Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LCD Overtaking CRT

CmdrTaco posted more than 11 years ago | from the well-its-about-time dept.

Hardware 317

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."

cancel ×

317 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Burned out pixels suck (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5565963)

Burn out a pixel on the LCD's and you're stuck with a very annoying glitch.

Re:Burned out pixels suck (5, Informative)

aksansai (56788) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566091)

The performance and reliability of LCDs compared with CRTs is a big factor in bolstering revenue for the LCD market. Sure, LCD screens are more expensive - but the benefits of LCD screens over CRTs, in my opinion, are worth the additional money (savings in energy, ease of long-term viewing on the eyes, etc.)

Many manufacturers guarantee their LCDs from burned out pixels with a pixel defect policy. The policies will differ as to the amount of defect will warrant a free replacement, and you should check to see the duration of terms of the policy prior to making a decision.

In fact, Tom's Hardware Guide posted a recent article with regards to pixel displays. You can find the article here: http://www17.tomshardware.com/display/20030319/lcd _pixels-01.html

Re:Burned out pixels suck (5, Informative)

tchuladdiass (174342) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566103)

Check out tomshardware.com, they have an article on manufactures replacement policies for burned out pixels. Basically, the policies are all accross the board. Also, they make a distinction between an "unlit" pixel (black), and a "stuck" pixel (always on). Personally, I can put up with an unlit pixel at the edge of a screen, but I had a laptop once that had a couple of red pixels towards the middle, and it drove me bonkers.

Re:Burned out pixels suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566138)

You can burn out a pixel on a CRT, too. There's one on mine, but I don't notice it anymore.

I should get one (-1, Interesting)

bsharitt (580506) | more than 11 years ago | (#5565966)

Maybe I should get an LCD to replace my current CRT that makes a horrible high pitdhed sound constantly. Is that a bad sign.

Re:I should get one (0, Flamebait)

Negatyfus (602326) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566126)

Been eating dogfood lately?

Re:I should get one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566163)

I have the same problem with my CRT.

Re:I should get one (2, Interesting)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566182)

I just bought 2 of them with dvi inputs and a new video card with dual dvi out (was an Asus card, Geforce 4 mx440) and I couldn't be happier. Both of them are perfect, no dead or bad pixels. And to my surprise, there is almost no streaking when I play UT2k3 or UT.

I guess the manufacturing process has reached a point where they can get it perfect most of the time (my laptop has a bad pixel in the upper right corner but that doesn't bother me).

I was worried that I'd get one with some dead pixels and hafta go through the hassle of returning it, but then again, I heard that Dell has a pretty good return policy for that kind of thing.

So anyways, a month and $1000 later (they were 15" ones) and I am entirely satisfied with my 2 lcd monitors... I might even tell my parents to buy one for their computer... I say go for it!

Re:I should get one (0, Troll)

mmol_6453 (231450) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566232)

Last time I heard of that, the flyback transformer had been cracked. It wasn't a severe issue...it just meant that the crack was vibrating, causing the noise.

Unless it was a cheap monitor, your transformer should have been overspecced. As a result, you should still just be eating into a margin. It may result in a slightly decreased picture quality, though. Try the highest and lowest resolutions on your monitor, to see if you can see the difference. It's up to you whether or not to shell out the money for a new display.

of course (5, Insightful)

jonnyfivealive (611482) | more than 11 years ago | (#5565967)

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

but more importantly (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566026)

Revenues are going up, yet prices are going down.

This can only mean that they are getting more mainstream.

Re:of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566072)

Yeah I agree. Just like how movies keep breaking box office records each year. Why is this a surprise when the cost of tickets goes up each year?

not only reason... (4, Insightful)

st0rmcold (614019) | more than 11 years ago | (#5565971)

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.

Re:not only reason... (1)

CatOne (655161) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566179)

Price of a P4 3 GHz? What, you mean the chip ONLY? You can get an 18" LCD from Dell these days for around $500 (sometimes as low as $350-$400 on special). 1280x1024 resolution.

Re:not only reason... (4, Insightful)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566199)

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"?

