Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Hardware

LCD Overtaking CRT 317

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the well-its-about-time dept.
prostoalex writes "IDC has a new report out, claiming that revenues for LCDs by the end of this year will top the CRT revenues. The only market not susceptible to the shift will be gaming and graphics-intensive applications, where the refresh rates of LCDs are not satisfactory yet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LCD Overtaking CRT

Comments Filter:
  • of course (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jonnyfivealive (611482) <skinnyjonsperformance@yahoo . c om> on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:16PM (#5565967) Homepage Journal
    well, sure revenues are going to be more, they cost a helluva lot more
  • not only reason... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by st0rmcold (614019) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:16PM (#5565971) Homepage
    The price is still a bit overwhelming, so I don't think it's only the gaming community refraining.

    I'd love to have one, but not for the price of a P4 3ghz.
    • by Rick the Red (307103) <Rick.The.Red@gma i l . c om> on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:36PM (#5566199) Journal
      I'm hoping they get to commodity pricing quickly, so that I can afford an LCD (or OLED or whatever) television. I'm sick and tired of the overscanning on CRT television. Just as I was going to get a Heathkit TV so I could adjust the overscanning myself, they stopped making TVs (oops, I'm dating myself). And yes, I did try asking my local TV repair shop if they could adjust mine; modern TVs aren't adjustable that way (I guess they save money by leaving off the potentiometers).

      In fact, modern electronics aren't repairable at all; once somethings out of warranty it's more cost effective to throw it away and buy a new one. On the other hand, as long as it's working there's little better on the market, so there's no reason to "upgrade."

      So, on another topic, any MTBF figures on CRT monitors? Are they built with planned obsolesence in mind, or is it "the last monitor you'll ever own"?

      • by adolf (21054) <flodadolf@gmail.com> on Saturday March 22, 2003 @01:09AM (#5572504) Journal
        Modern TVs have a service mode, which you'll be able to access on your model after a bit of googling (hint: try Usenet, too) for instructions.

        On a JVC TV I had, I just had to simutaneously press two buttons ("Display" and "Video Status", IIRC) on the remote to produce a nice color menu of the plethora of configurable shit present in a recent TV. Geometry controls (is this what you're after when you speak of "overscan"?) are just the tip of the iceberg.

        Sony TVs require a certain sequence of button-presses to be completed in a certain amount of time, as another example. Their menu is usually not quite as pretty as JVCs.

        And I dare say that such features are nearly ubiquitous. The very cheap 19" Sanyo that I've got in the bedroom has a rather expansive array of configurable settings.

        The potentiometers may be gone, but the software is there. You just have to find it... (and get a new more-clued repair shop, while you're at it.)

    • by Doppler00 (534739) on Friday March 21, 2003 @03:54PM (#5568220) Homepage Journal
      You'd rather have a P4 GHz and a cheap monitor than an LCD that is easier on the eyes? I for one am planning to buy an LCD long before I upgrade my "slow" 1.2GHz CPU. Most consumers can't see the difference between CPU speeds but they can see the difference between a CRT and an LCD even if they don't understand things like resolution or refresh rate.

      I do a lot of programming, and having a good quality screen for text would help quite a bit.
  • Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Galvatron (115029) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:17PM (#5565983)
    First of all, LCDs are more expensive, so it takes a smaller volume to achieve the same level of revenue. Second, all laptops use LCDs, and you need to buy a new LCD for every new laptop, whereas desktops can reuse old CRTs. Finally, this is only looking at new sales, and doesn't really say anything about how fast people are replacing existing CRTs with LCDs.

    Despite this statistic, I think it'll be a long time before CRTs become an uncommon sight on a desktop machine.

    • Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)

      by stratjakt (596332) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:20PM (#5566023) Journal
      Despite this statistic, I think it'll be a long time before CRTs become an uncommon sight on a desktop machine

      It'll happen about the time you can get a LCD screen of a comparable quality to a CRT, for the same price.

      I was checking out LCDs. I'd love to have one, but for the 800 bucks I'd shell out for a decent 15" LCD, I could get a top of the line 19" CRT, and a bigger desk to fit it on.

