Computer monitor

[SniperSmurf]

60Hz on a CRT = instant headache. 60Hz on a LCD = just fine, since the pixels don't flicker at 60Hz

Most LCDs run native at 60Hz, although "refresh rate" is sort of a misnomer when speaking about LCD technology, so yeah, it should look good.
Who runs a CRT at 60? They deserve a headache if they do... I run mine at 85, but have the option of going a lot higher.

[Hexis]

Top Reasons Why I'm not switching to LCD, 1. HDMI support is practicly non existent so why buy a brand new $1000 dollar LCD right now? 2. Playing games outside of the native resolution is god awful 3. Response time is still to slow for most panels 4. LCDs are known to lag I'm not talking about pixel response I'm talking actual LAG and it drives me crazy.

HDMI to DVI converters are easy and cheap. I don't think you will see many computer monitors with HDMI (why bother, intergrated speakers are ususally crap, why use em). HDCP on the other hand...

Scaling is working quite well these days. Playing games off res on my 2001FP looks fine. A lot less sharp than the native res (1600x1200), but that's actually an advantage IMHO, kinda like free AA in a way. I don't think anyone could really call the scaling these days "god awful" (but it sure used to be).

Most LCDs run native at 60Hz, although "refresh rate" is sort of a misnomer when speaking about LCD technology, so yeah, it should look good.
Who runs a CRT at 60? They deserve a headache if they do... I run mine at 85, but have the option of going a lot higher.

Well it is still a refresh rate, but the pixels don't change state unless they are supposed to, even then they don't go black first. This eliminates the flicker that you see on CRTs (because the pixels are all excited bits of a coating that are excited at the refresh rate, and fade to black between refreshes). Get beyond 85Hz and CRTs looks great, at over 100Hz nearly like paper. But LCDs look like paper at any refresh rate. It's simply a design advantage of the display type.