• Empricorn
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    Are you serious?

    • Curved (the wrong way)
    • Massively heavy
    • Noise (just from the unit itself
    • Very low resolution
    • Noticably hot (might be a benefit in the winter)
    • Small picture, especially relative to weight
    • Depending how far back you go, no/shitty remote, only has 1 port for video
      • nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Sometimes I think about how some technologies could have evolved if they didn’t get out of fashion. I always thought it’s a bit unfair to compare products made decades ago with new ones and use it as a comparison for the whole technology.

        In the case of crts, it would be totally possible to make them with modern aspect ratio and resolutions. The greatest challenges would probably be size, weight and power consumption.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Very low resolution

      For TVs, that’s just because they didn’t need any more resolution because the signal they were displaying was 480i (or even worse, in the case of things like really old computers/video game consoles).

      My circa-2000 19" CRT computer monitor, on the other hand, could do a resolution that’s still higher than what most similarly-sized desktop flat screen monitors can manage (it was either QXGA [2048x1536] or QSXGA [2560x2048], I forget which).

      And then, of course, there were specialized CRT displays like oscilloscopes and vector displays that actually drew with the electron beam and therefore had infinite “resolution.”

      Point is, the low resolution was not an inherent limitation of CRT technology.