1980s computer vs a dumb modern smart tv

[SelfishJam79498]

what would be it like

[LloydLynx]

It would probably look really terrible and blurry on a giant 4k panel. It would introduce latency. The TV would boot much slower than the computer.

You can look up Youtube videos of old computers connected to modern TVs. That is if I understand what your post is about.

[jaslion]

It would be blurry and thats about it

Rgb to vga to hdmi can be done with 40$ total if not less

 

 

[Needfuldoer]

Pixels as big as hams!

 

 

[LogicalDrm]

Whats the question here? Connectivity-wise, if you can get proper adapters, nothing big. Same applies to size of pixels. If the monitor is under 27", no big issue. Blurry for sure, but nothing beyond that.

 

Smart = internet-connected features. Just stupid to use that as defining term when they don't matter on how device operates.

[LogicalDrm]

1 hour ago, htimsenyawed said:

I was most confused by what a dumb smart TV is. That’s primarily why I clicked on this thread.

Oh, I didn't even notice there being a "smart" in that description. I guess OP is too young they don't remember the era before internet connected TVs.

[BADESTPIE1]

5 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

Whats the question here? Connectivity-wise, if you can get proper adapters, nothing big. Same applies to size of pixels. If the monitor is under 27", no big issue. Blurry for sure, but nothing beyond that.

 

Smart = internet-connected features. Just stupid to use that as defining term when they don't matter on how device operates.

your right, I'm fixing up an old computer and connected it to a modern monitor and it stretched and pixelated but that's it.

[BrandonLatzig]

2 hours ago, htimsenyawed said:

I was most confused by what a dumb smart TV is. That’s primarily why I clicked on this thread.

 

As for the answer to what I think the question is - the modern smart TV has more processing capability than the 1980’s computer, hands down.

I think its more of how long it takes to "boot" 
Which it has been proven that old computers do boot up relatively fast.. *mostly because they are booting next to nothing*

[da na]

34 minutes ago, BrandonLatzig said:

I think its more of how long it takes to "boot" 
Which it has been proven that old computers do boot up relatively fast.. *mostly because they are booting next to nothing*

If you're loading from a random access media that is. 

Ever loaded a game from a cassette? 

[BrandonLatzig]

8 minutes ago, da na said:

If you're loading from a random access media that is. 

Ever loaded a game from a cassette? 

sadly no, I am not that old nor have ever gotten the chance. though personally speaking. *It did seems very cool*

[da na]

5 minutes ago, BrandonLatzig said:

sadly no, I am not that old nor have ever gotten the chance. though personally speaking. *It did seems very cool*

Novelty wears off fast. It's miserably, painfully slow. And can be unreliable. 

 

Not to get off track though. 
Heck, even a "dumb smart tv" whatever that may be has more processing power than an 80s home computer. In fact, the chip inside a MagSafe charger, which serves the one purpose of telling the laptop when a charger is connected, is more powerful than 80s home computer systems. 

The chip that draws the HUD on LCD monitors for adjusting the brightness and et cetera, therefore, is most certainly more powerful than your ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64, Amiga etc. systems if just looking at raw clockspeed. 

[BrandonLatzig]

Just now, da na said:

Novelty wears off fast. It's miserably, painfully slow. And can be unreliable. 

 

Not to get off track though. 
Heck, even a "dumb smart tv" whatever that may be has more processing power than an 80s home computer. In fact, the chip inside a MagSafe charger, which serves the one purpose of telling the laptop when a charger is connected, is more powerful than 80s home computer systems. 

The chip that draws the HUD on LCD monitors for adjusting the brightness and et cetera, therefore, is most certainly more powerful than your ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64, Amiga etc. systems if just looking at raw clockspeed. 

 You are right though personally speaking, slight off topic
I hope we get "dumb" tvs again, which are just..big monitors with speakers and a tv tuner inside

[da na]

Just now, BrandonLatzig said:

 You are right though personally speaking, slight off topic
I hope we get "dumb" tvs again, which are just..big monitors with speakers and a tv tuner inside

Absolutely. 
A few months ago I set up a new multi-thousand-dollar ultra short throw laser projector for a venue. Great piece of hardware EXCEPT for the Android TV BS. You couldn't even switch inputs without going through a laggy, overcomplicated menu. It wouldn't just... turn on and go straight to HDMI/VGA input, like every other projector ever made... no, it boots to an Android TV menu (which takes a ton of time - about 40 seconds when the lamp warms up in less than 10) and then you have to navigate to the input switch menu.

Hell.

[BrandonLatzig]

2 minutes ago, da na said:

Absolutely. 
A few months ago I set up a new multi-thousand-dollar ultra short throw laser projector for a venue. Great piece of hardware EXCEPT for the Android TV BS. You couldn't even switch inputs without going through a laggy, overcomplicated menu. It wouldn't just... turn on and go straight to HDMI/VGA input, like every other projector ever made... no, it boots to an Android TV menu (which takes a ton of time - about 40 seconds when the lamp warms up in less than 10) and then you have to navigate to the input switch menu.

Hell.

I do believe that dumb tv will make a come back, just for people who dont want it or for specialized uses, like in hospitals or offices that just have tvs with news on. plus they would be cheaper to produce

[thrasher_565]

you dont have to plug ether net in to your smart tv making it dumb...