      I'm no fan of CRTs, they're big, hot, and annoying. But I just dont have the cheese for a good LCD.
      • >

        True, but LCD prices have dropped since you checked two years ago.
      • Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)

        by Pxtl (151020) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:25PM (#5566077) Homepage
        While I agree with you (I only use an LCD because I won it in a draw) keep in mind that LCD screens of the same recorded dimension are actually larger then CRT's. LCD's are not larger then the viewable screen, while CRT's measure the total size of the picture tube, which is substantially larger then the viewable screen. Therefore, add at least an inch (2 is better) to the size of the LCD when comparing them to a CRT.

        That being said, I hate the lack of variable resolution on LCD's. Can't have everything, I guess.
        • My resolution gripe (Score:5, Informative)

          by swb (14022) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:31PM (#5566150)
          ...with LCDs is that they're generally lower res at a given size than I'd run an equivilent-sized CRT at. In other words, I can crank a CRT to a higher display resolution than an LCD can.

          To get the res I'm used to on a 21" CRT (1920x1440), I need some $3k 24" LCD display.
          • You could buy 4 LCDs.
          • by jd142 (129673)
            And if you are testing web pages in multiple resolutions, trying out everything from 640x480 up to 1600x1200 on an lcd can be . . . problematic to say the least.
            • by Electrum (94638)
              And if you are testing web pages in multiple resolutions, trying out everything from 640x480 up to 1600x1200 on an lcd can be . . . problematic to say the least.

              Umm, why are you changing the screen size and not the browser size? Try Mike Lin's [mlin.net] WindowSizer [mlin.net] to resize your browser to an exact size.
          • by captaineo (87164) on Friday March 21, 2003 @04:12PM (#5568455)
            Low- and mid-range CRTs aren't usually capable of resolving pixels at their maximum rated resolution, whereas LCDs by definition always draw perfect pixels at their nominal resolution. (even my top-of-the-line 21" Sony CRT works great at 1280x1024 but the pixels go to fuzz at 1600x1200).

            From a signal-processing standpoint, it might actually be preferable to have pixels drawn as overlapping blobs rather than perfect squares, but squares will always look sharper to most viewers than blobs.
        • Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Informative)

          by kisrael (134664)
          That being said, I hate the lack of variable resolution on LCD's. Can't have everything, I guess.

          If you're a videophile, it's probably not good enough, but personally I've been very impressed with newer LCDs' ability to support various resolutions by something resembling on-the-fly "resize" in Photoshop...my wife's 2000 laptop has that awful double-some-pixels effect, but my "Cornea" desktop LCD and my Dell laptop handle it pretty gracefully. (Good thing to...the Dell with its 1600x1200 laptop screen is
        • Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

          by poot_rootbeer (188613) on Friday March 21, 2003 @02:30PM (#5567033)
          CRT's measure the total size of the picture tube, which is substantially larger then the viewable screen.

          For the past 5 years at least, CRT vendors have usually included the measurements of both the entire picture tube and the viewable area.

          So a 19" CRT (17.1" viewable) still has more usable screen area than a 17" LCD, and at 1/2 to 1/3 of the purchase price.
      • Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Informative)

        by Cy Guy (56083)
        I'd love to have one, but for the 800 bucks I'd shell out for a decent 15" LCD...

        $800? You can get a SONY SDM-M51 15.1" Monitor for $335 [amazon.com], and their "professional quality" Sony SDMX52 15" Flat Panel LCD (with additional input jack for DVI-D, and integrated speakers) is around $379 after rebate [amazon.com].

        If you've got $800 to spend you could one of SONY's higher end 18" LCD monitors such as the Sony SDMX82 18" Flat Panel LCD (also with additional input jack for DVI-D, and integrated speakers) which is only $737 afte [amazon.com]
    • Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)

      by oznet (217754) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:28PM (#5566105)
      I don't know. The statistics may very well be off for the reasons you mentioned. However, I think we will be seeing much cheaper LCD's very soon as the market gains momentum (as it already is).

      The thing is, once you use an LCD screen for any length of time, you just can't go back to a CRT. A CRT feels like it's burning your retinas out compared to a good LCD screen. At least for me the LCD produces much less eye strain. My Latitude's UXGA 1600x1200 screen is simply stunning.

