We're all probably in trouble with this...

[Rower_CPU]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nevertheless

Originally posted by MacBandit
Okay the first part of your response made since. Though this last part doesn't. The stated refresh rates for LCDs does not necessarily depend on the speed of the pixels. They rate pixel speed speed in milliseconds not in Hz as in refresh rate. A lot of manufacturors do give the horizontal and vertical refresh scanning rate. The refresh rate is usually much slower then the overall pixel speed.

This might help:
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci214075,00.html

An active matrix has a transistor located at each pixel intersection, requiring less current to control the luminance of a pixel. For this reason, the current in an active matrix display can be switched on and off more frequently, improving the screen refresh time (your mouse will appear to move more smoothly across the screen, for example).

As far as I have seen, all LCDs have a stated Hz rating of 60, but have varying response times, stated in milliseconds.

 

[MacBandit]

Re: Whatever...

Originally posted by skunk
From my own experience, I'd say that an LCD is definitely less of a pain to work with than a CRT. Maybe the pixels are just that much more refreshing...

I'm not trying to disagree here at all. I too believe that LCDs are better for your eyes. For my money though I will stick with the CRTs for now. That is until you can get a LCD that you can see a full length page on the screen for less then $700. Also they need to bring the pixel speed up some more.

I can't believe people are willing to shell out $2000 on an LCD screen that displays less area and has a lower response rate then a nice CRT for $600. Unless your buying one for desk space I just don't see a reason for them yet. They just haven't matured yet.

 

[skunk]

When you get to 22" screen size, a CRT becomes ludicrously big. And anyway, I wanted a decent partner for my Cube. It's been $2,000-worth for me.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Re: Re: Whatever...

Originally posted by MacBandit
I'm not trying to disagree here at all. I too believe that LCDs are better for your eyes. For my money though I will stick with the CRTs for now. That is until you can get a LCD that you can see a full length page on the screen for less then $700. Also they need to bring the pixel speed up some more.

I can't believe people are willing to shell out $2000 on an LCD screen that displays less area and has a lower response rate then a nice CRT for $600. Unless your buying one for desk space I just don't see a reason for them yet. They just haven't matured yet.

Some other factors that make LCDs superior:

• Power consumption
• Heat output
• Weight

An office full of CRTs that are on for an extended period of time not only heats up, but uses a lot of electricity.

Plus lugging around 50+ lb monitors is what I'd call an "occupational hazard".

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by skunk
When you get to 22" screen size, a CRT becomes ludicrously big. And anyway, I wanted a decent partner for my Cube. It's been $2,000-worth for me.

My point is that a 22" CRT will display clearly and legibly to me twice the area that a 22" LCD can.

 

[skunk]

Let's not forget STYLE And if it's showing you twice the area, it's also half the scale. I'd rather not have to use a magnifying glass. I preferred it when an inch on the screen at 100% was an inch on the page. Anything else really isn't WYSIWYG, which is what Macs were all about once.

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by skunk
Let's not forget STYLE And if it's showing you twice the area, it's also half the scale. I'd rather not have to use a magnifying glass. I preferred it when an inch on the screen at 100% was an inch on the page. Anything else really isn't WYSIWYG, which is what Macs were all about once.

I did say legible in my oppinion. I do understand the need for an office full of computers the power savings would be phenomenol. As for styling it's not worth and extra $1400 more for me to get something that is on the cutting edge and considered cool.

 

[skunk]

If it lasts long enough, it'll save me $1,400 in electricity bills Although of course I might have to pay more for my heating!

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by skunk
If it lasts long enough, it'll save me $1,400 in electricity bills

For a single person that would take a very very long time indeed.

 

[skunk]

I'm in no hurry!