LCD Monitors vs. LCD TV's

[opti]

The description says it all.  You can get a 15" or 17" LCD monitor for around $300-$500, use a  and run an XSELECT-D4 or somesuch through it for game consoles.  LCD TV's, otoh, seem to run a minimum of around $600 for the 15" sets, and of course, they won't do double-duty as a PC monitor, have lower resolutions, and often won't support progressive scan.  So why do they cost more?  Sure, after you buy an XSELECT the price might be comparable, but do they have any real advantage that I'm not considering for a video game display?

[benzaldehyde]

They have no advantage, they're new; companies believe Americans shit money and will pay their price. They have TV parts inside for cable decoding, but that's it. Strangely, I never seen one sell. :rolleyes: LCD monitors aren't that great for gaming; the refresh is acceptable for office work (like now ) but too low for some gaming. Mind you, I'd make concessions for portability (like Sony's excellent PS1 screen), but for home gaming, CRTs are still the team to beat.

[NFG]

New model monitors (the most recent samsung comes to mind) have refresh rates that are comparable to tubes, it's no longer the case that an LCD blurs badly.  A good or recent monitor should more or less eliminate blur and ghosting.

[Agentspikey95]

my opinion is CRTs are better. no matter how many times i browse through the plasma TV and LCD computer monitor sections at the store, i have NOT seen anything that even comes CLOSE to my 6 year old Philips 107E. Gaming was born on a CRT and will always look best on one.