Image Map Image Map
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Contemporary Usage of VGA CRTs ...

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicagoland, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    6,294
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcs_5 View Post
    Can I get an LCD monitor, that will provide a sharp image with an 800x600 or 1024x768 signal, suitable for CAD work?
    I'm not sure this is the best example. It would be much cheaper and sharper to use a CAD solution that can actually drive an HD monitor at the panel's native resolution.

    In 2020, we have the option of using OLED panels, which have the same speed and true blacks as CRTs (I own two and have verified this, compared against my Sony trinitron CRTs). Their downsides for our hobby are cost, having a fixed resolution, and no analog/VGA inputs. Cost will come down, but the inputs and fixed resolution will always be an issue for those trying to hook up to vintage hardware. There are many conversion boxes from VGA to HDMI, but most of the innovation for these was in the previous decade and many of them are discontinued or no longer developed.
    Last edited by Trixter; January 23rd, 2020 at 10:20 AM.
    Offering a bounty for:
    - A working Sanyo MBC-775, Olivetti M24, or Logabax 1600
    - Music Construction Set, IBM Music Feature edition (has red sticker on front stating IBM Music Feature)

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcs_5 View Post
    Can I get an LCD monitor, that will provide a sharp image with an 800x600 or 1024x768
    Sure, most early 15Ē LCD were 1024x768, but they are 15Ē. Iíve got a super cheap no-name one that I got for free years ago that I like to use for testing vintage computer and setting up modern servers because itís small and I can put it just about anywhere without it getting in the way.

    Something like a dell ultrasharp 150-something-fp should have decent picture, for an LCD, and have a native resolution of 1024x768.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,100
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Orange View Post
    My only knock on CRT's is that they take up too much real estate and are too heavy to tote around. Other than that, I okay with them.
    Add power consumption to that list

    My IBM P97 18.5" trinitron crt went tits up about month ago. I miss it as I have a few old systems that the Dell 19" trinitron crt wont sync down to. The lcd screens and tvs I have wont either. On the look out for a 17" crt that will.
    Thomas Byers (DRI)- "You'll have a million people using the A> [MS-DOS prompt] forever. You'll have five million using [nongraphic] menu systems such as Topview, Concurrent PC-DOS, Desq, and those types. But there'll be 50 to 100 million using the iconic-based interfaces."

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jafir
    It seems that the computer world is always trying to push upon us tech with serious design defects, and they just expect us to ignore them in favor of some sort of perceived benefit. LCD contrast is miserable. I don't know how many times I'm looking at a spreadsheet, etc. and I cannot see where they have put the cursor or highlight because the white and the grey selection look the same. (and no, this isn't just because I'm getting old, I noticed this 15 years ago too).
    Part of the problem is the consumer being ready to place their trust in the wrong people. It's not so much that negative changes are forced on them, it's more that they force it on themselves. Back in 2005/6ish I was working in electrical retail. This was (in the UK at least) the point at which the sale of the new CRT TV sets had essentially stopped (still a few no name pink-cased 14" CRT sets with built in DVD players to go in kids' bedrooms around but not much more than that) and shops were now only selling flat panel sets. It was also the point at which almost all sets over 20" were sold as being 'HD Ready' (which actually meant little more than the TV contained a 1280x720 panel and an HDMI port - no 1080p, and no means actually built into the set to pick up any broadcast high definition either).

    They were expensive - and terrible when displaying anything other than a specially prepared uncompressed HD demo box which the manufacturers reps used to dole out like sweets on their visits to stores.

    Or rather the LCD sets were. Early fluorescent-backlit panels with appalling viewing angles (especially for cheap small sets which often used panels designed for computer monitors), terrible levels of motion blur and zero ability to scale properly to any standard-def resolution which still made up the bulk of broadcast TV at the time, nor to deal with noisy old SCART sources which were also still very common (and which were often set to composite even though most equipment supported S Video or RGB mode) without introducing terrible artefacting to the picture.

    Personally, although I sold flat panel TVs there was no way I was parting with that much money to go backwards in picture quality so I still kept running my beautiful Panasonic TX32PB50 Quintrix CRT set at the time (in fact it survived as a guest room TV until 2016 and was only ditched because I moved house and didn't want to take it with me, a decision I now regret). I never personally owned a flat screen TV until 2013 when LCD finally started to mature enough that it could compete with the CRTs of 10-15 years before (that and HD content finally got common enough to want an HD screen).

    There was a solution at the time though - plasma. It was only available in larger screen sizes and not from all manufacturers but it was a vastly better technology then LCD. It could display true blacks, did a much better job of scaling, the screens were much faster, the colours much more vivid.

    But you trying selling one to a customer who wasn't technically minded. There was absolute hysteria surrounding the technology (and not in a good way). Various urban myths perpetuated about it; it apparently used so much electricity that you'd need to acquire a small nuclear power station to run it, apparently screen burn was an inevitability, apparently the screen couldn't be touched (actually it was more durable than an LCD screen) and my absolute favourite - 'you've got to get them re-gassed'.

