Ahhh, the silkyness...Picked up two sweet CRTs!!

I'll admit my old SGI monitor had great picture quality, I still couldn't go back to that beast. Then again I don't do anything with graphics, or photo work. Just work with loads of text, and game.

As for graphics folks using CRT, I haven't seen a CRT in a photo/graphics environment in a long time. I have seen some crazy expensive LCDs though.
 
It would be more for motion including animated cgi and special effects rather than still image graphics/photo work.. especially whats called a composite where you layer cgi into a live action filmed scene. Any lcd has blur, so for gaming and certain fast action video work a CRT is still superior (has no blur) , so some people who can get their hands on a graphics pro crt and know enough to use them still do. One of the most recent examples I've seen was a "making of" / "behind the scenes" of "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" which was referenced in the FW900 thread.

Myramond said:
Last Night i watched The Mummy Tomb of the Dragon Emperor on my TX-P42S20E and as i looked at the extras i found something where i thougt "coool"

IMG_7303.jpg


IMG_7304.jpg


Now we know why the effects in this movie look so good ^^

Nice to see that some Professionals are still using this monitors.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
i don't miss crt's

i had 2x viewsonics and a couple NEC 19" CRT monitors the nec's both died but since they weighed 60lbs sending them in for service wasn't a very attactive option

I dropped them off at the recycling center and have never missed them

I had a couple samsung 1440x900 monitors for a couple years then got 2x dell U2211H monitors last april very pleased

my current desk couldn't handle crt's if it wanted to (no room and 2x CRTs might well be too much weight for it...
 
LCDs have come a LONG way. I heard samsungs new PLS technology can almost display medium-grey. ( you know, like TN and IPS panels have been able to do)
 
Last edited:
sadbuttrue said:
Welcome to the dark side, where many will ridicule you for "living in the past". You can now politely smile at their ignorance =]

As anyone with a 36" CRT TV will tell you, people always comment on how good the picture quality is compared to their own expensive LCD/Plasma. Despite this, they still can't be convinced to buy one for pennies second hand. If it isn't flat and looks nice when switched off, most people don't want to know.
Click to expand...

FYI, a quality plasma will always look better than a CRT. LCD's are another story. Plasma uses phosphers just like a CRT but without the convergence and overscan issues that CRT's have. Plasma is probably the best display you could ever own, assuming its a quality plasma display, there are cheap plasmas and quality plasmas. No display has ever matched Pioneer's Plasma, that includes CRT, LCD or DLP, LCOS, or laser.

The only real drawback to plasma is energy consumption, image retention(although it mostly a non-issue for TV viewing) and high altitudes. For most people, image retention is the only real issue and it can mostly be eliminated with care such using a screensaver or not leaving static images on the display for days and weeks at a time. Plasma image retention can be reversed though by careful burning in of phosphers using colored screen images.
 
Um no. There is a reason why plasma has never made it to computer monitors. ;)
 
Plasma's have really big pixels and major screen-door if used as a desktop monitor. I believe the smallest sold is 36" in 19x10.

All monitor technology is a compromise. :(

I really miss CRT's on anything to do with motion. I've tried the 120hz LCD's still blur like crazy. Just drag a window around the screen really fast you'll see it won't look the same as static.:( Also, zero input lag I notice when jumping and stuff in FPSs on LCDs.

With that's said I like my NEC LCD for everything else. Perfect convergence, better color, better looks, more desk space, more energy efficient, etc. One thing I don't get is people say blacks on CRT are better... not on my diamondtron. Blacks are greyer than even IPS.
 
Last edited:
ZoNe said:
One thing I don't get is people say blacks on CRT are better... not on my diamondtron. Blacks are greyer than even IPS.
Click to expand...

Well, that's obviously not gonna go for a 10 year old monitor that is so far out of spec and calibration that the guy who designed it wouldn't recognise it anymore...

I've seen CRT's that were hardware-calibrated with every last voltage down to spec and they were as black as the ambient lighting would let them, that means in a perfectly dark room it would be almost impossible to see they are on.
 
Vega said:
Um no. There is a reason why plasma has never made it to computer monitors. ;)
Click to expand...

The only reason would be image retention or burn-in. And even that is less of an issue in modern plasma's. Been using plasma as my main monitor for the last 4 years, first a panasonic and now a pioneer. Plasmas are way better than any LCD that I have used and I have tried a lot!!
 
