GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
That particular one costs a fortune, though...not that I need a new monitor or anything, I was just curious if anyone actually made widescreen CRT displays. That's way cool!
Widescreen monitors are a bit of a con. Since the measurement quoted is the diagonal, a widescreen monitor gives less physical screen area than a 4:3 monitor with the same quoted measurement, making it cheaper to make. Critically, a "19 inch" 16:9 monitor has slightly less screen area than a "17 inch" 4:3 monitor - yet will probably sell for more. I suspect that is why since LCD monitors have become common, they've increasingly tended to be widescreen.
I remember that, at the time, flat panel monitors were coming into vogue, and everyone was buying them. I'd been perusing the wide selection of flat panels when I spotted my little 20" CRT on an out-of-the-way shelf for $150. Even the cheesiest flat screen available, which I'd toyed with the idea of "settling for" was over $300.
At the time, the CRT's color definition, contrast capabilities, and viewing angle outclassed even some of the two and three thousand dollar flat screens. The refresh rate frequency beats them even to this day.
In my personal, over-valued opinion, anyone serious about gaming on their PC should still go with a CRT over a flat panel to this day.
Dell Ultra Sharp 2209WA 22". Matte black, so no reflections from the bezel (I didnt want the speaker that sits under the monitor bezel). I bought it for graphic design, fantastic colour.
I have a Dell 24" and a Asus 24" side by side. Both getting some age to them now. Dell is starting to act up once in a while if you don't actually PHYSICALLY disconnect it from the power when not being used.
I spent extra USD20 to get LED than LCD,
LED is better,
can watch porn movie better quality
One thing I always hate is when manufacturers call LED-backlit LCDs "LED displays", which is totally wrong.
The problem is that LED displays already existed, and they actually have three primary color LEDs in each pixel.
But LCD manufacturers found that by backlighting LCDs with primary-colored LEDs instead of a flourescent tube, the colors come out much nicer. And for marketing purposes, they decided to call them "LED displays".
Samsung BX2240 (22'''LED', main desktop monitor, quite nice)
Viewsonic VA1918wm (19'' LCD, media boxxen, not that good)
Philips 107P (17'' CRT, testbench, one of the best monitors I've ever used)
Philips 107E (17'' CRT, spare monitor)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantab
Widescreen monitors are a bit of a con. Since the measurement quoted is the diagonal, a widescreen monitor gives less physical screen area than a 4:3 monitor with the same quoted measurement, making it cheaper to make. Critically, a "19 inch" 16:9 monitor has slightly less screen area than a "17 inch" 4:3 monitor - yet will probably sell for more. I suspect that is why since LCD monitors have become common, they've increasingly tended to be widescreen.
I'd tend to agree, and personally I think that 16:9 is not a great ratio, even though I own a 16:9 monitor. 16:10/8:5 is much better IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTK358
One thing I always hate is when manufacturers call LED-backlit LCDs "LED displays", which is totally wrong.
The problem is that LED displays already existed, and they actually have three primary color LEDs in each pixel.
But LCD manufacturers found that by backlighting LCDs with primary-colored LEDs instead of a flourescent tube, the colors come out much nicer. And for marketing purposes, they decided to call them "LED displays".
Again, I agree, even though I have one of the 'LED' monitors that is just LED backlighting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foodown
At the time, the CRT's color definition, contrast capabilities, and viewing angle outclassed even some of the two and three thousand dollar flat screens. The refresh rate frequency beats them even to this day.
In my personal, over-valued opinion, anyone serious about gaming on their PC should still go with a CRT over a flat panel to this day.
Colour definition is getting better, but a good CRT would still be better than most LCD/plasmas. Contrast and viewing angle, no contest, CRT still wins over LCD. Refresh rate....a very good CRT that isnt pushing the edge of its capabilities should be better than most LCDs, but high refresh rate LCDs have been around for a while. As long as it doesnt hurt (CRTs were bad for this, LCD much better) and the refresh rate is high enough that you can still get a good framerate I dont mind lower refresh rate on LCD.
I wouldnt go for a CRT for gaming now. CRTs are hard to find new, good ones are still expensive, and widescreen does help with some games.
I spent extra USD20 to get LED than LCD,
LED is better,
can watch porn movie better quality
Won't make a different. You're still going to go blind.
I have an Asus MS238. It LED backlit and has FANTASTIC image quality, and it's light enough that if I want to put it into portrait mode then I just pick it up and re-orient it. Its stand is... just barely good enough, but good enough it is. Also, it does not take VESA-standard mount replacements, so you can't replace the stand.
Samsung BX2240 (22'''LED', main desktop monitor, quite nice)
Viewsonic VA1918wm (19'' LCD, media boxxen, not that good)
Philips 107P (17'' CRT, testbench, one of the best monitors I've ever used)
Philips 107E (17'' CRT, spare monitor)
I'd tend to agree, and personally I think that 16:9 is not a great ratio, even though I own a 16:9 monitor. 16:10/8:5 is much better IMO.
Again, I agree, even though I have one of the 'LED' monitors that is just LED backlighting.
Colour definition is getting better, but a good CRT would still be better than most LCD/plasmas. Contrast and viewing angle, no contest, CRT still wins over LCD. Refresh rate....a very good CRT that isnt pushing the edge of its capabilities should be better than most LCDs, but high refresh rate LCDs have been around for a while. As long as it doesnt hurt (CRTs were bad for this, LCD much better) and the refresh rate is high enough that you can still get a good framerate I dont mind lower refresh rate on LCD.
I wouldnt go for a CRT for gaming now. CRTs are hard to find new, good ones are still expensive, and widescreen does help with some games.
I've always wondered why they don't publish more specs on the LED backlights themselves. Surely a superior backlight would provide a noticeable increase in sharpness.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
