On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:19:15 GMT, Bob Myers wrote:


If it is wrong then it is the tech article that is wrong and not me. It's
not my fault if all you tech heads are always feeding us BS. The reason I
thought BtW took longer is becauase that is what I have read on numerous
websites in the past. Does that make me wrong? No, it makes them wrong if
what you say is true. But who knows? Maybe you are wrong for all I know.
Find the article I refer to about oversrive causing burn in and you can
take it up with the author if you are certain he is wrong. Well, I just did
a quick search and this is the first hit on google and it's not even the
article I'm talking about. As I said, overdrive technology is shit.

http://www.answers.com/topic/liquid-crystal-display
Overdrive technology on some panels can produce artifacts across regions of
rapidly transitioning pixels (eg. video images) that looks like increased
image noise or halos. This is a side effect of the pixels being driven past
their intended brightness value (or rather the intended voltage necessary
to produce this necessary brightness/colour) and then allowed to fall back
to the target brightness in order to enhance response times.

Bob Myers wrote:




fwiw, i've come to seriously doubt that



that is very true

the title of this thread is:
"What local retail stores still sell CRT monitors?"

to my mind, questioning if CRTs are still better than LCD



less space (flatscreen), and lower
power, carry huge weight over
being better

correct me if i'm wrong.



see above


odds are huge that you know what a fanboy is

bill

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:22:18 -0600, chrisv wrote:


It's not really image burn in but I didn't know what else to call the
effect. The below explains it better. My Viewsonic had X-Brite technology
and besides it burning out my 'effing eyes I think that is the cause of the
burn in I got on the HDTV. Viewsonics default setting for contrast was 50
and I had to set it way down to 10 because the whites where so badly burned
out. Yea, people who build these things may know the tech but they sure
don't know image quality. A monkey could have set it up better than they
had it.

http://www.answers.com/topic/liquid-crystal-display

Overdrive technology on some panels can produce artifacts across regions of
rapidly transitioning pixels (eg. video images) that looks like increased
image noise or halos. This is a side effect of the pixels being driven past
their intended brightness value (or rather the intended voltage necessary
to produce this necessary brightness/colour) and then allowed to fall back
to the target brightness in order to enhance response times.

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

I'm very real, and very serious. A hell of a lot of people
have chosen LCDs over CRTs, even during those periods
when comparable examples of both technologies were
available. Are you saying these people didn't know
what they were doing, or what?

OK, so you have a need for more pixels, and at least
a belief that you need faster refresh rates (with a CRT,
you may, for that matter). Others may have different
priorities.

You continue to confuse reporting on current market
realities with being a "fanboy," whatever THAT may
mean.

Bob M.

willbill wrote:

Don't forget "newer flatter must be better" fashion.

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

Well, I'd put it a different way - less space, lower power,
etc., are all part of BEING "better" for the applications
in question. You seem to think that all that should matter in
a decision about which is "better" are those parameters which
are most important to YOU, and that simply isn't so. Again,
THERE IS NO one, clear, agreed-to-by-everyone definition
of "better," simply because different people and different
applications have different requirements.

CRTs have performance advantages in terms of response time
and a certain overall "look"; LCDs have performance advantages
in other areas. None of this makes either "better" except as they
relate to the specific needs of a given customer.

Bob M.

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

OK, so the article is wrong - and you're also wrong for thinking
that everything you read, whether it makes sense or not, should
be taken as the unquestionable truth.

Of course it does. If you believe something that isn't right,
then you're wrong. What's so difficult about that? You simply
learn more and move on.

Funny, you won't take any responsibility for being wrong OR
right, and supposedly have this "who knows?" attitude about the
whole thing - but then per your last sentence, you just KNOW that
"overdrive technology is shit." If you know enough to be certain of
that, perhaps YOU can explain to us exactly how it works, and
exactly what the mechanism is through which overdrive would be
harmful to the panel.

From this, all we can conclude is that you don't read very carefully.
There's nothing in the above regarding overdrive causing burn-in,
which was your original assertion, and it's not even an indictment
of the overdrive approach in general - see there where it says
"overdrive technology ON SOME PANELS can produce artifacts..."
That means that if you don't implement overdrive very well, it
doesn't work very well. Excuse me, but DUH.....

Bob M.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:50:56 GMT, Bob Myers wrote:

They didn't choose them. LCD's have been shoved down their throats wether
they want them or not. People who do choose LCD choose them mostly as a
fashion statement.

Pipboy <no (AT) email (DOT) invalid> wrote:
Oh, burn. For my purposes, LCD causes a LOT less eye strain, since I use
mostly text. Ever since I got my LCD, I haven't needed a new prescription
for my glasses, where I was needing a new one almost every year before.
And I had pretty good CRT monitor. (Illyama 510) Still have it as a matter
of fact, and I don't intend to sell it.

Now if I was serious gamer, I would have different preferences. What you
don't seem to recognize, despite it being pointed out to you over and over,
that each type has different strengths and weakness'. Why is that so hard
for you to understand?

jjnunes (AT) sonic (DOT) net wrote:

I think everyone accepts that. What's making some of us rather
bitter, however, is the lack of quality choices in CRT's, due to the
market's radical shift. I think there's a big disconnect between what
people are buying and what device would really be "best" for them, if
not for the "newer flatter must be better" fashion-statement syndrome.