ZoNe said:
Plasma's have really big pixels and major screen-door if used as a desktop monitor. I believe the smallest sold is 36" in 19x10.

All monitor technology is a compromise. :(

I really miss CRT's on anything to do with motion. I've tried the 120hz LCD's still blur like crazy. Just drag a window around the screen really fast you'll see it won't look the same as static.:( Also, zero input lag I notice when jumping and stuff in FPSs on LCDs.

With that's said I like my NEC LCD for everything else. Perfect convergence, better color, better looks, more desk space, more energy efficient, etc. One thing I don't get is people say blacks on CRT are better... not on my diamondtron. Blacks are greyer than even IPS.
Click to expand...


You wouldn't see any issues with a 36" plasma for a monitor if you sat far enough away from it. The problem there is that you can't sit 3ft away from a 36" monitor with 1080p resolution and not have poor image quality. If they made a smaller plasma in a 24" range with 1080p resolution, it would likely look just fine at a 3ft viewing distance.

The problem with LCD's is still pixel response time, and when you start talking about 120Hz, its much worse because they have to refresh twice as fast as a 60Hz LCD. This is why I hate LCD TV's so much. During fast motion, they can refresh fast enough.

I have a Mitsubishi/NEC 22" Diamondtron CRT monitor that I don't use anymore butthe blacks are fine on it. The only reason I can think of that your blacks wouldn't be fine is if the brightness level is set too high. Which brings us back to one of the downsides to CRT technology, its simply not as bright as an LCD so most people end up turning the brightness up too far on a CRT display and ruin the black levels. This is also why LCD's tend to have a WOW factor when compared to CRT displays when sitting next to each other, the brightness and colors tend to pop more on an LCD.

All display technologies have their pros and cons, none of them are perfect in every scenario. For PC use and web viewing, its hard to beat a quality LCD because the text is razor sharp compared to other technologies. For TV and movie viewing, nothing compares to a quality plasma, with DLP coming in a close second, everything else is a distant third.
 
.
A glossy VA TV panel (LCD) has decent black levels but VA monitors typically have bad input lag. The problem with non-crt's is MOTION, and LCD's especially blur bad. Plasma has its own tradeoffs, and gets its "600hz" by pulsing the backlight 10 times per refresh at 60hz. Plasma does look decent but is not a good choice for static images, or up close at a desk. You can see a sparkle effect of some kind, requires some tip-toing around image retention on static imagery with heavy recomendations against 3 or 4 hours of the same screen elements (even with shifting enabled), and some even have a low whine noise. They are a good alternative for movies only in my opinion, but I use my main tv for consoles and htpc, and if I fall asleep and pc reboots or gets stuck on a screen , or console gaming for several hours in a row I don't want to have to worry about it. The other big thing as already mentioned is the ppi at normal viewing distances ~ desk use.
.
I'm not sure exactly where plasma fits in on this representation, but for the rest I think its pretty accurate from what I've heard on 120hz and my personal experience with a graphics professional 22.5" viewable widescreen crt (not your run of the mill desktop crt) and various 60hz lcd's (TN and IPS).
.
The other screen tech's have come along enough for specific tasking... VA LCD tv or plasma for movies, IPS for still graphics work and general desktop imagery, desktop real-estate and ppi .. but the reason for CRT is this representation.. plainly. The primary reason CRT is still best for gaming and fast video work not the black levels, colors, detail levels, etc..

lcd-blur.jpg



Especially on the highest detail modern games whose textures are so finely detailed + have "3d" depth via bump mapping... panel blurring washes out the textures obnoxiously, wrenching my eyes from their focus. In some fps and older engines its possible to ignore it more.. in games with vast gorgeous scenery its eye straining and annoying besides.
 
Blkout said:
Really shows what you know as far as image quality and TV technology goes...
Click to expand...

We are talking computer monitors here, I couldn't care less about "TV technology". ;) If you enjoy sitting 10 feet away from your computer display because the pixels are the size of Rhode Island with huge gaps between them, more power to you.
 
Vega said:
We are talking computer monitors here, I couldn't care less about "TV technology". ;) If you enjoy sitting 10 feet away from your computer display because the pixels are the size of Rhode Island with huge gaps between them, more power to you.
Click to expand...

