Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:59:37 UTC No. 16588254

you seem lost >>>/g/

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:02:58 UTC No. 16588261

>>16588222
Because they had to compete with CRTs and flat screens cost a lot more back then.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:51:48 UTC No. 16588432

>>16588222
there are 17 white horizontal lines

but only 16 white vertical lines
that's a programming error

and the "Num" lock light is on

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 21:47:05 UTC No. 16588486

>>16588222
jews

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:15:03 UTC No. 16588505

>>16588222
>why didn't this square monitor get a lot of use?
kek

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:38:09 UTC No. 16588779

>>16588222
CRT are strictly better technology than LCD and always were but at some point greed overtook technology as the primary driver of any device because LCD screens are made entirely of cheap plastic garbage, but can be sold at the same price of far superior CRT screens. CRT monitors were even miniaturizing towards the end of their availability. Now we'll never have that technology, unless some boutique company resurrects it.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 18:46:39 UTC No. 16591681

>>16588779
CRT screens were incredibly hard and costly to produce in larger sizes. It's inherent to vacuum tube technology.
Screens at sizes that cost merely a couple hundred dollars today used to cost tens of thousands back then.
On top of this they were very bulky and quite ugly.
They have some inherent advantages over LCD technology which were especially stark during its infancy, but their downsides outweighed the benefits for most consumer purposes.
CRTs stuck around for retro gaming and I remember them still being commonly used in eSports events in the early 2010s.
In fact, there are still some that are made today. These are very expensive but together with used models should satisfy the enthusiast niche.
Latency and color issues are going to at last be solved by our future microLED screens.
Think paper thin monitors, basically no input lag, 5000 hz refresh rates, perfect colors and contrast.
So don't worry about it.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 05:53:10 UTC No. 16595965

>>16591681
>Shhh stop noticing, just go back to sleep. Everything is better now.
Sorry, no, I'm old enough to know fucking better. I saw REAL technology. They literally don't make such things anymore. Now everything is a cheap chinese plastic money making scheme. I just looked at photos from my first cell phone a while back and they are photography contest quality. My newest phone never matches the real life colors of the things I'm photographing and is low res on every image. And it's not just me either. I review thousands of photos a year as part of my work and I've noticed especially in the past about half decade-decade the quality of the majority of photos has PLUMMETED. Oh the photos will still be enormous both in actual pixel dimensions and file size, but everything in the image will look like ass.

CRT will always be VASTLY superior to shitty polarized light displays. Cope, seethe, dilate. Die early. And tear down this rotten edifice of capitalism with you when you go.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 06:23:32 UTC No. 16595979

>>16595965
>I just looked at photos from my first cell phone a while back and they are photography contest quality.
you really shouldn't wreck your own b8

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 06:29:36 UTC No. 16595984

>>16595965
>a phone camera the size of a quarter doesn't have the same quality as big ass $500 cameras from 30 years ago
>this means technology has regressed
The fact that we can fit a decent quality camera into a fucking cellphone is proof enough that technology has advanced.
I'm old enough to remember CRTs too. One fond memory is my little sister wrecking our big screen CRT by putting a toy magnet near it when nobody was looking. CRTs are garbage.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 06:31:43 UTC No. 16595988

>>16595984
My phones have always been small. I don't like huge hunks of shit. You're welcome to keep coping though.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 06:36:05 UTC No. 16595992

>>16595988
If you actually think phone cameras were better 20 years ago, you're kind of retarded.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 06:41:53 UTC No. 16595995

>>16595992
Okay retard. I'm not interested in your satanic false religion of inevitable progress, but you have fun with that while your "civilization" crumbles.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:14:28 UTC No. 16596453

>>16595965
get AIDS and DIE a painful slow death, you fat faggot retard imbecile