Talk:How To Assemble A Desktop PC/Choosing the parts/CRT vs. LCD Debate

monitor pros and cons
I was very careful to only list advantages, because everything can be listed as both an advantage and as a disadvantage. A more negative way would be to list only disadvantages. I think it is best to just go back to only listing advantages, but I can fill in the numerous CRT disadvantages...

Going to a table is another way to deal with things.

old   analogLCD    digitalLCD - --- --- weight           high       low         low shipping cost   high        low        low purchase cost   low      medium       high etc.             blah      blah        blah

BTW, I can supply test images that show just how horrible a CRT is. Here: http://www.cs.uml.edu/~acahalan/lcd/


 * I get the point. LCDs don't have certain flaws. The link is just a test pattern. In actual use, I've never had the problem, but the problem does display on my screen. I won't be switching anytime, unless they can replicate the glow of phosphors. Something about the glow is just the right intensity and everything. The backlighting on many of them washes out the color. Maybe OLED will do the trick. But I doubt that OLED will be able to display more than one resolution.
 * Ah yes. Tube amps and vinyl LPs, right? I find colors to be much better on an LCD, but that's with an all-digital system of course. AlbertCahalan 00:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Either way, why are anlog and digital LCDs seprate. Isn't the only diffrence, that the analog has to put the video signal through a DAC? And could you please make it a little more NPOV than it's current state.Reub2000 21:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That difference is huge. An analog connection will cause a monitor to fail the test pattern. (not as badly as a CRT though) An analog connection will cause an unsteady image, about as bad as you get with a CRT. An analog connection will allow crosstalk (blue leaks into red, etc.) in the cable. Half the reason to own an LCD is discarded if you connect it to an analog port.
 * Go into a store some time and look for an Apple Cinema Display (20" or 23", about 1920x1280) or Apple Cinema Display HD (30", 2560x1600). The quality is stunning. Even the cheap Apple displays are high quality, though smaller.
 * As for NPOV, I think the article is more than fair to the obsolete dead-end technology. It isn't right to suggest that normal people buy such displays. It's like telling people to buy turntables instead of CD players. Soon it will be time to just delete the CRT info, because CRTs won't be sold. It's happening already.
 * A little info on the NPOV policy: w:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In your current form, it is your bias against CRT monitors.
 * First of all, that's not wikibooks. Second of all, there was no bias. I simply listed the flaws. I take it that you would rather cover this up. Why? The old version was horribly biased, by failing to present all the flaws of CRTs. It made CRTs look almost as good as LCDs, which is simply not factual.
 * OK, so this is wikibooks. It doesn't change the facts that wikipedia and wikibooks use the same npov policy. The article can't blatently show bias against CRTs. Neither can it show bias against LCD panels. The article does say that if you don't need the speed of CRTs, that you should use an LCD. IMO pretty fair, and doesn't attack either, but tells who should get each type of display. BTW, I moved the section to How To Build A Computer/Development until it is fixed.Reub2000 04:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I listed all the facts. If the facts look better for one type, oh well. That is not bias at all. Bias would be any suggestion that this is a fairly even choice, in direct contradiction to the facts. (go ahead and junk the old pro+con lists; the table is better for comparison) AlbertCahalan 05:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Check this out:
 * 92.6 pounds, 1920x1200, 22.5" viewable, $1999, SONY GDM-FW900
 * 15.5 pounds, 1920x1200, 23.0" viewable, $1799, Apple Cinema HD Display
 * 27.5 pounds, 2560x1600, 29.7" viewable, $2999, Apple Cinema HD Display

So... the CRT is 0.5 inch smaller, 6x the weight (Geeez! 92.6 pounds!), and just shy of 2 feet deep. It even costs more, and that's not counting the shipping. What a deal! AlbertCahalan 16:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Your comparing it to a sony display, which explains that. My Mitsubishi Dimond Pro 930SB is 51.5lb, has a max resolution of 1920x1440, and only cost me $300. My NEC Multisysc FE991SB, has a slightly lower max res, has a horizonatal refresh of 96hz (1600x1200@75Hz or 1280x1024@85hz) and costed me $270, and weighs 50.1lb. Both of them had only $25 shipping each, much less than the diffence between it and an LCD. Only once have I had to move them, when I got them. The weight would definitly be a problem if I frequented LAN parties, but I don't. 2 19" monitors for less than your super big LCD display. Reub2000 17:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Sony is pretty much the standard. I didn't go searching for the worst case. I just picked the first name-brand CRT I found that was about the same size as the 23" (mid-size) Apple display. Note that the Sony is advertised as a 24" display; I made sure the viewable area was similar. I listed the 30" Apple display too because the Sony is both heavier and more expensive than the 23" Apple display. AlbertCahalan 19:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sony is not the standard, lol. No, their stuff is known as overpriced.


