LAN Party in the 90s

That kinda looks like a Slavic lan party in the mid 00s

They are working at space x.

Was about to say this. Those are definitely from the early 00s.

Attached: fdf5dd7020ab7dde1a44cd7e2db3a8c78d51f309.jpg (640x480, 149K)

Nah, they only were better than earlier LCD. And you generally weren't paying with 144FPS or other modern things. Not that this makes most people better players, but it's better technology.

Apart from monitors becoming slimmer and peripherals and cases glowier, LAN parties still pretty much look like they used to.

Lots of people here look more or less like that. Of course there's all sorts since it's not a beauty contest. Examples:
lanport.ch/gallery/
instagram.com/switzerlanch/

This looks more like post-soviet "computer club", it was something like internet cafes, but mostly without internet and with LAN games, mainly original Counter-Strike. They were pretty popular in early 2000s.

how do you append yourself like this?

The best things about CRT monitors were that you could run in any resolution without the equivalent hideous scaling used in LCD. There's no "native" resolution so running in 640x480 actually looks decent. This made developing content so much easier because you could easily see precisely how content would look in any resolution by changing the resolution. It also had the massive advantage for being able to display graphically intensive content at higher framerates and better image quality thanks to lower resolution without using a crappy scaler.

Another best thing is that motion clarity looked closer to perfect than any LCD because there's no visual artifact from lowering display persistence. Even the fastest possible LCD's have visual artifacts from slow GTG transitions or overdrive artifacts. Color, black depth and contrast all looked perfect too and in motion. With LCD's you have to choose. If you want good color to make content for you're black depth and contrast will look like complete ass on IPS. If you want good contrast and black depth you will lose the ability to create content on the display as color accuracy will be off due to gamma shift on VA. If you want maximum speed in motion everything else will look like absolute shit on TN. No problem here on CRT. Everything looks perfect.

You never had to worry about buying a "gaymer monitor" to get low input lag they all had input lag as low as possible.

The size argument is mostly irrelevant to desktop usage. A 24" CRT monitor is very big and heavy but there's no real need to go up from that size for the vast majority of people. 24" isn't too big or too heavy.

No dead pixels. No backlight bleed. No panel uniformity issues. All CRT's look perfect.

I really wish they kept making CRT just for desktop use. That would be a great way to deal with the toxic pollution and inability to recycle problem too.

Attached: 1546909206058.jpg (740x555, 34K)

They stopped doing pushups to get pussy because the sexual market got hyper rigged some time during 00s

You forgot the best part: degauss button

Have you ever used a CRT

Yes and I stopped using them because they made my eyes hurt.
Still wish I could go to the store and buy a new one to have around.
They're actually pretty difficult to procure high quality ones from where I live.

>I really wish they kept making CRT
It's kinda sad to think that these are actually dead. Most likely nobody will ever make another crt again.

Yeah, and the blacks on my brand new 27" 1440p 144Hz monitor are worst than those of the last Samsung CRT I had, why do you ask?

That being said I still doubt how much I would actually use one if they did make them. I mean they are not really hard to come by but I still use my whatever flat monitor.

>The best things about CRT monitors were that you could run in any resolution without the equivalent hideous scaling used in LCD.
what?
miss one of preset resolutions and you would get shit on the screen or even damage the screen if you went too high on older models.
i'm all for tech nostalgia, but i couldn't wait for those hideous radiating monstrosities to go away. however in picture/color quality the top products did overperform first generations of lcds by great margin for a long time.

>that girl in the pic
WTF, never happened at the LAN parties I went to.
But anyways, it was a nobler times.

>zoomers think this is an ancient photo of computers and nerds
we need a nuclear holocaust

Calm down, it's just the obligatory GF that got dragged to that lan party while nagging and being bored to hell.

That pizza looks disgusting

Just about to say this...
They where a staple at our lan parties.
Thats why we started bringing movies so they had something to do.

>miss one of preset resolutions and you would get shit on the screen or even damage the screen if you went too high on older models
I have no clue what you're talking about. CRT's support a wide range of resolutions as do LCD. Some probably program in more than others but that's irrelevant. While they both support a wide range of resolutions, CRT looks objectively better in all but the LCD native resolution because LCD scales all other resolutions from native. If you don't use scaling on LCD then you will have a tiny display corresponding to the size of the resolution. Try running in 320x240 on LCD then report back.

just like your personality.

