19 inch crt monitor

[patrick10]

http://www.necdisplay.com/products/s...ncfe950+bk.htm

is this worth buying for 50 bucks?

[Labcoatguy]

CRTs are really underrated nowadays. They tend to have faster response times, more flexibility in resolution, and better brightness than most LCDs, so if you and your deskcan handle the bulk and size (which is really their only disadvantage, apart from the increased power appetite), go for it.

[patrick10]

a lcd should be brighter than a tube

[WheatKing]

CRT has way way better contrast ratio than a LCD.. who cares about brightness..

1280x1024@85hz.. & 1600x1200@76hz.. go for it..

looks like a decent monitor..

[jeffy777]

Just switched to dual LCDs from dual CRTs and I can tell you that they're much easier on the eyes (from someone who has terrible eyes).

But that CRT is a great deal

[patrick10]

ok so a 19 inch lcd has poped into the scene for 100 bucks. its also an acer but im not sure of the model. the only thing is that i dont think a lcd will make a difference in size considewring my setup is huge as is.



i am in love with my setup... 2 comps running a KVM swith both hooked up to the 27 inch tv running 6.1. in all it cost me about 50 bucks, everything else was given to me.

[jeffy777]

Originally Posted by patrick10

ok so a 19 inch lcd has poped into the scene for 100 bucks. its also an acer but im not sure of the model.

a 19" LCD will give you more viewable area than a 19" CRT.

I just recently bought two Acer 19" LCDs (non-widescreen) for a dual monitor setup and I LOVE them so much more than my previous CRTs (one was a 22" and the other was a 19"). The 22" CRT actually only had about 20" of viewable screen, and my 19" CRT had 18", so I didn't lose any viewable area and I really prefer the LCDs in so many ways. I wasn't sure if I would, but I certainly do now that I have them.

[targa_997]

It's a pity NEC dropped the Mitsubishi CRT monitors, I have the DiamondPro SB 19" (18.6" viewable) and it's by far the best monitor I ever use. I also have a 20.1" widescreen from Viewsonic, it is a great monitor (one of the best in its category for office use and movie, and a fair monitor for games), but it's not as accurate than the Mitsubishi.

[Viper007Bond]

I run dual CRTs. LCDs are only good for their space saving.

[konradiusz]

Originally Posted by targa_997

I have the DiamondPro SB 19" .

Same, they're really good, but take a lot of space and they are really heavy. I am in the market looking for an LCD, but haven't really had the time go into deep research. But the only reason that i would buy an LCD is because they take less space.

[flamingice]

Originally Posted by jeffy777

Just switched to dual LCDs from dual CRTs and I can tell you that they're much easier on the eyes (from someone who has terrible eyes).

Main reason I use LCD's, right there. They're way easier to look at for long periods of time. Plus their space saving, good since I have limited space.

[cvrefugee]

CRT radiation FTW!

[jeffy777]

Originally Posted by Viper007Bond

I run dual CRTs. LCDs are only good for their space saving.

Well, in addition to the advantage of being easier on the eyes and no radiation:

- LCDs use less than 1/3 of the energy (save you some money on your electric bill)
- LCDs are immune to the effects of magnetic fields.
- LCDs have an expected life time of 50,000 – 60,000 as opposed to 15,000 – 20,000 hours on a CRT.

[jayjaya29]

I have a Samsung SynMaster 997MB 19" CRT and it is amazing. I love it.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Yeah, I've got a Samsung Syncmaster 955DF, and I still can't convince myself to swap it for an LCD. LCD's in my price range aren't accurate enough for photo work.

[geeman]

Originally Posted by jeffy777

- LCDs use less than 1/3 of the energy (save you some money on your electric bill)
- LCDs are immune to the effects of magnetic fields.
- LCDs have an expected life time of 50,000 – 60,000 as opposed to 15,000 – 20,000 hours on a CRT.

Here is a few more things.
LCDs have perfectly shaped image
LCDs have better sharpness than CRTs
on LCDs image size and shape are adjusted automatically
LCDs always have the native resolution in the same ratio than the physical screen is

I have been using LCD on main computer since '03 and I have never regretted the switch.

[targa_997]

Originally Posted by geeman

Here is a few more things.
LCDs have perfectly shaped image
LCDs have better sharpness than CRTs
on LCDs image size and shape are adjusted automatically
LCDs always have the native resolution in the same ratio than the physical screen is

I have been using LCD on main computer since '03 and I have never regretted the switch.

This is bad for gamers: if you don't have a graphic card powerful enough to display decent FPS on native resolution, you need to use a lower resolution then the image sucks.

[geeman]

Originally Posted by targa_997

This is bad for gamers: if you don't have a graphic card powerful enough to display decent FPS on native resolution, you need to use a lower resolution then the image sucks.

I was referring to the fact that LCDs always have the same ratio than the native resolution. So LCDs with 1280x1024 are physically 5:4 so as the resolution and if the resolution is 4:3 the physical screen is also the same. In CRT world mostly 19" screens suffer from the fact that the recommended/"native" resolution is 1280x104 which is 5:4 and the screen itself is 4:3.

What you probably meant that when not using the native resolution on an LCD the quality suffers, which is true. But I was actually surprised how good the scaling is when I got my new monitor compared to my old one. Plus with Nvidia GPUs and DVI you have all kinds of different scaling options.

[targa_997]

Originally Posted by geeman

I was referring to the fact that LCDs always have the same ratio than the native resolution. So LCDs with 1280x1024 are physically 5:4 so as the resolution and if the resolution is 4:3 the physical screen is also the same. In CRT world mostly 19" screens suffer from the fact that the recommended/"native" resolution is 1280x104 which is 5:4 and the screen itself is 4:3.

True, that's why I'm in 1600x1200@100Hz, and play games at 1280x1024 or lower if needed; I could not do that on my LCD without loosing image quality.

[jeffy777]

Originally Posted by targa_997

This is bad for gamers: if you don't have a graphic card powerful enough to display decent FPS on native resolution, you need to use a lower resolution then the image sucks.

Real gamers have nice graphics cards, so it's all good