 * First, I didn't happen to see anything else decent sized. Second, I really do think Sony is the standard. That's what I've mostly seen in the USA in business use. Mitsubishi does not exist. I have seen NEC being used.

Most LCD displays will scale an image properly. Sometimes the fancy digital ones won't bother to try, and sometimes the crappy ones won't do a good job, but the typical LCD will do just fine.

If you think your CRT display is perfectly flat, please, put a ruler to it. Do this both vertically and horizontally. In case you somehow have a "flat" display, take a good look at the thickness of the glass. It's not the glass that matters, but where the image is floating. Thick glass around the edges is cheating. Hint: a Trinitron display is cylindrical.

CRTs are known for causing seizures. True, you have to be susceptable, so "commonly" refers to such people.

Moire defects are not only on a test pattern. The test pattern is not some magic image. Heck, I've seen moire effects on a CRT when using the default X background. (From the Linux console, type "X" to start up X without GNOME or KDE. Use Alt-Ctrl-Backspace to exit.)

Who are you to say that the X-ray radiation is "low"? Compared to what? Surely not any other display technology. This is a NPOV problem.

The same for dust. Factual: "yes". POV: "a little".

Apreture grill displays are cylindrical. They are usually flat in the vertical direction.

Evidence for being fragile... well, what do you think the support wires are for? Try dropping your display on the table a few times. You'll knock the apreture grill out of alignment.


 * It's a test pattern, besides for the few things you have brought up, I've never had repeating vertical lines displayed like that. And the x-ray radioation is compared to what is safe. I've spent most of my life infront of a CRT with no ill effect. I made it more NPOV, but then you reverted what you didn't like. Reub2000 17:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * PS. when would a monitor be dropped on a table?


 * Lots of people have trouble being gentle when trying to set down a bulky object that weighs 50 to 100 pounds.

commonly disputed issues

 * flatness
 * If you can't lay a ruler against it in any direction w/o any gap, it's not flat. Also, "spherical" and "cylindrical" are hard for most people to understand. It's better to just say "curvy", which actually sounds not as bad. (See? I try not to make the CRT look worse than the facts require.)
 * If I put a ruler up against my monitor, it wouldn't curve. It's perectly flat. But I won't do that because I don't want to scratch my screen.Reub2000 01:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll have to try this test in a computer store some time, because so far I've never seen a truly flat CRT. I've seen plenty of curved ones that were claimed to be flat though. AlbertCahalan 02:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Just thought I would add a very belated comment that the screen of my elderly CRT -- an NEC MultiSync FE950+ -- IS totally flat. (Yes, I tried putting a (non-flexible) ruler up against it and there are no gaps, not even at the edges.) I got it in 2002 and it sure has been an excellent display and (knock on wood) is still working great seven years later. For someone putting together a system cheaply, a used one of these could be a good buy if from a local source so you could check it out thoroughly & wouldnt have to pay shipping --wichienmaat


