The IPS panel was cheaper (19" vs 27" diagonal), larger, lighter and widescreen (both were 1200 vertical lines).
I'm not saying they are better because the numbers are bigger, either. The subjective feel of using the screens is much improved, plus just about everything surrounding it (the menus, the colors & calibration, the interfaces).
And the comparison to the LCD at the time is irrelevant -- I was making the comparison between modern high-DPI LCD and OLED monitors and CRTs.
I'd take my HP EliteDisplay 1440P monitor over any of these ultra high refresh rate monitors, all day, every day.
Dell & HPs "Business" monitors are made to be stared at all day, and I can use them all day without any eye fatigue. They also come calibrated from the factory.
Interestingly, my old Asus 24" monitor is very close to them, but that monitor is also designed to be used for longer hours (better panel, blue light filter, flicker free backlighting, etc.).
I would not be surprised if OLEDs are better; I've never seen an OLED panel in person.
I can definitely appreciate the draw of the old monitors, and I wouldn't mind owning a few myself for when I get the fancy, but it feels like a very 'vinyl' sort of impulse. There are certainly attractive factors, but I think in the pursuit of those people are willing to overlook the inherent flaws. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's an interesting quirk of psychology.
I think LCD/OLED is definitely an improvement, though I've never been a fan of the 'softness' in comparison to the rigidity of the glass CRT screen. It's always seemed fragile to me.
This is about artists working in this medium, and how they had to resort to tricks so that the pixel art looked good on CRTs. Newer technologies expose how flawed the workarounds are.
I know some pixel artists did great work with CRTs, but I still dislike the fuzzy look.
People also forget that most video game CRTs ran at a headache-inducing 60hz, which had an unpleasant strobe effect.