How to buy the best monitor on the market
Square-box CRT vs. flat-panel LCD
LCD monitors were once the pride of professional day traders and
well-heeled executives. Today, the technology has improved, and prices for
small, 15-inch displays have dipped to about $300. That low price point makes
sleek flat-panels a viable alternative to standard CRT monitors, whose
technology has undergone few fundamental changes since Philo Farnsworth patented
television in 1930.
Not that LCD monitors can compete with
tried-and-true CRT monitors on price alone. You'll find wide variance, but
15-inch LCD monitors tend to sell for about the same as 19-inch CRT monitors on
average. However, money isn't everything. In order of importance, here are the
top five numbers to look at when choosing between LCD and CRT:
Dimensions. A slim profile has traditionally been the main
justification for getting an LCD monitor. A typical 17-inch CRT monitor is a
17-inch, 35-pound cube. Although the stand for a 17-inch LCD monitor might be 9
or 10 inches deep, the panel itself measures just a couple of inches thick, and
the whole assembly typically weighs less than 20 pounds. Just ask yourself what
would fit better on your desk: a bulky microwave oven or a butcher-block cutting
board standing on edge, and you'll start to see the allure of the LCD.
Refresh rate. Measured in hertz (Hz), low refresh rates (the number of per second a monitor "paints" a picture on the screen)
on a CRT result in annoying flicker. You won't find a refresh rate specified for
LCDs, mainly because flicker isn't an issue. (Flicker is caused by the scanning
pattern of a CRT's electron gun, which LCDs don't have--the pixels are either on
or off.) While almost all modern CRTs run at 75Hz or higher at any resolution
you're likely to use--too fast for flicker to be noticeable--LCDs are simply
easier on the eyes than CRTs.
Colors. With LCD
monitors, there's a hard limit on colors, typically 16.7 million (also known as
24-bit color). CRTs have no such limit, which in itself is no big deal since few
applications go beyond 24-bit color. The real difference is in color accuracy, a
quality not reflected in manufacturer specs. CRT monitors far outperform LCD
monitors when it comes to color. A graphic designer, for example, wouldn't touch
an LCD monitor. Colors on any kind of monitor are created by varying the
intensity of red, green, and blue dots in the millions of triads that make up an
image. CRTs control color by varying the intensity of the electron beam as it
strikes each color dot. To vary the transmission of light through color filters,
LCDs use magnetic fields to twist particles floating in a liquid--an inherently
less precise process.
Response time. LCDs are slower than CRTs.
Typically, it takes 20-50 milliseconds (ms) for an LCD pixel to respond, while
it takes a CRT 8-12ms. The difference shows up in DVD movies, where fast-moving
objects--particularly dark objects across a light background--may leave a slight
trail of ghost images on an LCD. If you plan to do a lot of movie viewing or
video editing, get a CRT monitor.
Power consumption. LCD panels
draw less than half the power a CRT does. If you're buying a bunch of them, a
50- or 60-watt difference per monitor can add up to serious money over time,
especially if your utility rates are high.
Behind monitor numbers, there
are always intangibles. For example, though the contrast and brightness of LCDs
now approach those of CRTs, the latter generally handle environments with
excessive ambient light better. On the other hand, many people feel that text
looks sharper on LCDs than on CRTs--one reason 17-inch LCDs are typically run at
a crisp 1,280x1,024 resolution and 17-inch CRTs at a more pedestrian 1,024x768.
And the coolness factor? LCDs win, hands down. They're sleek, lightweight, and
so stylish they've almost completely displaced CRTs from executive desktops.
|
|
