When 85Hz CRTs were expensive, so were LCDs. CRTs were basically free by the time LCDs became remotely usable. There was basically no reason to ever buy an LCD until way after 2010. Everyone here who thinks otherwise has some dumb embarrassing reason like they thought they could finally get laid if they made their desk less cluttered.
> And the flicker would still be crap even at 85 Hz.
Oh yes, I'm sure, and you are just magically fine with 100Hz LCD flicker that existed in most of them until 2015+ and even then only on every odd model. You clearly know what you're talking about and not just assuming the values that matter align with your beliefs. Listen, you have zero clue what you're talking about. Please at least take the time to understand this next fact:
Practically all LEDs flicker, usually at some absurdly low level like 100Hz or even 60Hz in really cheap ones. This is on 99% of modern vehicle tail lights, light bulbs, shaver LEDs, dishwashers, microwaves, practically all electronics such as even an external hard drive bay or USB stick, laundry and every appliance. And it annoys me. Why? Because it's at the corner of my eye. A human's eyes are highly sensitive to flicker, but only for stuff on the sides of their head, not directly in front. Which brings me back to CRT. When I'm using CRT, I'm looking directly at it, and this makes the flicker imperceptible even as low as 75Hz or so. Only if I turned my head to the side such that the CRT was on the edge of my vision it would become noticeable. For this reason, outside of this backwards world, one would have non flickering lights everywhere, and the only thing that flickers would be their monitor (because this is needed to prevent motion blur, the only alternative is to have a huge refresh rate like 500Hz+ and software that can keep up). And you are implying things work otherwise. They don't.
> Talking about the blurry low resolution. LCD is sharp.
Which part did you not get? I said a panning object on LCD will not be sharp or anything remotely close to it, it will be worse than the worst CRT.
> Not talking about pixel response time.
As I said LCDs have motion blur. It has nothing to do with pixel response. We had 200Hz CRTs in 1999. 144Hz LCD is still badly blurry, and these "gamer" LCDs tend to have weird bugs adding more pixel response artifacts than there would be if the "gamers" didn't design the firmware.
> Pixel response time on gaming LCDs is 1ms nowadays.
No, they are not. Why did you even edit that in. Those marketing numbers are simply false. In reality you have a different pixel response for every pixel transition (0-255), (0-40), etc. And you continue to not know what you're talking about by thinking this would reduce the motion blur. The motion blur in LCD has absolutely nothing to do with pixel response.
> [i have the glossy apple]
Okay, and the glossy ones have terrible glare. Somehow glossy LCDs always have worse glare than most CRTs, probably because the vendor only cares about the wow factor of what can be achieved by just ripping off the anti glare coating of any $2 monitor. LCDs also have worse image clarity on a glossy screen than a CRT. A plain screen set to show one color on even a glossy LCD looks gritty, while on a CRT it looks clear.