The monitor Carmack coded Quake on... where can I buy it?

[wildweasel]

Are CRTs objectively better, though? "Darker blacks" is certainly one point in their favor, as is multi-scan (LCDs haven't always done a very good job of upscaling cleanly), but I feel like the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

[darkhog]

/remove, accidental dblpost

[darkhog]

Are CRTs objectively better, though? "Darker blacks" is certainly one point in their favor, as is multi-scan (LCDs haven't always done a very good job of upscaling cleanly), but I feel like the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

Yup, benefits of CRTs far outweigh the negatives.

//edit: Another good thing about CRTs is that they are usually with 75hz refresh rate, which is superior to LCDs which have only 60, unless you get into crazily expensive 100hz LCD and there is absolutely no chance of "ghosting" which happens even on modern good LCDs. Even on my 1080p Samsung the text cursor doesn't disappear instantly but sorta fades. Yes, it's a good monitor (too lazy to get behind to see model tho), but it has all the tell-tale flaws of a LCD that manufacturer can do little about because of the way LCD tech works.

[Accensus]

LCDs are better. Read NS' and XCVG's posts carefully to find out why.
As for your question - it has also been answered. Those particular CRTs are limited edition. Extremely hard to find That particular model you're looking for.

I'll say it again - there are plenty of technologies. IPS black =/= TN black. I've worked on both and I know the difference from first-hand experience. It's huge.

[Hellser]

I've asked a simple question. And you guys are trying to convince me that LCD screens are better, which they objectively AREN'T (aside of physical size). And why it is, exactly?

We just gave you a ton of information about why LCDs are better. Also, that issue you were trying to fight (the 'gray' screen effect) is due to the LCD's light's actually doing its job. If you spend some good money on a decent monitor, you won't have that issue. In fact, I don't even notice it in my day to day life.

Let's compare some fundamental issues:

1) Glare. Glass reflects quite well. Plastic doesn't. Point to LCD.
2) Burn in. CRTs suffer with this all the time. LCDs doesn't (it does, but very, very rare). Point to LCD.
3) Flicker. People get sick off of 60hz flicker, LCD doesn't have this issue. Point to LCD.
4) Picture Clairty, at the native resolution, LCDs are crisp. CRT tends to be a bit 'blurred', point to LCD.
5) Power Consumption. Average 80-100watts on an CRT, 10-30 watts on an LCD, point to LCD.
6) Viewing Angle. Technology improved for LCDS. Unless you're looking at your screen from an extreme angle. Still, point to CRT.
7) Weight. Up to 40 pounds versus 10 pounds. Point to LCD.
8) Dead Pixels. Happens on LCDs, but rarely unless you've cheaped out. Point to CRT.
9) Size: A monitor bigger than your desk versus a monitor as thin as a deck of cards. Point to LCD.
10) Response: Unless you have a 10 year old LCD, we're down to 1ms response time. Which you literally can't see. Equal.

Winner is LCD: 7 points, CRT: 2.

[DoomRater]

Are you going to use a light gun with the thing or....? That points to CRT as well though they do make specialized guns for all screens.

[Hellser]

Are you going to use a light gun with the thing or....? That points to CRT as well though they do make specialized guns for all screens.

That's probably the only reason why anyone should buy a CRT, but then again; most Lightguns are dying of old age, aren't they?

[darkhog]

I've asked a simple question. And you guys are trying to convince me that LCD screens are better, which they objectively AREN'T (aside of physical size). And why it is, exactly?

We just gave you a ton of information about why LCDs are better. Also, that issue you were trying to fight (the 'gray' screen effect) is due to the LCD's light's actually doing its job. If you spend some good money on a decent monitor, you won't have that issue. In fact, I don't even notice it in my day to day life.

Let's compare some fundamental issues:

1) Glare. Glass reflects quite well. Plastic doesn't. Point to LCD.
2) Burn in. CRTs suffer with this all the time. LCDs doesn't (it does, but very, very rare). Point to LCD.
3) Flicker. People get sick off of 60hz flicker, LCD doesn't have this issue. Point to LCD.
4) Picture Clairty, at the native resolution, LCDs are crisp. CRT tends to be a bit 'blurred', point to LCD.
5) Power Consumption. Average 80-100watts on an CRT, 10-30 watts on an LCD, point to LCD.
6) Viewing Angle. Technology improved for LCDS. Unless you're looking at your screen from an extreme angle. Still, point to CRT.
7) Weight. Up to 40 pounds versus 10 pounds. Point to LCD.
8) Dead Pixels. Happens on LCDs, but rarely unless you've cheaped out. Point to CRT.
9) Size: A monitor bigger than your desk versus a monitor as thin as a deck of cards. Point to LCD.
10) Response: Unless you have a 10 year old LCD, we're down to 1ms response time. Which you literally can't see. Equal.