First Post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5565973)

Hi everyone!

priss fost!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5565976)

Argh, matey!

Re:priss fost!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566031)

Arrrrrrrgh! Shiver me timbers, you found me lucky charms!

Ah, ah, ah, you moderators; this post actually IS on-topic! IN YOUR FACE! I can reply to a dunce and still remain on-topic with eloquent conversation.

So let's see: hmm . . . I like CRT's because even though they accelerate electrons at the screen, the electroncs still suffer from the pull of gravity accross their projectile path, so a vertical counter-accellleration is highly highly necessary.

ISn't that fascinating? LCD's are weak, baby. Gotta keep it ON_TOPIC!!!

And semiconductors are beating out vaccum-tubes (-1, Troll)

corebreech (469871) | more than 11 years ago | (#5565978)

And have you heard about DVD's? Apparently they're like CD's, only they hold more data.

Makes sense (4, Insightful)

Galvatron (115029) | more than 11 years ago | (#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 (5, Interesting)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566023)

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.

Re:Makes sense (1)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566076)

>

True, but LCD prices have dropped since you checked two years ago.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566188)

Maybe so, but a good-quality 18"+ LCD is not cheap enough, at least looking at what a good-quality 19" CRT costs.

Granted, I paid $900 for my 19" CRT, but it absolutely rocks.

Re:Makes sense (4, Informative)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566077)

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 (4, Informative)

swb (14022) | more than 11 years ago | (#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.

Re:My resolution gripe (3, Funny)

battjt (9342) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566177)

You could buy 4 LCDs.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566085)

In now way will it take $800 for a decent 15" LCD. You can get a decent 17" for $500 (and I'm not talking cheapest out there; an honest to goodness decent 17" LCD will set you back about $500).

Note: Please ignore if you're talking in non-US $$$.

Re:Makes sense (5, Interesting)

oznet (217754) | more than 11 years ago | (#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.

Re:Makes sense (1)

wackybrit (321117) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566137)

whereas desktops can reuse old CRTs.

Er, and desktops can also reuse old TFT displays. Infact, my multiple input TFT can handle a couple of machines, and I don't need to ditch the TFT everytime I upgrade.

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

Re:Makes sense (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566204)

"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 article mentions total sales (4, Insightful)

Rev.LoveJoy (136856) | more than 11 years ago | (#5565990)

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 (2, Insightful)

Ab0rtRetryFail (549588) | more than 11 years ago | (#5565991)

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.

Revenues (-1, Redundant)

brakk (93385) | more than 11 years ago | (#5565994)

Revenues are only higher because LCD displays are so expensive.

Ah ! (5, Funny)

bain_online (580036) | more than 11 years ago | (#5565997)

With these narrow angle displays being standard i can expect to surf porn at work and still get away with it

To Expsensive (1)

ironicsky (569792) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566000)

I have no intentions of buying an LCD monitor until the prices are more reasonable. I mean, really, who wants to pay $700+ for a 17inch LCD Screen? not me...

Re:To Expsensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566066)

who wants to pay $700+ for a 17inch LCD Screen?

I paid that for a 17" CRT a few years ago !

Re:To Expsensive (1)

The AtomicPunk (450829) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566090)

I just bought two Dell 1800fp (18.1") LCDs for $383 each. You just have to watch for sales and coupons.

And I have to say, I'll NEVER go back to CRTs! Deskspace, brightness, no flicker, far less heat, no radiation, lower power bills ...

Re:To Expsensive (2, Funny)

Anonymous Struct (660658) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566217)

That's just it! NO radiation! I don't know about you, but I'm working on a third arm here, and the LCD industry is trying to pull the rug right out from under my feet. What will an LCD monitor stream into my body all day and all night, effecting all manner of cool mutation? ZILCH! Feh... and you call yourself Atomic...

Re:To Expsensive (1)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566220)

Yes but if you use a 17" crt then you probably won't notice the difference if you get a 15" lcd (I didn't). Viewable size for the crt is probably around 16" where the lcd is still 15" viewable. You can get a good lcd for $300 if you watch the ads.

The secret to success (0, Redundant)

Chairboy (88841) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566002)

The trick for making LCD revenues pass CRT is simple: Make the LCD monitors more expensive.

