I figured you had made some errors and wanted to adjust the list. I'll
prefix my observations with*:
CRT Cons: (Many of these CRT cons were in your LCD Pro's, so I refute
those simultaneously)
-Flicker
*Most LCD's until very recently used 200 hz PWM to control brightness.
CRT's scan at 85-120 hz and some believe that rapidly switching off
the entire screen (larger area) is more comparable to a large strobe
light - it's just at higher frequency. There is some anecdotal
evidence that people do not enjoy working in places with lots of CCFL
lights. LCDs may have multiple light sources and before voltage
controller dimming the LCD backlight dimming could possibly be
comparable to those lights at large super markets etc. I personally
sensitive to such lights. On the other hand, while incandescent bulps
may "flicker" at 50/60 hz, I'm willing to bet that with a proper
measurement equipment, it would be found that the incandescent
spectrum and attack/decay is very different to phosphors and CCFL.
Some of these differences may explain why I find flickering
incandescent light pleasant and CCFL light terrible. So in summary,
given the large amount of CCFL LCD's out there, LCD could flicker can
be argued to be worse for some people even if it's not so perceivable
being at 200 hz. (Theory is that even though our brain can't process
the 200 hz flicker - the large area of the flicker causes more
activity in the eyes themselves)
-High frequency noise.
* Numerous reports indicate that this is not unique to CRT's and I've
had plenty of CRTs that didn't make noise. eg. Famous NEC 24" wuxi was
reported to universally make noises for the european version. Just the
source of the noise could be the power supply. So this is not unique
to CRT's.
-Size
* After LCDs came along, wide screen became much more popular. On my
desk it's possible to fit 3 21" CRT but only 2 24" wide LCD's. So
looks like CRT's more common aspect ration is actually preferable
Also I've seen argument that wide aspect ratio is actually worse for
working (for desktop pc monitors) when screen size grows because the
working distance is usually such that to optimally view things you
need to move your head constantly, or move the screen further away
(and that would make the screen physical vertical dimension perhaps
smaller than with crt-typical-aspect ratio)
-Weight
*There are powered desks that can lift 3 CRT's with push of a button.
And there's a lot of people who can be hired for next to nothing to
move it for you, atleast in a city.
-Power consumption
*They are building new nuclear power plants in this country so I don't
see this being a problem.
-Heat
*Move north. Studies say that people also work more efficiently in
slightly more colder climates.
-Inferior brightness. This can be a problem in brighter environments.
*Professional monitors are calibrated to lower brightness usually.
Maybe save some of the energy for the CRT by dimming the lights in the
room?
-Eye strain. Decreases as refresh rate is increased.
*I can watch CRT 12-16 hours a day continously. LCD's get my eyes
tired in half the time. I explained above what could cause this. (It
could also have something to do with the light polarization instead of
just spectrum/envelopes)
-Burn in
*Haven't seen this on any CRT but I always only use the best available.
-Less sharp compared to an LCD running at it's native resolution. In
lower end models the difference in sharpness can be very substantial.
*I agree that HIGH PPI LCD will be much sharper. But standard-PPI LCD
isn't sharp by my definition - it has visible pixels, so instead of
sharp high definition, it's more like looking a dot matrix printer
output. Sharp according to marketing. High end CRT can be as sharp as
text on a book when tweaked enough.
-Analogue or mixed only, inferior signal transmission, no digital
"enhancements" like frame interpolation
*You said it best "enhancements"... they're there for LCD to try and
patch up the fact they suck
-Small size only
* Could be because LCDs started getting popular and they stopped
trying to develop bigger PC CRT's. I've even seen flat-screen size
CRT's. If LCD's never happened, we might have those.
-Becomes "duller" over time as they age. Maximum sharpness and
brightness both decrease over time.
* Often fixable by adjusting knobs inside. The high end models may
expose many of these adjustments through software.
-Very few widescreen models available. The geometry is difficult to handle.
*This is the only good argument on your page. The WS argument is
weakened by the fact that if LCD's never came, WS CRT might or might
not have become more popular. I don't care about wide screen
personally. They didn't even shoot Star Trek TNG (or other good tv
shows) in widescreen so who could possibly want widescreen?
-Most TV models are SD. This is because the limitations on scanning
speed make having a large screen space and high resolution at the same
time very difficult. HD CRTs were often small or had to resort to
extremely expensive electronics or rear projection techniques. Rear
projection units are enormous, extremely heavy, extremely expensive,
and have a number of other problems.
-Most are not flatscreen. Geometry problems exist in both flatscreen
and curved screen models.
-Most TV models were interlaced (most computer monitors support high
resolution and progressive scanning) due to limit
-Overscanning is generally worse
*CRT's have some issues that are relevant to people who look at the
sides and corners of the image instead of the image. Not big deal to
me.
-Limited inputs/outputs
* Yeah analog is more expensive so this is a valid point. Mine has 2
inputs, don't think there's that many CRT's with 2x VGA+BNC's.
-Reflective surface
* LCD's aren't invulnerable to reflection either and if you care about
image quality, the lighting needs to be arranged so it doesn't shine
onto the screen.