Raven, if you can, try to actually go and look at one of the LCD monitors. If you can - compare it to a good CRT. I don't know what sort of retail outlets you have near you, since I'm not sure where in Manitoba you are - if near Winnepeg you should be able to find some big box store that will have both, (like Future Shop).
LCD's appear sharper (at least to some eyes!), have higher contrast, are much more sensitive to ambient light, don't support a wide variety of screen resolutions (most only really have one "native" one - the rest will not be very good) and generally have a smaller viewing angle, not that this is an issue unless you're entertaining a crowd! Color is generally somewhat less accurate than with a CRT.
Some comparisons:
http://www4.tomshardware.com/display/20020...114/lcd-03.htmlErgonomic comparison:
http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/CULCD2003.htmlDiscussion of LCD's vs CRT's for photo work:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-...g?msg_id=0049HKCNET articles:
http://www.cnet.com/techtrends/0-6014-8-8798084-1.htmlRead the "Should you get a CRT or an LCD"
QUOTE
Colors. With LCD monitors, there's a hard limit on colors, typically 16.7 million (also known as 24-bit color). CRTs have no such limit, which in itself is no big deal since few applications go beyond 24-bit color. The real difference is in color accuracy, a quality not reflected in manufacturer specs. CRT monitors far outperform LCD monitors when it comes to color. A graphic designer, for example, wouldn't touch an LCD monitor. Colors on any kind of monitor are created by varying the intensity of red, green, and blue dots in the millions of triads that make up an image. CRTs control color by varying the intensity of the electron beam as it strikes each color dot. To vary the transmission of light through color filters, LCDs use magnetic fields to twist particles floating in a liquid--an inherently less precise process.
I'm not so sure about that "a graphic designer...wouldn't touch an LCD" - some are undoubtedly making the switch (I know of at least one) but I think by and large this statement probably stands.
That said, Apple's LCD's do tend to rank very highly in any comparisons, though you also pay for that quality.
Though I do notice the difference when I switch from my Ti Powerbook to my G4 with a LaCie Electron Blue (22") - at first things appear a little less sharp - I wouldn't trade my Electron Blue in just yet!! One thing that bugs me with the LCD is that I can see every pixel in the text - to me it looks, well, pixelated. I know it's probably easier on the eyes in the long run (no flicker - but a high end CRT doesn't flicker either - at least not visibly) but it bothers me.
I cannot accurately edit photos on my Ti - that much I do know. I realize that the standalone LCD's are no doubt much better, but contrast and color are never completely accurate with the Ti.
I have a very good friend who until recently worked for a company that makes chips used in almost all LCD's. He says that LCD's have the potential to be better than CRT's - eventually - in all respects. However, they're not quite there yet, for all users.
To answer your question about the HD - the new G5's have serial ATA drives, and to use a regular ATA drive (like those in the current G4's) you need an adapter. Theoretically, the serial ATA drives are faster - in practice there may not be a substantial difference. I'll wait and see what others report!
