Hacker News Reader

Comment by shiroiushi | Hacker News Reader

There's no need for this. If you want to make sure consumers don't want to return to CRTs, all you have to do are the following:

1) point out how heavy they are. Give them a facsimile to lift to show them, after making them sign a waiver that they may permanently injure their back doing so.

2) show them how deep they are, and how far away from the wall they must sit because of this.

3) show them two power meters, showing the power consumption of a CRT and a modern LCD for comparison. Also show the actual costs for that power, and how much typical usage of these displays will cost per day and per year.

The last one alone should dissuade most people from wanting to go backwards.

Most people don't give two shits about latency, and modern LCDs with >= 120 fps capability already exist.

View on HN

I nearly collapsed while moving my CRT out of the house. I have no recollection of the size, but putting it on my shoulder by myself was a terrible idea, and I’m very lucky I didn’t injure myself.

Nothing could persuade me to voluntarily go back to CRTs.

The only really good reason I can see to use a CRT is because you want to fix/rebuild one of the old 1980s vector arcade games (like Tempest or Star Wars) and want it to be a truly authentic reproduction.

>If you want to make sure consumers don't want to return to CRTs, all you have to do are the following:

Nothing. Why would any folk down the street go out of their way to try and find a TV: More expensive, Heavier, Non-smart, power hungry, smaller. They are like classic cars, everyone loves them but not everyone wants to put up with all the hassles that come with them.

It's even easier than that. You can get a 43-inch LCD for 300$. CRTs, with their inherent complexity, can NEVER compete on price.

Yeah, I left out the price aspect. Forget a 43-inch CRT: how about a 85-inch CRT? You can get an LCD (or better yet, OLED) TV this size easily for not that much money. But it's basically impossible to even make a CRT this size, and even if you could, it would be so expensive, heavy, and large it would be completely impractical. Lots of people now have 50-85" TVs in their living rooms, but those are all impossible for CRT technology.

However, the OP was trying to claim CRTs are superior because of latency and refresh rate for gaming applications, specifically, so I was just focusing on those aspects. The refresh rate part is silly; high-refresh-rate LCDs and OLEDs are common now. The latency part might have some validity, but compared to all the other factors it's really not that important.

For maximum motion quality the refresh rate needs to match the frame rate. Modern gaming LCDs can beat CRTs in refresh rate, but only a minority of games support such high frame rates. For any given refresh rate the CRT will always have better motion quality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com