• Steve@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Stupid false nostalgia, just like the old c10 pickup trucks. They are rare now because they are SHIT and nearly all of them were scrapped like they deserve.

    • frunch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What was wrong with them? They served their purpose just fine for many years

      • marx2k@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The weighed a ton, they were limited in size, their resolution was terrible, they sucked down electricity…

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Their screen was curved the wrong way until they released flat screen TVs

          4:3 resolution meant you lost some of the content from movies or you watched them with black bars

          • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Except movies keep changing so now if you want imax at home you need 4:3.

            Whatever isn’t available at home is what movies will change to to keep themselves unique.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Widescreen has been the movie industry standard for how many decades now? IMAX is its own beast but most movies aren’t filmed in real IMAX resolution and now there’s digital IMAX which is basically 19:10 which is the same as many TVs…

              • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Movies used to be all 4:3 before tv. It’s called the academy ratio. Movies now do 1.85:1 and even 2.39:1. A few even do anamorphic 2.76:1. Anything but the dominant home format.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Major movie studios have mostly used widescreen since the 1950s and all the different ratios you mentioned except 4:3 are better watched on a widescreen TV than a 4:3 TV.

  • DavidGarcia@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    All I want is a dumb devices brand.

    So sick of smart devices that don’t need to be smart. The more unnecessary things something can do, the more it can break.

    I wonder if we’ll ever get reliable, long lived products ever again or if planned obsolescence has won forever.

    • Onii-Chan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Short of undoing decades of neoliberal globalism and free trade agreements that destroyed a litany of domestic industries by sending them offshore, and as a result, collapsing an economy of ‘repair, don’t replace’, we’ll never ever see the days of buying anything for life again.

      Welcome to the future. It sucks.

      • DavidGarcia@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, this disposable economy is in large part thanks to the destruction of the middle class. If the bottom 80-90% got their “fair share” of the economic pie again, people could actually afford quality (and save money in the long term).

        I’m not as doomerish about the future. If people can be educated on what the real problems are, it can be fixed. As long as social media stays relatively free and unmanipulated, it is inevitable. What I’m seeing currently is an educational revolution, even if everyone likes to rip on social media.

        AI is a wildcard however, not sure how it will change things, could go either way. Since open source models are just a few months behind at worst, things could go better than expected.

        Another factor is that once technological development starts to slow down, companies have to compete on quality. The gap between cheap smartphones and flagships used to be huge, but since smartphones mostly don’t change anymore the gap has become really small.

        Basically as technologies mature, the only unique selling point that is left is quality and reliability. Once we run into the physical limits of computation by the end of the century (unless efficiency growth slows down), devices will stop being so disposable. Then a device you buy 30 years later won’t be significantly better than the 30 year old one. In the past a 30 year difference roughly translates to a 30k times difference in performance. That’s why electronics are so disposable.

        I think smart devices will eventually either mature to reliablity and minimum necessary features or we’ll return to dumb devices again.

      • DavidGarcia@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thanks, that’s great and useful advice.

        It would be cool if all TVs were just dumb displays + a standardized dedicated spot for a module for whatever internals you want to put in it.

        Maybe I should petition the EU for this lol. cuts down on e-waste.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I will not break for 50 years

    Yeah as a guy who used to repair these with his dad as a kid, hells no. The average crt TV had a lifespan of about 10 years without breaking

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yup. A lot of survivor bias going on with the remaining crop of CRTs out there. Granted, there were probably a lot of perfectly good tubes that got thrown out back in the 2000’s. But the ones we have left still need repair now and then.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And a lot of them don’t have the brightness they did back then. These aren’t going to last forever, which is why good upscaling solutions for modern TVs are important.

  • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Pro tip: Never connect your TV to the internet, just use it as a screen. Its easier to buy a new cromecast or Kodi Box when you need support for the latest streaming.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Also, hate how higher end features only come on screens over 55 or 60 inches. Have a small bedroom where 55 inches is just plain too big.

  • Norgur@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    But could your old CRT you bought with your own money display advertisements in it’s menus? Hmm? HMMMM? Could it? See? Modern Television wins again!

    • Resistentialism@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ll have you know that if you uninstall updates from the launcher, I think, and something else, then turn off auto updates. You can get rid of the ads. This is on a Sony bravia.

  • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hey man, 50 years ago we went to the store and bought new vacuum tubes when our TVs went pop and hiss – you couldn’t fix CRTs like that.

    CRTs were witchcraft.

  • TubeTalkerX@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Old TVs could also take a hit from a bowling ball without a problem, new ones can break if hit by a rubber band!

    Old ones could also distort the image if you moved a strong magnet across the screen.

  • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Mmmmm… Radiation.

    the camo wall is from when I was a kid. I painted it with my dad, and even though it doesn’t really fit me anymore, I don’t want to paint over it because I liked doing it.

    Edit: also no, the steam deck is not powering the monitor. I put it there because I liked the juxtaposition between the 90s CRT and 2023 OLED steam deck. It’s an old 2200+ AMD sempron. Also yes I know it’s a PC monitor, not a TV. It’s still a CRT, hush.

    Edit 2: after fighting with spoilers, I give up.

  • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    i still don’t understand why people buy smart TVs, just get a big monitor and connect it to a cheapo laptop

  • onion@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do TVs actually refuse to work if you don’t connect them to the internet?

    • DavidGarcia@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      there’s ones that lose money if you buy them, so they are extremely cheap. They make it back by you watching ads, selling your data etc… I could imagine that those force you to connect to the internet.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah, the speakers that can physically fit in a TV of any type aren’t that big, aren’t put in enclosures tuned to the speaker, don’t have multiple speakers with a crossover to handle different frequency ranges, and don’t have quality amplifier components. They were always built cheap to what could fit in the box. I’m not talking audiphile shit here, but just the basics of a good sound system.

        • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Well, I had a 48” flat screen in 2006 that didn’t need separate speakers. Every TV since sounds like absolute garbage.

          • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, my 2008 flat screen, I think it’s a Samsung, sounds decent enough too but it’s also 4" thick. The newer ones that are 2" or less simply don’t have enough depth in the body for decent speakers.

            • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I would prefer a thicker TV with better sound than having to buy a sound bar or theatre system to go with it. My 2014 Samsung with shit sound is about 4” thick. That’s not the reason.

              After 32” you’re going to want to have a friend help you move it anyway, so who cares how thick it is? It’s all a scam to get you to buy more stuff.