Thank you, I will be here all ze week! Don't forget to tip your waitresses!

A bit decieving (1, Interesting)

binaryDigit (557647) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566007)

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.

Re:A bit decieving (1)

binaryDigit (557647) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566034)

Figures, by the time I click "submit" a million other people bring up the same point. Oh well, lay those "redundants" on me, I got karma to burn ;)

I'd be more interested in units sold... (0, Redundant)

Exitthree (646294) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566011)

While LCDs are gaining popularity, the cost of an LCD is still much greater than a CRT. Therefore, while the revenue from LCDs might be higher, the number of units is still lower.

A valid comparison would be a 21" monitor. The LCD version would probably cost at least $1200, whereas a CRT could be as low as $600. The same number of units are sold in this case, but the revenue is different by a factor of 2.

Another interesting thought is how much of this growth is accounted for by the growth in laptop sales. You don't see many CRT toting laptops anymore...

Re:I'd be more interested in units sold... (1)

CatOne (655161) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566215)

You can frequently get a Dell 20" LCD (same as 21" CRT) which runs native 1600x1200 resolution for about $900 on special. I can use a 20" LCD at 1600x1200 (running DVI). I cannot comfortably use a 21" CRT at that resolution -- the comparatively fuzzier text gives me a headache after a couple eyes. Text on LCDs is markedly sharper.

But Do They Run Linux? (3, Funny)

l33t j03 (222209) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566013)

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.

Re:But Do They Run Linux? (2, Informative)

fruey (563914) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566075)

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.

Re:But Do They Run Linux? (2, Informative)

GiMP (10923) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566175)

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.

Re:But Do They Run Linux? (1)

rusty0101 (565565) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566078)

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

Re:But Do They Run Linux? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566127)

Man, how come there's no "+1 - Troll"?

Re:But Do They Run Linux? (1)

rayvd (155635) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566131)

Sure, they work fine. Using one here with XFree86 4.2.0. I had some troubles making it display properly initially, but removing all the modelines from my XF86Config file cleared that up.

Just set your vert and horiz config as normal and it will display fine.

Re:But Do They Run Linux? (1)

Amer (660212) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566169)

I have a NEC 15" LCD and Mandrake and Suse work fine.

But... (2, Redundant)

labratuk (204918) | more than 11 years ago | (#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... (4, Interesting)

shadow303 (446306) | more than 11 years ago | (#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).

Re:But... (1, Informative)

labratuk (204918) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566142)

Profit margins have no affect on revenues. Revenue is total money coming in. Profit is revenue minus costs.

Oh. Ok. I'm an idiot.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566118)

...only the revenues seem to be overtaking those of CRTs.
Could this just be because the profit margins are higher on LCDs


What?? Revenue being higher is independent of profit margin.

Its not the refresh rates (5, Interesting)

Drakon (414580) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566018)

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

Re:Its not the refresh rates (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566122)

You have dedicated graphic artists that accept working on an LCD screen? Who hired them? I don't think any graphic artist worth their salt would EVER agree to ONLY work on LCD screens, there are just so many color and contrast issues still it's not even a joke.

Re:Its not the refresh rates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566146)

Now THAT is damn interesting! Anyone know of a app that exercises the abilities of monitors to discern if there might be issues? I mean, I accept my visual display on total unquestioning faith!

Re:Its not the refresh rates (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566196)

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).

Re:Its not the refresh rates (1)

Amer (660212) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566203)

It's not only the contrast. For gaming, it's the response time.

Re:Its not the refresh rates (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566222)

That's exactly why I love my work trinitron. It shows up every part of an image, and with the jobs we print not being continuous tone but large format versatec prints, any small changes that aren't picked up on shadowmasks or worse, LCDs, come out looking messy in a BIG way.

LCDs have their uses, certainly, and perhaps are best for the majority of computing. CRTs still have their niche

Impressive! (1)

_Eric (25017) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566030)

Whoah. You can't find a CRT anymore in shops (almost), all the PCs coming with a monitor come with an LCD. Where the hell could they find such a scoop! ;-)

Re:Impressive! (2, Funny)

quakeroatz (242632) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566198)

...You can't find a CRT anymore in shops (almost)...
I'm not sure where you live but, in Canada CRT's are prominent in every PC shop and outsell CRTs by a large margin.

