24" Widescreen CRT (FW900) From Ebay arrived,Comments.

First time I ignored someone in 4 years posting here. Guy comes to the ultimate CRT thread to bash CRT, just genious.
 
You forgot one

  • theft proof: CRT beats LCD

I salute anyone able to steal an FW900 during a burglary. The thief will be easy to spot in a lineup. He'll be the one with a broken back :)
 
sadbuttrue said:
You forgot one

  • theft proof: CRT beats LCD

I salute anyone able to steal an FW900 during a burglary. The thief will be easy to spot in a lineup. He'll be the one with a broken back :)
Click to expand...

So true, I love my FW900

Just finished getting 1680x1050 at 100Hz on Windows 7 beta and it looks great!
 
sadbuttrue said:
You forgot one

  • theft proof: CRT beats LCD

I salute anyone able to steal an FW900 during a burglary. The thief will be easy to spot in a lineup. He'll be the one with a broken back :)
Click to expand...

or have large muscles!


I miss the image quality of CRT but desk space wise I could never have 3x 24" CRT together. not only that all that radiation will make me blind.

CRT for the win when it comes to gaming.
 
Your average thief wouldn't steal an FW900. If you come home one day and it's missing, your friendly neighborhood nerd took it.

I'm still looking for another FW900 to put next to this one. Ideally, I'd have 6 of these babies together, 3 on 3 stacked. I'd tear apart the bezels and put them together as close as possible. Best friggin' movie display of all time. 5760x2400, baby!
 
Inmortales said:
So true, I love my FW900

Just finished getting 1680x1050 at 100Hz on Windows 7 beta and it looks great!
Click to expand...
how did you manage that? I must have tried 5 different Nvidia drivers and every time I create a custom resolution is says custom mode failed. Afterwards the custom resolution that failed to create is somehow selectable in the list (for example 1600x1000@100hz right after 85hz) and I can switch to it, but as soon as a program switches to another resolution (such as a newly installed game) or after a reboot, 1600x1000@100hz disappears and I'm back at 85hz. Basically I can have only ONE custom resolution at a time, and only if I never use another resolution or never reboot.

It's making me wanna go back to Vista.
 
I had trouble with the latest drivers as well. Switched back to the "GTA IV" drivers (180.84) worked for me under Server 2008 x64 (aka Vista x64 Fancy Pants Edition).

Not sure why anyone would use a beta OS as their primary OS, though. Not a good idea.
 
S-B said:
Not sure why anyone would use a beta OS as their primary OS, though. Not a good idea.
Click to expand...
because I have an image of my Vista install backed up and ready to be restored, and I didn't feel like splitting my 150gb raptor into 2 tiny partitions.
 
I grow extremelly tired of hearing people bash lcds because of all the cheap ass ones you can buy at china (Which is like bashing LEDs due to china too...). Or the history of the tech.

I have no problems with color gamut on my samsung lcd tv. This is calibrated correctly, without color being added or dynamic crap being used:

s46a550_cie.jpg


Yeah, a couple of the colors are a little off, but far and wide better then most lcds.

Not only that, but my 40" tv weighs 60 lbs (no broken back), and only uses 150 watts of power, which is a far cry from any crt or plasma.

With the right calibration, and with good blacks, lcds murder crts. No contest. The only ones I've seen that beat mine were the 1080i Sony crts at the final years.

This is a tv of course; The FW900 is probably still the best monitor ever, and most of my monitors look bad in dark areas. But don't keep up the lcd bashing bullshit. The last year should've put a stop to that, unless your just a huge crt fanboy.

My back isn't broken, I don't use all the power in the neighborhood, and my tv looks better then most on the market. Most of my other lcds look like crap, but this one isn't.
 
while lcd monitors are still capped at 60hz I will continue bashing them. I hate vsync and I hate tearing. Maybe the upcoming 120hz models from Viewsonic and Samsung will change that.

My Panasonic plasma tv wipes the floor with any LCD tv, and the the Pioneer Kuro plasmas wipe the floor with my Panasonic.
 
Well some of those 120 hz ones are specifically tvs that take a 60hz image and add twice the pictures, which looks like crap.

