Flat Screen Monitors Sales to Reign This Year

swimfastom writes "Yahoo! News reports that sales of flat-panel computer monitors will top sales of bulkier traditional models this year, signifying a long-expected turning point in the computer monitor market. Flat-panel screen sales are expected to grow at a 49-percent compounded annual growth rate from 2001 through 2006, giving them an 82-percent share of the desktop computer market."

The Actual Report..

[__Maad__]

The actual report that the Yahoo article is talking about is here [displaysearch.com]. Anyone else here think this is a little premature? I don't know a single person who has an LCD panel or is planning to buy one anytime soon. Everybody seems to be upgrading to nice big CRTs (now happily down in price) instead.
-
Maciek

I am not surprised at all

[geddes]

I do tech support for my college, and at the beginning of the year as I went from room to room in the dorms to help people set up and configure thier computers, I noticed that about 90% of them had new flat-panel monitors. Most were 15'', but they had them. Not just the iMacs either, the kids with Dells _all_ had Dell branded flat screens. This was a huge change from last year, where 90% of the incoming freshmen had brand new computers with CRT monitors.

The rise of the flat panel is very good for colleges, not just in terms of power-saving costs but also in terms of space. The CRTs just take up a lot of space on the small college desks. My CRT/keyboard prevents me from even having room for a notebook and pen to do math problem sets on - I need to go to the library to do any non-computer work. Whenever I go support someone with an LCD I eye it with envy, and the day approaches when I will be forced to get one for myself :-)

low refresh rate

[Anonymous Coward]

the refresh rate of LCD monitors is only about 40 hertz.. pretty awful if you ask me. if you go to a store showing off different monitors (where they're all hooked up to the same computer playing a movie) the differences between LCD and CRT are very, very obvious.

Flat PANEL not Flat SCREEN

[Proc6]

Dammit, you and Ted Waitt need to figure this out once and for all. Any monitor [google.com] can have a flat "screen". Flatscreen CRT's have been around forever. Look at most any Sony Trinitron. Flat PANELS refer to LCDs.

someone better get their terms right

[frovingslosh]

There is an awful ambiguity here between flat screen displays such as LCD displays, and flat screen monitors, which are still big bulky CRT based monitors, but have a flat screen rather than the slightly curved screens on earlier CRT monitors. Many manufacturers, including mainstream names like NEC and Viewsonic [viewsonic.com] market Flat Screen Monitors . If these are getting into the count of expected sales then of course they will top sales of bulkier traditional models this year, but it will not do much to make space available on your desk.

Sorry, nay-sayers

[Snarfvs Maximvs]

I got my 17" LCD a little under a year ago and am sold. I don't play games enough to care if there are any artifacts due to "refresh rate". When reading/coding, it's easier on my eyes, doesn't flicker, and is WAY more convenient.

I will NEVER buy another CRT.

Refresh Rates for Gamin

[nilstar]

Prices will fall that is inevitable, but for the gamer market (which is many, many people) - you need a screen that can refresh fast enough. Current "cheap" LCDs can't do this - a refresh rate of 40 ms is common. But, realistically you need 25ms.... have you ever played Quake on an LCD with a refresh of even ~30ms - it is wishy washy to say the least!

Fast refreshing LCD monitors won't be cheap for a while.

Re:low refresh rate

[Guspaz]

Actually they're usually more like 60hz, which is more than sufficient. LCDs don't work the same way as CRTs; they don't fade between scans, so you don't get flicker.

The 60hz number on an LCD is confusing, try thinking about it like 60FPS. 60FPS high enough that most people see smooth movement anyhow, so it's quite sufficient.

Re:What about the quality?

[jallen02]

Apple Cinema Display. Go to CompUSA and drool at the largest one they have, they are some of the best displays I have ever seen.

Re:low refresh rate

[stellar7]

It takes most LCD monitors 30 to 40ms to change a pixel... there are 1000ms in a second, 1000ms/35ms = 28.5 fps

Re:Stop harping on the desktop space issue!

[SunPin]

2. They're much, much easier to see in normal sunlight and well-lit rooms.

Indoors, LCD displays are incredible. However, the second you get real, natural sunlight--as opposed to your typical lightbulb--LCD displays are worthless.

The number one problem with PDAs, laptops and mobile phones are the problems surrounding outdoor viewing. The most expensive displays are the ones that are able to be viewable outdoors.

They are also the first ones to burn out.

Unlikely......

[RichMeatyTaste]

Percieved longer lifespan?

Believe me the only advantage is space.

My company maintains the hardware (over 30000 devices) for one of the worlds top 3 hospitals.

I can tell you there is no way in he11 that any flatscreen will outlive many of the 7+ year old 15/17 inch CTX's (yes, crappy CTX's) I see on the floor everyday. (These monitors have been turned on LITERALLY THEIR ENTIRE LIFE) The place is starting to rollout fold-down stations with flatpanels/winterms and the flatpanels (under 24 hour hospital use) are crapping out far quicker than the CRT's. (usually inverter boards, they power the lamp that lights the lcd)

Before you say "buy better brand and/or "industrial model" LCD's" please understand these are for the most part Viewsonic high end flatpanels. All brands are showing a higher failure rate than CRT's though.