I've always, always loved the idea of LAN parties. The closest thing I ever had growing up was a handful of birthday parties/sleepovers at a friend's house playing Xbox games (mostly Halo CE).

It really sucks that splitscreen and couch co-op is just so rare these days. That, and that everyone is "grown up" now. Wives, kids, jobs, mortgages. I want to host or attend a LAN party but it's just so hard getting everyone's schedule lined up.

Rare alternate view

A couple people held him up, a couple others wrapped him in duct tape.

Attached: 1526948799778.png (618x456, 436K)

Now look, if this were 2004 I'd completely agree with you. Early-gen LCDs screens were unbelievably shitty, and CRTs were better in almost literally every way.

But that's simply not true anymore. Comparing a modern LCD to a CRT (even the most recent ones, which are still going to be what, over 10 years old?) is a complete no contest.

LCDs are
>sharper
>thinner (obviously)
>significantly, like 80%+ lower power usage
>lighter (obviously)
>screen diagonal can be much smaller and MUCH larger than CRTs
>can be wall mounted or mounted on a monitor arm - better ergonomics
>144Hz screens offer a faster refresh rate than almost any (98%+) CRT
>240Hz LCDs are faster than any CRT at any resolution, period
>input lag on practically all modern LCDs is measured in single-digit milliseconds - well below the threshold for affecting performance or being perceptible
>don't make noise (that high pitched whine from the scanning)
>"ghosting", "gamma shift", "black depth" and all those other buzzwords, while real, are not nearly as important or noticeable as CRT fans proclaim
>this is coming from someone who produces videos for a youtube channel and plays video games literally every single day

CRTs had their time. That time ended more than a decade ago. There is literally no reason to own a CRT in 2019 other than feeling like a special snowflake, I'm sorry.

Attached: 1547735824999.jpg (620x373, 34K)

>not LANNING in the 90s

Also.

CRT fans consider this to be "black".

Attached: 14PT2307_V7-IMS-en_IN.jpg (1250x1032, 101K)

>size weight etc
You wasted like half your post on this because it's the only thing LCD really has going for it and it's useless in the majority of cases for desktops.
>144Hz screens offer a faster refresh rate than almost any (98%+) CRT
>240Hz LCDs are faster than any CRT at any resolution, period
This is almost universally untrue and CRT's already had LCD refresh rates some 20 years ago. They undoubtedly would be faster if still being made today not that it needs it. Already faster in all measurable metrics where higher refresh rates are needed for LCD.
>don't make noise
I owned three CRT desktop monitors and they were all silent. If you count TV's those were silent as well. Certainly no where near as common of a problem as backlight bleed, pixel defects and screen uniformity issues. LCD panels, every color and shade from black to white have uniformity issues. None present on CRT.
>"ghosting", "gamma shift", "black depth" and all those other buzzwords, while real, are not nearly as important or noticeable as CRT fans proclaim
These are quite possibly the most important measurements a display can have and not even remotely close to buzzwords.

Just gonna lie now? Pic related
>left is CRT (can't even see it lol) right is LCD

Attached: 1548834799342.jpg (2048x1152, 73K)

>This is almost universally untrue
Show me a CRT that can run 1920x1080 at over 140Hz.

Hell, show me one that can do that at 120. This is to say nothing of 1440p or 4K, which are completely unobtainable in CRTs.

>They undoubtedly would be faster if
"if"

>Already faster in all measurable metrics
Hmmm... no? Persistence/ghosting is comparable or better on LCDs. Input lag is far below the threshold for human detection (and no, you aren't a special snowflake who can "notice" a 1ms delay). Refresh rates, LCDs absolutely dominate.

>I owned three CRT desktop monitors and they were all silent.
That's because you have poor hearing. I guess in that case CRTs are comparable.

>Certainly no where near as common of a problem as backlight bleed, pixel defects and screen uniformity issues. LCD panels, every color and shade from black to white have uniformity issues. None present on CRT.
Want to know how I know you aren't actually a creative professional?

>These are quite possibly the most important measurements a display can have and not even remotely close to buzzwords.
... want to know how I know you aren't actually a creative professional?

>look at this perfectly ubiased comparison where there is absolutely no ambient light to make the CRT appear like what it actually appears; gray
Nice meme.

