Im a heavy photoshop user and i really love workin with it on an LCD, its much more clear then a CRT, it kinda shines light.
It is very sharp, you can almost see the pixels "laying".
many people say that LCDs have trouble with "colors running into each other".Well i think that's because CRT make the whole thing blurry, maybe not much but always a little.
to me LCD only have bit less color intensity.

Pro designers that work with LCD, plz give your comments.

I wouldn't say I hate LCDs but as of now I wouldn't dream of working on Photoshop using a LCD display. I agree they're very sharp and their backlit nature makes everything very shiny. But that is exactly the problem! I work with print media and in my opinion LCDs won't do because you can use all the color calibration in the world and your shiny screen won't match your opaque media. Again, maybe it's just me, but the fact that when you move your head up and down, colors look lighter or darker also really upsets me.
Its a matter of personal preference. If you're OK with the trade off (sharpness vs. color accuracy) go for it. I'll go with the monster CRTs(until they build something better!)

I don't hate them... I just can't afford one

> but the fact that when you move your head up and down, colors look lighter or darker also really upsets me.

haven't viewing angles been considerably increased over the last year or so, making this problem much less of a problem?

I am a web designer of 6 years and I LOVE my LCD.

------------------

Is there a brand that we should stay away from?

I've seen 15" LCD's go for as little as $399 at egghead.com

I can't use the Apple LCD with my TiBook, so I am limited to 3rd party suppliers.

I hate LCD's because:

1. Too expensive compared to CRT's which are better anyway.
2. Colours change when you change perspective.
3. Direct, bright light shining on an LCD is a real pain in the ass - you can barely see anything, if at all.
4. They just look... "bad" - you can really see the pixels, which can be annoying.
5. Motion blur - only a little now, but still...
6. Colour inaccuracy, as others have mentioned.
7. There is just something I can't put my finger on that I just don't like...

I have a TiBook here and I like my CRT sooo much more...

All that would make me get an LCD is: size, easier on the eyes after prolonged use.


------------------

AIM: Cipher1387
ICQ: 48111606
mail: cipher13@mac.com

Cipher13 hates LCD's because he can't afford one.
And just like USB speakers he don't know what he is talking about because he don't own one.

Laptop and desktop LCD's are NOTHING alike. I am not nuts about laptop LCD's either. The reason desktop LCD's are much better is because they don't have to worry about battery power. They use more power and their for are much brighter and colourful. They also have better viewing angles and colour accuracy.

>.1. Too expensive compared to CRT's which are better anyway.
Why are CRT's better? Cuz they are bigger, use more power, have strobing refreah rates, strain your eyes and use 3x more power?

>2. Colours change when you change perspective.
Yes, if you are swaying left and right and jumpng up and down in front of your computer when you work I'm sure that is true. I'm sure if you do that long enough in front of a CRT you are bound to see the same thing.

>3. Direct, bright light shining on an LCD is a real pain in the ass - you
can barely see anything, if at all.
LCD's are NON-reflective unline glass CRT's. When I had my CRT I could watch TV in the reflection on it. Not to mention every light in the room would also reflect. This does not happen with the LCD's. If I had the sun shining directly on my computer screen then maybe you would have a point. All I know is that I do not take my desktop computer outside, and if the sun shined on my CRT the same thing would happen.

>4. They just look... "bad" - you can really see the pixels, which can be annoying.
That was true 4 years ago. Now I can count the pixeles 2 feet away on a CRT but have to put my face 6 inches away from the LCD to see anything. I also have 20/20 vision.

>5. Motion blur - only a little now, but still...
But still what? I use this computer 10 hours a day I never see Motion blur.

>6. Colour inaccuracy, as others have mentioned.
I would LOVE to know what you do that requires pre- press colour acurasy. This LCD have much better colour acurasy then my AppleVision 17' CRT. You will never see a difference in colour acurasy unless you hold a colour device up to it. The only reason you would need to do this is if you are publishing a magazine.

>7. There is just something I can't put my finger on that I just don't like...
As usual, you hate it but you don't know why.

Some of your points were valide 3-4 years ago. Not now and not with Apple Displays. I still see PC LCD's that just suck, just like most PC's.
If you get an Apple LCD you will never what a CRT again. I don't.


------------------

LCD's are so much better on your eyes, you get that crisp feeling when using one. The sharpness and brightness is a really big "pro" to them. But if I was like what everyone else says getting into hardcore print and graphic design I wouldn't think twice about getting a CRT. Now throw an ACD in there and I might change my mind... well maby not.

------------------
Circa

Vader's Robotic Stump - you just proved Cipher's case and mine. If you're doing serious stuff for print media like me, LCDs are still inaccurate. Believe me, the difference is disturbing. Besides, money's always an issue for those who can afford it. Still, as I said, no wonder you like LCDs. They're great for general use, but it's way too early for pros to use them. If you can afford them, good for you!

Also try playing Quake 3 on an LCD, then play it on a CRT... HUGE difference, the LCD simply cannot refresh and contrast fast enough for fast paced things like gaming.

My ultimate setup would consist of a CRT and an LCD for their specific purposes.

Different strokes for different folks...

Originally posted by Mighty Hetfield:
They're great for general use, but it's way too early for pros to use them.

Um, i am a Pro. I do web design for 7 years. I have NO problems at all for any of the digital media work I do. If I was Pro print though I would be in trouble.

------------------

LCDs are the only thing I use. I've got three of them fixed to my Rev. B iBook, New iBook and Powerbook 2000. They're outstanding. I do admit, though, that I'm not a creative professional. As such, I understand the objections to them vrs the CRTs. I just can't stand having eighty pounds of equipment on my desk. Especially since I already have eighty pounds of paper there instead.

PeteWK

Originally posted by Vader's Robotic Stump:
Cipher13 hates LCD's because he can't afford one.
And just like USB speakers he don't know what he is talking about because he don't own one.

Laptop and desktop LCD's are NOTHING alike. I am not nuts about laptop LCD's either. The reason desktop LCD's are much better is because they don't have to worry about battery power. They use more power and their for are much brighter and colourful. They also have better viewing angles and colour accuracy.

>.1. Too expensive compared to CRT's which are better anyway.
Why are CRT's better? Cuz they are bigger, use more power, have strobing refreah rates, strain your eyes and use 3x more power?

>2. Colours change when you change perspective.
Yes, if you are swaying left and right and jumpng up and down in front of your computer when you work I'm sure that is true. I'm sure if you do that long enough in front of a CRT you are bound to see the same thing.

>3. Direct, bright light shining on an LCD is a real pain in the ass - you
can barely see anything, if at all.
LCD's are NON-reflective unline glass CRT's. When I had my CRT I could watch TV in the reflection on it. Not to mention every light in the room would also reflect. This does not happen with the LCD's. If I had the sun shining directly on my computer screen then maybe you would have a point. All I know is that I do not take my desktop computer outside, and if the sun shined on my CRT the same thing would happen.

>4. They just look... "bad" - you can really see the pixels, which can be annoying.
That was true 4 years ago. Now I can count the pixeles 2 feet away on a CRT but have to put my face 6 inches away from the LCD to see anything. I also have 20/20 vision.

>5. Motion blur - only a little now, but still...
But still what? I use this computer 10 hours a day I never see Motion blur.

>6. Colour inaccuracy, as others have mentioned.
I would LOVE to know what you do that requires pre- press colour acurasy. This LCD have much better colour acurasy then my AppleVision 17' CRT. You will never see a difference in colour acurasy unless you hold a colour device up to it. The only reason you would need to do this is if you are publishing a magazine.

>7. There is just something I can't put my finger on that I just don't like...
As usual, you hate it but you don't know why.

Some of your points were valide 3-4 years ago. Not now and not with Apple Displays. I still see PC LCD's that just suck, just like most PC's.
If you get an Apple LCD you will never what a CRT again. I don't.

No, I hate them because they're no good. And I hate USB speakers because they're no good - if they were any good, I WOULD own them. I get whatever is best.

1. I already told you why they're better. They're bigger, they're sharper, they're brighter, they're clearer, they're cheaper, they have better colour accuracy, and so forth.

2. Pfft. Shows your ignorance. Stand in front of an LCD. Move a foot in any direction. Yeah. The far edges change colour. And no, it does not happen with a CRT. At all.

3. *sigh*, I didn't say anything about reflection did I? I said when light shines on an LCD you can't see anything AT ALL as opposed to CRT's which are effected much less.

