Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nikov]

LCD's always struck me as more likely to fail, what with nothing but a plastic membrane between the most delicate part of the display and all.

[Jay]

LCD's always struck me as more likely to fail, what with nothing but a plastic membrane between the most delicate part of the display and all.

If you don't know how to handle them, or use them in an unsafe environment, sure.

A properly-handled screen will never have anything strike that surface, so it is hardly relevant.

Sure, LCD screens are smaller and last longer, but I think they're more limited. I doubt mine is more than a year or two older than since I've had it, but it's hard-limited to a 1024x768 resolution, thus preventing me from playing Aurora.

That'd be because you bought a cheapo 4:3 LCD.
The 16:9 and 16:10 ones are far far far superior.

My current one, that I'm actually looking to replace, runs at 1680x1050 natively.
Yes, they are limited, as they have to run at native resolution.  However, that native resolution is high enough on anything you can buy these days that it should never be an issue.

[Nikov]

Jaybud4; two kids, remember?

[Virex]

I think CRT's also die quicker if you put them on highest brightness or push their resolution.

[DeKaFu]

I've had the same CRT monitor for as long as I've had my own computer. Sure, it occasionally flickers blue-tinted and has my old wallpaper burned faintly into the screen, but it's otherwise still going strong. I actually got a new monitor when it started the blue-flicker thing in anticipation of it dying, and it's been sitting in the basement for at least 6 years now. So yeah, CRT represent.

I actually also have a shiny new 21.5" 1080p LCD monitor hooked up to the same computer, but I only use it for PS3/360 games, HD video and dwarf fortress. Most PC games look/run better on my CRT, IMHO. That, and it's just way too big for how close I'd have to sit.