I haven't owned CRT's in years, all my machines old and new use LCD's now. The biggest reason is to cut down on heat since here our summers can be in the 40.55C - 47.77 C range outside, so less heat inside, means less work for our air conditioners.

Godlike wrote:

Lukeno94 wrote:

There's a reason it has no AGP; the onboard VGA uses it. My PIII 450 MHz 440BX HP Vectra system is from around 1999 and has an identical sort of setup (built-in graphics uses the AGP interface, only PCI and ISA available on a riser card due to the form factor).

Yes. onbord SiS 8Mb, that's could be useful for office, but to play games need to be one of pci populated with proper graphics card I presume. I have in it similar to yours CPU AMD K6-2 400Mhz

I don't think the SiS chips were that bad; not world beaters, but reasonably competent. You could just stick a Voodoo 2/3 PCI in there, that would sort out your worries. Any PCI GeForce card would probably be more than powerful enough for a K6-2 as well.

Godlike wrote:

ODwilly wrote:

Just swapped my 19inch Viewsonic LCD for a 17inch Viewsonic p75f+ CRT 1600x1200 w/ 75 Hertz refresh is pretty cool! For whatever reason there are not proper 7 drivers for my LCD so some games give an out of range error message on it. Thus the swap

Why CRT's are no more produced? I hate LCD's, even the latest ultra super-duper ones. Ever heard of InterView 28hd96 fullHD 1080p CRT from mid-90's? i wish to have one!

Personally I don't have the space for a huge CRT. I know some do but the market is small.

I have space for exactly one small CRT and one small LCD 😀 works out great.

smeezekitty wrote:

Godlike wrote:

ODwilly wrote:

Just swapped my 19inch Viewsonic LCD for a 17inch Viewsonic p75f+ CRT 1600x1200 w/ 75 Hertz refresh is pretty cool! For whatever reason there are not proper 7 drivers for my LCD so some games give an out of range error message on it. Thus the swap

Why CRT's are no more produced? I hate LCD's, even the latest ultra super-duper ones. Ever heard of InterView 28hd96 fullHD 1080p CRT from mid-90's? i wish to have one!

Personally I don't have the space for a huge CRT. I know some do but the market is small.

I don't get that. LCD screens take up more desk space than CRT's as they are wider and have huge stands to keep them steady... At least in my experience and especially these days where anything under 21" with a >1600x1200 resolution is hard to find or ridiculously expensive. Makes no sense to me either, given that I'm sat near it and have to move my head just to follow the mouse pointer, I'm long sighted too.

I can fit two CRTs on the desk and have room to spare, but I can only fit a single LCD on it, I think that says something. Response time on most is still too slow as well, in my mind if a monitor cannot display Xaos properly, it is not worth my time.

kithylin wrote:

Godlike wrote:

Because CRT's use about +75% more power, and produce a -TON- of heat when they run, and they're super heavy and take up all your desk when you have them.

I haven't owned CRT's in years, all my machines old and new use LCD's now. The biggest reason is to cut down on heat since here our summers can be in the 40.55C - 47.77 C range outside, so less heat inside, means less work for our air conditioners.

I didn't wrote that what you highlighted. When people think about buing a new screen then it comes to picture quality/refresh rate/monitor size requirements. This is entertiment and we have to remember that have to be maximum, I can focus on power-consumption on my microwave/fridge/hoover et cetera. If CRT's will be still produced then I don't think we will be forced to see same size/consumption etc like in 90's, I strongly don't think so. The answer why logevity and quality CRT's are not produced any more we might find HERE: The light bulb conspiracy/planned obsolescence. Of course every one has own opinion about technology and whole world, so please put tomatoes aside. This is IMHO.
Technology develops unbelievably quickly and I'm sure the crt lows (weight/size/pwr_consumption) will be non-stop improve. Ton of heat? That's nonsense, who wrote that? Someone think he's TV or LCD are ice-cold or what? Everything produce heat, but if crt will produce %75 more heat then I'm pretty sure someone will find out first watercool solution for CRT 🤣
Going back to your post then you must live in really hot country, then device heat emission could be more problematical - however for this living circustances people have to be armed with good air conditioners, not sure how big heat problem could be, but I think bigger disadvantage will be size of most CRT's. Of course IMHO 😀
PS: I prefer winter time, I don't like summer time actually, If I where live in your country then I will buy fridge as a bed myself!
Godlike!

I find it strange how the LCD screens I have (and never use) take 85-110 Watts and the CRT's take around 35-50 (though they exceed this briefly at startup time). The thermal dissipation by the LCD screens is higher, the DELL and HP branded ones throw out silly heat to the point that the latter shuts off when on my desk as the shelf above slows airflow just enough for it to overheat.

CRT screens actually run quite cold. The only cool running LCD I have is a low-power one from Samsung which has an incredibly slow response time and poor color reproduction rendering it useless outside of Microsoft Word or e-Mail clients.

