Reply 40 of 46, by momaka
- Rank
- Oldbie
leonardo wrote on 2025-05-07, 21:57:The sad reality is that most monitors sold even in the 90's were cheap mass-produced garbage. A common end result of this was that larger monitors tended to have a blurry image at their advertised ideal resolution, regardless of the video card that they were paired with.
Don't be surprised if you find plenty of 17" screens that only look very clear at 800x600 (or lower) resolution and can maybe stretch to a 75~85 Hz refresh. This isn't bad for DOS, but if you intend to do mixed desktop-use and DOS-/Windows-gaming it suddenly starts to matter. A 19" or larger monitor is a hunk of junk if you can only go up to 1024x768 with a good image. A really good 17" will do 1600x1200 and still give you plenty of refresh.
Not exactly true.
Yes, CRT monitor quality did start to drop off a little past the mid-late 90's compared to what it was earlier. But in terms of resolutions, you'd be hard-pressed to find a 17" CRT that can't do 1024x768 clearly at 75 or 85 Hz. Only my NEC Cromaclear 17" can't, simply because Cromaclear tech is basically a hybrid between shadow mask and apperture grille, taking both pros and cons from each... and one con is the really really large pixel pitch. But just about everything else I've tried can do it fine. Most 2000's and newer 17" CRTs should be able to do up to 1152x864 pretty clearly. 1280x960 is where most won't pass the clarity test.
With 19" screens, I find most will do 1280x960 clearly. But anything beyond, a mixed bag.
And just about every not 21" that's not complete utter garbage that's been sitting outside for years or banging around at the back of someones pickup truck should be able to do 1600x1200 clearly, regardless if Trinitron/Diamondtron/aperture grille type or shadow mask type.
leonardo wrote on 2025-05-07, 21:57:Let your eyes guide you, don't spend too much time reading reviews for 30+-year old stuff.
That, I agree with.
With old CRTs, the best way to judge is really to see the thing in operation.
AppleSauce wrote on 2025-05-06, 03:09:I've got a larger G500 monitor and I'm okay with it , its nice having more viewing space , though a big issue with the screen was carrying it up the steps , the behemoth nearly broke my back(weighs like 30 something odd kg).
Ha, 30 Kg is nothing! 😀
Try carrying a GDM-FW900 (45 Kg) about 50 yards (because the guy had a long driveway and I didn't think / want to park on it when picking it up)... then do it again for the other one (yes, I have two of these... though one is a deadweight... but that's a different story.) And then... carry both up 3 flights of stairs (to my room)... + carry the dead one between my room and the spare/guest room several times (as that's the only place where I fully had the room to take it apart.)
Oh, and fun fact: I'm not even that strong of a person. @ 6 ft height but only 124 lbs weight, perhaps imaginable how much (or little) muscle I have. 🤣
sydres wrote on 2025-05-07, 22:21:Many others have mentioned sticking to good brands which is solid, I'd can't recommend going too big on a monitor. 25ish years ago I had a 20" inch syncmaster which was great except it was enormous and had significant weight. At a certain point these things become unwieldy if you need to move them frequently.
Moved mine (almost entire CRT collection) across the ocean when I moved. All packed and loaded in the container myself. Agreed its a grunt job. But worth it IMO. If you're relatively fit, then moving one of these should be nothing more than a brisk exercise. FWIW, an average 17" from the late 90's or early 2000's weighs in at around 18-23 kG... maybe 25 tops (but rarely). That's a standard bag of sand or cement for those working in construction (and most people in that industry usually carry two at a time.) And even if not, most IT and technical jobs I've looked at or worked did have the requirement to be able to lift and move up to 40-50 lbs (roughly 20 kg) of weight.
