Which type of monitor is worse? LCD or CRT

Post Reply New Topic

As I type this up, i'm viewing this on and LCD monitor. As I type this up, I have both the brightness and contrast turned all the way down as much as I can get them, and my eyes are still absolutlely killing me. Before when I had the controls at their normal settings, the agony I was going through was undescribeable.

High contrast text was unreadable, and everything on screen was blurring together and washing out.

Things are not nearly as bad on my computer back in oshkosh which has a standard CRT.

I think it's the flourescent tubes in this particular monitor that do it for me.

Which type of monitor do you prefer?

I find CRT monitors ok as long as they aren't too worn out (blurry), and I turn the contrast down. LCD monitors tire me out after a bit, I don't find them as comfortable to look at for some reason.

Or maybe I just spend far too much time staring at the sodding thing...

dunc

I much prefer CRT, but that's mainly from an artistic standpoint. I do a lot of digital art and CRT screens are so much better than LCD for that. Darks on LCD screens always look muddy or gray, they never get to black, and a lot of detail is lost. Also, if you move even slightly, the color and contrast changes completely (from different viewing angles). The LCD screen also seems to have a strange "shimmery" effect which really irritates me.

I recently got a new computer, I really wanted a lap top, but I had to stick with my bulky desktop just to keep a decent CRT monitor.

I have a laptop, but the screen never seems to bother my eyes. I actually like it when the brightness is turned up, because that makes everything seem sharper. The only problem I have with my laptop is that the screen isn't quite at eye level.

I have used CRT monitors for many years, but 1.5 years ago I bought myself a first laptop. My opinion is simple: I don't want to go back to the CRT ever again. I have found that LCD strains my eyes much less, and generally causes me to be significantly less tired after sitting at the computer for many hours. I simply could not use the CRT if the refresh rate was set to lower than 70 Hz, but I was still noticing the flickering up to 80 Hz. LCDs have 60 Hz refresh rate, but it does not bother me. I also like that LCDs display one pixel per one dot (when using "native" resolution). On the CRT pixels are "smeared" over color dots, and this makes everything blurry and with color shadows (which I was always noticing). The geometry of LCD is much better than on CRT (i.e. it is flat and straight lines are straight). I usuallly keep brightness / contrast cranked up to the maximum, because I like to see everything well. I knew a guy who was very sensitive to lighting conditions and who also preferred LCDs over CRTs. The guy has dismantled all fluorescent lights in the vicinity of his desk, and brought his own LCD monitor to work.

Please note that my laptop has a rather good 16' screen (same size as 17' CRT), which is viewable from wide angle and does not suffer from the shimmering effect that many LCD screens have. It is a matte screen that does not reflect everything like those that are currently popular (a fad, in my opinion). It does have drawbacks, though. One is that colors are generally a bit distorted and change slightly with viewing angle or when window is scrolled. The other is that non-native resolutions produce less than ideal image, which affects some games.

I have a laptop and both an LCD screen on a Gateway Celeron PC here. Both don't bother my eyes. I run Red Hat Linux on the Gateway.

Yeah, I like LCDs too. I like the contrast, the size, and the one-dot-per-pixel sort of thing, though it's not too difficult to discern pixels on a CRT. I just got a nice 19" Xerox one.

But the trouble with them is dead pixels. Drives me nuts. I've got a couple dead/sick pixels on an otherwise great monitor. But I don't notice them at all when I'm actually using the computer, and not just looking for dead pixels. But it bugs the hell out of me knowing that they're there.

My last CRT monitor had a very slightly darkened line going horizontally about a quarter down the screen. When I first got it, it bugged me, but I forgot it was there in time.

For me, LCDs are the only type of monitor that I normally use. While the gridwork on the screen is irritating, it is still better than the fuzziness, flickering, and high-pitched noise of the CRTs. I also don't have desk space for external monitors (my computers are laptops).

I've just purchased an 19" LCD to use for my new computer which I will be getting soon. It was on display in the shop and it looked pretty good, nice and compact and has a decent picture. As for dead pixels I believe the warranty allows you to take it back if it has a certain amount of dead pixels.

I much prefer using CRT monitors.

You have too many problems with LCDs, the least of which is dead pixels and the vendors' policies regarding those dead pixels.

You also get the problem of ghosting on fast-motion 3D video like what's used in games. That is why I prefer CRT monitors.

a high quality crt beats a high quality lcd anyday.

Good CRTS:
have a cheaper initial cost
are clearer
are brighter
have more detail (higher resolutions)
better detail (variable resolutions + no dead pixles)
have more accurate color and contrast
have less flicker
have a faster response
have a bigger screen
have a greater viewing angle


GOOD LCDS:
Are space saving
Are lightweight
Take less power
Pivotable / Wall Mountable
and some can have 3D

People buyng 600$ lcds are generally going up from a 150$ CRT, and likely haven't looked at nice 600$ CRTS to compaire.

Its a case of apples and oranges, and it depends on what you want in your fruit.

My CRT monitor broke last summer, and replaced it with an LCD.

It took me a while to get the settings right; I even had to upgrade my video card. (The old one supported the resolution I wanted, and the refresh rate I wanted, but not both at the same time.) But the savings in desk space was very well worth it.

Anyone who can't stare at one type of screen for too long most likely has an eye problem. The majority of the population can look at either screen type just fine.

The problem with LCDs is that they look like complete ass if you try to run them at anything other than their native resolution. MANY games (or other programs) only run at 640x480, and may the gods have mercy on you if you run that on an LCD that isn't 1280x960.

Conversely, the problem with CRTs is that stupid Pincushion crap. I've spent hours trying to get the edges of the picture to match the actual edges of a CRT screen. Fortunately, this is by far the lesser of the two evils.

When you buy an LCD, mostly what you're paying for is the fact that it weighs less than you do, which is sadly not always true of CRTs...

I prefer the old skewl way. I don't lug my monitor around often enough to care about the weight, but I DO switch resolutions constantly. So Bleh.

LCD all the way - my eyes can take it much better than CRT.

Matte LCD's are the best.

there's more than just brightness and contrast. There's gamma for one.