      What I'm really waiting for is more screens with at least 1600x1200 resolution. I can't believe my tiny 15" laptop screen supports it but you can't buy a 18" or 19" LCD that will do 1600x1200 for less than the price of my whole laptop. I don't understand that. Who would buy a 19" or even 20" LCD that only does 1280x1024? Ugh. A 19" LCD's screen size is pretty close to what a 21" CRT monitor offers.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Despite this statistic, I think it'll be a long time before CRTs become an uncommon sight on a desktop machine.

      You must be wrong.

      When I watch TV shows, almost every computer has an LCD display.

      Come to think of it, there's an awful lot of Apples too ... that "less than 5% market share" must be wrong too.

      TV wouldn't lie, would it. ;)

  • by Rev.LoveJoy (136856) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:18PM (#5565990) Homepage Journal
    not total units shipped. LCDs are typically 2X the cost of a CRT (roughly). This means that CRTs are still outselling LCDs on a volume basis.

    Cheers,
    -- RLJ

  • Just a note: revenues are different from unit sales. Since LCDs typically (always?) cost more than comparable CRTs, the revenue figures are likely inflated.

    I'll be interested to see how long it takes for UNIT SALES of LCDs to surpass CRT monitors. My guess is that it will be within 2 or 3 years.
  • Ah ! (Score:5, Funny)

    by bain_online (580036) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:18PM (#5565997) Homepage Journal
    With these narrow angle displays being standard i can expect to surf porn at work and still get away with it
  • A bit decieving (Score:2, Interesting)

    by binaryDigit (557647)
    It would have been interesting to see things expressed in units sold along with revenue. Since the average 17" monitor is probably around half the price of an average 15" lcd (give or take), you can sell a lot fewer of lcd's to generate the same revenue as that of the crt's.
  • by l33t j03 (222209) <l33tj03@hotmail.com> on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:20PM (#5566013) Homepage Journal
    I hear that LCD displays don't work with Linux. Anyone know if that is just a specific distro?

    I'm on Windows 2000 right now so I get to use pretty much any hardware that has ever been made by anyone anywhere just by plugging it in and waiting a few seconds. I am interested in switching to Linux because I have a lot of free time on my hands and I was hoping to amuse myself by editing text files so my mouse scroll wheel would work.

    • by fruey (563914)
      I've seen Linux run on LCDs. No problem. Now, Linux may not have a driver for your crazy digital out video card that runs to your LCD on the digital style cable, but if you have an analogue connector on your video card and LCD, then you'll have no problem.

      Digital video card support is limited, but it is there, AFAIK, in Linux.

      • by GiMP (10923)
        The issue is if your video card is supported, not if your monitor is supported. LCD monitors are certainly supported DVI or not. Of course, there may be some video cards for which the DVI output does not work; however, that is certainly not the fault of the monitor.
        • The issue is if your video card is supported, not if your monitor is supported. LCD monitors are certainly supported DVI or not. Of course, there may be some video cards for which the DVI output does not work; however, that is certainly not the fault of the monitor.

          Be weary of the Intel i845. Integrated chip, has horrible problems. Better support in 2.6 when it gets released, but for now you can get the DVI running. No sound or anything.

          If you do get a system with an i845 in it, go immediately to Inte
    • Considering that Linux runs on a heck of a lot of Laptops, and Most of those have LCD screens, I think your facts are out of wack.

      There may be issues with some DVI video cards and LCD screen combinations. What those combinations are I do not know. However I suspect that those issues will be resolved presently.

      -Rusty
      • I've only run into a few cases where the DVI did not work. Mostly this was with Geforce cards and the nv driver.. worked fine with the nvidia driver.

        I have a 17" DVI pannel and a Nvidia Quadro 4 card at work.. no problems..
    • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:46PM (#5566302) Homepage
      I hear that LCD displays don't work with Linux. Anyone know if that is just a specific distro?

      You are correct, if your linux kernel doesn't have the LCD patch rolled into it very bad things happen when you install a LCD monitor on a linux machine.. Side effects such as a distortion field being generated that scratches all CD's within a 4 meter radius have been reported as well as users actually being blinded as the linux kernel allows the LCD to generate intense light that is near that of the sun's output.

      I strongly reccomend that you stay away from linux and LCD's in general. they are very dangerous and can kill you easily.

      • NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, he has to follow these steps precisely:
        1. Make sure it is the full moon, since the tidal forces will calibrate the electromagnetic grooves more precisely.
        2. Click the start button, select run dialog, type regedit. When the window pops up go into HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, SOFTWARE, Microsoft, Windows 2000, CurrentVersion. You see all these directories under CurrentVersion? They should all be updated with the newer version. So delete them all. Yes now.
        3. Now recompile your kernel, but bef
    • Funniest thing I've read in a while. However, it seems that most of the replies took this as a serious question. They probably need to get out more.
  • But... (Score:3, Redundant)

    by labratuk (204918) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:20PM (#5566016)
    ...only the revenues seem to be overtaking those of CRTs.

    Could this just be because the profit margins are higher on LCDs?
    • Re:But... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by shadow303 (446306) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:27PM (#5566100)
      Profit margins have no affect on revenues. Revenue is total money coming in. Profit is revenue minus costs.
      I do agree that this is likely caused by LCDs being more expensive and thus generating the same revenue on fewer units (I believe this is the point you were getting at).
  • by Drakon (414580) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:20PM (#5566018) Journal
    its the contrast. I recently had to work on a graphic that would be in our marketting materials. The suits couldn't figure out why this smudge was coming out in the printout, but didn't show up on thier screens... Turns out they were using LCDs, as were the graphics artists, and they couldn't see it. Stuck out like a sore thumb on my CRT
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Its not the refresh rates Try playing a FPS on most LCDs and watch it turn into a smeary mess. Good series of LCD reviews here at THG: LCD Comparison [tomshardware.com] Out of 17 LCDs reviewed only the best one got a 4/5 in "suitabilty for gaming" and even then they said it was not acceptable for fast motion scenes(FPS).
  • that refreshing either !
  • Health benefits (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Kombat (93720)
    Irrespective of the other myriad of reasons people prefer LDCs (not the least of which is the drastically reduced weight and size), I am personally glad to be moving away from devices that beam radiation directly into your eyes and more towards something muchmore benign. It can take years to realize the health effects of some of these types of technologies, and there may be long-term vision and cellullar-level effects of CRT radiation that we still aren't aware of. LCDs, with their drastically lower radi
    • Interesting troll... what exactly do you mean by "radiation" here? Light is radiation, you know.. anything that can be "radiated" can be! If you mean radioactive (from breakdown of particles) there is none. Sure, there's light, some electromagnetic waves, but those are present everyone on earth, even away from CRTs.

      As for "long-term vision and cellullar-level effects" that can be said for LCDs, too. And for paper. And for the sky. Any anything you look at!

      Try thinking sceintifically before you go spouti
  • The only market not susceptible to the shift will be gaming and graphics-intensive applications, where the refresh rates of LCDs are not satisfactory yet.

    And graphic intense (Photoshop? Gimp?) programs need high refresh rates? I understand gaming but why would refresh rates matter as much as image quality on LCDs?
    • Re:Why? (Score:2, Informative)

      by GeckoX (259575)
      It's not refresh rates that are important, it's the contrast and color settings. LCD's are totally inadequate for graphics design. Shift your eyes a couple of degrees while looking at an LCD screen and, whoa! all the colors and contrasting changes magically right before your very eyes! CRT's are extremely accurate and reliable with color, LCD's aren't even a little bit.
  • Someone who will not pay $700 for a 17in monitor should try and remember 7 years ago when you could not get a good 17in CRT monitor for less tham $700. A 17in LCD was nearly $7,000.
  • Graphics Design (Score:5, Informative)

    by Keighvin (166133) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:22PM (#5566043)
    In the graphics design realm it's rarely about refresh rates (unless you're working specifically with animation or motion media production). The color calibration just isn't there yet, the level threshold dropps off at the bottom (reducing the low luminosity contrast) and turns to glare far too low in the histogram (almost eliminating useful high-luminosity contrast).

    They're also sensitive to heat, both from the operating environment and duration of use causing further shifts in appreciable color and (perceived) refresh.

    OLED display's promise to eliminate the contrast and color calibration issues, but until those are more viable in cost and lifetime graphics design will still rely alost solely on CRT's.
    • Re:Graphics Design (Score:5, Informative)

      by Visigothe (3176) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:30PM (#5566134) Homepage
      While what you say is true, it seems that there are some companies that are trying to do something about colour accuracy. Apple for instance sells SWAP certified LCDs. The monitors that are SWAP certified are *quite* good, and the technology will only improve, get cheaper, and trickle down to the smaller LCDs.

