DVCS (was Re: Moving to D)

[retard]

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:22:13 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> Dude, you need to upgrade!!!

The CRTs have a limited lifetime. It's simply a fact that you need to 
switch to flat panels or something better. They won't probably even 
manufacture CRTs anymore. It becomes more and more impossible to purchase 
*unused* CRTs anywhere. At least at a reasonable price. For example used 
17" TFTs cost less than $40.

I found pages like this http://shopper.cnet.com/4566-3175_9-0.html

Even the prices aren't very competitive. I only remember that all refresh 
rates below 85 Hz caused me headache and eye fatigue. You can't use the 
max resolution @ 60 Hz for very long.


> Why should *I* spend the money to replace something that already
works fine for me?

You might get more things done by using a bigger screen. Maybe get some 
money to buy better equipment and stop complaining.

 
>> Besides, this whole changing the resolution thing is a consequence of
>> using crappy software. What you want is set the resolution to the
>> maximum and do the rest in software. And guess what - at their maximum,
>> CRT monitors suck compared to flat panels.
>>
>>
> Agreed, but show me an OS that actually *does* handle that reasonably
> well. XP doesn't. Win7 doesn't. Ubuntu 9.04 and Kubuntu 10.10 don't.
> (And I'm definitely not going back to OSX, I've had my fill of that.)

My monitors have had about the same pixel density over the years. EGA 
(640x400) or 720x348 (Hercules) / 12", 800x600 / 14", 1024x768 / 15-17", 
1280x1024 / 19", 1280x1024 / 17" TFT, 1440x900 / 19", 1920x1080 / 21.5", 
2560x1600 / 30"

Thus, there's no need to enlarge all graphical widgets or text. My vision 
is still ok. What changes is the amount of simultaneously visible area 
for applications. You're just wasting the expensive screen estate by 
enlarging everything. You're supposed to run more simultaneous tasks on a 
larger screen.


>> I've actually compared the rated power consumpsion between CRTs and
>> LCDs of
>> similar size and was actually surprised to find that there was little,
>> if any, real difference at all on the sets I compared.

>I'm pretty sure I did point out the limitations of my observation: "...on
>all the sets I compared". And it's pretty obvious I wasn't undertaking a
>proper extensive study. There's no need for sarcasm.

Your comparison was pointless. You can come up with all kinds of 
arbitrary comparisons. The TFT panel power consumption probably varies 
between 20 and 300 Watts. Do you even know how much your CRT uses power?

CRTs used as computer monitors and those used as televisions have 
different characteristics. CRT TVs have better brightness and contrast, 
but lower resolution and sharpness than CRT computer monitors. Computer 
monitors tend to need more power, maybe even twice as much. Also larger 
monitors of the same brand tend to use more power. When a CRT monitor 
gets older, you need more power to illuminate the phosphor as the amount 
of phosphor in the small holes of the grille/mask decreases over time.

This isn't the case with TFTs. The backlight brightness and panel's color 
handling dictates power consumption. A 15" TFT might need as much power 
as a 22" TFT using the same panel technology. TFT TVs use more power as 
they typically provide higher brightness. Same thing if you buy those 
high quality panels for professional graphics work. The TFT power 
consumption has also drastically dropped because of AMOLED panels, LED 
backlights and better dynamic contrast logic. The fluorescent backlights 
lose some of their brightness (maybe about 30%) before dying unlike a CRT 
which totally goes dark. The LED backlights wont suffer from this (at 
least observably).

My obversation is that e.g. in computer classes (30+ computers per room) 
the air conditioning started to work much better after the upgrade to 
flat panels. Another upgrade turned the computers into micro-itx thin 
clients. Now the room doesn't need air conditioning at all.