The only thing that I could think of is that perhaps you packed it too tightly and the foam pressed against the screen, compressing the layers of the…whatever it is and they haven’t un-deformed (you know, like when you push the screen of a calculator too hard). WAG though.
I have a 19" monitor, and it’s currently at 1024x768. If i shift the diplay to 1600x1200, the text and icons become tiny on the screen. The display is currently set at “Normal 96dpi.” What dpi setting do you use with 1600x1200? And what do you find to be the advantage of having such high screen resolution? I only recently shifted from my old 800x600 monitor, so 1024x768 seems pretty fine to me.
I agree. The LCD doesn’t seem to be able to reproduce as wide a range of colors as the CRT. It’s also much more contrasty, and you lose a lot of information in the highlights (whites) of your picture. Even if you turn your contrast down, and use Adobe Gamma to correct, the LCD monitor’s gamut is narrower than CRT. The extra contrast does give pictures more “punch” or “snap,” but at the expense of detail. If you do any graphic design work or photographic editing, LCDs are lousy. Otherwise, for general purpose use, I quite like them.
My 17" Dell CRT is currently set at 1024 X 768. I run MS Word and Excel.
What are the pros and cons of setting the resolution to the max? Will the text be THAT much sharper?
Can I compensate for the small size of the icons by merely changing the settings?
We’re working on an open frame CRT with a built in jacob’s ladder, just for you. So far it’s killed 4 technicians, but we’re confident we’ll be ready to ship it by next week.
It seems like there’s much in the way of personal opinion involved. And perception is, of course, subjective to some degree. And shaped by personal circumstance.
About a month ago I got a new home system and traded my 17" CRT in for a 17" Sony flat panel. For what I use it for at home (email, the boards and Excel) I think it’s a definite improvement. I’ve got it at 1280 x 1024 (its max) and the text seems a lot crisper and the picture is definitely more stable, and brighter. This perception was reinforced by a visit last night to the old 17" CRT at its new home.
At work, though, I use 3 21" ViewSonic CRTs AT 1600 X 1280 for interpretation of graphically presented data. I don’t think I want to change that to flat panels. While the flat panel at home gives me a much crispier SDMB, crispy is not necessarily what I want when I’m stretching my pattern recognition skills.
So, I suppose one size does not fit all.
Uh, understatement of the year. They are designed to emit photons (radiation) at your eyes so you can see an image. So do LCDs, unsurprisingly. Given that your name is engineer_comp_geek, though, I am willing to give you a pass. 
You are correct to say that only CRTs emit some ionizing radiation (in the X-ray spectrum.) But “manufacturers of CRT video monitors who sell their monitors in the United States are required to test their designs and certify that they will not emit significant x radiation (more than 0.5 mR/hr)” (cite). One would do better to worry about the detrimental health effects of sitting at your computer (obesity) than the effects of radiation.
If you are most concerned about energy consumption (direct, from the LCD or CRT; and indirect, from the air conditioning bill); desk space; or eyestrain (less “flicker”); go with the LCD.
If you are most concerned about color fidelity, response time (lack of “ghosting”), resolution scalability, or cost; go with the CRT.
mmm, mmm, very true.
So surely the best thing to do is recommend Carnac the Magnificent! goes to his local large computer selling place, and have a look at the different ones on display?
In my experience (a fair bit), the type of graphics card the monitor is connected to is not so important (so long as it can manage the same res and coolour depth), so what you see at the shop will be pretty close to what you see at home.
Personally, after using dual 20" LCD’s (1600x1200) at work for the last year, I’d never use a CRT again if I can help it, and I am a photographer who does extensive work with images every day. I also work a lot in email and web browsers, and love how text is SO clear.
It bothers me that people are trying to get the cheapest possible display devices - it’s the ONE thing you should never, ever skimp on if you spend more than a few hours a day at a computer, right?
abby
Any ideas, folks?
Every LCD I have seen has a set res (1024 x 768 would be the lowest). You can go under that, and they look awful. Occasionally, you can go over, and they look weird. So, You’d want to be sure to buy an LCD that has a res you’re comfortable with… however, see below.
IMO, text is a LOT clearer on a decent LCD compared to most average to good CRT’s. There’s also no flicker on LCD’s (this may or may not be a problem for you).
I am not sure if you are asking this question regarding LCD’s or CRT’s: If LCD, they are fixed res, and yes, a higher res will generally mean sharper text that is nicer to read (IMO). On CRT’s, this depends on your dot pitch. The smaller the dot pitch (.23 is pretty small), the better text is going to look at a higher res. If the dot pitch is .28, text is gonna look crappy at a high res. Small dot pitch makes CRT monitors more expensive. Cheapie monitors will have a dot pitch of .26 at best.
Explorer icons are a fixed size, but i think they can be double-sized in xp (?). Buttons in most MS apps can be “large” or “small” (right click on a tool bar -> customise -> Options tab -> Large icons).
All text in windows, however, can be scaled up or down (including text that appears below icons, on title bars, and of course web pages, word and excel docs). You can find this tool in Control Panel -> Display -> Settings -> Adbvanced -> General tab -> DPI setting -> custom setting, then go nuts (OK, OK, OK to save changes).
The drawback is that you have to reboot, and you can never be sure what you’re going to end up with until you do. I think it’s something like, 5% = one point (of text size).
All in all, I really suggest you go to the kind of shop that has lots of monitors on display (I am in Australia, and I suspect you are not, so I cannot help with names of shops), and stare at them. You don’t need a sales rep to feed to bullshit figures, either. If you like what you see, then you’re on the right track.
Hope this helps.
abby
So, enclose the ladder in plexiglass clase just large enough to contain it. The Franklin Institute, among others, exhibits a Jacob’s Ladder this way.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve recently salvaged a television from the dumpster. I plan to remove the electron guns and attach them to an armature over my bed. I hypothesize that bombarding my body with charged particles in this manner will result in a pleasant, tingly sensation.
You can throw them farther.
LCDs, IIRC, are also more environmentally-friendly than are CRTs, and not just because of the power issue. A surprisingly large quantity of heavy metals is used in the production of CRT monitors. The mining of mercury, for example, for this purpose is a pretty messy process, environmentally speaking.
.
Most intelligent reply I’ve heard in a long while.
The biggest problem with an LCD monitor is that you can’t degauss them. Nothing makes me happier than seeing the image on my monitor flicker and change colors like mad.
Ah, so they’re 1920’s style cathode rays
ahem
Resolution changing is a big sticking point for me. When I purchased my laptop, I just assumed you could freely change the resolution like in a CRT. Of course, I discovered this not to be true, and so I’m stuck at 1024 x 768. I’m one of these people who likes to maximize my screen real-estate (ie, look at as much stuff as possible at one time), so to me, this is much too low. I’m usually a 1200 x 1600 kinda guy - I just don’t get this on my LCD.