> So you have no preference for either - you just care about size?
--
Gerry Aitken?
...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter
6, verse 16
This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.
> I worked in a computer shop and you need to invest some 3 to 4 times more
> for a LCD to have the qualities you just mentioned, especialy color
quality.
> I'd say you probably never seen a good CRT. My eyes don't hurt even after
to
> which I now say
> This guy is obviously the top poster quantity wise, but as far as
quality
> goes..............................
> Kerrrrrrrrrrrrrr PLONK!
Kerrrrrrrr PHUCK OFF, loser.
The only people defending CRT's are those without decent LCD's.
Why don't they graciously concede defeat ... or failing that, that they're
full of shi'ite.
> > >Refresh rate is immaterial for LCD's. It's the pixel response rate
that
> > >matters (technically). The problem is, every manufacturer uses their
own
> > >testing methods, so a monitor that has a 16ms response rate may not be
as
> > >good as one with a 25ms response rate.
> > >Really, the only thing you can do is research, research, research.
Make
> > >sure you look at it with *** in mind.
> > >-Larry
> > Yea, I've read that those 16ms rated ones don't do true colour and
> > that is how they achieve the 16ms rating. My Samsung 171S is
> > avaialable for quite cheap now and is fine for ***. It's sub 30ms.
> That's true for some of them, but there are 16ms panels coming onto the
> market with true color. The Dell FP2001 20" is one of them, it uses an
> LG-Phillips LCD. There's a review at
> http://www.racesimcentral.net/'re interested.
> ...Klinn
<FLUSH>
I believe that about 90% of people would prefer LCDs. I'm not one of them.
Agreed, but relaxed FPS ***? I don't think so.....
No, I said they were adequate but inferior.
Still haven't got a decent LCD then ?
I spend 4 hours in front of a LCD (cheap one tho, hansol) every day and still
go "aahhhh" when i turn my Eizo on at home.
There were some LCDs that have a better picture, no doubt about it, but again,
it will cost at least 3 times as much as the same (viewable) size CRT, so it's
a no brainer which I'd choose if I was on a budget and needed as good as
I can get. When LCDs get cheaper, i'll consider one. Also, a single working
resolution is a big downside for me.
No, my eyes are 22 years old and i've been working with computers for over
half of that period and have been watching the development of crt and lcd
both very closely as I was always concerned with the wellbeing of my eyes.
Fine. But I'd guess that the 17" lcd you mention costs as much (or very close to)
the Sony/Eizo you mention, and this IS a group about games and I'm sure 99%
of ppl here would go for a 22" whatever over a 17" whatever if we're talking
about the same money.
--
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
ICQ: 138579247
> I spend 4 hours in front of a LCD (cheap one tho, hansol) every day and
still
> go "aahhhh" when i turn my Eizo on at home.
> There were some LCDs that have a better picture, no doubt about it, but
again,
> it will cost at least 3 times as much as the same (viewable) size CRT, so
it's
> a no brainer which I'd choose if I was on a budget and needed as good as
> I can get. When LCDs get cheaper, i'll consider one. Also, a single
working
> resolution is a big downside for me.
> > Maybe your eyes are screwed anyway - do you have assisted vision ?
> No, my eyes are 22 years old and i've been working with computers for over
> half of that period and have been watching the development of crt and lcd
> both very closely as I was always concerned with the wellbeing of my eyes.
> > I've had the best of CRT - including the top Sony and a 22" Eizo -
neither
> > compares to my Iiyama 17" LCD for relaxed viewing or easy
document-reading.
> Fine. But I'd guess that the 17" lcd you mention costs as much (or very
close to)
> the Sony/Eizo you mention, and this IS a group about games and I'm sure
99%
> of ppl here would go for a 22" whatever over a 17" whatever if we're
talking
> about the same money.
You play CMR3? I guess you think it's the best rally game?
> several
>>hours on an LCD.
>>Maybe your eyes are screwed anyway - do you have assisted vision ?
>>I've had the best of CRT - including the top Sony and a 22" Eizo - neither
>>compares to my Iiyama 17" LCD for relaxed viewing or easy
> document-reading.
> Agreed, but relaxed FPS ***? I don't think so.....
--
Gerry Aitken?
...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer. - Book of Cyril, chapter
6, verse 16
This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses by a fish called Colin.
The biggest drawback of a CRT is that the pixels just aren't sharp, they
can't be, as a CRT has variable resolution. The biggest drawback of an LCD
(apart from the non-variable resolution) is the fixed 60Hz framerate which
is noticably less smooth (games and mousepointer) than, say, a CRT running
at 85Hz.
Even though the TFT of my laptop isn't the best one, viewing angle and
latency wise, I still prefer it over a CRT display. It does have a great
rasor-sharp resolution of 1400x1050 at only 15 inch.
I play racing games on my Centrino/Radeon9000 laptop, I've got no problems
with it. GPL doesn't get above 35FPS anyway :^)