Winner is LCD: 7 points, CRT: 2.

1) Agreed. But even LCD I'm using suffers from it and I can't use it with window blinds open, because it'll splotch over all of my screen, instead of just one little spot on CRT.
2) Maybe 30 year old, ones that remember DOS to Windows 95 transition. Anything manufactured after 1999 (and most after 1997) has as rare chances of burn in as LCD have of dead pixels.
3) Never happened to me when using a CRT and I suffer from epilepsy.
4) That "blur" you're talking about gives much warmer colors to the CRT that no "CRT filters" can really replicate because you can't on LCD make something that is half a pixel thick.
5) Agreed here, but better response times and warmer colors are worth it.
6) Agreed.
7) At least you won't accidentally tip them over and break. And seriously, who moves their screen often?
8) Yup. Never had any though.
9) You're being hyperbolic and you know it. If anything, it will be no more than half of your desk.
10) Trust me, 1ms may mean difference between being killed by hundreds of cacodemons and avoiding their attacks by small margin and finishing the level with 1% of health left.

[Hellser]

Trust me, 1ms may mean difference between being killed by hundreds of cacodemons and avoiding their attacks by small margin and finishing the level with 1% of health left.

1ms = 0.001 Second. "The average reaction time for humans is 0.25 seconds to a visual stimulus, 0.17 for an audio stimulus, and 0.15 seconds for a touch stimulus." - Wiki.

Seriously. LCD's are just better than CRTs. Unless you're working on Photoshop 24/7 PROFESSIONALLY, then you are not going to get any improvements between the two. My monitor's response time is 5ms, and on Unreal Tournament 2004 -- you know, an FPS Arena game.. my friends swear I have host advantage regardless of me not hosting when playing instagib.

[Trance]

Hellser's host advantage is real, jussayin'

[Ryan Cordell]

Can confirm, 10/10 would not UT2k4 with again

[InsanityBringer]

don't think i'm ever going to try quake 3 with him again, he always insists on hosting

we all know why

[NeuralStunner]

Also, another problem with LCD monitors, which hardly happens with TVs, oddly enough:

[Black, black and "black"]

Those blacks look fine on my LCDs, which weren't particularly expensive to begin with. Nor are they very new. All I had to do was change the brightness/contrast a bit... Bad B/C is going to make a CRT look just as washed out.

I don't see the "warmer colors" thing either. When first transitioning to my LCD, I had to get used to how vibrant the reds were. Color clarity also improved. (I can see a #010101 square in a #000000 field), but that's got a little more to do with going from VGA signal to DVI.

[Chris]

10) Response: Unless you have a 10 year old LCD, we're down to 1ms response time. Which you literally can't see. Equal.

Not to mention newer technologies like G-Sync (nVidia) and FreeSync (AMD), which aim to free LCD displays from the hard timing requirements CRTs have had for screen updates*. Even a 120hz CRT will only update once every 8.333...ms. If a frame took 8.4ms, tough, you're waiting another ~8.2ms (for a total of 16.666...ms) before you get that new frame because the CRT was in the middle of physically relighting the lines of phosphors on the screen to keep them glowing (and if you force it anyway, say hello to tearing). LCDs don't work like this. If a frame took 8.4ms to draw, it doesn't have to wait for some predetermined time multiple before it can be updated. Rather than the monitor dictating when its okay for the video card to update the frame, G-Sync and FreeSync allow them to swap roles, letting the monitor to standby while keeping the screen lit with the last image it has, until the video card says it's ready with a new frame. The result is more responsive screen updates without tearing.

* There are actually types of CRTs which draw more free-range, instead of going line-by-line like the vast majority of CRTs produced. Though these types of CRTs wouldn't be suitable for full-screen displays, instead being more tuned to vector/line imaging.

[Hellser]

everything

Technology! It's fantastic!

But seriously, what Chris typed is great information on why LCDs are better than they were 10-15 years ago. We're stepping out of our old vacuum tubes, nixie tubes, and cathodes in exchange for OLEDs, LCDs with G-Sync/FreeSync and faster refresh rate on LCDS that were somewhat locked to 60Hz for so long.