4. No, sorry, but that is just plain ridiculous. I also have 20/20 vision - if you have to be 6 inches close to an LCD to see its pixels I suggest you get your eyes checked again. As for the CRT comment... yeah, maybe with the resolution at 512*384

5. Again, I suggest you retest your vision if you can't see the motion blur.

6. See, you obviously don't do critical work that must be printed with complete accuracy on paper or film, or you'd know what you were talking about there. If you think your LCD has better colour accuracy than any modern CRT... you're sadly mistaken. Try a CRT thats not 13 years old and find out for yourself.

7. As usual eh? Hm. If thats such a regular occurence, give me another example of something I hate and don't know why.
And by the way, thats not what I said - there is something I can't put my finger on. I have TOLD you why I hate it. It seems not only your vision, but your grasp of the English language is in need of some refining...

I have used desktop LCD's and CRT's side by side. I wouldn't make these comments if I hadn't, which it seems you are doing. I know there is a huge difference between desktop and laptop LCD's but the point remains, does it not?

Yeah. Nice work.


------------------

AIM: Cipher1387
ICQ: 48111606
mail: cipher13@mac.com

Ha ha, sorry Cipher13 man, your comments just sound so funny coming from a 17 year old know it all. It is clear you don't own a desktop LCD or really used one as your comments are plain stupid. I am not going to argue with you as it is not worth it but I can tell you that Apple LCD's have twice the sharpness of CRT's and brighter. Well, off to get my eyes checked, cuz 17 year old Cipher13 told me to

------------------


[This message has been edited by Skywalkers new Hand (edited 05-27-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Skywalkers new Hand (edited 05-28-2001).]

Originally posted by exa:
the LCD simply cannot refresh and contrast fast enough for fast paced things like gaming

Well, technically an LCD doesn't "refresh" like your CRT does. I think what you meant to say is that the pixels can't change color fast enough. Sorry, but I just had to mention that.



------------------
Why 1984, won't be
like "1984"

Well, technically an LCD doesn't "refresh" like your CRT does. I think what you meant to say is that the pixels can't change color fast enough. Sorry, but I just had to mention that.

Did 'refresh' ever mean the period of change of the electron gun moving from the bottom right of the screen to the top left and zig zagging right to left to the bottom and repeating? (yeah so I prolly worded that wrongly)
Well that is refresh in the sense of a CRT.

Refresh in our context simply means to change from one form to another, to renew; can the term 'refresh' not be applied to LCDs in this manner? Did I ever say that LCDs were refreshing with an electron gun?

I think I know my english and my technology... and I think I can differ from an LCD and a CRT... So, I did mean to say 'refresh', not any pixel changing

Originally posted by exa:
Refresh in our context simply means to change from one form to another, to renew; can the term 'refresh' not be applied to LCDs in this manner? Did I ever say that LCDs were refreshing with an electron gun?

Relax, he/she was just trying to clarify, not attack. "Refresh" is a term of art normally used to refer to a specific characteristic of CRTs.

As for LCDs, the only reasons I can see for avoiding them are viewing angle and color accuracy if you're doing critical color work, and motion blur if you're a serious gamer. Even some of those people think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. A lot of people doing color work are using old, out-of-calibration CRTs anyway.

As with most things, it all depends on your priorities. I think that the large majority of people would be happier with LCDs. Being flicker- and distortion-free is no small thing.

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:
Ha ha, sorry Cipher13 man, your comments just sound so funny coming from a 17 year old know it all. It is clear you don't own a desktop LCD or really used one as your comments are plain stupid. I am not going to argue with you as it is not worth it but I can tell you that Apple LCD's have twice the sharpness of CRT's and brighter. Well, off to get my eyes checked, cuz 17 year old Cipher13 told me to

Uh huh. I have used desktop LCD's extensively - specifically the 15" ASD from Apple, hooked up to a 466 G4. Ok?

My comments aren't just plain stupid - they're perfectly valid. You're not going to argue with me simply because you can't - you're wrong. Not because its not worth it
You're not capable.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Thats reinforced by the statement "Apple LCD's have twice the sharpness of CRT's and brighter" which is absolute nonsense.

Now, before you go dising somebody because of their age, you ought to learn how to harness the English language a little better. Obviously this 17 year old can spell better than you can - the word you are after is "too", not "to", in the last sentence. The above quote is grammatically awful - 'and brighter'. Nice one.

Is it low picking on spelling and grammar? Yeah, I think it is. But for an ageist biggot like yourself, I'll make an exception.


------------------

AIM: Cipher1387
ICQ: 48111606
mail: cipher13@mac.com

[This message has been edited by Cipher13 (edited 05-29-2001).]