      I've proofed on one of the SWAP monitors, and *damn* Quite nice. Of course, all ouput is different, YMMV, etc.
      • There are other third party calibration tools as well, like ColorVision's `ColorCal Spyder'. I do most of my photographic work on a 17 inch LCD, but have to re-proof everything for contrast and saturation on the CRT before it goes to production.

        The LCD's much nicer on the eyes, so the extra time to perform one of the last steps on a different display is worth the trade off for me.

        Personally I can't wait for LCD's to improve, I love'em.
  • Exciting, because (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AEton (654737) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:23PM (#5566050)
    Higher revenue leads to companies thinking this is a viable (desktop) technology. That will stimulate more research, more development, and more production.
    And that means that one day they'll be cheap enough for me to own; a simple pricewatch [pricewatch.com] check shows that I could get a 17-inch LCD monitor for $333 OR spend $329 on a 21-inch CRT monitor. Which do you think (given only $350) I'd rather do?
    Also, this article makes an interesting claim that LCDs haven't done as well as they might've because "the human eye needs to see 25 frames per second to be tricked into thinking that motion is continuous, and LCD monitors have often failed to meet this specification". Um, my laptop LCD has a fixed 60Hz refresh rate. If that's what Computerworld is talking about, they're full of it.
  • refresh rates (Score:5, Insightful)

    by syle (638903) <syle@NosPam.waygate.org> on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:23PM (#5566056) Homepage
    It was my understand that the notion of 'refresh rates' doesn't really apply to LCDs. So, while your CRT monitor may redraw its screen anywhere from 60-85 times a second, the limiting factor in LCDs is the speed at which each individual pixel can change color.

    Am I misunderstanding something, or was the article author just intending a more generic meaning of refresh rates?

    • Re:refresh rates (Score:5, Informative)

      by redgren (183312) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:59PM (#5566510) Journal
      Refresh rates don't make sense on an LCD... The parameter you need to look at is the Rise/Fall time of the pixels (also known as response time). The pixels don't change unless they need to, whereas for CRTs, every pixel on the screen is being redrawn (60 times a second at 60Hz, obviously)

      The response times are getting faster and cheaper, but still leave a bit to be desired.

      The total response time of a pixel can be (typically) anywhere from 15ms to 40ms for an LCD monitor. Most are between 25 and 35. 30ms response time is pretty much average. If the whole screen is changing quickly (think fast FPS gaming), you would only be getting the equivalant of 33Hz or so. At 15ms (for considerably more $$), you are looking at an analogous 66Hz refresh.

      Most of the hardcore gamers I know don't like less than 85Hz on their CRTs, so still lots of room for improvement on the LCDs.
      • Re:refresh rates (Score:5, Informative)

        by CTho9305 (264265) on Friday March 21, 2003 @03:00PM (#5567492) Homepage
        The 85Hz on a CRT is different. This is because the CRT flickers - and many people can perceive this flicker at 60Hz. However, 60fps is as smooth as it gets. An LCD has a constant light, so it doesn't flicker. All you need is 60 updates per second to redraw all the pixels, and then you get a smooth, flicker-free image.
  • by shayborg (650364) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:24PM (#5566057)
    First, as previously mentioned, LCDs are more expensive per monitor than CRTs, so a smaller amount of total sales will still yield the same net revenue.

    Second, the new wave in desktop computing appears to be smaller, thinner machines. Almost every computer advertisement these days sells LCD displays, because they look pretty and save space, so they make for good advertising -- and as a result they sell better.

    Finally, of course, this is the year of the laptop. (Steve Jobs said so, it has to be true!) I'm afraid I can't provide any hard evidence, but I think the percentage of total computers sold that are laptops is increasing at a pretty fast clip, and that of course boosts LCD revenues.

    All told, there are plenty of reasons LCDs have gained in popularity; this isn't that much of a shocker.

