Live data from Hacker News

A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

vice.com

51–60 of 288 posts

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#51
post #22
post #8

My eyes used to hurt a lot on CRTs. A few hours every day in front of one and I could not go outside without sunglasses, anything would make my eyes hurt. Everything was fine if I went a week without using a computer. With LCDs, that's not a problem anymore, and I like it.

Many LEDs have an annoying flicker as well, which can be very annoying and distracting for me. Especially around christmas time, when everyone and their grandmother puts out thousands of cheap LEDs. Even when they're not trying to blink, they're still flickering. I suspect I'm sensitive to this kind of stuff because I suffer from migraines, but still, I can't imagine I'm the only one.

Christmas LEDs are technological abominations. They literally hurt to look at.

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#53
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They took up a huge amount of desk space though, which was quite inconvenient. But perhaps they could be made flatter?

The obsession with device thinness and smallness is a cancer. Engineering gets put into the wrong efforts, and cost, efficiency, and repair-ability are all damaged. Modern lcd screens seem to be the worst of this. The screen itself is quite thin, but then the base, and the cables coming out the back mean it’s still effectively 3-7 inches “thick.” The thinness accomplishes nothing, and has made the device worse.

Sure, but I think you're looking at CRTs with rose tinted glasses if you think the thickness, size, and weight of those monitors was not a problem. I physically couldn't fit a couple of extra monitors on my desk, and a vertical monitor for code, etc, on my desk if they were as thick as the CRT I used to use ages ago. And having recently upgraded from a plasma TV to an LED - good lord even the plasma TV was stupid heavy. Sometimes you want to be able to move around physical objects you know? Cleaning, rearranging, etc? There's a difference going from a 10 mm phone to a 9 mm phone vs going from a 30 inch CRT to a 65 inch LED

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#54
post #8

My eyes used to hurt a lot on CRTs. A few hours every day in front of one and I could not go outside without sunglasses, anything would make my eyes hurt. Everything was fine if I went a week without using a computer. With LCDs, that's not a problem anymore, and I like it.

Same.

A crt with refresh rates below like 60 and I could see the frames. It was torture. 120hz or more didn't seem to be an issue and its certainly not a problem since ive had lcds.

That being said it might be fun to go back for while.

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#55
post #4

I have a different problem with LCDs. I still think they're too bright. With a CRT you could set everything to white on black and you had almost no light coming out of the screen. Also brightness meant brightness and you could turn it way down for when working in dim light or darkness. Of course i'm talking about text work here. Maybe when OLED monitors become affordable we'll go back to monitors that aren't basicall…

I think we need monitors with more dynamic range.

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#56
post #8

My eyes used to hurt a lot on CRTs. A few hours every day in front of one and I could not go outside without sunglasses, anything would make my eyes hurt. Everything was fine if I went a week without using a computer. With LCDs, that's not a problem anymore, and I like it.

I guess most people can’t see the flicker on a CRT set at 60Hz, but I can. It’s especially bad in a room with fluorescent lights. First thing I’d do upon sitting down at a new computer with a CRT monitor was to bump up the refresh rate to 75Hz so I didn’t get a headache. Taking standardized tests in the early 2000s on locked down computers in fluorescent-lit test centers was torture.

I found the flickering at 60HZ unbearable, but at 75HZ it was barely noticeable. My sweet spot wast at 80-85HZ. I tried until 90HZ, but you had to sacrifice resolution and past 90HZ, I didn't notice much difference.

I think for today's LCD/OLEDs 90-120hz should be the sweet spot, especially for gaming and motion. More than that is a waste of computing. (there are monitors that offer 144-200Hz refresh rates, but that is mostly a waste).

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#57
post #24

CRTs were really good. They really were. I remember back in the day the HardOCP forum[0] had massive threads about people buying the FW900 in the mid-2000s. It definitely achieved legendary status. Sadly I never had a chance to use one. I remember having a 21" NEC that let me play Quake 2 / 3 at 120hz at 640x480 in the mid-late 1990s and I think I paid like $120 for it back then from one of those refurbished monitor…

For a long time the big advantage of LCD was just size and energy use. You lost a lot of the clarity with the conversion from analog VGA or SVGA signal in devices that predated DVI and HDMI connectors. It would be really hard to trade in my 28" 4k display for any CRT I've ever had.

For work, LCD is absolutely superior.

Gaming - especially shooters -, however, are a totally different use-case: Refresh rate is absolutely necessary for quick reaction times, while something like readability is not as big of a factor (Games tend to use big and easy-to-read fonts). Of course, you still need some color quality to spot enemies, but it's very different from reading text for several hours.

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#58
post #4

I have a different problem with LCDs. I still think they're too bright. With a CRT you could set everything to white on black and you had almost no light coming out of the screen. Also brightness meant brightness and you could turn it way down for when working in dim light or darkness. Of course i'm talking about text work here. Maybe when OLED monitors become affordable we'll go back to monitors that aren't basicall…

I am still waiting for a decent size e-ink screen (22"+) without backlight which should be enough for low-FPS stuff like backend coding, slack, terminal and text content web pages. Existing solutions are still too small - Dasung and Onyx Boox are 13.3" with HDMI.

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#59
post #55
post #4

I have a different problem with LCDs. I still think they're too bright. With a CRT you could set everything to white on black and you had almost no light coming out of the screen. Also brightness meant brightness and you could turn it way down for when working in dim light or darkness. Of course i'm talking about text work here. Maybe when OLED monitors become affordable we'll go back to monitors that aren't basicall…

I think we need monitors with more dynamic range.

An OLED HDR1000 10-bit display can go from 0 to 1000 peak nit brightness with 10 bits per channel of color differences. Is that not good enough for you? It’s better than we’ve had for a long time with our 5 or 8 bit monitors that peak at like 250 nit.

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#60
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess most people can’t see the flicker on a CRT set at 60Hz, but I can. It’s especially bad in a room with fluorescent lights. First thing I’d do upon sitting down at a new computer with a CRT monitor was to bump up the refresh rate to 75Hz so I didn’t get a headache. Taking standardized tests in the early 2000s on locked down computers in fluorescent-lit test centers was torture.

I found the flickering at 60HZ unbearable, but at 75HZ it was barely noticeable. My sweet spot wast at 80-85HZ. I tried until 90HZ, but you had to sacrifice resolution and past 90HZ, I didn't notice much difference. I think for today's LCD/OLEDs 90-120hz should be the sweet spot, especially for gaming and motion. More than that is a waste of computing. (there are monitors that offer 144-200Hz refresh rates, but that…

I’ve had a 240hz monitor for a while now and I wouldn’t say 144hz is a waste.

I do agree 100-120hz is the sweet spot, good balance of refresh rate and graphical quality.

I would not suggest a 240hz monitor if you are not playing competitive shooters a majority of the time.

Post reply on HN