 * trinitron support wires
 * They are easy to see. Obviously they don't show up on black. Fill the screen with light grey though, and there they are, plain as could be. (not white, because blooming -- another CRT defect -- may hide the problem)
 * Still barely visable. It's a fraction of a millimeter, and barely any darker than the screen. Reub2000 01:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * air conditioning cost
 * This is real, well-known, and obvious. Feel the top of your CRT. Compare the watt rating. Providing actual numbers is fairly useless because air conditioning cost varies with the temperature setting, outside temperature, and many other factors. If you really want numbers though, NEC provides some numbers that combine both direct power consumption and AC power consumption. NEC claims that 4 years of operation with AC efficiency of 1.2 will cost $8696 for 500 15" LCDs and $36560 for 500 17" CRTs, for a savings of $27864.
 * $18/Year/CRT monitor. Not very much. Reub2000
 * Well, how many years do you keep a display? Your average monitor cost was $285, but I don't know what that would cost you today. If you keep a monitor for 5 years, a $13.93 per year difference comes to $70. So you could buy a $355 monitor for the same end cost. You have 19" monitors though, meaning the savings with LCDs would be bigger for you. (perhaps allowing for $400 LCDs) AlbertCahalan 02:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But can this $400 LCD display UT2K4 at 1600x1200 and my desktop at 1280x1024 and starcraft at 640x480? Reub2000 14:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks like nobody wants such a display. You have to move up to 20" viewable to get 1600x1200. Dell had such a screen on sale for $507. If 1280x1024 is fine though, you can get a 12 ms (83 redraws per second) display for $209 and an 8 ms (125 redraws per second) display for $235.
 * resolutions
 * This is a gamer thing, and only because most games fail to scale as desired by the user. It would be highly unusual to run desktop apps at non-native resolution. Hopefully, with the increasing usage of non-4:3 displays, this problem will soon be behind us.
 * No this is not just a gamer thing. My granny has a 19" 1280x1024 LCD screen. Her eyesight is poor, so she runs her desktop at 800x600. This makes the screen blurry. Many 17" LCD screens run at 1280x1024. IMO, a more appropriate resolution for 17" is 1024x768. And 16:9 screens for computers makes no sense at all. Watching movies in 2.35:1 on a 16:9 screen makes perfect sense, but most computer documents are are long, but not wide, making a 4:3 screen better suited for the task. And the gaming issue is not about aspect ratios. I'm a StarCraft addict, a game that only plays in 640x480. Also, many computers may not even be capable of playing games at the computers resolution. My computer can only play half-life 2 at 1280x1024. Good thing I wasn't playing it on your apple cinima display. Reub2000 01:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's truly sad. Your granny needs help with system settings. Go adjust the DPI setting or set a "large fonts" mode for her. She'll like that a lot better, because the letters have better shapes when they have more pixels. Probably a projector would have been better though, allowing for a nice 50" display. AlbertCahalan 02:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * StarCraft is a crummy old game. What else is there to say? Someday you might run it in an emulator that does nice scaling, just as people do with old game cartridge ROM images in arcade machine emulators. AlbertCahalan 02:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I like it, it's a nice game. I don't see windows or the x86 architechetue going anywhere, so I'll be playing it nativly on Windows. Reub2000
 * Windows will be gone in a decade or two, possibly a tad less. AlbertCahalan 16:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What makes you say so? Reub2000
 * Lots of reasons. First, look back two decades in the other direction. People thought DOS would be forever, and they were pretty much wrong. (WinXP may have cmd.exe, but that isn't really DOS) Second, worldwide economics and politics don't really support Windows. China, India, Brazil... all prefer Linux at government level. Many smaller places do too, totalling a big portion of the world population. Places where a salary is $2000/year are unable to support the legal use of Windows. As these places become more developed, their choices will exert a pull on the rest of the world. Third, even in the developed world things are slowly changing. Given enough time, that change will amount to something. A decade or two is very long for the computer industry, but not all that long for society. AlbertCahalan 01:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 16:9 screens are great for documents. Your work habits change. I put 2 or 3 documents side by side. Well, it's like having a dual-monitor setup without the seam down the middle. (presuming you don't do an over-under dual-monitor setup, which would be really unusual) AlbertCahalan 02:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The split doesn't bother me, because I never spread a window over both monitors. I noticed that you mentioned poor support for dual monitors. I've had a few dialog boxes in between the monitors, but nothing major. No major problems with linux, with xinerama. BTW, I could have gotten a 21 inch CRT for a litte less than the price as my monitors, but I wanted dual-monitors. But 4:3 makes more sense that 16:9. The only point of 16:9 is because most people thing it's better.Reub2000
 * A 21" CRT would be about 19" viewable. I found a 20" viewable LCD (bigger), analog+digital, 1600x1200, for $592. Shipping was free of course, plus there is the power savings. Sale prices go as low as $507. AlbertCahalan 16:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2 of those would be sweet. 3200x1200 is such a perfect resolution. But a 21" CRT has a 20" veiwable area.
 * X-ray radiation vs. X-ray emmision
 * In this case, emmision is a euphemism. X-rays are ionizing radiation. They are mutagenic and carcinagenic. Perhaps "cancer-causing electromagnetic waves" would be better? :-)
 * I think you should not get on an airplane, get a dental x-ray, because you'll be exposed to radiation. Seriously, don't use the word radiation unless you mean gamma radation, what most people associate the word radiation with.Reub2000 01:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as heath goes, what does this matter? Both gamma and X-ray radiation are ionizing. AlbertCahalan 02:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The word radiation will just scare people. Everywhere I've seen says it's withing safe levels. Reub2000
 * eyestrain-causing image wiggle when near large motors
 * This is caused by the electron beam being bent, so it applies to all CRTs. If the grid/grill thing ever moves enough to matter, you should get your office out of the elevator shaft.
 * Get you office outta therr anyways. Reub2000
 * My former landlord, living upstairs from me, had a washing machine that would make my CRT image wiggle enough to give an instant headache. I could always tell when she was washing clothes. AlbertCahalan 02:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * bad small white-on-black text
 * This is caused by an interaction between non-linear (not 1.0) gamma and the frequency limitation of an analog system. Consider the '+' character, which can look somewhat like a '-' character. The analog signal, on the cable or in the form of an electron beam, must respond abruptly by going from 0% to 100% to 0% as the character is scanned from one side to the other. (you can see why the analog LCD would be half-way bad) Consider a whole row of text, and the desired voltage as a square wave. A true square wave is impossible; you'll get some blurring. This would be moderatly bad if 50% voltage indicated 50% brightness. Because of the gamma equation though, 50% brightness requires about 75% voltage. When the square wave is getting blurred, voltage is being averaged out. An even cycle of white and black turns into dark grey, not 50% grey. Getting back to the '+' character now, the horizontal bar will be mostly OK. The points come out a bit dark, but that matters little. The vertical bar is terrible, because the beam intensity never gets very high. Note that black-on-white text is decent, with stuff like the center of an '@' coming out a bit dark instead of pure white.
 * Looks OK to me. Though text does get blurred in the corners of my screen, while your plus sign is in the center.Reub2000 01:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * In the standard 6x13 "fixed" font, I usually couldn't tell a '+' from a '-' when running white-on-black with 1152x864 on a 16" CRT with a decent refresh rate. I had to switch to a 10x20 font, which made the vertical bar be 2 pixels wide. The 21" Sony CRTs commonly given to software developers are a bit better, with things being readable (slowly) at 1600x1200. (again, with a decent refresh rate) AlbertCahalan 02:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Backlight causes colors to be washed out
 * This is not generally true. Maybe eMachines still sells stuff with that problem, but I'd also expect them to ship CRTs that don't come close to showing black. LCD displays have been certified by printing press and graphics organizations for pre-press proofing usage. This means that the colors are good enough to rely on for printing up sales flyers and such. more info here
 * On plenty of LCD displays, I've seen the issue. My granny's LCD from Dell does it. My cell phone and clie do it. Reub2000 01:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll count the Dell display if it is a recent desktop display. The others are not computers. Laptop LCDs are purposely designed to mangle colors for extra-low power consumption. I'll insist that you count my old CRT though, which looks grey when it is off. In other words, this is not an LCD-vs.-CRT issue. It's just a matter of buying old display tech. FYI, I've never seen a CRT that could produce colors as well as my LCD. AlbertCahalan 02:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * makes faint high-pitched noise
 * Yes, really. CRTs make some people want to climb the walls. My mom can hear them just fine. The noise comes from the horizontal refresh. As the magnets bend the electron bean (at 15 kHz for example - it varies), they also vibrate. Humans sense vibrations as sound, so there you go.
 * Must be masked by the sound of my computers. There are 3 of them in my office.Reub2000
 * More likely, you don't have ears that can pick up the sound. It's often a really high pitch. People who detect the sound can often hear it through walls and over all sorts of background noice. It's piercing, if you have the ears to pick it up. AlbertCahalan 02:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm only 17. I think my ears should pick up pretty high sound. But louder noises will mask softer noises. Lossy audio codecs take advantage of this. Reub2000 22:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose you got unlucky. Probably you are male, which would go against you. At age 17 or 18, I was able to hear the noise very well for one computer at school, and on a few other computers if I really tried. Some people can hear any normal TV set tube. (TV audio on or off) My mom is not able to hear a TV set, but she can't stand most CRTs. She is 50. AlbertCahalan 01:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * makes noise when turning on or changing resolution
 * This is very uncool. It's like having exposed screw heads on the outside of your car, tape on your glasses, a floor that groans and squeaks, duct tape patching mouse holes in your walls, an elevator that makes loud clattering noises...
 * I don't know how those have anything to do with the noise of a CRT monitor degaussing when it's turned on. Reub2000

continuing on...
I think we'll both agree that CRT and LCD displays have their place. I like CRTs. You obviously like LCDs. Nothing is going to change that. (I do think that OLED will eventually replace LCDs, and maybe even CRTs.)


 * OLED: mostly like an LCD, suffers burn-in, power usage depends on screen content (use a black background), slow models should not exist. AlbertCahalan 01:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just curious. You mentioned portablity a lot. Do you frequently go to LAN parties? Reub2000 22:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My brother does this. I tend to live in cramped places, place the computer on the floor, and move the monitor to vaccuum the floor. I've also had a desk get warped by the weight of a small CRT; this did not please me one bit. Previously I've lived in college dorm rooms where people had to move out every few months. When I move to a new house, I want to bring the expensive stuff in my car. AlbertCahalan 01:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have decided to remove the current section on Monitors to the development section, and will revert to the old monitor section until this dispute is resolved. The current format of this section does not match the rest of the article.  --Noogz 04:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that was rude and unwise. Things were calming down. Now I am faced with a choice: revert your revert or rewrite the whole section yet again? The table was an excellent way to present things fairly. AlbertCahalan 12:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think he meant that it should be edited in the development section, and that the old section is a placeholder until the new one is completed. Feel free to edit any of the sections in the delopment module. Reub2000 23:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current one is in the development section, and that is where new content is supposed to go before it gets merged into the final product. The reason why I moved it there is because it did not match the flow of the other sections in the article.  If you can make the information conveyed like the rest of the article, it's good.  If you want to work on your current section use the development section as opposed to completely editing a product that's ready to be included in a BOTM - it wasn't at a standard yet that is includible in a book like this yet.  --Noogz 00:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, it's in the development module now. It is also a better choice for the non-development module though, even if it isn't yet perfect. (When is anything perfect?) Note that it is highly abnormal to even have a development module. There may be a link to it somewhere, but not an obvious one. A wiki is all about live editing; this really goes against the wiki spirit. You should be improving the text, not reverting it. AlbertCahalan 03:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I totally agree about live editing, but at the time, we had a good description of the types of monitor, and the reasons why someone would want to buy one - A complete re-design of the section, that looks nothing like the rest of the article was not needed for a piece of work that is being considered for BOTM. We have the development section to allow you to work on big things without disrupting the flow of the book.  This is a case of flow, and the table disrupted it.  Make the info more like the rest of the article, and it may be considered for re-introduction to the article.--Noogz 04:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A few highlights from Albert's new section that he decided was better than the old:
 * "Modern computer displays use a thin flat LCD panel with the DVI-D digital connector."
 * "Just as some people love tube amps and vinyl LP records, some people love the older monitor technology based on the CRT. Most people will want to avoid this dying technology."
 * Reub2000
 * Yes. Both are true. VGA, with the 15-pin connector, is a 1987 standard. It is being (slowly) replaced. DVI-D is the replacement. Some people do indeed love the old CRT technology, believe it or not. Most likely they are not aware of how good a modern LCD can be, but some seem to be more motivated by nostalgia. LCD sales are higher than CRT sales, with the difference increasing every day. CRT owners will be stuck paying fees to dispose of their CRTs, or illegally dumping their CRTs to avoid the fees. AlbertCahalan 19:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * More likely they are aware of how much LCDs SUCK. Why would I spend more money on a screen that can only do one resolution. Maybe they want the versatility of a CRT that can do any resolution from 640x480 to 2056x1536. Or maybe they just want a dirt cheap shadow mask display. LCDs have their place in portable electronics, but they don't have a place on my desk.Reub2000 20:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm editing it... Both of you, get over the CRT/LCD debate.  If you can't write an article without NPOV, then I'll remove it.  --Noogz 07:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Current Revision On Monitors

