clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 26.04.2010 21:33, schrieb Warp:
> > Le_Forgeron<jgr### [at] freefr>  wrote:
> >> Then came out LCD... from laptop to desktop and TV, they killed the CRT.
> >> The colours drop to less numbers, but this is now an hidden information.
> >
> >    Not to talk about contrast...
> >
> >    Also, CRTs could be looked at from about any direction and it would
> > always look exactly as good. Only in the last few years LCDs are
> > *approaching* that (many still have problems when viewed from above
> > or below).
> >
> >    Then there are the dead pixels, which plagued LCDs for many, many years
> > (only relatively recently LCD vendors have started guaranteeing no dead
> > pixels).

> Stick to CRTs if you like - I do prefer to have room enough on my desk 
> for /two/ displays with 24" @16:9 and 19" @4:3 size (effective image 
> diagonal, not nominal tube size), both presenting their image perfectly 
> flat and undistorted, with perfectly sharp pixels, no analog signal 
> distortion or beam focus problems, no "pumping" effect with brightness 
> changes, no moiree effects with the X11 login screen, less dust 
> accumulating on the display, less eye strain from flicker - and no risk 
> of my desk collapsing under the displays' sheer weight.

> It's all a question of priorities. Yours may vary.

  You missed the point completely, and misunderstood what I was talking about
really badly.

  The subject was not about "what's better, CRT or LCD?" No, the subject was
about "every time a new technology comes up, it always seems like a huge
step backwards, until it catches up".

  I was simply listing reasons why LCD was a step backwards compared to CRT,
until it catches up.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message