|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 26.04.2010 21:33, schrieb Warp:
> > Le_Forgeron<jgr### [at] free fr> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |