CRT vs Flat Screen?

[fatboy]

Having emulated many classic systems on my PC (M.A.M.E, Sega, Amiga and so on), I was always a little disappointed with the blurry screen o/p on modern flat screen monitors (just can't cope with the low res GFX I guess?).

I decided to buy myself a new (old stock) 17" CRT with FST, and replaced my Phillips TFT.

WOW what a difference its made to my retro gaming experience. Bright, crisp graphics and no screen tearing....just super.

OK Widows XP looks little less sharp, but the CRT does support higher screen modes than the TFT did.

I paid a measly £29.99 (inc delivery) for an out-of-the-box CTX branded monitor.

And to cap it off I upgraded my aged Sempron 2400+ socket A CPU to an Athlon XP 2800+ cpu for £9.00!!!! Added another 1 GB of DDR 3200 for £20.00 (new, Kingston brand) and will soon add a PCI SATA card to replace the old IDE drive.

No need to buy a new machine my old one, upgraded, emulates perfectly

who needs fancy quad-core machines and the latest LED flat screen monitors?...I certainly dont

[Paul_s]

Where did you buy your CRT from? Must say I'm suffering a bit with LCD blues... give me CRT radiation anyday

[NovaCoder]

I used to be a CRT man for my retro fix but after pugging my 1200 into my 24" BenQ the other day I've now been converted to an LCD lover

[fatboy]

Originally Posted by Paul_s

Where did you buy your CRT from? Must say I'm suffering a bit with LCD blues... give me CRT radiation anyday

from these guys LINK

[Hewitson]

LCD sucks, I regret buying mine. My Dad's plasma is far superior, it can actually display black!

Originally Posted by fatboy

who needs fancy quad-core machines and the latest LED flat screen monitors?...I certainly dont

People who use their computers for more than emulating 1980's computers/consoles :P

[fatboy]

Originally Posted by Hewitson

LCD sucks, I regret buying mine. My Dad's plasma is far superior, it can actually display black!


People who use their computers for more than emulating 1980's computers/consoles :P

But I still use the same machine for day-to-day PC tasks....emails, web, productivity and so on.

Just don't see the need to spend £300+ on a new machine when I'm already doing what I need to on my old PC

[Hewitson]

The reason most people upgrade their computers is undoubtably because Windows runs like a bag of shit after it's been installed for a few months. If they simply tried reinstalling it, they'd be more than happy with their existing machine.

A Pentium 3 or 4 would be fine (if not overkill) for what most people do with their computers. The power of the current CPU's is absolutely ridiculous and does nothing but encourage people to use poor programming practices and produce bloated software.

[PowerPie5000]

Originally Posted by fatboy

who needs fancy quad-core machines and the latest LED flat screen monitors?...I certainly dont

If it's only for emulating old consoles/computers then an old PC will do just fine... You can always just use a cheap PS3 or Xbox 360 for modern gaming

Originally Posted by Hewitson

A Pentium 3 or 4 would be fine (if not overkill) for what most people do with their computers.

My old PIII 650mhz machine struggles to run Youtube... But i primarily use that old beast for Dos and early Windows games (including 3DFX Glide games)

[Claw22000]

I love my quad core. Xbox/Playstation just can't compare to my game on this system. I have a crt for my amigas and a 42" lcd fopr my pc

[Hewitson]

Originally Posted by PowerPie5000

My old PIII 650mhz machine struggles to run Youtube

Really? I had a P3 733 not long ago that ran it fine.

Originally Posted by Claw22000

I love my quad core. Xbox/Playstation just can't compare to my game on this system.

Maybe not in terms of graphics detail, but games are almost always smoother on consoles than PC's. No jerking or tearing.

[Paul_s]

Originally Posted by Hewitson

A Pentium 3 or 4 would be fine (if not overkill) for what most people do with their computers. The power of the current CPU's is absolutely ridiculous and does nothing but encourage people to use poor programming practices and produce bloated software.

True, I put Windows 7 on a seven year old PC a few months ago.

All that was required to bring it upto a modern/mid-spec PC of today was a P4 2.4GHz CPU (£free - used to be an old celeron), DirectX 9 AGP Video Card (£35), 2GB Ram (£30) and it runs like a train...

I did put in a 500GB HDD but this was because they wanted more storage space..... but again, didn't really break the bank.

[TCD]

...and that's the end of the non monitor OT folks

[Paul_s]

Actually the W7 machine working on a CRT!

Anywho, there's something LCD's don't have and that's scanlines

[Skope]

Imo new and improved isn't always better. But then again I might be just wired wrongly. CRT, chemical photography, vinyl records, tape decks, old computers = all winners in my world. (:

[Lonewolf10]

For anyone after their light-gun gaming fix (Operation Wolf, Operation Thunderbolt, Virtua Cop, Confidential Mission etc.) CRT is a must. I have been told that oldskool light-gun games don't work on LCD/plasma TV's.
Modern light-gun games on the Wii avoid that problem, courtesy of the bar thing that sits infront of the TV - I don't own a Wii myself so can't remember it's proper name.


Regards,
Lonewolf10

[Thorham]

I simply use both a 4:3 CRT and a 16:9 panel, so I get the best of both worlds. Both monitors are connected to my Pentium 3 and the CRT is also connected to my A1200 using a KVM switch (and a VGA adapter), and a video box.

It's a great setup. I can use a nice dual view desktop under Winblows XPee, or I can use my CRT for the A1200 and still have one peecee desktop, watch TV on my video box, or use A1200 15Khz output through composite on said video box

While flat panels, even cheap ones, are nice enough (didn't expect cheap ones to be so nice), they still can't do everything a CRT can. Their sub pixels aren't thin enough, and far too tall to do different resolutions without up scaling (although technically 'pixel multiplying' is possible, but the panel has to support it, and it won't always be ideal), and frequencies may be a problem. While those things are still a problem, I'll stick to using a CRT as well as a panel.

[gilgamesh]

Originally Posted by fatboy

I was always a little disappointed with the blurry screen o/p on modern flat screen monitors (just can't cope with the low res GFX I guess?).

Yeah right. Flat screens have exactly one resolution. All other resolutions must are scaled (by hardwired logic). That makes the image blur. CRTs on the other hand can freely bend their cathode ray. CRTs still have a wider color spectrum than flat screens.

Anyway I'm fed up with power hungry hulks on my desktop.
TFT FTW! (until OLED hits mass market )

[Parsec]

I use an oldish Acer 19" LCD with an xbox for emulators and native games, hooked up via a HDBoxPro to convert component to VGA. Took absolutely ages playing with the many settings on the box but now I'm happy with it, works very well indeed. Anything from Pacman to Outrun to Halo looks nice especially Halo.

Good move on the CRT though if I had room I'd be very tempted.

[fatboy]

Originally Posted by Skope

Imo new and improved isn't always better. But then again I might be just wired wrongly. CRT, chemical photography, vinyl records, tape decks, old computers = all winners in my world. (:

I second that

[Claw22000]

I'm pretty sure most of us on are here for there retro fix however I like both. I do like my Commodore 2002. On my A1200 but I wouldn't like it on my GTX460.