That's because you are using Dell hardware. Dell is not 100 percent industry-standard, and has not been for many years.

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

Pssh you'll be saying floppy discs are dead next... WAIT!

I borrowed a gizmo from a friend to plug things into to monitor the power usage, power factor, etc., and found there's very little difference in the power used by the LCD monitor versus the old CRT monitor. The hi-res CRT monitor I use on the DOS computer takes 44 watts, and the CRT monitor I use on the Linux machine takes 33. Pretty piddly difference. No wonder I didn't see any reduction in the electric bill. The LCD one is wider but about the same height. OTOH, the DOS computer itself is taking 33 watts, while the friend's much newer computer takes 300. I don't remember if he said that included the monitor or not. These are all desktop computers. Our laptops while operating and charging at the same time take just under 60 watts.

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?

The main advantages of TFT screens are reduced weight and less heat output. Important factors when you have skyscrapers full of thousands of desktops. In some banks I worked for the number of people on each floor was limited by the weight of their equipment. They packed more people in when they switched to TFT. The lower heat generation saves on air conditioning.

At home I doubt either advantage is that significant at home. Personally I think I'll only see my bills fall when my kids leave home.

_________________
Andrew Jacobs
6502 & PIC Stuff - http://www.obelisk.me.uk/
Cross-Platform 6502/65C02/65816 Macro Assembler - http://www.obelisk.me.uk/dev65/
Open Source Projects - https://github.com/andrew-jacobs

The size issue is the important one. At the table I'm sitting at now, for example, there is only approximately 10cm between the back of the TFT monitor and the wall, I could not have used a CRT monitor, not even a small one. Definitely not the 21" CRT I used when I had an SGI Indy at home.. that one was deep, and nearly 35kg. The weight, plus the depth, nearly destroyed my back when I carried the monitor out of my home (I had it there only temporarily).

LED backlit LCD monitors do exhibit some power savings over conventional CCF LCD monitors, but we're not talking kilowatts here. In the past, when we converted clients from CRT to LCD monitors they did see some power consumption reduction. Of course, that was swapping out 8-10 monitors at a time. The biggest such conversion we did involved replacing 52 monitors. That had a noticeable effect on power consumption, making the expense of the changeout worthwhile.

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

My 30" Dell flatscreen monitor consumes just about 100W of power. My 15" CRT about the same. So, perhaps the metric isn't absolute power savings, but rather power per viewable surface area.

LCDs surpassed CRTs in pixel count since 2560x1600, so LCD it is for me.

My whole setup is hooked through a kill-a-watt, idling around 160W. Toggling the monitor (cheap Seiki 4K 39") cuts off about 70W, but I think the video card also stops sucking watts as well when the display's off.

_________________
WFDis Interactive 6502 Disassembler
AcheronVM: A Reconfigurable 16-bit Virtual CPU for the 6502 Microprocessor

It's been 6-1/2 years since this was posted and VGA is still going strong.

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

Clearly people haven't gotten the memo! We must badger them into abandoning working solutions for newer ones! Is VGA even getting security patches anymore!?

The other day I was at a thrift store and they had TWO of the largest CRT TV's I have ever seen. I thought my 32" CRT at home was large. These were gigantic. They had to be at least 42" with a 4:3 ratio (not wide screen). Of course, they were just as deep as they were tall.

And no, they were not projection TV's. These were absolutely CRT's. Even had that beautiful curve on the glass.

You don't know how bad I wanted these. But my wife would kill me and my 32" CRT (that I use for NES and other gaming) barely fits in my gaming closet. I can't imagine what those things weigh!

Anyway, I hope VGA stays around forever. I have several small VGA monitors I use at home for my TI99-4/a (that has an F18 mod) and other things. I still see new monitors with VGA connections on them. The great thing about VGA is that it is "good enough" for many of the things we do (or at least, things I do).

It's an open format....easy for micro-controllers to generate (i.e., the Propeller) and it's EASY to use and understand. In fact, it's easier to understand than NTSC.

_________________
Cat; the other white meat.

"VGA has five years to live" - it's just the art of writing a headline.

AKA, "link bait".

_________________
Cat; the other white meat.

This is so true. A few years ago I decided to really understand both VGA and NTSC. After reading the VGA specification, and Propeller code that generates it, my reaction was it was really straight forward. I could even envision implementing it in hardware using RAM, some counters, and some resistor DAC's.

I then read the NTSC specification and while the monochrome part is easy to understand, the color burst signal is a bit mind bending. Kudos to the engineers for being able to make NTSC backwards compatible, but I can't imagine how analog hardware implementations of it work.

NTSC dates from the mid-1930s (NTSC = National Television Standards Committee) and reflects the electronic technology of the times, which was totally analog, and not anywhere near what it is now. That is why the addition of color to the picture engendered so much compexity. Also, as NTSC was an American product, a certain amount of jingoism got into the picture, and the NTSC members were positive nothing better would be developed.

The desire to stick with a standard whose strengths and weaknesses were well-understood by the time color TV became a reality perpetuated something that should have been retired. I'm amazed that NTSC has persisted all these years, given its many weaknesses, especially the lock-in to the 525 line, 30 frames per second display rate long after electronics had progressed to support much better video. PAL, of course, is best described as an adaptation of NTSC to the 50 Hz power frequency common in many parts of the world outside North America. PAL has slightly better quality than NTSC, but to some people, subtle flicker is visible due to the slower frame rate.

Fortunately, things have greatly improved, although I still prefer the picture of a CRT monitor over that of an LCD panel. I guess I'm just an out-of-touch curmudgeon.

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!