[PLUG] irregular monitor flicker

[someone]

On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 18:32 -0800, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> >From: Keith Lofstrom <keithl at kl-ic.com>
> > CRTs are also an implosion hazard, and so you should wear eye
> > goggles, and have someone around to drag you to the hospital if you
> > get lacerated by flying glass.  Oh, did I say this was dangerous?
> > And that I don't want to see you get hurt?
> 
> By Wikipedia's calculations, around 1900 lbs of pressure on the front
> face of a 17" CRT. Maybe PDX should pave roads with CRTs, they seem up
> to the task, unlike the thin asphault used around PDX.
> 
> Also from Wikipedia, apparently earlier CRTs could rupture around the
> neck and propel the electron guns through the faceplate. Must of been an
> /interesting/ experience.
> 
> > Keith
> > (who is glad that CRTs are slowly becoming extinct)
> 
> Except the modern LCDs still don't compete on resolution. Up to 20" LCDs
> tend to be 1280x1024 resolution, while at a mere 19" (equiv to 18" LCD)
> most CRTs can do 1600x1200 (and I believe some 17" ones could do that).
> There is also the black that is far inferior to CRTs.
> 
> I'm hopeful about direct-view LED displays (matrix of LEDs, instead of
> LEDs as backlight). Except for resolution, that should resolve all the
> lingering issues.
> 
> 

LCD flat panels can be high resolution, but they aren't generally and
it's not because of any technological barrier.  Look at laptops,
1400x1050 or better in a  15.1 inch screen, yet try to get that in a
flat panel.  You'll either find you can't or that it is very expensive.
1280x1024 in 1 19" viewable 20" LCD panel is far less than what is
technologically possible.  I think the resolution of flat panels tends
to be low because companies are of the opinion that people are more
concerned about cost than they are about performance.  It is odd to me
though that the average laptop monitor is higher resolution than the
average flat screen.

     --  Michael Robinson