Look amigo, I know being wrong is hard and sometimes people are diehard fanboys of deprecated companies/technologies, but CRTs are objectively and in every way equivalent or worse (mostly worse) than LCDs.

But riddle me this, because despite being wrong you obviously care about this a LOT:

If CRTs are so much better, so great in every way, why does almost literally no one use them, ever, anywhere? Surely if they were such an improvement over LCDs, we'd see them in TV and movie production studios, we'd see YouTubers and streamers using them, we'd see them in engineering offices and at large tech companies. But we don't. At all.

Why is that, do you think?

Attached: 1543606786699.jpg (1150x1266, 167K)

yuropoor here. What do you mean by vegetable oil? Men have been using sunflower or olive oil for thousands of years, and I haven't heard things like that about them.

4 people connected at home. "Let's play Total Annihilation" from the guy that loves to use air units.
>Game has wind mechanics for maps.
>Pick windy as hell map.
Air unit guy gets stomped. Good times.

>he didn't learn about apparent magnitude

so you either havent or didnt graduate high school

>Show me a CRT that can run 1920x1080 at over 140Hz
>Hell, show me one that can do that at 120
Nokia 445Pro can do 2560x1536 @140hz
And that was over 20 years ago. If CRT's were still being made today they'd be shitting on LCD's even harder. They'd be thinner and lighter, too. Higher refresh rates. higher resolutions and better in almost every conceivable way.
>"if"
If you don't agree with me you're a shit eater plain and simple.
>Hmmm... no? Persistence/ghosting is comparable or better on LCDs
1. Those are two completely separate things.
2. Persistence in CRT's is much lower, on the order of nanoseconds. The lowest persistence LCD's, that require users to have advanced display knowledge to setup correctly, have at best .25ms and typically 1ms+
3. LCD's have slow GTG transitions, CRT's are near instantaneous. Slow GTG is mostly what causes the image artifacts on LCD's. LCD's also suffer from crosstalk, CRT's don't.
>want to know how I know you aren't actually a creative professional?
Want to know how I know you just arbitrarily inserted "creative professional" into a response that has nothing to do with it?
>Look amigo, I know being wrong is hard
Yes you're very well acquainted with this fact.
>If CRTs are so much better, so great in every way, why does almost literally no one use them, ever, anywhere?
They're not manufactured anymore and the really good ones can be very hard to come by. And there are many clueless retards on planet earth, including professionals.

dont worry fellow 25+ nostalgiafags , we are going home soon

Attached: going home.png (550x627, 98K)

>Nokia 445Pro can do 2560x1536 @140hz
So one, presumably extremely expensive specialty CRT almost-but-not-quite matches what a $160 entry-level LCD can do. Also you ignored 1440p. And 4K. And 165Hz. And 240Hz.

>If you don't agree with me you're a shit eater plain and simple.
"If" means nothing. We are talking about practical products that a normal individual can buy, today, without taking out a second mortgage on their house.

>1. Those are two completely separate things.
Technically separate and closely related.

>2.
You can't detect the sub-3ms (max) ghosting on any modern display. You're well into audiofool territory.

>3. LCD's have slow GTG transitions,
You can't detect this on any even halfway decent modern LCD. At all.

>LCD's also suffer from crosstalk, CRT's don't.
L m fucking a o. Are you serious? This is part of your argument? Again: you cannot detect this. It makes no difference. It has a material effect on literally no one under any circumstances.

>Yes you're very well acquainted with this fact.
Because I read your posts.

>They're not manufactured anymore and the really good ones can be very hard to come by. And there are many clueless retards on planet earth, including professionals.
Lol jesus.

You're delusional. The good news is you have no impact on anyone, otherwise I'd actually be worried about you believing all this retarded shit. You are in the same boat as audiophiles: absolutely desperate to feel like a special snowflake, desperate to feel like you're part of a group, and you do it with completely irrational beliefs. Clinging to any little negligible factoid (nanoseconds of persistence vs

>vegetable oil
as opposed to what, lard?

