I'm in the market for a new display but all the manufacturers have discontinued their CRTs.  I'm not to happy about going out and paying three times the price for an LCD.  Plus, from what i've been reading, none of the LCDs as yet have a low enough response time.
 
I was going to get a Lacie 22 inch CRT, but they are no longer availible.  Is there any solution now for the hard core gamer when it comes to Displays?  Or do we just have to bite the bullet, shell out for the cost of an LCD and deal with the ghosting?  Help!

You should still be able to buy a 21-22" CRT pretty easily.  
 
For gaming I'd say a LaCie is overkill usually (depends on model really I guess), I find Viewsonics, Phillips, Sonys and NECs still quite plentiful, however the selection has reduced somewhat over the past year or so.
 
LCDs are getting better there is no doubt about that, however CRTs will always be the best solution for hardcore gaming. Especially if you need to scale your monitor back a bit in order to maintain good FPS, if you do that with an LCD you suffer interpolation.
 
At work here I'm on an IBM P260, and I wouldn't give it up for any LCD out there (although an LCD as second monitor is nice).

 
 
Not even those 2ms ones that are coming out?

 
Ghosting's not so much an issue anymore, but it's still there a bit, especially at off angles. However not as much of a concern for gaming as the fact that pixels are strictly defined whereas the CRT can scale without those restrictions.

just get yourself a 1600x1200 LCD and a 7800GTX to run all your games at that resolution

i've had my LCD display for like year now and I still have to see what it is that my slow "response" time has to hurt any games.  the only thing that LCD has that is a drawback is that it cannot produce perfect blacks.  that's it.  16 ms is plenty fast!

I am in the same boat as you Lord_Devlin.  I am look to get an LCD, but with all of the reviews, being, well so so about the way response time is messured. It  is very hard to feel good about a possible LCD purchase.  The LCD that THG liked(viewsonic VP191b) I found at Newegg for 355.00, but it is out of stock.  The next in line is the Viewsonic VX924 for 354.00, but THG did not seem to like the response time measurement method being used now.  All of the other LCD in the 19" category did not appeal to me so I may just pull the trigger and get the VX924 .
 
Don't laugh
amd athlon xp 2.6
Gigabyte GA-7VRXP
1GIG RAM
Gforce Ti4400  :|

D'ont forget to check the color quality....
 
put a couple of monitors in line and check them in white color...
you will see what i mean... some 600$ monitors can't display a good color
balance to get the white right.

GGA, even with interpolation, modern LCDs look a lot better than their predecessors.  Yes, there is still a noticable reduction in picture quality... but it's much more tolerable than it was in the past.  Some of Dell's and Samsung's high-end LCDs look very good, despite the interpolation.

They also cost a lot more than a simular quality CRT.  
 
If you have the desk space, I still prefer CRT's.

Yes, but they do save on power consumption and back muscles...
 

Actualy, if you work with a lot of text on the PC, an LCD is way better for the eyes. So for work, it makes sense.

I definately agree there... plus I have so much more desk space with the LCD at work.  It's nice at home too... my Philips games well and it's good for watching movies too.

 
I don't disagree with that, however both my IBM at work and Phillips at home are unparralled by any LCD out there. Even text I have no problem with, and I use both CRTs and LCDs everyday.
 
I agree that the ability to interpolate has gotten better and isn't as bad as it used to be, but it's still far from good, especially for someone as picky about their image quality as I am.  
 
At work there's a huge shift to Dell 19" LCDs (that cost 1/4 or less than that of my IBM [even now]) . And while I find text on an LCD to be it's strong point, I've had to tweak a half a dozen luddite friend's new LCDs back to native res. because they couldn't understand why the text was blurrier than on their old 17-22" CRT at the same resolution. Becuase they were trying to view 1024x768 on their 1280x1024 screen because they don't like small text or icons . It's pretty eye-straining personally. Often I have to look off angles when I sent their monitors (or when I sabotage their unlocked computers to 620x480-256colour  ) because looking at the screen makes me bug-eyed and causes more eye strain in 5-10 seconds than any CRT has caused me in any whole day of gaming, or two with Morrowind in '02  8) . I have staunchly refused this company-wide push to LCD, and will likely be one of only a handful of people left with them once this is over. People seem to care more about how sleek their monitors look than the quality of the picture on them.
 
And regardless of what people think, *cough* mpasternak *cough* , even 2 GF7800GTX(256MB) aren't going to push 1600x1200 on all games, and that may even be thanks to CPU, not the VPU/GPU, in which case you're hooped. Quality scaling is always a nice option, even if you need it only rarely. Seriously, what's the point of having AF if despite being able to use it nearly performance penalty free, the monitor makes things far worse because you just can't hit that sweet spot?
 
Really, just like so many things it comes down to whether people appreciate which aspects that favour each. It's like video cards, if someone doesn't use AA then why would they care that one card is so much better at it than the other if without that feature they don't use it might be slightly slower. And while you can quantitatively compared still images, and talk qualitatively about my and others belief of is benifits, it may mean little to that person.  
 
I have yet to see an LCD that I would consider the equal of a CRT, even the worst, for what CRTs do well (contrast, colour seperation, refresh, scaling). I have nothing invested in this and would prefer that LCDs were better, but that appears to be further off than we hoped (even with white LED backlights) and may require the next gen-technologies like OLED and the thin nano cathode ray displays to get there. That is one of the reasons why Plasma is top on the list for my next TV purchase for the winter Olympics (hockey plays to CRT and Plasma's strengths [quick action and camera panning, with high contrast objects requiring quick Black-White-Black and White-Black-White transitions]).
 
I like the New fast refresh Samsungs, like the Widescreen 20/24 models from Dell/Sony/Hitachi/HP/Smasung, however I still don't put them in the same class for truely hardcore gamers as this question seemed to be concerning. For casual gamers, I'd actually recommend an LCD because it is a better 'general purpose' monitor for most people.
 
Anyways, to each their own I guess. I won't deny that some people find gaming fine on their LCDs, but by the same token I'd prefer if they didn't deny the very real and still present limitations of both types, also I hope none of them ever have sway over my options (or are tasked with setting up one of my monitors   )
 
WOW That's alot of writing, thankfully I was typing it on my LCD-equipped laptop.  

 
 
WOW That's alot of writing, thankfully I was typing it on my LCD-equipped laptop.  
 
That's a bunch of BS, we all know u modded your laptop to carry a CRT display.