Considering I have a desktop PC for web viewing and a HTPC for gaming and movies, then yes, TV technology is important to me. If you can't put up a better arguement with facts, then don't bother with the conversation. I've provided you with plenty of display tech facts, you've provided nothing but opinionated statements.

I actually use a 24" Dell LCD monitor on my desktop PC for web viewing, its the best compromise for reading text compared to other display technologies. Is it perfect for everything? No, but its great for reading web pages.

I play games and watch movies on my HTPC and 67" Samsung DLP TV in the living room. Is it perfect for everything? No but its great for playing games and watching movies.

I watch some movies networked from my HTPC to my Netgear NeoTV 550 in my bedroom on a 43" Pioneer Plasma TV. Is it perfect for everything? No, but its great for watching movies.

No display tech is perfect in all aspects, EVERY ONE of them have some weaknesses. I simply responded to a statement from someone else that nothing has a better image than a CRT display and I just don't agree with that. You responded to my statement and changed the context of my statement to your own debate.
 
Blkout said:
Considering I have a desktop PC for web viewing and a HTPC for gaming and movies, then yes, TV technology is important to me. If you can't put up a better arguement with facts, then don't bother with the conversation. I've provided you with plenty of display tech facts, you've provided nothing but opinionated statements.

I actually use a 24" Dell LCD monitor on my desktop PC for web viewing, its the best compromise for reading text compared to other display technologies. Is it perfect for everything? No, but its great for reading web pages.

I play games and watch movies on my HTPC and 67" Samsung DLP TV in the living room. Is it perfect for everything? No but its great for playing games and watching movies.

I watch some movies networked from my HTPC to my Netgear NeoTV 550 in my bedroom on a 43" Pioneer Plasma TV. Is it perfect for everything? No, but its great for watching movies.

No display tech is perfect in all aspects, EVERY ONE of them have some weaknesses. I simply responded to a statement from someone else that nothing has a better image than a CRT display and I just don't agree with that. You responded to my statement and changed the context of my statement to your own debate.
Click to expand...

The only thing in this thread that you have said in regard to plasma supposedly being "better" than CRT is this:

"FYI, a quality plasma will always look better than a CRT. LCD's are another story. Plasma uses phosphers just like a CRT but without the convergence and overscan issues that CRT's have."

Man, we are blown away at all that evidence of plasma's picture quality over CRT. :eek: Plasma can't compare to quality CRT overall for computer gaming.

Sure plama's make great movie/tv screens. Not sure how this turned into a plasma vs CRT thread. As for picture quality, we better tell all of those imaging professionals to remove FW900's off of their desk and hang plasma TV's on the wall. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Vega said:
The only thing in this thread that you have said in regard to plasma supposedly being "better" than CRT is this:

"FYI, a quality plasma will always look better than a CRT. LCD's are another story. Plasma uses phosphers just like a CRT but without the convergence and overscan issues that CRT's have."

Man, we are blown away at all that evidence of plasma's picture quality over CRT. :eek: Plasma can't compare to quality CRT overall for computer gaming.

Sure plama's make great movie/tv screens. Not sure how this turned into a plasma vs CRT thread. As for picture quality, we better tell all of those imaging professionals to remove FW900's off of their desk and hang plasma TV's on the wall. :eek:
Click to expand...

Yea really because a 42" plasma is so practical to work in front of from 3ft away.

"As for picture quality, we better tell all of those imaging professionals to remove FW900's off of their desk and hang plasma TV's on the wall."

Is this really the best you can come up with? The bottom line is that depending on what you're using your display for, some technologies have more advantages than others. Once again, I replied to a statement from someone else that said...

" As anyone with a 36" CRT TV will tell you, people always comment on how good the picture quality is compared to their own expensive LCD/Plasma. Despite this, they still can't be convinced to buy one for pennies second hand. If it isn't flat and looks nice when switched off, most people don't want to know."

From there, you turned it into a LCD, CRT, Plasma PC display for a work environment debate.
 
IT's HERE (the S23a750D I ordered)! Hooray...too bad I'm stuck at work lmao. Hopefully this will provide a good enough experience compared to my CRT. The sharpness and 3D certainly will be better thats for sure.

unboxed it at work to check things out and looks good so far. Glasses are pretty light, found replacement 5pack CR2025 batteries for .99 shipped so will stock up on those.

