logoalt Hacker News

krigeyesterday at 10:20 AM5 repliesview on HN

To sellers, yes. The drop of visual quality when the top-down LCD push began was staggering.


Replies

tom_yesterday at 2:05 PM

Was there a top-down push? In general, people on average never really actually liked CRT displays all that much. They are annoyingly deep; they are heavy; the screen is flickery, or not quite pin sharp, or both; they use up a lot of power; they fail in annoying ways, and they're expensive to fix - and they have magnets in them.

show 1 reply
rcxdudeyesterday at 11:52 AM

To buyers as well. I don't recall the switch to LCDs being particularly pushed, though I was admittedly quite young at the time. Especially keep in mind that people today are generally comparing the absolute top-tier of CRTs which were not what the average person had.

(Another thing to keep in mind is that the systems of the time generally could not drive the kinds of resolutions and framerates that make those CRTs shine in some of today's comparisons. At the time the difference in quality in practice was lower because of this)

show 1 reply
BigTTYGothGFyesterday at 2:08 PM

I had multiple mediocre-to-crappy CRTs in the 90s and 00s and was glad to move away from them. I think the last one I owned was even one of the fabled trinitrons, and it was acceptable.

show 1 reply
LargoLasskhyfvyesterday at 10:47 AM

Depended very much on the CRTs used, there were very wide gaps in quality.

Even a now obsolete HP ZR2240w (24" 1920x1200@60Hz) was a huge upgrade from a 21" Hitachi Superscan Supreme https://crtdatabase.com/crts/hitachi/hitachi-superscan-21-cm...

That thing was at least Trinitron equivalent, if not better, because it lacked the thin wires holding the mask from within.

Now you are talking about the start of all that, OFC there were bad and cheap ones, but there was also very good stuff from the beginning by Eizo, Sharp, NEC, and many more.

Just as with CRTs.

I don't miss them.