    Even when you put a large screen LCD next to a large screen plasma and demonstrated the visibly superior picture they just didn't care - they knew didn't want a plasma and you weren't changing their minds. We the sales staff they were not willing to trust. However they were perfectly happy to form opinions based on urban myths with no obvious source (which I would suggest largely came from a certain manufacturer who once made the best CRTs but ended up making mediocre at best LCDs due to a flawed decision to stop their own flat panel development and start a joint operation to make LCDs with a certain other prominent manufacturer).

    Once we got to LED backlit LCDs and OLED the need for plasma diminished, but it was essentially dead in the water from the start as a mass technology because people wouldn't listen.
    Last edited by cwathen; January 26th, 2020 at 04:04 AM.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trixter View Post
    I'm not sure this is the best example. It would be much cheaper and sharper to use a CAD solution that can actually drive an HD monitor at the panel's native resolution.
    Yes. But replacing software that works, and allows you to get the job done fast, with unfamiliar software that I don't want to or have the time to study is not a great option...

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jafir View Post
    Sure, most early 15Ē LCD were 1024x768
    That only covers one resolution. I need 800x600 and 1024x768

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts
    1,530

    Default

    The scaling problem wrt CRTs vs LCD is just silly. CRTs have a native resolution in phosphor dpi. CRTs are still scaling - just the pitch of the dots provides a low pass filter over the whole thing. I would argue CRTs really have no native resolution because the gun can never be aligned to the dots and it's always scaling - vs an LCD that does have a native resolution and 1:1 pixel rendition.

    And don't get me started on "gamers" that claim they play better with 10 ms of monitor propagation vs 15 ms!

    LCDs are better in every way. When OLED dpi is increased to a point a sub-40" panel can be made with acceptable resolution, that will cause another wholesale swap-out on people's desktops.
    "Good engineers keep thick authoritative books on their shelf. Not for their own reference, but to throw at people who ask stupid questions; hoping a small fragment of knowledge will osmotically transfer with each cranial impact." - Me

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cwathen View Post

    There was a solution at the time though - plasma. It was only available in larger screen sizes and not from all manufacturers but it was a vastly better technology then LCD. It could display true blacks, did a much better job of scaling, the screens were much faster, the colours much more vivid.

    But you trying selling one to a customer who wasn't technically minded. There was absolute hysteria surrounding the technology (and not in a good way). Various urban myths perpetuated about it; it apparently used so much electricity that you'd need to acquire a small nuclear power station to run it, apparently screen burn was an inevitability, apparently the screen couldn't be touched (actually it was more durable than an LCD screen) and my absolute favourite - 'you've got to get them re-gassed'.
    Things may have been a little different in the US. I remember when large, flat TVs came out, it seemed that plasma was all you could get. LCD seemed way more expensive, when it finally appeared. I had a number of friends that either had more money or more debt than I did that got plasma TVs, while I just kept using my tube for another year or two. I eventually got an LCD, mainly because 1080p had just become affordable, and because it was brighter than most plasma, and the room it needed to go in had too much sunlight. My LCD lasted much longer than any of those plasma units. Those things seemed to die left and right, normally with visual defects in the picture. I donít know what exactly failed because TV repair shops didnít want to touch them, at the time. Perhaps it was something in the screen, but perhaps it was just the tail end of the capacitor plague.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    4,415
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    When you mention plasma displays this it what comes to mind:

    Lunchbox.JPG

    While working for a government agency way back when, we were issued the 286 Compaq plasma 'lunchbox'. After a few hours of staring at this thing you had to just get up and walk around. I would say that the people who designed it never had to spend much time using it. It was hardly portable and didn't workout in the field - heavy to deal with. Fortunately, I wound up with an AST 486 laptop that was still going strong when I retired in 2007.
    Surely not everyone was Kung-fu fighting

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eeguru View Post
    The scaling problem wrt CRTs vs LCD is just silly. CRTs have a native resolution in phosphor dpi. CRTs are still scaling - just the pitch of the dots provides a low pass filter over the whole thing. I would argue CRTs really have no native resolution because the gun can never be aligned to the dots and it's always scaling - vs an LCD that does have a native resolution and 1:1 pixel rendition.

    And don't get me started on "gamers" that claim they play better with 10 ms of monitor propagation vs 15 ms!

    LCDs are better in every way. When OLED dpi is increased to a point a sub-40" panel can be made with acceptable resolution, that will cause another wholesale swap-out on people's desktops.
    1) CRT analog "scaling" looks good, most LCD electronics scale out a pile of dog vomit

    2) 10 vs 15 ms is indeed silly, but when were talking about an additional 50+ms from some trashy digital displays it starts to get really noticeable

    3) CRT absolutely curbstomps LCD with respect to motion clarity, which is my main reason for hating LCDs and insisting on plasma or OLED if I must use a flat screen

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •