Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:22:13 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > Dude, you need to upgrade!!!
The CRTs have a limited lifetime. It's simply a fact that you need to switch to flat panels or something better. They won't probably even manufacture CRTs anymore. It becomes more and more impossible to purchase *unused* CRTs anywhere. At least at a reasonable price. For example used 17" TFTs cost less than $40. I found pages like this http://shopper.cnet.com/4566-3175_9-0.html Even the prices aren't very competitive. I only remember that all refresh rates below 85 Hz caused me headache and eye fatigue. You can't use the max resolution @ 60 Hz for very long. > Why should *I* spend the money to replace something that already works fine for me? You might get more things done by using a bigger screen. Maybe get some money to buy better equipment and stop complaining. >> Besides, this whole changing the resolution thing is a consequence of >> using crappy software. What you want is set the resolution to the >> maximum and do the rest in software. And guess what - at their maximum, >> CRT monitors suck compared to flat panels. >> >> > Agreed, but show me an OS that actually *does* handle that reasonably > well. XP doesn't. Win7 doesn't. Ubuntu 9.04 and Kubuntu 10.10 don't. > (And I'm definitely not going back to OSX, I've had my fill of that.) My monitors have had about the same pixel density over the years. EGA (640x400) or 720x348 (Hercules) / 12", 800x600 / 14", 1024x768 / 15-17", 1280x1024 / 19", 1280x1024 / 17" TFT, 1440x900 / 19", 1920x1080 / 21.5", 2560x1600 / 30" Thus, there's no need to enlarge all graphical widgets or text. My vision is still ok. What changes is the amount of simultaneously visible area for applications. You're just wasting the expensive screen estate by enlarging everything. You're supposed to run more simultaneous tasks on a larger screen. >> I've actually compared the rated power consumpsion between CRTs and >> LCDs of >> similar size and was actually surprised to find that there was little, >> if any, real difference at all on the sets I compared. >I'm pretty sure I did point out the limitations of my observation: "...on >all the sets I compared". And it's pretty obvious I wasn't undertaking a >proper extensive study. There's no need for sarcasm. Your comparison was pointless. You can come up with all kinds of arbitrary comparisons. The TFT panel power consumption probably varies between 20 and 300 Watts. Do you even know how much your CRT uses power? CRTs used as computer monitors and those used as televisions have different characteristics. CRT TVs have better brightness and contrast, but lower resolution and sharpness than CRT computer monitors. Computer monitors tend to need more power, maybe even twice as much. Also larger monitors of the same brand tend to use more power. When a CRT monitor gets older, you need more power to illuminate the phosphor as the amount of phosphor in the small holes of the grille/mask decreases over time. This isn't the case with TFTs. The backlight brightness and panel's color handling dictates power consumption. A 15" TFT might need as much power as a 22" TFT using the same panel technology. TFT TVs use more power as they typically provide higher brightness. Same thing if you buy those high quality panels for professional graphics work. The TFT power consumption has also drastically dropped because of AMOLED panels, LED backlights and better dynamic contrast logic. The fluorescent backlights lose some of their brightness (maybe about 30%) before dying unlike a CRT which totally goes dark. The LED backlights wont suffer from this (at least observably). My obversation is that e.g. in computer classes (30+ computers per room) the air conditioning started to work much better after the upgrade to flat panels. Another upgrade turned the computers into micro-itx thin clients. Now the room doesn't need air conditioning at all.