All I see for now is a space advantage. I know they comsume less power but many companies could care less.

Remember, cheap and effective usually wins out over everything else.

Gaming with a LCD screen

[Boiling_point_]

Hmmmm - LCD vs CRT - the first holy war of 2003!! :)

I just bought a Samsung 172T [samsungelectronics.com] (read an early glowing review [modfactor.com]). It's the first LCD screen I've owned, although I've used plenty before; I have a laptop for work.

Just like plenty of comments from this thread [slashdot.org] from yesterday, plenty of non-LCD-owning people here seem to have a strong opinion on the matter :)

I couldn't be happier with my new screen. At the stated response rate of 25ms, I have an effective screen refresh rate of 40 updates a second, ie. faster than my eye can detect. The monitor can handle being fed 72Hz at 1280x1024 (native res), which is better than my old Acer 77c 17" could manage. I've always played games with v-sync switched on to prevent tearing in the past (for the uninitiated, v-sync means the card sends the same number of frames per second as the screen refresh rate, so that monitor doesn't try to display parts of two frames at once and cause visible tearing). The long and the short of all this is that the screen is happily updating as fast as my eyes and brain need it to. As a bonus:

• I have a "true" 17" viewable monitor (equiv. to a 19" CRT)
• a screen that doesn't hurt to look at for day-long gaming sessions
• I can lift it with two fingers! ie it's portable for LANs
• It chews far less power than a CRT
• it gives off far less HEAT than a CRT - a cool room makes for a cooler PC
• it looks way cooler than any CRT on the planet
• I can use a smaller desk, or fit more on my existing desk
• My girlfriend thinks I'm cooler for owning it :)

Yes it cost more. But doesn't almost everything worthwhile cost more?

Sure - many gamers won't get an LCD because on paper they doesn't match current CRT capabilities. But good ones come close enough.

Re:low refresh rate

[mosch]

Actually most of the better displays have a pixel response time of 25ms, not 35ms. Which works out to 40 "fps".

Another study disagrees.

[Animats]

Another study, Meko reports that LCD market has stalled in Europe [panelx.com], disagrees. Their report indicates that both CRT and LCD sales are down this year over last year. CRT sales have declined more, so LCDs are gaining market share. But in some countries, LCDs are losing market share slightly to CRTs, probably reflecting budget cutbacks and somewhat increased prices for LCDs.

Re:They already have 100% share of the Media marke

[the_weasel]

Not really true.... in practice CRT's are a nightmare.

1.
Shoot film at 24 fps. Now set your monitor to a multiple of 24. 48Mhz is not really an option, so its 24 * 3 = 72Mhz, if you are lucky enough to find a screen / video card combo with this resolution. When you do, you cherish and preserve it like your first born child.

This problem, and the ones below, also apply to video at 30fps, or 25fps. Don't even get me started on interlaced fields though.

2.
Now sync your cameras shutter speed to the computer monitor, taking phase into account. Ever notice that phase varies slightly with the environment over time. The more EM in the area, the more it varies. We have an office next to a high power streetcar line, and we had to switch to LCD near the lines because the monitors strobe so bad in response to fluctuations in the lines that staff were getting sick from looking at the monitors.

Needless to say, a film location shoot is one major source of RF. Stick a few light kits in the region, a few wireless lav mikes and some other toys, and you have a prime situation for phasing. Which means forget about perfect sync.

Solution, you get a device that slaves the shutter on the camera to the shutter on the monitor. NOT a cheap option.

4
Now you arrive on set, having obtained and tested all your equipment, to discover they are running a 'Hollywood Interface' designed in flash running at 15fps (if you are lucky).

You are now doomed. You often end up having to completely remove the interface of the monitor in POST and digitally replace it with a rendered version of the same interface in POST.

Expensive, very expensive.

In most productions, we got to the point of giving up and setting a pure green image in the display. We key it out later and add the interface in post production. It's cheaper when it's planned that way.

The scene in Swordfish where Hugh Jackman dances his little hacker dance - screens were empty (IIRC, I wasn't involved). The scene in men in black where tommy lee jones pines for his lost love, the screen was blank. etc., etc.,

LCD's have made filming infinitely easier. ESPECIALLY for low budget production. It's far from perfect, but I will settle until video card write back performance reaches reasonable enough speeds to allow full frame rate capture of the ikntgerface at high resolutions (1024x768 or above).

Even then I will take a LCD over a CRT for 90% of filming tasks any day. Which is one of the prime reason why you see them everywhere in media. Another is certainly coolness, but I assure you, no comapny has to give me a CRT to make me use it in production. It's more like I beg for them....

BONUS POINTS
Exercise 1.
Try lugging a complement of CRT monitors around on location shoots. Compare with
LCD.

Exercise 2.
Power a CRT off a battery pack for a remote location shoot. Time the battery life. Repeat experiment with LCD.