@Godlike; I hate summer, not only is it too hot (and it rarely exceeds 25C here) but just as I get used to that and break out the fans, I realize I can't open the window because of the pollen, damn hay fever.

Lukeno94 wrote:

Godlike wrote:

Lukeno94 wrote:

There's a reason it has no AGP; the onboard VGA uses it. My PIII 450 MHz 440BX HP Vectra system is from around 1999 and has an identical sort of setup (built-in graphics uses the AGP interface, only PCI and ISA available on a riser card due to the form factor).

Yes. onbord SiS 8Mb, that's could be useful for office, but to play games need to be one of pci populated with proper graphics card I presume. I have in it similar to yours CPU AMD K6-2 400Mhz

I don't think the SiS chips were that bad; not world beaters, but reasonably competent. You could just stick a Voodoo 2/3 PCI in there, that would sort out your worries. Any PCI GeForce card would probably be more than powerful enough for a K6-2 as well.

I didn't mean SiS chips are bad, I meant integrated/on-board graphics isn't good enough for 3D games, especially 8MB. As you've wrote good PCI card will be fine! For this motherboard I will use MATROX Millenium II 8MB PCI and 2 x 3dfx Voodoo2 Diamond Monster 8MB in SLI mode, one card still need repair 😒
GeForce you said? I remember my first Radeon DDR 32MB I bought and remember how enjoyable was Clive Barker's Undying on it !

IMO LCDs still can't perform as well as HD CRTs.

And the funny thing about the power issue is that CRT's were normally pretty small. While LCDs, due to being light and thin now go up and above 60", a big LCD negates any energy savings from switching from a CRT. As in dumping a 27" CRT to the curb to buy a 40 or 50"-ish LCD won't save any energy. Only the LCD is "smart" and can probably go into a sleep mode without needing to be set to like a CRT would.

Another thing that ticks me off is that most Cable providers have SDTV channels and "HD" channels, ...of the same channel. You would think they wouldn't bother with SD any more, but nope, they still send them out. SD looks terrible on HDTVs...and old SDTVs because of letter-boxing, pillar boxing, and sometimes both.

The HD stations can legally be called HD, but they generally only use 720p, so all those 1080p TVs don't even use their full potential. Then you have people who just don't know any better, and think that just because they have an HDTV that they have "HD", they don't change their cable service, 'r their cables, and still watch their DVDs oblivious to everything.

HighTreason wrote:

I find it strange how the LCD screens I have (and never use) take 85-110 Watts and the CRT's take around 35-50 (though they exceed this briefly at startup time). The thermal dissipation by the LCD screens is higher, the DELL and HP branded ones throw out silly heat to the point that the latter shuts off when on my desk as the shelf above slows airflow just enough for it to overheat.

CRT screens actually run quite cold. The only cool running LCD I have is a low-power one from Samsung which has an incredibly slow response time and poor color reproduction rendering it useless outside of Microsoft Word or e-Mail clients.

@Godlike; I hate summer, not only is it too hot (and it rarely exceeds 25C here) but just as I get used to that and break out the fans, I realize I can't open the window because of the pollen, damn hay fever.

The most recent monitor I have is a 19" shadow mask. As you may know, shadow masks supposedly dissipate 2/3 of their total power in the mask itself. This screen takes only 60W, runs cooler than most LCDs, yet somehow it's brighter than any other screen I've seen so far (save for some LED-backlit LCDs and maybe OLED).
Can't say the same about this Eizo unfortunately, currently irradiating my face with 150W or so but nowhere near as bright. Though it still feels like it's producing much less heat than an LCD.

The few trinitrons I've had were burning furnaces from hell with average brightness at best.

Godlike wrote:

I didn't wrote that what you highlighted.

I'm sorry about that. I edited my post and deleted the entire quoted section. The forum software some how mangled my post and quoted something I meant to type as a reply and I have no earthly idea how it happened.

I don't get that. LCD screens take up more desk space than CRT's as they are wider and have huge stands to keep them steady

In my case, the depth if a big deal. Something that CRTs are terrible with.

I find it strange how the LCD screens I have (and never use) take 85-110 Watts and the CRT's take around 35-50 (though they exceed this briefly at startup time).

This 21" LCD monitor only measures 20W. It uses an LED backlight. Unfortunately, I don't really like it (backlight bleed)
My older 1440x900 monitor had far better blacks.

My theory on why LCD screens seem warmer is because the power is dissipated in a much smaller area thus warmer.

The HD stations can legally be called HD, but they generally only use 720p, so all those 1080p TVs don't even use their full potential. Then you have people who just don't know any better, and think that just because they have an HDTV that they have "HD", they don't change their cable service, 'r their cables, and still watch their DVDs oblivious to everything.

IMO 720p is enough considering the content on TV. But it is a shame people don't know the difference though.

kithylin wrote:

Godlike wrote:

I didn't wrote that what you highlighted.

I'm sorry about that. I edited my post and deleted the entire quoted section. The forum software some how mangled my post and quoted something I meant to type as a reply and I have no earthly idea how it happened.

No probs

zstandig wrote:

The HD stations can legally be called HD, but they generally only use 720p, so all those 1080p TVs don't even use their full potential. Then you have people who just don't know any better, and think that just because they have an HDTV that they have "HD", they don't change their cable service, 'r their cables, and still watch their DVDs oblivious to everything.

so many times I have been to family friends that are all proud of there new giant HD TV yet all their players and any consoles are hooked up via composite....YUK

when I worked in a video rental place before I was replaced by a big red vending machine I used to have countless discussions with customers who thought you NEEDED a widescreen TV to watch a movie in widescreen format.....your quote just reminded me of those days.

CRTs are more expensive to build (after a certain size), are way more costly to store and ship (size and weight... specially the weight), and, for the same size, consume more energy. Also, widescreen is all the rage, and if CRTs were still produced they would be 16:9 (apparently, some do exist... just googled it) and also big, which would completly negate the space saving argument for 4:3 CRTs vs 16:9 LCDs, as small-ish 4:3 CRTs would also not be still in production. All things considered, people wanted big widescreen TVs that didn't weight a ton, and LCDs offered all that, so the market for CRT technology dwindled and got killed off when LCDs became cheap enough to conquer the lower-cost segments from cheap smaller CRTs.

I don't believe it was necessarily planned obsolence (at least not beyond marketing), the CRTs reached a point where there was such a low demand that mantaining production wasn't worth it anymore.

They are so kick ass though in terms of colour accuracy. 😒

I'm really annoyed by the fact that "widescreen" sizes have taken over everywhere. I don't understand the appeal, at all. They're just annoyingly overwide and too short vertically. In an era where many people run multiple monitors side-by-side, this makes the dimensions even more ridiculous. It's a silly trend that I wish would end, but I'm sure the manufacturers like the convenience of being able to use the same parts they use for TV production, so they won't have any interest in encouraging anything other than 16:9 for everybody and everything. Even 16:10 is becoming a rarity nowadays.
I can't figure out why movies are so important that computer screen dimensions are dictated by it, and real movie theaters don't use 16:9 anyway. More like 2.35:1 or something like that. Will that be the next trend? I hope not.
I'm using a group of 5:4 LCDs right now, but none of them are in great condition. When they die, I loathe that I'll probably end up having to buy a silly 16:9. Which will take up so much desk space that I won't even be able to put other monitors next to it anymore, but it will save plenty of space in the open air floating above it. Good deal.
A long time ago, I had a 1600x1200@85Hz capable CRT. I wish I had it now. It was getting fuzzy and hard on my eyes though.

Godlike wrote:

http://i.imgur.com/hfssbTO.jpg […]
Show full quote

No offence intended here, but it just looks like the LCD screen on the right has it's brightness/contrast turned up too high. Normal LCD screens shouldn't be bright like that... just looks like to me it's set wrong.

Godlike wrote:

I didn't mean SiS chips are bad, I meant integrated/on-board graphics isn't good enough for 3D games, especially 8MB. As you've wrote good PCI card will be fine! For this motherboard I will use MATROX Millenium II 8MB PCI and 2 x 3dfx Voodoo2 Diamond Monster 8MB in SLI mode, one card still need repair 😒
GeForce you said? I remember my first Radeon DDR 32MB I bought and remember how enjoyable was Clive Barker's Undying on it !

8MB isn't good enough for 3D games? Depends on the game. I don't see it handicapping anything that will run on a K6-2 that much. Hell, I've run games like NFS III on systems with 2.5/3 MB of VRAM, albeit with 500 MHz PIIIs, and the settings were pretty reasonable as well (640x480, everything turned all the way up IIRC - maybe even 800x600).

As to the screen ranting; large widescreens are very useful for browsing, and indeed gaming. The only time they're a handicap, in my opinion (ignoring the obvious "4:3 optimized applications", which includes physical things), is when editing text documents in portrait format. Widescreen CRTs do exist, my parents had a widescreen CRT TV in the past IIRC. As much as I would love a CRT, they're just too big, too heavy and too power-hungry for the modern world (where are people getting 85W figures from for LCDs? I've never seen a TFT with close to that - 30W is the highest I'm aware of, although I've not had any massive ones. Just because the power supply can supply it, doesn't mean the monitor needs it.). And I agree with other posters; no good trying to show off CRT's superiority when it's blatantly obvious that the Dell TFT isn't even close to being set up correctly. A LCD will actually be pretty cool if there is no built-in power supply (source: my monitor)