You may wanna wait until late 2009/2010 for led lcds with real 120 hz.
 
Zellio2009 said:
Well some of those 120 hz ones are specifically tvs that take a 60hz image and add twice the pictures, which looks like crap.

You may wanna wait until late 2009/2010 for led lcds with real 120 hz.
Click to expand...
thats why i didnt mention the fake 120hz tvs. But there are two 22'' lcd monitors coming soon with true 120hz, they could mean the end of having to use vsync on lcd to avoid tearing.
 
True. I'm glad that older crt users are taking a look at lcd instead of questioning them.

Hell, before getting my 40 series 550, I came to get a plasma. The Samsung blew me away.

I still think it's a crt pretending to be lcd, I still walk around it just to look at the fact that it has perfect angles, and it's been 4-5 months since I got it!

I really did not expect lcds to be this good in 2008/2009. The lcds I bought in 2006 are garbage compared to the Samsung.
 
helmutcheese said:
This is about a certain CRT so why even bother posting info about LCD's ?

BTW 1600x1000 can be done @ 110HZ.
Click to expand...

Some troll bashed crts so crt users bashed lcds.

I don't wanna start an argument, I just want to say that lcds of 2008/2009 are good too.
 
helmutcheese said:
This is about a certain CRT so why even bother posting info about LCD's ?

BTW 1600x1000 can be done @ 110HZ.
Click to expand...
didn't mean to get off topic, but people coming here to bash crt aren't helping. I know it can be done at 110hz, as can 1440x900@120, but both push the horizontal refresh to the limit and I really don't want my monitor to die before something as good as crt comes out. Also, and I don't know if this is just my monitor doing it, but I can see a definite decrease in contrast the higher the refresh rate which forces me to jack it up even further (it's already at 80 most of the time).
 
shiznit said:
didn't mean to get off topic, but people coming here to bash crt aren't helping. I know it can be done at 110hz, as can 1440x900@120, but both push the horizontal refresh to the limit and I really don't want my monitor to die before something as good as crt comes out.
Click to expand...

Hey, I just showed up when people responding to the crt troll bashed lcds.
 
My dad just found two of these pretty much NIB, they were barely used at all.
It's now my photoshop monitor. I forgot how awesome these where.
 
Eh? With the current state of LCDs, they cannot, under any circumstance, have blacks even close to a direct-view CRT. In fact, Sony's direct-view 1080i CRTs (only available up to 40") are pretty much unbeatable as televisions compared to today's plasmas and LCDs, with the sole exceptions being geometry and size/weight.

Plasmas are an acceptable substitute, but that does not make them better. Besides, we aren't talking about plasmas, your post claimed that "lcds murder crts".

The only things that are as good as a direct-view CRT are Sony's XEL-1 OLED, which is only 11" and costs $2000, and OQO's "model 2+" handheld OLED computer, which is again only 5".
 
S-B said:
Eh? With the current state of LCDs, they cannot, under any circumstance, have blacks even close to a direct-view CRT. In fact, Sony's direct-view 1080i CRTs (only available up to 40") are pretty much unbeatable as televisions compared to today's plasmas and LCDs, with the sole exceptions being geometry and size/weight.

Plasmas are an acceptable substitute, but that does not make them better. Besides, we aren't talking about plasmas, your post claimed that "lcds murder crts".

The only things that are as good as a direct-view CRT are Sony's XEL-1 OLED, which is only 11" and costs $2000, and OQO's "model 2+" handheld OLED computer, which is again only 5".
Click to expand...

THat's the ones I refering too as being a bit better.

And the argument of crts being better due to black levels and color gamut is quite vague to say the least, as it ignores the lcds advantages such as more natural colors.

And yes, I am saying lcds of today, esp. the real expensive ones, murder crts. Your old crts may have better blacks, but the color gamut argument is pretty much history, along with argument of bad black levels, and the more natural coloring makes the new ones a lot better.

I'm betting the majority of the people bashing lcds haven't tried them in quite a few years and only have memories of the ones that look absoloutely shitty in dark scenes from 2006 and below.