    -- shayborg
  • My LCD Experance (Score:5, Interesting)

    by YokuYakuYoukai (570645) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:25PM (#5566067)
    Recently my 21 inch CRT failed and I had the need to get a new monitor. I checked out a lot of different options but as it turns out i ended up with a 19 inch lcd and i think its just wonderful. The ghosting in FPS games is small but noticable but its not so hard to adjust to and i dont see any ghosting in any other apps, including viewing divx movies and watching DVDs. before you pass judgement on LCDs you should check out this latest generation. With each new series the problems become smaller and less annoying. Also i no longer need a fan in my window to cool my office off, my old crt threw a lot of heat.
  • Until LCDs get cheaper than CRT, most corporate customers will still avoid them.(especially in the current economy where the bean counters are in charge)
    • by aksansai (56788) <aksansai@gmail. c o m> on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:35PM (#5566189)
      CRTs take a large amount of real-estate when it comes to the desk in which an employee has to work. In the long term, a farm of CRT cubicals versus a farm of LCD cubicals will consume a much larger portion of energy costs (considered company overhead). Display costs alone are appropriated from a specific budget. However, rarely does a department ever worry about the higher cost of energy until the overhead budget continues to swell. This does indeed turn the heads of bean counters.

      Cheap CRTs have the notoriety of having short "brightness" spans so much that a company would rather purchase a more expensive brand name just to ensure that the longevity of the display device will be sufficient.

      The company I work for alone has begun the mass upgrade of computers throughout the building. So far, it's about a 8:2 ratio of LCDs to CRTs. Even so, the CRT purchases are for individuals who require 21" screens. The average LCD purchase is for a 17" screen.

      The banks in the city I work in have begun adopting LCD screens over the small CRT monitors to reduce the amount of breaks necessary by tellers to relieve eye-stress, theoretically increasing productivity.

      Hospitals (a big corporate customer base) have begun the mass adoption of LCD screens because they take much less space than their CRT counterparts and produce a much smaller amount of electrical interface when turned on or off.

      These are just a few examples of how LCDs are more practical and efficient - spearheading the adoption of LCDs as the display of choice.
  • Well of COURSE they're selling more LCDs than CRTs. LCDs are the "new thing" in monitors now, they're spiffy and flat and they're getting cheaper too. They're lightweight and easier to carry, and take up much less deskspace, and you never have to worry about getting those awful curves at the side of the screen in those weird resolutions... ...so naturally, everyone's replacing their dead, broken and outdated CRTs with these new-fangled things that are just getting better and better. Never mind that the scre
  • Businesses may want LCD panels because they take less space on employees' desks. However, home users are rarely concerned with the size (or weight) of a single 19" monitor. The LCD price must be actually below the CRTs' price, and LCD must be fit for gaming, before many home users consider them.

    Even in a business environment CRT still has benefits. It has variable resolution to begin with, and can be adjusted to match the needs of the user. A CAD user will want to run 1600x1200 at very least; other people

  • CRT Disposal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by asv108 (141455) <alex&phataudio,org> on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:28PM (#5566112) Homepage Journal
    One of the big questions is where are all these CRT's going to end up? I have no problem finding takers for old computers, but nobody wants to take 15in and soon 17in CRT monitors. Selling them on eBay doesn't work because usually the shipping is 3x more than the monitor itself. 21in CRT's that cost $1500 three years ago are going for under $100. I've seen quite a few companies with closets full of old CRT's.
    • Re:CRT Disposal (Score:4, Interesting)

      by stratjakt (596332) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:42PM (#5566276) Journal
      21in CRT's that cost $1500 three years ago are going for under $100.

      Where? I'll take 3.

      But seriously, that's how tech is. Your $700 LCD you buy today will be worth jack-squat in 3 years.

      I havent bought a 'new' CRT in a few years, I found a guy who reconditions them and resells 'em on the cheap with a 3 year parts and labor guarantee. His work is top-notch, and I've grabbed some really choice Diamondtron monitors from him.

      Though I still havent found a (decent) 21" for under 100 bucks.
    • Re:CRT Disposal (Score:3, Informative)

      by pclminion (145572)
      You are probably better off disassembling the CRTs and selling the individual parts. The flyback transformers in particular are sought after by hobbyists.

      Of course, disassembling a CRT is just as dangerous as a television. There are capacitors charged to many kilovolts, which maintain this charge long after being turned off. You can easily be killed working inside a CRT. But if you know how to safely take it apart you might be able to make a few bucks selling the pieces.

