Tech obsolesce and socialism

They emit very low amounts of it
CRT are harmless

bump

...

...

CRTs aren't that good. It takes some time to get used to them again after you have used a good LCD screen. CRTs suffer from geometry errors, while LCDs always have perfect geometry. I got rid of my CRT because I wanted to have a bigger screen and better resolution for my computing. Big CRTs are so heavy you can't even carry them by yourself. If colour accuracy is something that worries you, learn the difference between a TN and an IPS display. I think the problem is not the hardware, but the software. For example, the transition from analog TV to digital TV was one of the main reasons why you would replace your TV. This was done just so there could be more channels available. Computers also have this problem. Your old computer isn't slow because it's old, but because of inefficient software. My laptop is ten years old, but with proper software I can still use it. It can even play HD video. What I find interesting, is the SED technology. They're essentially flat CRTs. I never found out why this technology didn't take off. There's very little information about it on the internet.

In a socialist society software would support the hardware for a longer time. There wouldn't be Microsoft/Apple style planned obsolescence. Hardware would also be easier to repair. I still remember the TV repair shops we used to have here. Now they're all gone. It's cheaper to buy new than repair.

Color accuracy is what concerns me. explain me what's the difference between TN and IPS
And to watch movies and TV CRTs are not a big deal but the video/photo editing and gaming argument still stands.

TN panels are cheaper to manufacture. If you think of LCD screen flaws, you're probably thinking of TN panel flaws. Limited viewing angles and poor colour reproduction are the two biggest ones. IPS panels address these problems, but they aren't perfect either. You might see the backlight producing glow if you make the screen display only black, like when maximising a terminal window. I've attached a picture that shows what it looks like through a camera. Through your eyes the effect isn't as pronounced. CRTs don't have a backlight so they obviously never have this problem, which is why I find the SED such an interesting technology.

can someone explain why?

I don't know about video/image editing but it does have a better response time since CRT has no frame buffer but is going line by line thus it is possible to have a graphical card still be working on the frame while the CRT is half way down the screen as long as the card can keep up with the scan.

thanks

When the first LCDs were available, the CRT technology was far more mature. The main attraction of the LCD was its thinness, not the image quality. The gaming thing is about the refresh rate and the response time. Do you remember the ghosting on early LCDs? Imagine that while gaming. However we have come a long way from those days.

Isn't the frame buffer on the GPU? The GPU usually draws the image the same way a CRT would display it, from the top left to the bottom right. This is why you can have screen tearing even on an LCD. The thing is that CRTs only accept an analog signal, and LCDs only accept a digital signal. If a monitor has both analog and digital inputs, it means there's an ADC/DAC inside, which will add latency.

You can have higher frame rate then is being outputted, or you can have older chipsets that just changed the VRAM as it was working on it with no regard for syncing with the frame as back then nobody cared if a arcade board tore spires every so often.

The issue was early digital TVs had a internal frame buffer that waited till they got the entire frame before showing, now almost all digital TVs have a game mode to by pass buffering the input. Yet still it doesn't have the same response to change on input.

It costs the same to make different cpu's but thanks to capitalism they limit them to make more money.
I think that even under communism we would need to upgrade our products before they are broken.

I don't agree with you about CRTs being better, but lightbulbs for instance can potentially last for years but are intentionally made to burn out within months.

Kinda. There is the issue of sub-par cpus from the line being binned as a lower spec CPU. Overclocking works because Intel and AMD realize they can make even more money branding good CPUs to lower spec yet every so often you run into a CPU that is unstable above its boxed clock.

In Japan they have a philosophy of wabi-sabi, which is basically embracing imperfections.
I think that before throwing broken things out we should try to fix them an reuse them.
Or break them down into their component parts and make the better version of them.

I'm on a LED screen right now, I have to really look into this because I want to buy a second screen specifically for my digital painting work and there is a bunch of stuff to be concerned about, I wanted a CRT because I heard they were easier to calibrate and "if it looks good on a CRT it'll look good anywhere"

For gaming CRTs have no lag and for video/photo editing is what I said above

since under socialism we'd produce things for use rather than exchange value, i think you'd have a much better chance of getting improved niche equipment like a modernized CRT. as long as you can use it, i don't see why you couldn't petition for one.