Tried to find a PC with displayport out on it here but not a single one does, so I'll have to wait to get home to test it all out.

Vega: did you post your settings in the other samsung s27a750d thread? yours are orientated in portrait mode though so the color shift may be diffrent due to the viewing angle. I'm basically going to have to eyeball it using some calibraiton discs and a blue filter for the saturation / tint. Honestly though I'll have to calibrate the CRT too as I havent done that yet for a fair comparison. I did notice however on my SGI CRT the geometry is off a bit, not looking forward to adjusting that!
 
I own a Dell U2711 and an older Iiyama VisionMaster Pro 454 19". They both have their pros and cons. I enjoy the CRT for reading and work because it runs at 1600x1200 @ 100Hz and doesn't bother my eyes at all. If I set the CRT to anything below 85Hz my eyes go bloodshot within an hour, and I've always had that problem personally. The CRT also has ghosting issues and weird color problems that my U2711 doesn't suffer from.

The LCD on the otherhand runs at 60Hz, but I don't have problems with my eyes after staring at it for a long time. I like that a lot. Of course text is good on it, but I think it's about the same overall as with my CRT. I use the LCD for games because the CRT had issues displaying really low black levels. I just couldn't see anything in videos and games if it was too dark. The LCD doesn't have that problem. It displays the full color gamut very well.

latency time on the CRT is obviously better, but TBH, I can't tell an appreciable difference between playing games on the CRT and the LCD.
 
A properly calibrated plasma is great for gaming. If its the best for movies and has 0 motion problems it is good for gaming. Important for gaming: motion, black level, color/gamma;

Plasma: check, check check. (size failure: 42" @ 1080p doesnt cut it.)
LCD : oh god, oh god no, few.
CRT: check, check, check. (size failure)

So we are stuck with a terrible fail for LCD and size failures for crt/plasma.
 
Last edited:
One huge aspect of using TV sets for computer gaming that a lot of people seem to forget; input lag. Almost all TV sets be it plasma or whatever have processing circuitry and frame interpolation. Tons of TV sets have been measured to have 100+ more ms of input lag. That is an astounding figure. CRT's have zero.

Not to mention on a TV set you are limited to blowing up a low 1080p resolution to large size via large pixels. Plasma TV sets are superb for movies but I would never use one for computer gaming, especially FPS's.
 
I thought the FW900 thread was the only home of CRT talk. :p

I'd be perfectly willing to accept a sub 37" plasma for a monitor if they'd ever created it. Too bad. A good plasma is about the only acceptable substitute for a CRT. A good DLP projector is good too (I miss mine) but also not really a monitor substitute.

I personally can't stand the black levels / black detail on LCDs. They've improved a lot but they can only go so far - a lot of their contrast ratio is a result of how bright they get vs actually being black.

I don't know what I'll do when my FW900 dies. Probably find some halfway decent LCD and deal, I guess. I doubt I could find another any more.
 
Still testing out the s23a750d but liking it a lot so far.

Black compared to my crt is good but not as good

Motion is a hell of a lot better than my 23" acer LCD, but again still not as good as the crt. The CRT just has such smooth motion even at 60Hz compared to any LCD I have used to date. Once you go above 60Hz there is no comparison, at 100Hz and 120Hz the motion is so smooth and blur free it in itself has almost a 3D effect to it thats hard to describe. Obviously PerPixAn hows the advantages in motion and blurring, but the simplest test of just taking something like the catalyst control center window on the desktop, grabbing the top of the window and moving it around in a circular motion, the window seems completely detatched and in front of everything else...again almost 3 dimensional... but it's not. I will admidt though the CRTs are showing some age and the phosphers arent as good as they used ot be because if I have a black window with white text moving around at a faster pace I can see a bit of trailing.

However I do feel the s23a750d has a lot of advantages over my CRT like size, weight, design, sharpness, and most noteworthy the 3D! Going from the CRT in interleved mode with shutter glasses was litterally like going from night to day. The picture is no where near as dim, the resolution was worlds better, the contrast and colors are worlds better and it was a lot more immersive! I ended up staying up to play a bunch of games in 3D again until 2am lmao.

I forgot my blue filter so I cant really adjust the display like I wanted to this weekend, I just kind of eyeballed it the best I could and really I can say with the exeption of movement I like it enough to stick with it. The 120Hz works well, and PerPixAn looks good..but it's still no CRT

Vega you'll see what I mean when you get your FW900
 
NukeDukem said:
Personally I could never go back to my old CRT. The only thing a CRT has over a good IPS LCD panel is refresh rate. Everything else as far as I am concerned is horribly inferior.

I don't know why anyone in this day and age would still use a CRT (perhaps beside professional Quake 3 Arena players), but I understand some of you are zealots and that's absolutely your right.
Click to expand...

IPS panels have some of the worst black levels you can get in an LCD.

IMO Plasma is the closest match to a CRT's picture attributes (unlimited viewing angles, deep black levels and smooth motion clarity with gaming)

I played the first 15+ hours of Skyrim on my Samsung PX2370 (2ms TN), The motion clarity seemed decent but I then recently continued playing Skyrim on my Plasma and the very first thing that hit me is how incredibly smooth 60fps looks on it, I'm talking worlds better than any LCD Ive owned.

The difference isnt as pronounced with 30fps games but compare 60fps games on Plasma vs. LCD and you'll see what I mean.

IMO LCD has its strengths but overall it feels like a flawed technology.
 
I have an FW900 and when people see it playing BluRay at 1920x1080@96hz, they cannot take their eyes off it. Some of these people have very expensive LCDs, and they are amazed. I on the other hand have never been amazed by an LCD. I have not seen one at any price that I would consider a better video display than a good Trinitron. As to fuzzy corners, discoloration and bad geometry, these are failure symptoms, or the result of cheap manufacture, not a part of normal operation of a quality CRT.

As a text display, or anything else fairly static, an LCD is fairly appropriate, but you always choose between contrast and speed, physics says you cannot have both. That is and always will be the limitation of LCDs.
 
Yup...used an FW900 as my HDTV for several years. I remember a comment "it's better than HDTV". Indeed, nothing else on a consumer level really compared for years.

Then came and sadly went the great Kuro.

Briefly used a backlit local dimming LCD, which was impressive. Hoped that technology would move to smaller screen sizes, but I guess the economics are not there...

Still got a CRT for my computer. Still hoping for SED...well, strike that...OLED as my next computer monitor. For the TV, some sort of projection, rear now, maybe front next....
 
Last edited:
mathesar said:
IPS panels have some of the worst black levels you can get in an LCD.
Click to expand...
new IPS have ~1000:1 contrast ratio, and that is not bad in LCD world

IMO Plasma is the closest match to a CRT's picture attributes (unlimited viewing angles, deep black levels and smooth motion clarity with gaming)
Click to expand...
if only they made 120Hz input plasmas... :rolleyes:
 
XoR said:
new IPS have ~1000:1 contrast ratio, and that is not bad in LCD world
Click to expand...

If your monitor's white was considered black, and the sun was considered white, that would probably be a far bigger contrast ratio. Doesn't mean what you took for "black" was anything close to black though.
 
XoR said:
new IPS have ~1000:1 contrast ratio, and that is not bad in LCD world
Click to expand...

It's really not that great, I mean my Plasma is from 2007 and it was tested at 2,686:1 ANSI contrast ratio.

Also Plasma doesn't need 120Hz to provide smooth motion.
 
but what Sun or plasma have to do with modern IPSes having decent CR compared to other LCD panels? :confused:
 
I think the biggest thing keeping me with my desktop CRT is probably the black level. I consider blackness the absence of light. Like really black.

I generally use green text on black background where possible when I'm doing work, it seems to be most legible at lowest brightness, which makes sense because our eyes are most sensitive to green light. The only LCD panels I've seen with what I consider acceptable black levels have been expensive and relatively slow. Things like smooth scrolling in a browser don't work the same on LCD, the text gets blurry as it's moving up the screen, because even panels with a "high" contrast ratio take a long time to move a pixel from high intensity to low intensity. This is not a problem with the CRT, it's way faster than my eyes are.

I was using Mac OS 10.6 the other day, and noticed that among the options for solid desktop background colors, there was no black. I was puzzled by this until I realized that all Macs have LCDs, and a solid black background looks like total ass on most of them.