  • by Xzzy (111297) <sether@tru7hMONET.org minus painter> on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:29PM (#5566116) Homepage
    Ha-ha, yes it was intended. Anyways.

    > gaming and graphics-intensive applications, where
    > the refresh rates of LCDs are not satisfactory yet

    It's getting harder and harder these days to complain about refresh on an LCD. Granted it's not as good as a tried and true CRT, but the point is that LCD's running at native resolution are doing quite well. To the point that an average person won't notice any difference between a CRT and an LCD.

    My better half owns a recent LCD. She plays plenty of games on it, from everquest to the latest sim city title to crappy web based flash games. I haven't yet taken the chance to "stress test" with a round of quake but for the most part I've been pleasantly surprised to how well the LCD responds to modern games. The images are bright, reasonably crisp, and it does all this over a crappy legacy analog vga port.

    Maybe a "videophile" will find stuff to complain about, but I've found myself quite impressed by the performance an LCD can offer. These days I consider them equal to a CRT.
  • I thought LCDs had an 'infinite' refresh rate?

    I do a lot of graphic work, and I have to agree: the CRT is just more reliable. I have an iBook I preview stuff on to see what a design looks like on LCD (a lot of light-coloured stuff on white will literally dissapear on LCD), but I always work on the CRT (nice 17" Trinitron flatscreen, mind you).

    About the games, though... I've played Wolfenstein and other fast-moving things on an iMac and I didn't see what the big deal was for those. It looked great to me.

  • by Comrade Brightski (450221) <sabrig0@@@engr...uky...edu> on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:33PM (#5566171) Homepage
    "...where the refresh rates of LCDs are not satisfactory yet."

    I believe the poster is mistakenly trying to apply CRT terminology to LCDs. The refresh rate of a CRT, which is the number of times an image is painted on the screen per second, doesn't quite apply to LCDs. What does apply, however, is the response time. This is usually measured in ms and refers to the time period for a pixel to completely change its state. Response times are typically around 25 ms, but are often slower for black -> white transitions. Slow response gives the effect known as ghosting and makes these panels undesirable to gamers.

    As for the graphics artists, it's kind of a mixed bag. They get perfect geometries as a trade off for true color. Most modern LCDs operate at only 24 bit color.

    The office user/casual gamer makes up the vast majority of the population and won't notice any of these downfalls. Thus, despite the price, these things are selling like hotcakes due to the easiness on the eyes and uber-coolness. Besides, chicks dig em. ;)
    • Technically, LCD displays don't have a refresh rate, but they do have a maximum change rate which is effectively the same thing in this case.

      On an LCD:
      1 / (response time) = maximum frame rate

      Whereas on a CRT:
      refresh rate = maximum frame rate

      So you can loosely compare refresh rate to the inverse of the response time.

      Most modern LCDs operate at only 24 bit color.

      How many video cards can put out more than 8 bits per primary? Only really high-end graphics people are going to care about that anyway, the
  • Pro's vs Cons (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sh0rtie (455432) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:35PM (#5566186)

    Pro's:
    • Small form factor
    • More power efficient
    Cons:
    • poor color support
    • poor resolution
    • poor refresh rates
    • easily damage
    • blown pixels irreparable
    • additive color model
    • poor viewing angle
    • expensive
    so why should i want to buy one again, because it seems LCD hasnt got much going for it on the desktop

  • "revenues for LCDs by the end of this year will top the CRT revenues."

    Of course, according to current street prices [pricewatch.com], it only takes ~25 19" LCDs to make the same gross revenue as ~100 19" CRTs.

    Revenue is an extremely poor indicator of a new technology's presence in a marketplace.
  • IDC has a new report out, claiming that revenues for LCDs by the end of this year will top the CRT revenues.

    Could that be because a lcd costs like 3x that of a comparable crt even though there is no real increase in production costs?
  • The only market not susceptible to the shift will be gaming and graphics-intensive applications, where the refresh rates of LCDs are not satisfactory yet.

    so, I play games every once in a while (thanks Transgaming), and am thinking of getting a new monitor for my home computer. My question is, are the refresh rates so slow that it's practically impossible to play games on them, or is it only a problem for those people who are the gaming equivalent of an audiophile.

    considering that I do mostly non-game s

  • I have an 18" Hitachi CML181SXW and it's plenty good enough for all the games I play, including shooters like UT 2k3.

