can
take no responsibility for what any of the others might have to
say on any given subject.

Since you didn't say anything further on this, shall I assume that
you no longer consider the above statement to be "a bunch of
crud?"


Only that your personal preferences - or mine, for that matter -
aren't what drive this market.

Bob M.