[druber]

My 6-year-old monitor is kicking the bucket, so I'm shopping for a new monitor for web/print design and daily use. I'm finding it hard to imagine buying a decent 17" LCD for around $500 when I can get a solid 19" CRT for half that and likely run a slightly higher res than 1280x1024 at 80hz. Sure LCD screens are cool, sure I'd prefer one if I could afford it. But at present prices, how are they worth it?

[tooki]

1. You won't be able to run higher than 1280x960 on a 19" CRT and not go blind from the fuzzy, microscopic text. (1280x1024 is a bad resolution for CRTs because it's the wrong aspect ratio.)

2. A *good* 19" CRT (e.g. a LaCie) is more than $250.

3. The LCD will never flicker (just feed it a 60Hz signal for the best image, if you're not using digital.)

4. The LCD uses much, much, much less space.

5. The LCD uses much less power.

6. The LCD makes much less heat.

7. The LCD won't cost $500. Shop around and you can find an name-brand 18" LCD for $400.*

tooki

* Such as this Mitsubishi 18" LCD for $350. (Edit: that particular offer seems to be expired, but it proves that if you look around, you'll find some awesome deals.)

[Graymalkin]

When I replace my SyncMaster I'm almost certain an LCD will go in its place. The first advantage is the amount of desk real estate even a large LCD requires. My SyncMaster 900p is humongous. Not only does it eat up a ton of space on my desk but it requires a pretty hefty desk to even hold it. I would really like to get a more stylish desk that matches my Powerbook and maybe someday a G5 to an extent. Most of the stuff I like however simply will not bear the mass of my SyncMaster.

My second issue is heat. While a large LCD does produce its share of heat, the amount of heat for the size of the screen is relatively paltry. That is especially true when compared to my CRT. Without a lot of air flow my SyncMaster will pretty easily heat up a room for me.

Basing an LCD purchase on power usage is noble but not the most practical of reasons. An LCD running ten hours a day every day for a year will cost about $16 a year to run. A CRT of the same screen size will cost you about $36. It will take a couple of years of power savings to recoup the price difference between an LCD and CRT. You don't actually start saving money on power until that price difference is paid off.

[tooki]

Remember that if you live somewhere where you use air conditioning, you will save money because of the savings of heat that's not being released into the air, only to be removed by the AC. (At home, it's usually not significant, but in places with lots of displays in a small area, such as a call center, it can add up.)

tooki

[druber]

I do very much hate the fuzziness, even just compared to the display on my iBook. Footprint is only barely an issue, since the monitor now sits on its own table behind my desk.

$300 is really all I'd like to spend, just because of finances right now. I'd hoped to put off a monitor purchase until after Christmas, so it naturally starts freaking out now. Guess I'll keep hunting deals.

How about DVI vs. Analog? I understand the LCD has to translate Analog back to a digital signal, but what's the loss there? DVI LCD displays look to be a step up in price.

[Starry Night]

Originally posted by druber:
I do very much hate the fuzziness, even just compared to the display on my iBook. Footprint is only barely an issue, since the monitor now sits on its own table behind my desk.

$300 is really all I'd like to spend, just because of finances right now. I'd hoped to put off a monitor purchase until after Christmas, so it naturally starts freaking out now. Guess I'll keep hunting deals.

How about DVI vs. Analog? I understand the LCD has to translate Analog back to a digital signal, but what's the loss there? DVI LCD displays look to be a step up in price.

I did my own, unscientific test, of a NEC 1760V (analog) and a Samsung 172T (DVI or analog) hooked up to a MDD 1.25ghz. Both are 17" LCD's. To be honest, I couldn't tell much difference between DVI and analog. However, I've seen maccn members post that when paired with a Powerbook/ibook, the DVI is better.......

I bought the NEC and have been very pleased with it for the past 6 weeks. Came to about $420 after rebates.

[Graymalkin]

Tookie: Good call with the AC and other such support costs of LCDs on a large scale. Even in a home/small office the power savings from AC requirements can go towards paying down the LCD's cost versus the CRT. A large installation can benefit quite a bit from going the LCD route.