For reading text, maximum contrast is what you want, and that means being able to have the darkest pixels you can make next to the brightest ones you can make. If you want that text to move, you need to be able to transition between those two extremes as quickly as possible. and my crappy old CRT smacks down any panel you can name at those things.
 
atarione said:
i don't miss crt's

i had 2x viewsonics and a couple NEC 19" CRT monitors the nec's both died but since they weighed 60lbs sending them in for service wasn't a very attactive option

I dropped them off at the recycling center and have never missed them

I had a couple samsung 1440x900 monitors for a couple years then got 2x dell U2211H monitors last april very pleased

my current desk couldn't handle crt's if it wanted to (no room and 2x CRTs might well be too much weight for it...
Click to expand...

I still have the 17" NEC CRT I did bother to ship for repair while still under warranty in '97.

Picked up my Samsung 204B LCD from the repair shop this past Saturday (couple of bad caps on the ps/inverter circuit board). Having meanwhile reverted to a Viewsonic mere 17" CRT, the flat panel LCD has gone straight into storage.

“The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” - Wittgenstein

Trying to explain the why of CRT vs LCD preference is about like trying to find the words to describe the taste of a banana - way beyond my ken. Surprisingly, I don't yet miss the additional real estate. The CRT just feels visually warmer, if that makes any sense.
 
The thing I miss most about CRTs is that they weren't locked to a specific resolution. With LCDs we have to deal with interpolation blurring things up at non-native resolutions. This isn't so much a problem with newer games as long you keep upgrading you video cards, but I enjoy retro gaming as well, and a lot of older retro games don't support higher resolutions and look horrible on LCDs.
 
dustNbone said:
For reading text, maximum contrast is what you want, and that means being able to have the darkest pixels you can make next to the brightest ones you can make. If you want that text to move, you need to be able to transition between those two extremes as quickly as possible. and my crappy old CRT smacks down any panel you can name at those things.
Click to expand...
actually CRT contrast ratio of black text on bright background is much worse than on LCDs because of flaring. Only white text on black background is better but I'm not entirely sure if it's a good thing... :rolleyes:

personally not only I use CRT for gaming but it's main monitor for everything including most web browsing and not because contrast ratio (that is actually very bad on daytime) but because I love CRT colors, fluffiness, silkyness and because CRT make everything look oldschool :D

but most important thing to remember is: LCDs don't have soul. Only CRTs do!
 
XoR said:
but most important thing to remember is: LCDs don't have soul. Only CRTs do!
Click to expand...

I can somewhat agree with this statement, a good CRT has a warmth, richness & depth that LCDs seem to lack, although my 2333T (PVA) is pretty good with contrast, black levels & color richness ..Unfortunately PVA motion clarity is worse than IPS & TN combined.
 
Particleman said:
The thing I miss most about CRTs is that they weren't locked to a specific resolution. With LCDs we have to deal with interpolation blurring things up at non-native resolutions. This isn't so much a problem with newer games as long you keep upgrading you video cards, but I enjoy retro gaming as well, and a lot of older retro games don't support higher resolutions and look horrible on LCDs.
Click to expand...

I miss that too, it's important for old games but also DVDs and other low res vids.
 
Not just resolution, but refresh rate too. PAL video can be displayed at 75 or 100hz, NTSC can be 60 or 120, film can be 72, 96 or 120hz. You do not get this type of flexibility with an LCD, even watching a 1080p movie on a fixed rate 1080p panel means doing messy 24->60 fps conversion. Actually I never could figure out why panels capable of at least 72/75hz aren't more common. 120hz input does give the ability to do 24 fps cleanly, but that's just starting to appear. And it doesn't help at all for PAL video which is something I watch a fair amount of because British TV is much better than the mindless crap we are fed in NA.
 
gmkmay said:
I always loved my Sony CRT's...but years ago I got a 2001fp and had lcd's ever since. I haven't for a second missed the blurry edges, convergence requirements and not so great text. Nor have I missed the discoloration over time.

It would be fun to use one again and see what I think, but I remember very well how happy I was when I moved to LCD all those years ago. I can't have been that crazy.
Click to expand...

Agreed.The only things I like about CRT's are their ability to use nearly any resolution and refresh rate. It took awhile to get used to the lack of smoothness on LCD's but at least they are consistent which allowed me to adapt. Though it took me awhile to find good enough LCD's to keep me happy. Nothing short of my 3007WFP did that for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top