upvote
I went from a 19" CRT capable of 1600x1200@75Hz to a 17" LCD capable of 1280x1024@60Hz, basically because that CRT would've taken up a huge chunk of desk real estate in my dorm.

My first impressions were that the screen was bright as hell, sharp (but I was torn on whether that was good or bad, given the blockiness that it introduced), thin and light (awesome!), and sucked to run at anything but the native resolution. After a few hours, I realized that my eyes weren't getting tired looking at it, and that it was nice not to have the subtle hum around anymore.

The CRT was a decent screen (for 1999), and the LCD was a decent screen (for 2003). Of course, I just got used to the differences, since the LCD was much more practical in my life. I still have it in storage right now.

reply
You forgot one thing: flickering. At 60 Hz, a CRT is murder on the eyes. A few years ago I used a CRT for the first time in like ten years and my eyes hurt almost immediately.
reply
I was never incredibly disturbed by 60Hz though I did notice it.

You reminded me of something I had forgotten though — remember when 100Hz / 120Hz TVs first became a thing? That I noticed!

I think most of my PC CRTs ran at 72Hz / 75Hz IIRC. At least with the monitor I had I remember pushing it to 90Hz but that would add bluriness / lose clarity so I never used it at that rate.

reply