As with everyone else who is involved in computer graphics, I far prefer a good CRT to an LCD screen. I'll never let my employer take away the widescreen Sony monitor I've been using for the past few years...it's the best.
A couple of months ago at home, when my 19" MAG CRT unexpectedly died on me (I think it was only five or six years old), I decided to get a Dell 1901FP 19" LCD monitor. My idea was that I could use the Dell as my primary monitor and my older 15" MAG CRT as a secondary display (which, in addition to gaining desktop space, I could use for checking color). Thanks to the lower power consumption and reduced footprint of the flat panel, I wouldn't need to juggle anything in my home office.
To make this plan work, I STILL need to upgrade my video card...and all of the cards I have looked into require more power than my VAIO's proprietary power supply pumps out. So, until I get two-monitor support at home, I'm going to have to bring my photos to work. I tried editing them at home and the color is just not accurate enough, especially when trying to match exposure and color when compositing and assembling panoramas.
Another downside of these flat panels is the aforementioned native resolution issue. MANY, including the one I bought, do NOT use square pixels, which is a pain for someone who is already having to deal with projects that mix pixel aspect ratios (i.e. standard / widescreen digital video, web video, PS2). Though my monitor looks awesome at its native res of 1280x1024, I'm pretty much forced to work in the square resolution of 1280x960. For the most part, this looks okay, but it does cause a touch of softening (and any image that vertically alternates pixels - like interlaced video - shows that the monitor is interpolating the missing rows).
