SPONSORED LINKS
> From: Peter Lewis <peterl@citylinq.com> > Date: Wednesday, July 09, 1997 00:59 > > I guess this is a matter of personal preference, but I disagree. CRTs > literally shoot images into your eyeballs. Laptop screens, even TFTs, are > dull by comparison. The best TFT I've seen, the brand new, Mac 20th > anniversary edition, at 800x600 in thousands of colors, is quite good (at > $7,500 a copy it better be!) but still inferior to my .26 dot pitch Nokia. > Lighting conditions can make a big difference of course, ie., soft indirect > lighting helps both TFTs and DSTNs a bunch. Not that I want to start a discussion about the merits of TFT v. CRT, but I do like the soft nature of the screens - very easy on the eyes. They don't work in direct sunlight, but then I can't say CRTs are very useful then either. The main reason I like TFT is the clarity, colour and lack of distortion. At 1024x786 it's quite remarkable. When you work on images, it enables to you really see any flaws therein. It is personal preference, and CRT is better than TFT in some situations, but I would certainly buy a TFT monitor for a desktop if I thought I could afford it! Easy to lug around too. DualScan screens seem poor in comparison to either, lacking vibrant colours and having relatively slow update. Depends what your eyes can take, I suppose. Their big disadvantage is scaling - a 640x480 display takes up a much smaller area on a fixed-pixel TFT screen, and I've yet to see screen scaling that isn't ugly. Adam Britton