LCD Overtaking CRT

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."

of course

[jonnyfivealive]

well, sure revenues are going to be more, they cost a helluva lot more

not only reason...

[st0rmcold]

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.

Makes sense

[Galvatron]

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.

The article mentions total sales

[Rev.LoveJoy]

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

Revenues != unit sales

[Ab0rtRetryFail]

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.

Exciting, because

[AEton]

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

[syle]

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?

CRT Disposal

[asv108]

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:Health benefits

[Marx_Mrvelous]

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 spouting off nonsense.

Re:not only reason...

[Rick the Red]

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"?

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

"A TFT is no different to a monitor in terms of upgradability."

It is for laptops, which is the point the parent was trying to make.

the other market that will hold out

[sirshannon]

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.

Re:Burned out pixels suck

[istartedi]

Losing a pixel on a CRT is bad too. No, it doesn't happen as often, but I am typing this on a machine that uses a Philips CRT (model 107s 17 inch). The first unit I got had a missing pixel. I took it back to CompUSA and they replaced it. The next unit I got mysteriously went black after a month. Fortunately, I kept my old 15 inch as a backup, and the RMA process went very smoothly. Interesting to note is that the monitor I got via RMA was made in USA. You never see that in the store... so I guess if you have to sit through RMA, they make sure you get the best quality. I was able to put up with this, BTW, because at the time 17 inch CRTs were expensive and this one was a bargain. My Philips has now provided me with 5 years of uninterupted service under conditions including no A/C and daily power cycling (sometimes twice a day).

The point? Both technologies have their problems. What matters is the support. A good manufacturer won't leave you "stuck with an annoying glitch".

Re:Makes sense

[poot_rootbeer]

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.

I am still sticking with CRTs....

[antdude]

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.

Re:not only reason...

[spike hay]

You can get an 18" LCD from Dell these days for around $500 (sometimes as low as $350-$400 on special). 1280x1024 resolution.

One thing that I don't understand: Why don't desktop LCDs have higher resolution? Even the 19" ones top out at 1280x1024. Why is it that a large, expensive desktop lcd has such lo rez, while most 15" laptop displays can push 1600x1200?

If I ever was to buy an LCD, it would be a 19" model. For someone who runs 1920x1440 on his 19" CRT, 1280x1024 just doesn't cut it, expecially if it costs $500.

Re:Burned out pixels suck

[gilesjuk]

Performance and reliability are generally features for the technically minded.

The main advantage I see is the compact footprint of such units combined with low weight.

Any new innovation results in a price premium, DDR RAM was expensive not long ago. Only recently is it becoming as cheap as SDRAM.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Revenue and net profit are not the same beasts. Revenue deals with money or credit you gain from a sale. Net profit is your revenues minus expenses.

Fear the business minor.

Re:Exciting, because

[metamatic]

Why do I think you'd rather do? I dunno, but I'd get the LCD every time.

Re:Makes sense

[RedBear]

Check out IBM's new L200p 21" LCD. 1600x1200 native

I DO NOT understand this at all, and so far I've not seen a satisfactory explanation, even though others have asked this same question: Why in the hell do I have to get a 21" desktop LCD in order to get a decent (1600x1200) resolution, when we've had laptop screens with 1600x1200 or better in much smaller sizes for at least a couple of years now?

With the kind of prices they charge for those big desktop monsters they could just as easily be pulling the smaller laptop screens right off the assembly line and putting them on a stand! A big screen is great, but we want a decent resolution too! Some of us don't want to have a behemoth on our desk just to get a high resolution. Sometimes the whole point of getting an LCD is because it takes up so much less space than a CRT!

Anyone "in the know" care to explain the continuing dearth of small, high-res LCD desktop screens? As it is, you *cannot* find a 15" screen with better than 1024x768 (at least I haven't seen one) or a 17" with better than 1280x1024. Quite often even the 17" screens only have 1024x768! This situation is a total mystery to me. The smaller high-res screens *already* *exist* on laptops, why aren't they being put into a different case and offered as desktop models too? I just don't get it. It's almost like they're only selling the desktop users the low-end trimmings.

Well

[tetro]

LCD's are nice but I hate that they have to stick to some native resolution. I'm sure 1024x768 is good right now, but what'll happen when a newer os will require 1600x1200 just to look decent. Bigger LCD's with huge resolutions are great, but using Windows at that res is just unbearable. What's up with everyone having +5 mods?