So? Who cares why they were cheap? The fact is, they're cheap, and a competing high fidelity technology would have to deal with the fact that I can simply purchase a CRT for $50. With the exception of Sony FWs, CRTs are almost universally ridiculously cheap.teh_pwn said:That's all fine, but there are some major disadvantages to CRT:
1. You have to get help to move it because it's heavy and bulky.
2. Geometry is inaccurate.
3. Power consumption is high.
4. Generates lots of heat.
Contrast ratio is better, but it isn't 2004. The difference isn't nearly as big as it used to be. And whatever that sparkling glare on LCD panels is gone too.
As for the guy getting $50 monitors and calling CRTs more affordable, I think that's because they were on clearance because they are a dying tech. If there was still a market they wouldn't be $50. You can get affordable LCDs when the market moves to OLED or whatever replaces current stuff.
1. My CRT monitors are almost as large as they get; they weigh 75 pounds. I am a very skinny guy and I can lift them. Your argument is certainly apt for any television over 26 inches or so.
2. The geometry is only inaccurate if the monitor is poorly-calibrated or damaged. Even a damaged monitor can usually be adjusted to correct geometry. Only one of my CRTs has any sort of problem with geometry, and it's a minor one.
3. The difference between a CRT and a backlit LCD is not as large as you think.
4. Huh? No they don't. Yes, the back panel itself gets heated up but not even close to enough to heat up anything else around it.