>extremely expensive specialty CRT almost-but-not-quite matches what a $160 entry-level LCD can do
It cost about a grand and shits on every LCD ever made in almost every metric.
>Also you ignored 1440p. And 4K. And 165Hz. And 240Hz.
I didn't ignore any of these. It can run a resolution at a higher resfresh rate and resolution than the majority of desktop monitors being used today. And that was over 20 years ago. How much of a brainlet do you have to be to not put 2+2 together and realize that if CRT's were still being made today they'd be shitting on LCD's *that* much harder?
>"If" means nothing. We are talking about practical products that a normal individual can buy
No we aren't we're talking about what could have been, potential and how stupidly better CRT's were in almost every way, a long ass time ago and how much better they'd be today if they were still being produced.
>Technically separate and closely related.
And you're dodging the point. They're only related in the way you can see artifacts from one using the other. And it means LCD is inferior to CRT. Quit dodging faggot. You're wrong.
>You can't detect the sub-3ms (max) ghosting on any modern display
Like hell you can't. You can't make a modern display that doesn't have detectable ghosting when lowering display persistence, not yet anyway.
>You're well into audiofool territory
Not even close. You have no clue what you're posting about and it's comical how stupid you are.
>You can't detect this on any even halfway decent modern LCD. At all.
Yes you can, easily. Pic fucking related 240hz fastest possible LCD
>It makes no difference
Seeing double images makes no difference? I'd call you retarded but it's quite clear you just have no clue what you're posting about.
>Clinging to any little negligible factoid (nanoseconds of persistence vs

Attached: 1528343659472.jpg (600x427, 57K)

McDonald's fries used to be fried in tallow. They changed in the 2000s.
Olive oil is good. Sunflower, and other industrial processed ones are vegetable oil, including basedbean, corn, canola, cottonseed.

Imagine the smell.

Probably canola oil.

>It cost about a grand
A fucking THOUSAND DOLLARS to have a product that performs worse than a $160 LCD while also wasting way more energy and taking up significantly more room.

You're delusional.

>It can run a resolution at a higher resfresh rate and resolution than the majority of desktop monitors being used today.
>This thousand dollar specialty monitor that is extremely hard to come by has roughly equivalent resolution and a very slightly higher refresh rate than the monitor that came with grandma's Dell. Checkmate atheists
Jesus christ you are delusional

>No we aren't we're talking about what could have been
Lol then what was the "if" for? Where are all these 1080p 144Hz CRT monitors? Or 1440p? Or 4K, or 165Hz, or 240Hz?

>And you're dodging the point.
What's the point? That neither one matters because even slightly better than "included with my grandma's prebuilt PC" LCDs don't have any detectable problems in that area? Or, really, any other for that matter?

>Like hell you can't. You can't make a modern display that doesn't have detectable ghosting when lowering display persistence, not yet anyway.
Spoken like someone who has literally never played games or compared monitors side by side. You can't. I know you really, desperately wish you were special, but you aren't. You cannot detect ghosting on ANY reasonable quality LCD in 2019. And don't give me that "yeah *chuckles* well this $45 monitor from 2007 I just picked up on Craigslist has TERRIBLE ghosting, so checkmate" bullshit.

>Not even close.
Nah, actually very close. Almost identical arguments - pretending to see things you can't, saying stats (that don't matter) actually do matter, believing you can see or otherwise detect things others can't. It's like schizophrenia except you're literally choosing to do it.

>Yes you can, easily.
By taking a picture with a 1/1000 second exposure, up close. Cool. I'm not talking about using instruments to detect it, retard, I mean YOU detecting it.

Attached: 1556955556049.jpg (477x397, 33K)

> Let's play Total Annihilation
Nice. We also did that, but it was somehow far more popular in our 4-16 man LAN parties than the bigger ones. Even though it was one of the very best games to play (and spring RTS / Zero-K still is, unfortunately not particularly set up to play in a LAN)

>Seeing double images makes no difference?
... lol what? This hasn't been a problem with LCDs for well more than a decade.

>These aren't negligible and it's rare to find an LCD with even 1ms display persistence
You can't tell

>and they suffer from artifacts, all of them.
You can't see them

The saddest part about all this is I know you aren't trolling. You are 100% serious, you actually believe everything you're saying, you honestly believe CRTs are better in some way. I honestly feel bad for you. How fucking stuck in your own ignorance, like a truck that's dug itself into the mud and just spins the tires trying to get out.