 * Right. It is now edited.  I have added all of the information that you guys have provided in this debate, and have tried to list the two major arguments for both types of screen, and I think I've been fairly neutral in this case.  Both of you need to be completely neutral in this section - obviously neither of you are, otherwise there would not have been this debate in the first place.  Also, Albert - notice the talk page for the entire document - it mentions that this book is following the British English spelling, and it would be appreciated ig you did so too.  Thanks --Noogz 08:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought I did a pretty good job of being fair to tubes. Please point out anything you believe to be unfair. Anyway... I hope you'll fix some problems with your version. AlbertCahalan 16:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have gone through it, and tried to make it NPOV - there were many insults about CRTs, which I didn't believe to be neutral. --Noogz 10:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * CRTs do not have "generally superior response times" anymore. A low-end LCD has a 25 ms refresh. This allows for 40 full updates per second; many more updates can be done if simply changing the shade of grey instead of going full-scale between black and white. Most LCDs today have a 12 ms refresh, which allows for 83 full updates per second. I've seen 8 ms too, which allows for 125 full updates per second. Now, how many do you think a CRT can do? About the same. At best you have the refresh rate, but the CRT also has a bit of a lag in the phosphors. Lots of people run CRTs with 72 Hz (13.9 ms) or 75 Hz (13.3 ms) refresh. I've never heard of anyone claiming that a high refresh rate was critical for low-latency game play. So this whole point is looking like FUD to me. AlbertCahalan 16:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If you read what I said regarding game-play refresh, I say that "25ms response is usually enough for general gaming". As for the Low-latency gaming, I have heard many arguments to support it - gamers generally prefer CRTs - this is a very hard to ignore fact.  As for the commonly used refresh rates, I would be struggling to find a high-end gamer who runs at 75Hz during games.  I run my CRT on 65Hz when using normal desktop stuff, and bump it up to 100 for gaming.  Most LCDs that would fall under a reasonable price for most people run between 12 and 15ms response, which is good enough for many purposes, but will fail for high-level gaming.
 * A year or two ago it was definitely true that "the best response times can often come at a vastly increased price". (40 ms was common) Now, a 12 ms display is very affordable. I suppose you could change your idea of "the best" to 8 ms, but anything much below 25 ms is overkill already. You might be needing an eyeball upgrade to appreciate it. Remember that NTSC video (US TV standard) is only 16.7 ms, PAL video (Euro TV standard) is only 20 ms, and the LCD response numbers are for full black-white transitions that don't usually happen in FPS games. AlbertCahalan 16:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A 12ms response-time analog LCD will still cost 2-and-a-half times that of a 100Hz, same-sized CRT - that seems to be vastly increased to me. And, if you want to go down to 8ms, then you will be paying between 3.5 - 4 times as much.  --Noogz 10:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You left out: annoying sounds, X-ray radiation, hadardous waste disposal fee, adjustment if you even move a big CRT to face a different direction (north vs. west), moire patterns commonly seen on desktop wallpaper and web page backgrounds, large motors causing a wiggly image that leads to headaches even if you are not conscious of the motion, operating costs (both financial and to the environment), and the general problem of tiny white-on-black text being difficult to read at high resolution. AlbertCahalan 16:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The annoying sounds that you mentioned in your original article only occur when the screen is deactivated (loud "boings"), and the high-pitched noises can only be heard in a completely silent room - when you add fan noise and speakers they are both ignored. Those Moire patterns generally only happen in the worst of circumstances - Most wallpapers and backgrounds don't use such intricate patterns anymore.  Yes they can happen, but they won't occur in normal usage - Test patterns generally force the worse.  --Noogz 10:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You also left out information on an LCDs Native Resolution. Not only is it usful information for someone deciding between a CRT and an LCD, but it usful for someone deciding between diffrent LCD screens. Reub2000 16:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think "Especially when running at the native resolution, this gives you the sharpest and most stable image." covers that fairly well. Running at non-native resolution is kind of crummy, but usually no worse than you'd get from a CRT. Modern LCD scaling is quite good. One might mention that vision problems are best handled by changing the system's dpi and font settings, allowing for characters with much better shapes. Using a 6x12 font made big on a CRT or scaled up to be 10x20 on an LCD is nowhere near as nice as a real 10x20 font on an LCD. Often these changes are as simple as picking a different theme. AlbertCahalan 17:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have run my own, and my friends' LCDs at lower resolutions, and have definitely experienced scaling problems, that are definitely much worse than those of CRTS. CRT scaling is generally MUCH BETTER than that of an LCD.  --Noogz 10:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * One thing I highly want to stress here is that both of you are displaying a highly biased view of your own choice of monitor. When you edit the article, do try to keep in mind a general consumer - weigh up what a normal consumer would use, as normal consumers are who we are targetting.  --Noogz 10:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)