I imagine that's debatable. (although off-topic for this thread?)
Fair enough -- and we all know how I am, respectively. [
] ]'>
Anyway, I imagine the displays I have were quite expensive in their day, and they're noticeably worse than a more modern LCD. I'm also sure that if i were display shopping in 2003 (I was not), and wanted to save money or get something very high end for design work, the default choice would still have been to get a CRT. As recently as 2008 though? That's a really hard sell, unless Sony was still shipping that 24-inch wide FD-Trin which could go to some ridiculous resolution like 3600x1440 or whatever it was. Even then, 2008 had a lot of reasonably affordable displays at quite high quality. One of my main displays (A Dell UltraSharp 1908WFP) is from that time and despite being a TN panel, there are about a hundred reasons why I'd choose it over even the above-mentioned ridiculously high-resolution FD-Trin display. (Not the least of which is that somebody has to pick these things up and move them at some point or another.)
If we go back to 2006, I knew people still buying new CRTs, although I suspect it was cost-motivated more than anything else, and the CRT in question was just really really bad. (I think it was like $100 or so, new.) (And as far back as then, I probably would either have kept using my midrange CRTs or bought a new one, if I'd bought some kind of modular desktop computer -- I had awesome plans to use a Mac Pro with a 17-inch display that I had which couldn't quite focus correctly above 1024x768 resolution, for no sane reason at all other than that a Mac Pro in and of itself was going to stretch my particular budget so incredibly far that even $100 on a new CRT was out of the question.) (But that last bit is neither here nor there because I went to college with a pismo and liked it until I picked a Dell GX110 desktop out of a surplus pile, combined it with another, and used that.)