№5257
tsmt i love crt monitors they remind me of the BNVVO and make my little gnu clitty twitch
№5258
>>5253someone make this little alien dude into a 'jak
№5267
crtranny really just wrote "burn in" as an argument against a monitor that cannot burn in
№5268
>>5267OLEDs burn in very quickly doe
№5269
>>5268my OLED screen is older than you and never burned in.
№5270
>>5269how old is your oled screen?
i doubt they even made oleds 15 years ago
№5273
>>5271didnt oled monitors and TVs only become a consoomer thing after 2016 or so?
my CRT is 21 years old by now and works perfectly
i have near zero latency and can watch my 480p shit without having it look like garbage
besides, running shit at native resolution or the lowest resolution you actually need for something like video games saves a lot of performance, you can run fucking dreamcast games on a potato thinkpad that struggles to run a web browser if youre running them at native 480p instead of hecking 1080p or 4k
№5277
i literally don't give a fuck i dont play games and my macbook screen looks great keep coping like the audiophile autists nobody normal can tell the difference.
№5280
>>5277you dont even want a computer
>muh gaymes muh fagbook muh autismzoomers cant tell the difference because theyre fucking retarded, they cant appreciate a keyboard and will cope with literally any restriction and crippled bullshit schlomo gives them
that means flatscreens, DRM, proprietary software, phones, laggy "modern" computers that are unable to render text at more than 2fps because its soooo resource intensive that IBM PCs running dos struggled to do it at 70hz
№5356
>>5253Don't OLEDs need usage?
№5358
more sperging on this board about muh visuals. nobody cares.
№5359
>>5356what do you mean?
>>5358>durr nobody cares about being able to read text from a non-90° angle №5362
>>5359I thought they required some use to wear in the pixels
№5370
>>5362no, OLEDs require some use to get burn in
youre not a real american if you dont rent a 10000$ OLED and have the CNN logo burned into it.
№5374
>>5368>Nixie clockI don't even know if this is soy or keyed but I like the tubes
№5375
I still have a plasma TV. It's like a million CRTs in one
№5402
>>5277You're so fucking wrong it's hilarious.
I've shown the difference between LCD and CRT motion to several complete normies and every single one had their mind blown on the first glance. You fail to understand how many orders of magnitude sharper a CRT is in motion.
https://www.testufo.com/photo%23photo=toronto-map.png&pps=1440&pursuit=0&height=0&stutterfreq=0&stuttersize=0You can't read text on this map even on a 144hz monitor. Yet a 60hz CRT will display it at 4 times that speed and you can easily make out every single pixel.
№5563
daily reminder that most CRTs made after 1998 can do basically any refresh rate between 60 and 160 Hz, and countless resolutions from 480p to 2K or sometimes even 4K
144Hz flatscreen tards SEETHE about this.
№5569
>>5567Is this supposed to be impressive or something? I remember doing the same shit on a pentium 2 running win 2000 on 32 mb ram. Back then you couldn't even use troonix on a crt unless you wanted to rape your eyes and brain from the forced 60 hz.
№5570
>>5569>back then you had to use 60hzyou mean in the 90s when lunix actually sucked?
maybe, but this is "impressive" nowdays because flatscreen zoomers think that 144hz or 4K is something "new" and "good"
flatscreens look like absolute garbage
№5573
>>5567 My 2070sb CRT does 1600x1200@110hz~ (and I have sony G520 that does around 100hz).
You basically can't run 1600x1200@160hz UNLESS you use interlacing, it works pretty good with interlacing, I think you can go even higher.
You can probably drive 1280x960 @ 140hz or 1024x768 @ 160hz though
It depends on your monitor's vertical refresh rate cap, rather than horizontal refresh cap, as to whether or not you can go above 150hz/160hz interlaced.
>>5569It is impressive considering that 60hz on a CRT has better response and clarity than 120hz LCD
№5574
>>5573i need to figure out interlacing, i just assumed its my potato gpu that doesnt support 160hz at 1600x1200, but thanks for letting me know
№5576
crts were coal and terrible for your eyes. 60 hz with a dark terminal was especially miserable. people would put panels over them to block the glowing and radiation lol.
>>5570all computers and os were shit in the 90s
№5577
>>5576>block glowingwhat glowing?
>radiationxrays are good for you, and modern (2000s) CRTs barely have any
>60hz in a dark terminalyou mean a light background, because you dont notice any flicker in a dark terminal (at least i dont)
>all computers and operating systems were shit in the 90soperating systems yes, computers not really
№5579
>>5576CRTs don't even emit radiation, they only have about as much radiation as a banana.
I measured the EMF radiation, if you sit the recommended distance then theres ZERO radiation, theres basically only radiation coming off to the left and right sides of the monitor (so basically you are never exposed to it)
60hz is terrible and it gives me headache but i never use 60hz on a CRT, you can easily overclock any of them to 85hz+ and most of them have an option by default
№5766
>>5253I miss my family's old Sony CRT monitor, they threw it away for a shitty Samsong LCD instead. What a fucking waste.
I had money fond memories of playing PS2 games on it.
№5778
>>5766RIP
find a new CRT somewhere, theyre free or <20$ if you know where to look (fleamarkets, ebay, your local dumpster)