" you ought to learn how to harness the English language a little better. Obviously this 17 year old can spell better than you can - the word you are after is "too", not "to", in the last sentence."

"Is it low picking on spelling and grammar? Yeah, I think it is. But for an ageist biggot like yourself, I'll make an exception."

You ought to learn the difference between "thats" and "that's"
I think you made that mistake 4 times and then you told me I should learn the difference between "to" and "too". You also spelt "biggot" wrong.

"Thats reinforced by the statement"
"If thats such a regular occurence, give me another example of something I hate and don't know why. And by the way, thats not what I said"

Um, that is "occurrence" not "occurence".
Grow up.

"if they were any good, I WOULD own them. I get whatever is best."
-Cipher13

------------------


[This message has been edited by Skywalkers new Hand (edited 05-29-2001).]

From a thread at MacInTouch.com, concerning a recent MacWorld article comparing CRTs and LCDs:

<<The company I work for has been involved in the packaging industry for over a decade. My employer is an RIT grad and performs the color correction for dozens of clients, whose products you use everyday (toothpaste tubes, lotions, deodorants, gum, oil containers...etc). When I showed him the article (I just setup a new cube and 15" studio display in his office for his administrative work) he agreed with me that 90% of designers and color work is not dependant on the monitor as much as they are the actual proof. You will never match the monitor phosphors with the inks of a press. You can get close, but reality is, its cheaper to run a proof and bill a client for the proof, than spend thousands for a calibrated monitor that will take years for return. And over time, the monitor will degrade.
I think Apple is doing the right thing. When you look at the hazards of a tube (lead, mercury, glass, weight, power consumption, heat, energy inefficiency...) over the pros of the LCD (space saving, power saving, sharpness) the LCD wins. Those that can't afford to replace a 21" tube with a 22" LCD will likely keep the tube till it dies. But since the 17" LCD is equal to a 19" tube, $999 is a good price point. Most 18" LCDs are >$1000.
And like most with "digital" LCDs, I have grown accustomed to the clarity. My TiG4 powerbook is near my PC 17" Sony monitor. When working on both, the tube appears fuzzy when using immediately after working in OS X on the G4.
...>>

Some additional thoughts: I used to dislike the fact that I could see the pixels on LCD screens. However, this has been overcome by the fact that (1) LCDs screens have increasingly higher pixel densities; and (2) I realized that at a recommended desktop viewing distance (around 2 feet or more), the pixel effect disappears. Considering the sharpness, lack of distortion, lack of flicker, etc., I prefer an LCD in almost every respect.

[This message has been edited by zigzag (edited 05-29-2001).]

Sorry zigzag, you and that article are wrong, I guess you didn't read what Cipher 13 said. CRT's are better because they are analog, bigger, use more power, fade over time, strobe and you can’t see the pixels.

And lets not forget:
"if they were any good, I WOULD own them. I get whatever is best."
-Cipher13

------------------

You forgot to mention the part where CRTs are cheaper, less fragile, can be viewed from much greater angles without color distortion, etc...

Come on guys, we aren't all the same, we have different needs, Cipher and myself prefer CRTs over LCDs, all of you like LCDs over CRTs... We also hate USB speakers (though for different reasons, his aren't legit ) but many of you think the sound you get are just fine... etc etc etc

The day LCDs refresh faster, cost $500 for a 19", and can be viewed like a CRT without color distortion at its angles is the day I move to LCD (and I'm sure cipher would somewhat agree).

Different strokes for different folks.

Originally posted by exa:
You forgot to mention the part where CRTs are cheaper, less fragile, can be viewed from much greater angles without color distortion, etc...

Ok, you sure say it a lot nicer and not know it all style like Cipher13

I don't understand how a 50 pound, GLASS SCREEN CRT is "less fragile" though.

------------------


[This message has been edited by Han's Hands on Leia (edited 05-29-2001).]

Well, unlike you I can touch my monitor without fear that the screen will screw up (though I'll have to get the windex rather immediately - I hate smudges). I mean, do you touch your LCD screens? Would you touch them purposely? I have no fear on tapping the glass of my monitor (smudging it though, argh). Cleaning it must be harder when you accedentally sneeze while drinking your coffee spraying it all over the monitor, without damaging it much...