But hey, pissing you off while making you look like an idiot in front of everyone was pretty fun for me, so thanks for that :^)

Attached: 1551545160854.png (280x278, 103K)

those are refined arms? ahahahaha
>A fucking THOUSAND DOLLARS to have a product that performs worse than a $160 LCD
If you're literally blind then yes, a cheap LCD will do.
>You're delusional
>Jesus christ you are delusional
Not an argument.
>Where are all these 1080p 144Hz CRT monitors?
They haven't made a high end computer CRT for some 20 years now. What part of that don't you understand? How many years did it take for you to be able to buy a consumer grad 1440p 144hz LCD with low input lag? And you still can't buy one that doesn't suffer from one of or multiple problems if not all of these: backlight bleed, panel uniformity issues, pixel defects, shit black depth, shit contrast, shit color accuracy, color shift, motion artifacts. CRT has literally none of these issues. None. And it already had the performance characteristics of your best gaymer monitors, 20 years ago.
> LCDs don't have any detectable problems in that area?
Again your argument is you're a blind retard so I don't know what you're doing trying to have a conversation that you clearly have no clue about.
>Spoken like someone who has literally never played games or compared monitors side by side.
I can literally look at the artifacts side by side in testing. You are literally a blind retard.
>Nah, actually very close.
Not, not even close.
>By taking a picture with a 1/1000 second exposure, up close.
That's precisely to detect what the human eye can see, brainlet. There's no other reason for it. That's the entire purpose.

Holy shit you're retarded and autistic enough to post hundreds of replies on a subject you know jackshit on. You're worthless trash. kys faggot nobody wants to talk with you for hours on end on a subject you know jackshit about.
>I don't know how anything works please respond
hang yourself from a palm tree retard

>But hey, pissing you off while making you look like an idiot in front of everyone was pretty fun for me, so thanks for that :^)
Did you mean posting gibberish for hours on end to satisfy your autism while imagining the other person is angry while they lay on their bed laughing at how big of an autistic retard you are? Yes clearly I'm seething because you're an autistic retard who gobbles shit and I'm not. That makes me really mad, lol!

Ew. What is it with wangblows useds and being so faggy? Video games are gay.

>short replies with no substance, just name calling
Ooh, he's gettin' mad. Someone called him on his bullshit.

Sorry autismo, but you are wrong. By all means enjoy your hobby, but don't be surprised when anyone (read: everyone) says "yeah actually CRTs are pretty much entirely worse". Maybe you should stick to CRT threads or Jow ForumsgloriousCRTmasterrace. Echo chambers are much easier on the fragile mind.

Attached: 1526873858911.jpg (788x524, 133K)

>CRT has literally none of these issues. None.
Actually, color depth is one, you don't even have the signals to do 100% sRGB or anything like it.

Another one is 144hz, very few CRT did anything like that. And even then not at full resolution - which it only did with a good bunch of blur, actually. It also did flicker.

So it's more like a bunch of the best gaming monitor features, but not quite all that are really desirable.

This CRT nostalgia is kinda cool but sometimes I wonder if the people who go on about it actually remember what it was like using CRTs.

Ackshually, it's only basedbean oil that turns you into a onions boy.

>I wonder if the people who go on about it actually remember what it was like using CRTs.
I promise you, they don't. Rose tinted glasses are a real thing.

Just like all the boomers who say shit like "they don't make cars like they used to".

Yeah, they don't make cars where the only crumple zone is your torso.

Attached: 1515348030218.jpg (384x384, 27K)

shit was cash. there was a phase when I spent every single day playing PC games with my friends.

Sony makes like 3 BVMs a year

Take me back.

You can't fry on high temperatures with it though. For this, we usually use sunflower oil.
Fuck, that shit sounds disgusting - literal biodiesel. Never had it before.

I'm 33, I remember, hell I still have some around. One of which is almost 20 years old now.

I used a CRT up until like 2008. I remember they really fucking hurt your eyes.

We're going home and there's nothing they can do to stop us.

Tell me about it. I have been tempted to drag my old 24" Trinitron beast out of the basement. Better in almost every single way. Except it weighs 240lbs.

I've had people ask me why I still have 8 Dell C840 (Pentium 1.8ghz, NVidia Geforce4 440 gp and 1600x1200 screen) laptops. I got them free from an older job, cleaned them up and reapplied thermal paste. Just last year brought them to a Friday party by request, what was to be 1 night after the party turned into a classic game weekend. A 8 port switch was setup. I put out the laptops with a simple logitech mouse each. Each person had their own ear buds or a headset. Using 2 power strips to not cause any power issues and in case people wanted to plug in phones. Everyone had a blast doing groups in Diablo I. Total Annihilation, Unreal/Quake and other games.