One thing I forgot to mention before is lifetime. LCDs last a very long time, especially compared to crappy CRTs. Typically monitor lifetime is based on the time it takes for the display to only run at 50% of its original maximum brightness. At the end of the monitor's "lifetime" it is only half as bright as when it was new. CRT monitors can last anywhere between 15,000 and 25,000 hours. There's a few high end models that will last up to 30,000 hours. LCD's are on average way brighter than an equivilent CRT. My Powerbook screen is really bright so I keep turn the bightness down to about 50%. That will double my screen's lifetime and is still very usable. Desktop LCDs are the same way. RUnning them at 50% brightness will double their lifetime idealy.

With a CRT you don't get the same benefit. The lifetime of the screen is a function of the lifetime of the phosphor screen. Even turning the power to the electron gun down (lowering the brightness) the phosphors are still taxed when displaying white fields. LCD's being transmissive don't care if you're blacking out all the pixels on the screen, the backlight is always running at the power level you specify. The pixel cells aren't affected by bright and dark displays as much as CRT phosphors are.

Your LCD if taken care of and not run at full brightness all the time will last quite a bit longer than a CRT of the same size.

[druber]

Of course, so much of this depends on the actual unit you pick up. Long life is great, but a friend of mine's Apple 17" died when it was just over a year old. The math didn't work out too well for him. My iBook is in the shop again--the first Mac in my family that's needed a repair. So I'll probably be buying a monitor with a three-year warranty, which isn't too hard to find.

Still curious about analog vs. DVI. Otherwise, I'll try to last out until I can pony up the cash.

[Froggysan]

Well I have an anti-LCD thing going.


Now their plus sides are they take up less space, use less juice, are easier on your eyes.


But there are some major downsides that most people neglect to mention.


LCD monitors have a fixed resolution. Meaning if that 17" LCD monitor says it only displays at 1024 x 768, it's perminant.... no options for change.

Now my 19" ViewSonic (not top of the line, but not bad) can do anything in a 4:3 ratio. So I can go as low as 640 x 480... or at my prefered setting of 1600 x 1200.

Some folks run a 21" CRT and can pull off 2100 something by like 1950ish...

Now unless you plan on buying a LaCie or a Apple Cinema Display LCD the colour is not the same. Calibration and colour correction will be a nightmare.


Most of Apple's LCDs, unlike most the others out there are not a 4:3 ratio... they're actually a 16:9 (otherwise known as letterbox) ... but generally you have to consider how much desk space you get.

The 20" Apple Cinema display is 1680x1050 so your desktop space is which means if you find out, in pixels how much space you've got it works out to 1764000 pixels.

On my 19" monitor at a comfortable 1600 x 1200 you'll be getting 1920000 pixels.


I paid $250 canadian for my 19" monitor.
The cost for the 20" Apple Cinema display is $1799 canadian.


Now, if you're dead set on getting one, get a good one. But if you're getting a good one, you're paying a huge price.




Just a thought.

[Hash]

I use at home both Apple Studio CRT 17 inch and SyncMaster 171 LCD 17 inch for both desktops, and its hard to tell difference. Perhaps in terms of flickering, LCD is better. Still, colors are usually thought to be better on CRT side. I did not try latest flat CRTs, maybe in terms of video they good. In terms of space, LCD is definitely space-saving.

[NYCFarmboy]

Absolutely get the LCD if you can afford it.

Your eyes will thank you for it, and it will last a long time.

Anyone with a CRT that is over 3 years old that has been used a lot is doing horrible things to their eyes.

It is amazing how CRT's sharpness degrade under heavy usage. I went from a 21" Viewsonic that was about 4 years old to a Formac 20" LCD when I went from a G4 400 to a G4 1.42.... For a week or so I had them set up side by side.

It was MIND BOGGLING how unclear and fuzzy the old CRT was. It actually hurt my eyes to have to readjust to using it.

My sister has a Viewsonic 21" that is like 4 years old though, and she hardly ever uses it, (about an hour a week for email) and it is still very crisp and sharp. So it depends on your usage.

The economic option:
WalMart carries a large selection of new CRT's for around 120 bucks for 17" size range. Get one of those and trash it every 2 years.

[Hash]

It looks not so bad for me (its 1999 CRT). Is there a way to test the text fuzziness scientifically?

[maxintosh]

If color matching/correction is not an issue, then I'd say LCD all the way. They're cooler, use less energy, take up WAY less space, are easier on your back to lift... but the big one for me is the CLARITY. At their native resolution, LCDs are so much sharper and easier to read (to me) than even the best CRT.