    I don't know what people are talking about when they say that LCD's are not ready for games. I don't notice any ghosts or any other strange artifacts when I play games.
  • by sirshannon (616247) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:42PM (#5566266) Homepage Journal
    broke users who demand quality.

    cheap LCD monitors look like my old laptop monitor. I didn't complain too much about the laptop because it was only a laptop. No way I'm paying twice as much for a monitor that doesn't work as well as my dinosaur of a CRT.

    "no way I'm paying" means "I can not afford", in this case.
  • OK, they're small, light, low-power, low-emissions, and they SUCK to look at off-axis. They also suck for extensive motion or really high quality images.

    LCDs are fine for moderate graphics, web browsing, and office apps. They're still not good enough for games, for CAD, or for multiple viewers.

    You can now buy LCD TVs. They're expensive and they suck. Plasma is much nicer to watch, and the prices aren't that different anymore. If plasma _can_ come down in price, then I predict that LCD will dissappear from
  • While I agree with a the posts pointing out that LCDs are much more expensive than CRTs; however, this does state that LCDs are getting pretty decent market penetration.

    The one main issue I currently see if LCDs, is that they are really good at a specific resolution/refresh rate and everything else either has borders or looks crappy. CRTs also have this limitation; however, looking at a CRT running too high for it's dotpitch looks alot better than a LCD doing the same.

    Hopefully, we will begin to see t

  • small review. (Score:3, Informative)

    by GiMP (10923) on Friday March 21, 2003 @01:46PM (#5566301)
    The new 16ms response time LCDs are great for gaming. I bought the new NEC LCD1760NX-BK (black) LCD monitor last month.

    The monitor's 16ms response time is good for gaming and much better than the 17" Dell 1702FP (40ms) which I had returned.

    There is also much less color banding with the NEC compared to the Dell; however, some color banding is still visible, most notably with my digital photgraphs. Additionally, the colors seem to be off slightly, with colors veering towards blue.

    I do not consider the color-issues major as it is only a slight problem and I am not a graphic artist for which it would be a MAJOR problem. I would not buy this monitor if colors were terribly important.

    The biggest complaint I have is that there appears to be a small vertical spacing between pixels. This results in a very faint, but disturbing, 'striped' effect. I find it highly distrubing in applications and especially while viewing photographs. I do manage to forget about it occasionally. I never notice it during games.

    The NEC is a great monitor for gaming, but nothing else.
  • I don't get it, why are people so in love with LCDs? It seems to me, that one in ten people would actually benefit from them in any serious way (mobility or desk-space saver). My computer moves maybe once every two years, and I have a big desk... why the hell do I need an LCD? I think most people are in the same boat.

    The advantages to CRT are screen size, price, resolution, contrast, and refresh rate. LCD is mobility and depth? Seems like the clear winner in most cases is CRT. I wouldn't trade my 21" Son
  • LCDs don't last very long, comparatively speaking: backlights fade at an alarming rate (noticable within 18 months to 2-3 years, depending on the screen), and the colors can fade. A CRT of comparable price will easily outlive an LCD by 2-3 times -- a good CRT will last 10 years without reduction in quality, minimum.

    So not only are they not as bright, not as contrasty, and not color-accurate, with limited viewing angles and severely constricted color gamut, they wear out quickly and cost much more!

    The Age
  • by antdude (79039) on Friday March 21, 2003 @02:48PM (#5567315) Homepage Journal
    1. I don't like the ghosting because I game (FPS mostly) and watch videos a lot.

    2. I change to various resolutions. I noticed stretching is ugly and black borders are annoying (no stretch).

    3. Price especially for the bigger LCDs.

    For now, I will just wait until LCDs are cheaper and improved.
  • by Junks Jerzey (54586) on Friday March 21, 2003 @03:03PM (#5567529)
    You can get a 17" LCD from Hitachi with a 12ms refresh rate. At 60fps, 1 frame is 16.67ms, so this is good enough.

Some people have a great ambition: to build something that will last, at least until they've finished building it.

Working...