In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Sjouke Burry
wrote:

Frank McCoy wrote:
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "KCB"
wrote:

"Frank McCoy" wrote in message
...
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "KCB"

wrote:

Frank, 1600*1200 has 156,000 more pixels than your 1680*1050. Other
than being wide-screen, how is yours a tad better?
Because the pixels on the LCD screen are *much* better defined; and
don't bleed into each other like those on a CRT do. This makes
(viewing-wise) much clearer Icons and even text; almost like going up
the next step in resolution to 2400x1800, without having to change
sizes
of everything to match. Each pixel is more *distinct* from the next
one. Also, the screen is *always* filled out to the edges, perfectly
square, with no tilt, keystone, pincushion, or other defect like
purity
and misalignment that you get in CRT screens at similar definitions.

So the LCD panel at close to the same number of pixels *greatly*
outshines the CRT at the a similar resolution.

That's why I bought it ... That and the CRT getting a tad jittery.
IOW, that's your opinion. You stated it previously as if it were fact.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Um ... It *IS* fact.
Look at both side-by-side, and you'll SEE the difference!
Especially if you use magnification.

I know ... I've got two side-by-side right here and now.
The 21" CRT looks crappy by comparison at 1600x1200 and the LCD at
1680x1050; and that's one damned *EXPENSIVE* CRT monitor!

Actually, I have *three* fairly expensive 21" monitors, all darned good
ones; and all three look crappy next to the LCD if you examine each
closely. Stand back about four feet, and you can't see any difference,
of course.

Don't believe me.
Don't take my word for it.
Go somewhere and LOOK at the two side-by-side.
There's a damned good reason for the LCD looking better by far, *IF* you
have any real knowledge of how each technology works.

I've explained it several times in this thread.
All I can say now is go *LOOK* and see for yourself.
I'm not lying; and I'm NOT exaggerating!

The CRT monitors look fuzzy and out-of-focus next to the LCD panels at
similar resolutions. Most especially so at the corners. The LCD panels
also EXACTLY fill out the screen; while with good adjustment of a CRT
you can only get *close* to doing so without either not displaying the
whole thing, or leaving black borders in some parts of the screen.

Don't believe me?
Try it yourself and see!
Geesh.

Hell, come over to my house and I'll *SHOW* you the difference,
side-by-side with the same card driving both monitors.

Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
And then move your head a bit around.
And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.

Do/did.
When moving the head, the CRT flickers a bit because of it's refresh.
The LCD panel doesn't.

As to color-depth; I can't see any difference.
Don't know what LCD panels *you* look at; but modern ones are pretty
good for color display. At least *mine* is anyway.

The one place the LCD panel loses out a bit is full-motion video from
the TV. It's not *quite* up to snuff in comparison. The response time
is a tad slow. They both look about the same playing MPG files or
decoding DVD movies; but then *those* are compressed and made for
digital displays.

Looked at close up with a static display though, the LCD panel wins
hands down. Yes, with both showing full 32-bit color, side-by-side.
(I never run at anything but full 32-bit color anyway.)
Full color pictures are my normal wallpaper.
Pictures I took myself with a digital camera.
Most pictures on the net are crap in comparison, unless you want to
spend a half hour or so downloading even at high rates. Take up *lots*
of my usable memory though. But with 1 gig main memory, what's a few
extra megabytes for wallpaper?

Don't know what crappy displays *you* have been looking at ... Obviously
nothing modern though.

Oh yeah ... In truth, the CRT monitor DOES have a blacker black ... But
it looks way too dark when I set it that way; so that's not a real
advantage. When I set both to the contrast and brightness I prefer,
they look pretty much identical except:
A. The CRT looks crappy at edges and corners.
B. The CRT purity shows up worse across the screen.
(The LCD purity isn't perfect either.)
C. The CRT has a background flicker.
The LCD doesn't.
D. The LCD fills the screen edge-to-edge and side-to-side.
The CRT doesn't.
E. The CRT has color fringes around the edges of things, caused
by misalignment of the three color guns at the corners.
The LCD doesn't.
F. The characters in the corners look out of focus on the CRT.
The same characters are as sharp at the edges as in the center
on the LCD panel.
F. The brightness is *slightly* more even on the CRT from edge to edge.
But it's not noticeably so unless you look *really* close.
G. Looked at under magnification, the pixels on the CRT "squirm"
slightly. The LCD panels pixels don't.
F: Looked at under magnification you wonder how you even SEE characters
in small fonts in the corners of the CRT. Blown up, they sometimes
are unrecognizable. For some reason though, the eye compensates
when you pull back. I suspect that's because different colors focus
in different spots on the retina anyway; and the brain is used to
automatically compensating for close differences in such things.
The LCD characters though, are *much* easier on the eye.

Now most of these differences are NOT very noticeable taken one-by-one;
but when side-by-side and especially looking close at both; the LCD
panel wins hands down in almost every test except speed of response.

It's also FAR easier on the eye; because the LCD panel doesn't flicker
*AT ALL*; even though the refresh-rate is only 60Hz. That's because the
LCD panel is *digital*; and each pixel remains on or off or whatever at
the same level from frame to frame; while the phosphors on a CRT
constantly fade from frame to frame and have to be refreshed; thus
making higher refresh-rates "better" for a CRT. In contrast, LCD panels
only HAVE on "rate" because they don't get better with faster ... In
fact, they aren't designed for any other rate.

That does cause problems with Windows ... At least XP anyway; when you
go to "Safe Mode". Micro$hit wrote XP in days when everything was going
CRT; and assumed (we all know what ass-u-me does) that any modern
monitor when going minimal resolution or VGA mode, would easily handle
85Hz as a refresh-rate. Well, LCD panels *don't*. They don't need it,
don't WANT it, and can't handle it. They run at 60Hz *only*.

Thus to run "Safe Mode" with an LCD panel and Windows-XP, you have to
set /BASEVIDEO with msconfig in the BOOT.INI file. An annoyance.
I expect Vista corrects that; since wide-screen digital displays are the
"coming thing".
However, Vista *breaks* about everything else, so ....

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _