<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><div class="msgheader"> <div class="subjectbar"><div>
<div id="message_view_date" class="date"><nobr>Monday, April 5,
2010 8:10 AM</nobr></div>
</div></div>
<div class="vcard">
<div class="row">
<div class="label">From: </div>
<div class="details"><div class="abook"><span class="email">"Tim"
<ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au></span></div>
</div>
</div><div class="row">
<div class="label">To: </div>
<div class="details">"Community support for Fedora users"
<users@lists.fedoraproject.org></div></div></div>
</div>Dave Higton:<br><br>>
You're lucky with your CRTs. The ones I've seen that were a few<br>>
years old, had bad screen burn, plus a nasty colour cast as one<br>>
of the electron guns had lost emission. I was glad to have my<br>>
last CRT monitor replaced here (by an LCD) because it had bad<br>>
Moiré patterning, which could only be cure by defocussing it<br>>
badly.<br>> <br>> Having used CRTs and LCDs, I would never go back
to CRT without<br>> a fight. Fortunately LCDs are (a) so cheap (I
don't understand<br>> your comment about outrageously overpriced
LCDs), (b) the only<br>> type commonly available.<br><br>I've got CRT
monitors, here, of 1980s vintage, still with excellent<br>pictures. Of
course, I've seen also seen bad ones, cheap and nasty<br>monitors which
were always crappy, from the word go. And middling ones<br>which
deteriorated in short order. But I'm certainly not going to say<br>that
"CRT monitors are bad" simply because the bad ones were. Only a<br>few
years ago I gave away a valve CRT monitor from the 1960s which still<br>had
a razor sharp image.<br><br>I've seen plenty of bad LCDs. Everything
from: Only the highest<br>resolution ones don't look like you're
staring at a fluorescent tube<br>through flywire. Glaringly obvious
dead pixels, or even a whole third<br>of the screen all magenta. The
colour response being quite crap<br>(something that standard TV LCDs go
to all sorts of tricks to try and<br>get around). Very limited angle of
view without getting strange<br>distortions - thankfully that's getting
better, but it's still not<br>there.<br><br>While it was still possible
to buy both types, it was common to see that<br>LCDs two or three times
the price of a CRT looked worse than the CRT.<br>The cheap ones really
looked crap. Shops stopped setting up side by<br>side comparisons,
because even the untrained eye could see the<br>difference. To get what
I will accept as a decent picture, on an LCD,<br>I'd have to pay three
times as much as what I consider acceptable.<br><br>It's the "Emperor's
new clothes" all over again.<br><br>-- <br>[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r<br>2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686<br><br>Don't
send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I<br>read
messages from the public lists.<br><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><br></span>I have this counter comment. I use a NEC Multisync e1100, and the only advantage I see offered by an LCD monitor is the width.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"> </span></span></span>To have a LCD monitor that gives me a full 11inch vertical letter size or A4 size as 1-1 on the screen puts the LCD monitor out of my budget range. <br><br>I can purchase great quality (exchange) CRT monitor from computer shops for about $50 to $60. (I can buy a used P4 working system for the same price). <br>The CRT monitor I have can provide fine hue adjustment, and very close color match to my laser printer output. I cannot say the same for the LCD monitors that I have used. It also has very fast response time, but my use is not for gaming, so I don't care. <br><br>The negative
side of CRT is the big weight and footprint. <br><br>Leslie<br><br><br><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><br></span></td></tr></table>