Which does everyone like more? I like CRT's for good picture, and there's none of that ugly pixel-dithering to simulate low res, or that ugly black-border-around-screen for low res either. LCD's take up much less space though.
LCD's have a number of reasons for being much better. One of the main reasons would be that LCD screens render each pixel as it's own light, rather then rendering them up on a large flashing picture.
Each pixel flashes only when it's updated, which can speed refresh rates up nicely. With these 2 things in play, the picture comes out much cleaner and smoother as far as animation goes because each pixel being rendered on it's own, means that pixels don't blur into each other that easily. LCD, because pixels only refresh when they need to update, can flash much more on the screen at a higher resolution too. This means much higher refresh rates at much higher resolutions. However LCD's are the reason things such as game anti-aliasing and the 'clean' font style are in high demand. The sharpness of pixels, because they don't blur, is so sharp that ugly edges that were before, unnoticeable, show up more now. Because the screen is HD, both the good and the bad , that were hidden, show up now. In the end though, LCD's are overall much better for the future. To expensive for me though, so I stick with CRT.
Don't quote me on anything above as far as the actual explanation, I'm just repeating the information a friend gave me.
LCD. I remember seeing one of the first decent LCD displays from the 90's and thinking the colours looked very "metallic". once upon a time CRT was good, but I wouldn't trade my 2005FPW for anything, except maybe a 2405FPW or 30" Apple Cinema Display. Very bright, vibrant, widescreen and doesn't take up my whole desk.
I got an LCD for my 19th B.day and I prefer it so much more than the bulky crap I had before. I actually think the picture looks alot better, but that might just be my settings. It also allows space for my fish tanks
Anyway, back to the not-phizzy-induced portion of the topic, LCD's do indeed render better, considering they also won't hurt your eyes as much since they're not flashing at least 60 times per second. But the sharpness is a little too strong on lcd's, because with the tiny-bit of blurring crt does it can make some picutre actually look BETTER.
The idea that the tiny little blurring can be added through anti-aliasing though, gives you much more flexability with the picture. Because that little blur can't be controlled that well on CRT's, it's just there. No matter how sharp you make it, it's there. With LCD, you can simulate that blur, and because it's simulated, it can be removed if need be, to create a better looking picture.
A great example would be a standard TV vs a computer monitor. You'd be shocked how tiny the resolution on standard TV's really is. 320x240 looks like 640x480 on a TV, because the TV blurs alot. This may look nice and all on lower resolutions, but once you see a high resolution picture on a low resolution TV, and that same high resolution picture on a high resolution TV, you'll find out why HD TV's and LCD monitors are becomming much more popular.
well that depends Mr.C. in the UK the TV signal is a generous 576i, and through a completely digital connection (ie. a DVB-T reciever for a computer) you get a very nice image. I use my 2005FPW monitor as a TV with an EyeTV USB accessory which upscales the interlaced signal to progressive. TV itself is fairly high resolution it's just the translation to get it onto most TV's renders it ugly. though it is pretty impossible to use a computer with a regular TV. I used to run klik games when I had a regular tube TV with an S-Video TV output. it was fine there but with any precision use like navigating an OS or writing became impossible.
but to the OT - do they still make CRT monitors? the last new one I saw was a good 4 years ago.