Hell, even the 2007 ones had bad black levels, which is why I was so surprised at the 2008 crop of lcds.
 
Zellio2009 said:
THat's the ones I refering too as being a bit better.

And the argument of crts being better due to black levels and color gamut is quite vague to say the least, as it ignores the lcds advantages such as more natural colors.

And yes, I am saying lcds of today, esp. the real expensive ones, murder crts. Your old crts may have better blacks, but the color gamut argument is pretty much history, along with argument of bad black levels, and the more natural coloring makes the new ones a lot better.

I'm betting the majority of the people bashing lcds haven't tried them in quite a few years and only have memories of the ones that look absoloutely shitty in dark scenes from 2006 and below.

Hell, even the 2007 ones had bad black levels, which is why I was so surprised at the 2008 crop of lcds.
Click to expand...
High end LCDs may have a wider gamut, but that doesn't mean that they are more accurate. Do you own a professional LCD and CRT for comparison? I own a FW900 and have compared it to calibrated Eizo monitors (and others with IPS panels). Just because your ancient 15" CRT looks worse than a decent LCD, doesn't mean that they are all the same. Also, OLED != LCD, so you can't use that as a comparison.
 
I didn't use oled as a comparison...

Led lcds though, can be compared to regular lcds...

And I've already said and SHOWN that even my lcd isn't totally accurate as far as gamut.
 
Zellio2009 said:
I didn't use oled as a comparison...

Led lcds though, can be compared to regular lcds...

And I've already said and SHOWN that even my lcd isn't totally accurate as far as gamut.
Click to expand...
Well, I haven't gone through all 200+ pages unfortunately. I will say that I couldn't have 4 CRTs on my desk like I do LCDs at work though. :)
 
Well, not to advertise, but this is my lcd:

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1033626955&postcount=13439

Other lcds may look awful, but the lcds from 2008 look great. I don't mean to hijack this thread, but the lcd bashing came in, and while crts still look great, the fact that 2008 lcds look so good should be a good sign for all you crt users with bad backs, eh? :p

This 40" is only 60 lbs. I'm gonna predict by 2010 or even late 2009 lcds (probably with led backlights) will be as good as the crts you remember.

And btw, I had lights on when I took those pics, which I kinda had to do otherwise the iphone wouldn't make a good picture. :( The light of course makes blacks alot worse.
 
Weight isn't an issue for me. My server case weighs over 200lbs when filled, and I just put the monitor on top of it, so I can just push the whole thing around. I only move it once a year for quakecon anyway. Once the thing dies, I'll be replacing it with multiple LCDs, but I see no point at this time.
 
Good thing too, as I do admit crts have better blacks, and are better for gaming and such.

Unless you sit on the couch like me :p

By the time it breaks they'll be some lcds on the market that will actually look like your old monitor or better. The colors are more natural, but the blacks and gamut need another year or two of work.
 
Zellio2009 said:
Well, not to advertise, but this is my lcd:

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1033626955&postcount=13439

Other lcds may look awful, but the lcds from 2008 look great. I don't mean to hijack this thread, but the lcd bashing came in, and while crts still look great, the fact that 2008 lcds look so good should be a good sign for all you crt users with bad backs, eh? :p

This 40" is only 60 lbs. I'm gonna predict by 2010 or even late 2009 lcds (probably with led backlights) will be as good as the crts you remember.

And btw, I had lights on when I took those pics, which I kinda had to do otherwise the iphone wouldn't make a good picture. :( The light of course makes blacks alot worse.
Click to expand...

I really hate to mention this to you since you took the time to take pictures and all. But, a picture of your monitor displaying content, compressed and posted on a forum that is then displayed on monitors ranging from cheap craptastic looking lcd's and crt's to high quality sips lcds and ag crts, will hardly convey a true idea of what the image actually looks like on your monitor. At best all you show is the improvement they have made with viewing angles. Which is damn good for your set, I might add.

If I view those images on my 2405 would I really see a difference between your set and my 2405, or would I only see the good and bad points of my own 2405's picture? Same would go for my diamondtrons, trinitrons, va, and tn monitors.