I guarantee everyone who spergs out about monitors is under 20 and has never used a CRT in its natural habitat

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Eh I played at 120hz at 1280*1024 on a 21" crt. It was and still is pretty great

Not exactly true, manufacturers didn't list a true resolution because they didn't want people to know exactly how many phosphors there were. In terms of a native resolution if you're using a 4:3 screen you want to use a 4:3 res otherwise you'll stretch it

youtube.com/watch?v=1EJXTh4HMAE

Attached: Winter_2004_DreamHack_LAN_Party.jpg (1632x1232, 495K)

>more input lag than your $800 2019 monitor

>ball mouse
>PS-2
>PCI "NIC" card
>10/100 hub (not a switch or router)

>300 mhz Pentium II
>astonishing 64 megabytes of ram
>AGP graphics accelerator
>24x CD ROM drive
>staggering 8 gb IDE hard drive

>RTS cames
>Quake
>CS

>response time

Toppest of topkekles

Its like all these plens actually don't have memories that extend that far back in time.

Back when you could wear a trench coat without being a school shooter

This poster is correct.

However if you want to shit on CRT then use their lack of wide color gamut, no high dynamic range, high power consumption, and the fact that they emit damaging alpha, beta and gamma radiation.

As a trench and duster coat user I do indeed miss those days.

Attached: 1544939378983.jpg (1200x2008, 821K)

>you don't even have the signals to do 100% sRGB or anything like it
>Another one is 144hz, very few CRT did anything like that
That's true but it's not a technological limitation but mostly a matter of implementing newer standards and requested features.
I'm not really advocating people go out and get a CRT over a LCD so I'm not sure what the point of these kinds of responses are. The main display characteristics of a CRT however are still vastly superior to LCD. If they were still being made today, these other features would be brought up to standards as well.

>I was only pretending to be retarded
>haha le reddit
>he's mad guys lol
Do you realize I'm laying in my bed right now posting from my gigantic wall covering display, laughing and simultaneously pitying you for being so retarded? I would fall asleep before becoming anything resembling mad at how stupid you are. I pity you at most.

they say when you die you go to a "lan party" on heaven

the 72 virgins thing makes more sense now

this is peak performance right here

Attached: 1450972608268.jpg (2560x3840, 1.89M)

Imagine calling them "display boxes".

>>If CRT's were still being made today they'd be shitting on LCD's even harder.

No they fucking wouldnt lol, if this were true then CRT production wouldn't have stopped because a market (at the highest end) would have continued to exist for them.

Attached: 1554711903767.gif (499x367, 3.47M)

No the reason why CRT production stopped was really just a perfect storm, unfortunately.

you also forgot: it took a huge amount of tweaking to get the image as close to perfectly rectangular as possible. but it was never 100% and wasn't permanent (moving the monitor to a new location often fucked it up pretty good)

all that connectivity and not a single instagram thot or virtue signaling tweeter in existence yet.
RIP good times.

This but unironically. My family must've been deaf, but every CRT display I ever had made a high pitch whining noise loud enough to hear over a loud conversation. I got headaches from it constantly. I don't care if I'm losing something with my LCD, fuck those displays.

meanwhile today we have curved LCD's where people pay a premium to not have straight lines

I'm extremely sensitive to this and I've come across countless CRT's and never experienced it not even slightly

I'm not a CS.Go pro player, a little less response is an adequate trade off for higher resolution, adequate aspect ratio for multitasking, less weight and bulk, etc.

That's as cyb as it gets. The internet was depreciated as a whole once it entered normaltrash pockets in the guise of smartphones. It used to be magic, like that pic.

>that pitch black crt vs that cloudy grey "black" lcd

>I would fall asleep before becoming anything resembling mad at how stupid you are. I pity you at most.
Uh oh, he's angry enough to reply several hours later lol

Getting proved wrong really hurts, user, I understand what you're going through right now. But there's no need to be this buttblasted about it

Don't bother replying, you should just walk away

Attached: 13066237318.png (550x375, 11K)

>I'm extremely sensitive to this
>never experienced it

Attached: 1547702346170.png (498x449, 151K)

Attached: early_days_of_the_internet.jpg (1024x798, 51K)

Electrical components sometimes make high pitched whining sounds. I have heard this many times from other components before. None from CRT.

Attached: 1513543348278.jpg (990x767, 80K)