Here's an old post I made on the subject,
CRTs still surpass even the best LCDs in at least two areas:
Now, do those matter to most people? Answer: probably not. A "pr0 1337 gamer" buying a cheap-ass LCD monitor which buffers 5 frames ahead before rendering anything and then complaining about "input lag" really was asking for it. Why didn't he buy a "gamer rated" LCD then? Ah right, those ain't cheap...
- Color rendering: a CRT even today can totally destroy a LCD on that front at price parity, and it's the reason that dedicated CRTs for graphic designers/photographers/medical imaging still exist. No 6-bit color depth nastiness there, I'm telling ya.
- Response speed: try as you might, even "lag free" LCDs (which have to be specially engineered to achieve it) cannot match even the shittiest CRT on that front, simply because none of them does single-pixel updates by "chasing the beam". A CRT ALWAYS works with real-time signals, in pure analog style, and reacts as fast as the time it takes to draw a single pixel (this is what made some visual tricks on arcade games possible, BTW). A LCD has to first costruct at least one frame in an internal buffer (if it's "zero lag"), or more if it's the most common overdriven consumer type, which tries to hide the deficiencies of crappy panels through special driver electronics' shenanigans. I don't know if technologies such as plasma or OLED are any different than LCD on this front. Plasma, maybe.
For the rest, CRTs certainly do have their flaws, though mid 2000s models really had most of them ironed out (Samsung and Sony monitors KICKED ASS, and still kick).
The most valid concerns are about the type of electronics used. OK, so LCDs are almost 100% solid state, no vacuum tubes or high voltages used, so in theory they should be more reliable and less prone to aging and wear, right?
And yet, in several computer departments, I've seen many more unrepairable LCDs than CRTs. CRTs usually get retired when they are no longer viable due to space or supporting some ridiculously high resolution, but seldom due to electronics failures (they are tough SOBs, more reliable than CRT TVs!). LCDs also suffer from lamp aging and dead pixels over time, with a planned lifetime of no longer than 3-5 years. CRTs can literally last decades. A CRT can keep even performance over years, even with daily use, provided it's well-tuned at the factory and the vacuum is high quality, to prevent early tube failure/performance drops.
TL; DR version: LCDs are simply a product of their time: cheap, disposable, unrepairable and just good enough at getting the job done for 90% of people. Can't blame them for that. The other 10% of people with special requirements, if those are indeed so pressing, can always (?) pay for better alternatives or higher class LCD offerings.