Some of the new LCD's are awesome, but can we just leave this thread to the FW900 and it's rebrands?
 
shiznit said:
how did you manage that? I must have tried 5 different Nvidia drivers and every time I create a custom resolution is says custom mode failed. Afterwards the custom resolution that failed to create is somehow selectable in the list (for example 1600x1000@100hz right after 85hz) and I can switch to it, but as soon as a program switches to another resolution (such as a newly installed game) or after a reboot, 1600x1000@100hz disappears and I'm back at 85hz. Basically I can have only ONE custom resolution at a time, and only if I never use another resolution or never reboot.

It's making me wanna go back to Vista.
Click to expand...

I modded nv_disp setup file within the 181.22 bèta driver and added the resolutions and refreshrate I wanted.

64bit driver only.

http://rapidshare.de/files/43027076/181.22_geforce_winvista_64bit_english_GDMFW900STYLE.rar.html

Please give the drivers a try and tell if they are working. You still cant ad custom resolutions in the Nvidia control panel ( it failes the test)

1680x1050 at 100Hz and 1920x1200 at 85 Hz worked for me.

I thank Hurin for this because he showed the settings in his registry tweak.

I hope it works for you.
 
How can an LCD have better colours than a CRT, total tosh.

Mitsubishi a few months ago posted just how many colours a LCD can show compared to what we can see and its like 1/4 (if this is wrong I will get proper figure).

LCD is near its end, the element needed to make them is running out soon and OLED (if they can get them bigger and make life longer) and SED (Now there is no legal matter to postpone it further) will take over.

Infact why are some even talking about LCD's in a CRT thread ? (Trolls ?)

I have a lot of disposable income and I have had many so called high end LCD Monitors and LCD 1080p HDTV's and all are crap IMO.

I am back on a CRT TV and Monitor till something comes along with as good a picture.
 
I rue the day I bought an FW900. It sent my life on a downward spiral. I had to get a second job to pay for all the power it gobbled up. I had to replace 5 meals a week with Top Ramen.

The work and feverish gaming, led me to neglect my health. The CRT radiation combined with my weakened immune system, led me to being diagnosed with the hiv. Sure enough, it was full blown AIDS in no time.

Now I'm back on some blurry piece of shit for gaming. I tried to look on the bright side. At least with all the money I'm saving, I have replaced 2 Ramen meals a month with 4 piece Chick McNuggets instead. Only thing good I ever got out of the CRT was getting diesel as fuck. I must be the only man alive that can move a 90 pound object even just the few times it's necessary.
 
Zellio2009 said:
Some troll bashed crts so crt users bashed lcds.

I don't wanna start an argument, I just want to say that lcds of 2008/2009 are good too.
Click to expand...

Even the latest and greatest PC LCD models still suffer from piss poor black levels. The recent advancement in LCD's is only seen on the latest high end HDTV LCD models from Samsung / Sony. Once they can apply this to PC models and without major input lag then im in.
 
No, you make it look good by having a good camera.

Try making it look good on an iphone camera some time.

I could take a picture on a 1mp pos camera and still make this tv look good.
 
Blue Fox said:
High end LCDs may have a wider gamut, but that doesn't mean that they are more accurate. Do you own a professional LCD and CRT for comparison? I own a FW900 and have compared it to calibrated Eizo monitors (and others with IPS panels). Just because your ancient 15" CRT looks worse than a decent LCD, doesn't mean that they are all the same. Also, OLED != LCD, so you can't use that as a comparison.
Click to expand...

I have Sony GDM-F520 CRTs (hardware profiled and calibrated) and a NEC 2490 (SVII profiled and calibrated). These are both top-shelf products from CRT and LCD camps.

I like the 16:10 AR, size, lower power consumption, always-perfect geometry and 1:1 pixel ratio sharpness of the LCD.

Even after two months of using the 2490 I can feel the lag, see the "screen door" effect from pixel spacing and see the lack of true blacks. I feel that something is still....missing.

In the end, the 2490 is "good enough" to displace my CRTs as my primary, multi-purpose display but I can often see the shortcomings. CRT bashers simply haven't experienced a good one or are simply ignorant. LCDs are getting pretty good but...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top