Originally posted by exa:
Different strokes for different folks.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:
" you ought to learn how to harness the English language a little better. Obviously this 17 year old can spell better than you can - the word you are after is "too", not "to", in the last sentence."

"Is it low picking on spelling and grammar? Yeah, I think it is. But for an ageist biggot like yourself, I'll make an exception."

You ought to learn the difference between "thats" and "that's"
I think you made that mistake 4 times and then you told me I should learn the difference between "to" and "too". You also spelt "biggot" wrong.

"Thats reinforced by the statement"
"If thats such a regular occurence, give me another example of something I hate and don't know why. And by the way, thats not what I said"

Um, that is "occurrence" not "occurence".
Grow up.

"if they were any good, I WOULD own them. I get whatever is best."
-Cipher13

Glad to see you noticed

Three mistakes were on purpose. The last was not, though

It was late when I posted that...


------------------

AIM: Cipher1387
ICQ: 48111606
mail: cipher13@mac.com

Hand - I said it fine the first time. Then you decided to be all righteous about it, so I replied in fashion.

Exa - my reasons are as legit as yours.
And yeah, if I could get the LCD you speak of, I would. Being so much easier on the eyes is a massive advantage of an LCD... but, thats what I've heard only. I haven't in practice noticed them being much easier on my eyes at all. In fact they tend to hurt more... but then, I didn't really adjust it, so take that with a grain of salt.

Indeed, to each their own...


------------------

AIM: Cipher1387
ICQ: 48111606
mail: cipher13@mac.com

[RoofusPennymore]

I use LCD's and CRT's all the time. On the TechTracker page there is this light tan border on it. I often use this to compare the LCD's to the CRTs. On almost all CRT's you can see this very clearly and distinctly, some LCDs it's harder to make it out, some more than others.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by exa
:
<STRONG>Well, unlike you I can touch my monitor without fear that the screen will screw up. I mean, do you touch your LCD screens? Would you touch them purposely? I have no fear on tapping the glass of my monitor (smudging it though, argh). Cleaning it must be harder when you accedentally sneeze while drinking your coffee spraying it all over the monitor, without damaging it much...</STRONG>

OK, that just about sums it up for me. If you plan on spraying coffee on your screen jabbing with your finger with it and swinging left and right, up and down 2 feet watching the colours shift then DO NOT get an LCD.

For those of us who are not criminally insane, the screen does not smudge as bad a glass does when you touch it. The colour does not shift unless you stand up and look down on the display, or lie on the floor. It is safe to clean the screen without voiding your warranty, and yes, you can touch it without causing an explosion.

[Cipher13]

After working on a movie in AE5, on a 15" LCD ASD and G4 Cube, at work, and a 19" Sony CRT (G300? Or something...), its been reiterated...

The movie (or, the scene that I did), was of the logo of the place doing its cool little 3D spin and rotation thing, while on a background which was stars, like the Star Wars hyperspace thing (also had the Star Wars music playing... hehe)

Anyway, the stars were not visible on the TiBooks LCD while working on that machine. On the 15" LCD, they were visible, but blurred a little bit, and blended into the (black) background so that they looked like a grey, while being white... on the CRT they were contrasted perfectly.

LCD's just don't cut it for that sort of stuff... I thought I'd gotten the colour of the stars wrong somehow when I played it back on the LCD...

If anyone wants to see the movie, I can post it, perhaps tell me if you have the same issue on your LCD's... I mean it might be a screen calibration issue or something. But nonetheless...

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
<STRONG>

OK, that just about sums it up for me. If you plan on spraying coffee on your screen jabbing with your finger with it and swinging left and right, up and down 2 feet watching the colours shift then DO NOT get an LCD.

For those of us who are not criminally insane, the screen does not smudge as bad a glass does when you touch it. The colour does not shift unless you stand up and look down on the display, or lie on the floor. It is safe to clean the screen without voiding your warranty, and yes, you can touch it without causing an explosion.</STRONG>

One word: accident. Look it up.

[zigzag]

I don't think anyone questions the fact that, as a general rule, good CRTs have better color fidelity and viewing angles than LCDs. They are also cheaper as a rule. They also have faster "refresh" rates (using the term loosely to include LCDs), which serious gamers like. However, those advantages are narrowed by the fact that only a small percentage of CRTs are properly calibrated, and proper calibration is itself an expensive proposition. Most really serious work is judged in the proofs, not on a monitor. Still, it's no surprise that many of those who do serious graphics work prefer a CRT, and rightfully so.