[Erioch]

1 hour ago, Caroline said:

CRT is still better for me, fuck trash smart devices

I agree with you about the smart devices but, man, I DO NOT miss having to move CRTs around.

[thrasher_565]

4 hours ago, Caroline said:

This is Apples vs Onions. If you want a comparison go for a CRT vs a new TV.

 

CRT is still better for me, fuck trash smart devices

crt if you had the best one witch 99% of people cant afford or find... your stuck to how big the screen is. i think it can display w/e resolution but on a small monitor is not going to work thing will be too dam small....

 

i think there maybe have been an hdmi crt? if not then you need adapters...

 

[Mark Kaine]

On 10/15/2023 at 6:12 PM, BrandonLatzig said:

sadly no, I am not that old nor have ever gotten the chance. though personally speaking. *It did seems very cool*

even back in the day.... we usually gave up half way through... that's how long it takes.... you didn't miss anything... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[Mark Kaine]

23 hours ago, Erioch said:

I agree with you about the smart devices but, man, I DO NOT miss having to move CRTs around.

Nah, CRT all the way, the image quality and responsiveness is easily worth it (if they only wouldn't cost this much)

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/225608767360

 

 

Quote

Mitsubishi's Diamond Pro 2070SB is among the highest rated CRT monitors ever produced. With a 140kHz max horizontal scan rate, it is capable of extremely high resolutions and/or frame rates. It is an excellent monitor for modern PC games. Commonly used resolutions are 2048x1560 at 86Hz, 1600x1200 at 109Hz, 1440x1080 at 120Hz, or 1024x768 at 160Hz.

 

[Monkey Dust]

On 10/15/2023 at 5:03 PM, da na said:

If you're loading from a random access media that is. 

Ever loaded a game from a cassette? 

You sir, have just pressed my nostalgia button.

[Thomas A. Fine]

A lot of answers about CRTs but I took this to be a question about computing power.

 

I installed retroarch on my giant Sony.  And, as someone who grew up with an Atari 800 and Lynx, and who played a lot of 2600 games, I installed these systems and a bunch of games.  Also some MAME stuff from my youth.  They all work fine.  And retroarch does have things you can do to emulate CRT appearance.

 

The Atari 800 ran at 1.79 MHz.  The Sony I have has a 1.8GHz 4-core Cortex A73, so it's about 4000 times faster, in the simplest calculation.  Of course, it has to emulate sprites and missiles and some other video effects that the Atari did in hardware, but in modern terms these are so close to nothing that it's barely worth mentioning.

 

So if you had a TV with much worse CPU, it should still be hundreds of times more powerful than those old systems.

 

It's hard to imagine how fast computers have become.  I did another thumbnail calculation, and figured out that all the various computers and phones in my house combined represent more computing power than existed in the entire world, definitely through the early and mid 1970s.

[Mark Kaine]

17 minutes ago, Caroline said:

That's highly inflated though. Not even new is worth that much.

Scalpers take advantage of thirsty 30-something year old men with thick wallets and come up with these prices because it's for "retro gaming". You can pretty much use it for anything, it's a monitor.

I use a CRT and run modern games, works just fine.

 

About computing power, if software wasn't trash perhaps TVs would work better, but they're made to be obsolete the moment they're out the assembly line.

yeah, i know... they were much cheaper couple of years ago...

afaik there aren't many crts that can do high refreshrate and high resolution tho, that's why they're so expensive? 

[Needfuldoer]

2 hours ago, Thomas A. Fine said:

I installed retroarch on my giant Sony.  And, as someone who grew up with an Atari 800 and Lynx, and who played a lot of 2600 games, I installed these systems and a bunch of games.  Also some MAME stuff from my youth.  They all work fine. 

I should hope so; I was emulating this stuff on Pentium machines over 20 years ago.

 

22 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

yeah, i know... they were much cheaper couple of years ago...

Don't look up how much old broadcast monitors cost nowadays. A few years ago they were worthless e-waste, now they're coveted as centerpieces for bedroom Super Nintendo shrines.

 

I got a JVC i'Art off Craigslist a few years ago for free. I have it set up to receive the same signal as my old Sony Bravia (also free), but center cut and downconverted to SD. For my living room, that's enough. 

 

CRT computer monitors though? I have... probably too many. But I like having the monitor that 'goes with' a given PC. You can't have a Packard Bell Legend without the 15" monitor and its attached speakers! Or a Mac IIci without its 13" Trinitron!

[thrasher_565]

my dad got a cheap $100 costco crt back in the day and it sucked. was way too dark. i use to download amd software to adjust the brightness more... so playing quake and other games were too dark... i no not all crts are like that but even "cheap" crts can be crap. if you can afford it it can be fine but most cant or wont spend $2000 for a crt...

 

but i also used one for far too long... as i liked the idea of moding it... never did mod it. attemped to give it a way but that didnt work. i dont rember what i did with it.

 

also had this massive like 32 inch crt tv that my dad got because the guy could not pawn it off and my dad offers $200 for it... worked fine but dame hated moving it. i think i gave it away...

 

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by thrasher_565

[Erioch]

3 hours ago, Monkey Dust said:

You sir, have just pressed my nostalgia button.

Same here.  Also, when I learned Fortran in college we had to submit our first 10 or so programs on punch cards.