Not to flame, seriously, but why are CRTs pathetic?
Because they need ultra-high scanrates to not induce headaches at high resolutions. Flame that comment all you want. CRTs are just fine, and they dont blur as much as LCD/TFTs.... and they allow for better bloomage.
Buy one made in this century then. :o> I think its just a preference to be honest. Yes, i dont like the refresh rates, but i hate the blur on my TFT even more.
I have a SUN/Sony 20" CRT (that does 1600x1200 in 100Hz) and a 17" Xerox TFT (DVI) that "only" does 1280x1024 in 60Hz. Not only does the TFT produce a sharper, crisper, brighter image, it also doesn't weigh 67 pounds or get it's image distorted by nearby magnetic fields (speakers, PSUs and RFID transceivers mostly). At the time of purchase the CRT was definately the most expensive of the two.It always amazes me how people will be ready to spend $2000 on a brand new PC, but won't spend the extra $500 on a decent display. Like it really matters.
because of color reproduction on LCDs is usually shitty.
Define "shitty"? The human eye can distinguish roughly 10 million (depending on who you believe, most can't do that well) which is well below the ammount of colors most TFT screens can display (24-bit = 16.7 millions). How good a color representation do you think is nessecary?