However, the consensus seems to be that in virtually every other respect (lack of distortion, lack of flicker, clarity, user-friendliness, energy consumption, aesthetics, space, weight, environmental friendliness, etc.), LCDs are preferable. Even many serious graphics pros think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The world is obviously going LCD - I expect that within a few years, CRTs will be sold almost exclusively to specialized users. As usual, Apple is ahead of the curve.

The "fragility" debate is silly, IMO. Except for people who have kids running around sticking forks in their monitors, I doubt that anyone's going to make a buying decision on that basis. I expect that I'm as likely to drop a heavy CRT (on my foot, no less) as I am to damage my LCD screen.

In the end, everyone has different needs and priotities. To each his own.

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: zigzag ]

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

One word: accident. Look it up.</STRONG>

You are right, if you dropped that CRT you would be in trouble!

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
<STRONG>

You are right, if you dropped that CRT you would be in trouble!</STRONG>

Do you really want to argue the fragility of LCD's versus CRT's?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

Do you really want to argue the fragility of LCD's versus CRT's? </STRONG>

Nope, cuz I know what you are going to say

[Kosmo]

Sorry Cipher, but you're dead wrong here. IF you have ever seen a Apple 22" Cinema Display you wouldn't be making the comments you are. Fact is, this display is the finest display out there.

I own one. I use it 10 hours a day. I do professional design work. I know what I'm talking about.

I wouldn't trust a 10,000 dollar monitor for publishing. I would insist on a an actual 'proof' before I went ahead with production anyway.

Apple LCD's are incredible and a lot better than CRT displays. Only when you have experience with something can you really judge it.

[Bodhi]

I love playing Quake on my Cinema Display. I love working in Photoshop on my Cinema Display. FCP on my Cinema Display???



Once you go LCD, you never go back.

[LeonThePro]

LCDs have already been proven to be very color INACURATE for professional print media work. And those who are REALLY into PRINT MEDIA will know this. Another recent test was done (including Apple's 22" Cinema Display) from MacWorld's June 2001 issue.

And yes, Kosmo, we would rather trust and invest in an expensive CRT monitor with color calibration for print media than having to keep on printing until we get the colors right.

LCDs are way cool. Everyone knows this is the future. I love using it for web-related stuff. I only hope that they can find a way to finally perfect the manufacturing process to:

a.) eliminate the DEAD/STUCK pixels - because I always see one red and one blue everytime I stare into my LCD screen.

b.) go around the motion blur issue - maybe a faster Video card should do the trick??

c.) lower the cost!

[exa]

Many of the posts I read here are extremely biased towards their preference, makes me wonder if they are defending their purchase of an LCD. I myself HAVE seen a 22" Cinema Display (actually two of them, our family friends are friggin rich... 2 G4s with cinema displays... and so I worked on them for many hours) and I can say that I prefer my CRT in some areas whereas I prefer the LCD in other areas. However the price of the LCD just doesn't cut it so the CRT in the end wins for me.
To be more specific, I prefer the LCD in 'common' applications such as reading stuff off of the monitor, web browsing, typing, etc. For serious things like photo editing and fast paced gaming, the CRT hands down.
Dual monitor setup... LCD and CRT... I would kill for that...

Perhaps many of these are non issues, such as fragility.... but I am very convinced that many of you are defending your purchases on LCDs and not giving at all a serious thought to the other side.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by exa:
<STRONG>I am very convinced that many of you are defending your purchases on LCDs and not giving at all a serious thought to the other side.</STRONG>

Nope, I have worked on CRT's for 10 years. I didn't like em for the past 3 years.

Nobody held a gun to my head to buy an LCD. I did lots of research before I bought the LCD. It is not a matter of money or do I feel for a second that I made the wrong choice. I currently own the 15' LCD and I am selling it and buying the new 17' LCD to replace it. If I thought that I made a mistake, I would be getting a CRT next. I am not.

[zigzag]

No one should have to "defend" their choice of an LCD. It's just what they prefer, for any number of reasons. Nor do CRT users need to "defend" their choice. Both technologies have their merits.

I think one problem is that some people think that LCDs are mere fashion statements, not "serious" monitors. Thus the thread title, and thus the enthusiasm expressed for LCDs. They're not mere fashion statements - they may have some disadvantages, but they have many genuine advantages. As do CRTs.

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: zigzag ]