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


I still don't know what you mean by "better gray
scale" or "response" - I've given my guesses as to
what you might mean, earlier - but until you clarify
this it's going to be hard to comment further.

Sorry, you lose - and apparently didn't read my last
post very closely. I've got a CRT monitor in regular use,
AND an LCD monitor in regular use as well. I've also
formally evaluated literally dozens of examples of both
types over the years.


To clear up some misunderstandings and erroneous information
that was presented earlier in this thread.

Nope; doesn't make a hill of beans difference to me one way
or the other. I don't even have any idea who you are, so why
would YOU being in favor of CRTs concern me?

I don't. But if someone posts - in ADDITION to statements
relating to personal preference - erroneous information relating
to the behavior of a given technology or the state of the display
industry/market overall, I'm going to correct that. Sorry if this
offends you.

Bob M.

DRS wrote:




that sums it up nicely.

fwiw, you can find some still useful info
on CRT monitors and the old (still useful)
Nokia ntest.exe program (for Windows 98/2k/xp)
at www.repairfaq.org

(http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_Repair.html

and

http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/crtfaq.htm

and

http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/deflfaq.htm

and...)

the ntest program is buried somewhere,
but worth finding.

bill

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:55:10 GMT, Bob Myers wrote:


I think your the same dipshit that tried to hoodwink me into thinking LCD
is better than CRT. Want to know how I know CRT is better? My eyes tell me
so. I'm not going to debate the pros and cons of each but suffice it to say
a good CRT is better than any LCD you could possible show me in almost
every area. Not every area but enough to make the CRT still the clear
winner for anyone that cares about image quality.

DRS wrote:

8) My work monitor is a 19" Mitsu Diamond Pro 930 SB. Great monitor
- sharp as a tack. My home monitor is a 21" Sony F500R, which is
absolutely fabulous in every way - hope it lasts forever. 8)

"Pipboy" <no (AT) email (DOT) invalid> wrote

Assuming you mean "you're" - no, I'm not. Your buying decisions
are just exactly that - YOURS - and I wouldn't try to talk you out
of whatever you want to decide.

Bingo. The CRT IS better, according to YOUR preferences and
in YOUR application. But what that really means is that there is
no such thing as one display technology being "better" than another,
except in terms of very specific and objective performance parameters.
What's best for a given individual or appplication is always a question
of personal preferences and needs. Where this discussion always
runs into trouble is when people start thinking that their personal
preferences are somehow fundamental laws of the universe, or
actually have something to do with an imagined inherent "goodness"
about a particular technology. I can tell you where the CRT is
objectively superior (i.e., in terms of the raw numbers), and I can
tell you where the LCD is objectively superior. Which one is "right"
for YOU is completely up to you.

The bottom line is that I have no objection to anyone saying "I
prefer CRTs" OR "I prefer LCDs." When the conversation heads
off into flat statements of "This one IS better," that's when I'm going
to object.

Bob M.

Bob Myers wrote:


odds are that you are that dipship

at least that's what i've thought of
you for the last 3+ years with your
video n/g posting

i mean you've posted in favor of flatscreen
here for the last 3+ years



that is way too offbase

you've clearly posted in favor of
flatscreen this past 3+ years

yet here you are laying rest to that
and now saying that the decision is
"YOURS"


"objective" vs subjective?

new is frequently thought to be better
(it's built into our USA learning system),
but it all too often isn't so

the one thing that is better about new
is the profits for the companies that
do it; especially those who manage to
get new (18 year) patents on it.





maybe, maybe not; also see above



i'll bite, let's hear it: give a numbered list of
where you think the CRT is objectively superior



ok, give a numbered list of where you think the
LCD is objectively superior



i get nervous with people like you who
are going to educate us as to what is
and isn't "objectively" true

you were clearly flat wrong with your
adulation of flatscreen 3 years ago

i can't think of any serious reason to
believe your new "objectivity" now

fwiw, odds are your past open posting in
favor of flatscreen has hurt your job
with HP so i suggest you be careful here

i'll grant that the future is flatscreen
and that that future is very near

my recent experience sez that that future
is not yet here

bill

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


The more important parameters where the CRT
would be superior include black level (and with it,
dark-room contrast), the inherent response curve
("gamma"), and, of course, response time (especially the
so-called "motion picture" response time, at least until very
recently). Also until recently the CRT would typically have
the ability to resolve more effective gray levels, in part
due to the response curve advantage. CRTs would also
typically be better at meeting certain color gamut requirements,
but this is because the gamuts in question were specified
with CRTs in mind in the first place (e.g., sRGB or Rec. 709).
Brightness (for typical monitor products), geometry, "focus"
(not really comparable, but the LCD and other flat technologies
are inherently fixed-pixel devices and so have essentially
perfect "focus"), contrast under typical ambients/brightness
levels, color gamut (recently, esp. with LED backlighting),
plus of course the obvious advantages in weight, thickness,
ambient E & M field and EMI immunity, power, and reliability.
These last few are often the most important concerns for
many customers and applications. Recent LCDs have also
demonstrated support for much higher resolution (either in
the sense of PPI or addressable pixels) than could ever be
clearly achieved with a CRT of comparable brightness.

You can be nervous all you like; if you disagree with
anything I say regarding objective qualities, however, I
will ask that you tell me what you think the "right"
answer is.

Yes, apparently, given the domination of the market
that I mentioned before - which started a bit over
3 years ago as of now, and currently has reached the
point where the LCD is significantly over the 80%
market share point.


Your concern for my career is noted, and please rest assured
that I will give it exactly the attention that it warrants.

Bob M.

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:45:15 GMT, Bob Myers wrote:


OK, sorry for confusing you with someone else. I'm a gamer and CRT is the
still tops for that purpose. If I was a using a monitor for word
processing, programming, CAD then I would choose LCD. I've had two LCD's so
far and both have dissapointed me as their flaws and limitations are too
obvious to me.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:51:55 -0600, willbill wrote:


Hmm, maybe it is him. I remember some LCD evangelist in this group feeding
me BS about LCD manufacturer's when I complained about them using grey to
grey for response times. I told him black to white takes longer and is what
they should be using, he lied and said grey to grey takes longer than black
to white and the manufacturers were using the correct way to measure pixel
respose time.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:29:33 GMT, Bob Myers wrote:


My experience with LCD goes back a bit more than 3 years ago. I paid over
$800.00 CAD for a 17" Samsung 171S. Much happier now with my current 22"
Diamondtron tube.