The prices aren't ... (2, Funny)

bushboy (112290) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566032)

that refreshing either !

Health benefits (2, Interesting)

Kombat (93720) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566033)

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 radiation output, can only be a positive step in display technologies.

Re:Health benefits (2, Insightful)

Marx_Mrvelous (532372) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566124)

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:Health benefits (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566149)

Haven't your parents, or grandparents for that matter ever seen a TeleVision? Novel new technology they are, though we won't know for a few years whether the beams they radiate are safe or not...

How are LCD handling color? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566035)

My laptop doesn't handle colors very well. Maybe it's the card, maybe it's something else. What is the dynamic range of hues available to a LCD screen versus a CRT?

About the same? It seems worst.

Note the wording (-1, Redundant)

arvindn (542080) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566036)

Revenues of LCDs are larger, not numbers. The average LCD being costlier than the average CRT, the latter are probably still selling faster numbers-wise. Further, since monitors tend to have larger lifetimes than other PC components, it is likely to take quite a few years until a majority of computers have LCDs on them.

Why? (1)

mschoolbus (627182) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566038)

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? (2, Informative)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566170)

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.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566226)

graphics-intensive applications doesn't imply still images.

7 is the magic number (2, Funny)

AlbertSiegel (607431) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566042)

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.

Re:7 is the magic number (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566230)

Damn straight, you said it all, man. I've been building a new PC and couldn't believe i got 15" super-duper-X-whatever-VGA CRT for a few bucks on ebay. This is a huge, huge change from just a few years ago even. I, for one, am happy about it :-)

Graphics Design (4, Informative)

Keighvin (166133) | more than 11 years ago | (#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 (1)

Telastyn (206146) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566121)

Hence the gamers and graphical artist statement. Refresh rates are important to people playing reflex type games.

Re:Graphics Design (5, Informative)

Visigothe (3176) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566134)

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.

Just remember, a technology that... (0, Redundant)

rusty0101 (565565) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566044)

... costs five times as much as another technology can sell 1/5th the volume of the other, and still have the same revenue.

Personally I will be a lot more impressed when the volume of sales of CRTs is less than the volume of sales of LCD screens at the same or higher resolution.

Considering a 15" LCD is visually compariable to a 17" CRT, and I have seen pricing along the lines of $500 for 15" LCDs and $99 for 17" CRTs, I don't really expect the crossover to happen this year.

-Rusty

Exciting, because (4, Insightful)

AEton (654737) | more than 11 years ago | (#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 (5, Insightful)

syle (638903) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566056)

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?

It was only a matter of time (3, Interesting)

shayborg (650364) | more than 11 years ago | (#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 (5, Interesting)

YokuYakuYoukai (570645) | more than 11 years ago | (#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.

we'll see (1)

mgs1000 (583340) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566069)

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)

Large companies are already adopting LCDs (4, Interesting)

aksansai (56788) | more than 11 years ago | (#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.

Mid Post (-1, Offtopic)

wildzeke (191754) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566071)

Mid Post

Old news (1)

Vlijmen Fileer (120268) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566086)

This is old news. At work I regularly talk to salespeople from Eizo, Philips and Compaq. They all saw LCD revenues overtake CRT revenues somewhere halfway last year. Also, even a considerable number of graphics people is already buying or considering large LCD's. Not in the least because LCD companies are doing everything to produce screens that even these demanding people will accept.

Shock & Awe (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566087)

17:25 GMT Friday March 21, 3003 SHOCK & AWE BEGINS

Re:Shock & Awe (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566136)

Am I the only one who mentally pictures thousands of iraqis staring up into the sky, slackjawed, like turkeys during a rainstorm?

"Oooh, looky there Achmed, anit that there thing that blowed up perdy?"

Well of COURSE they're selling well. (1)

DarklordJonnyDigital (522978) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566092)

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 screen's not so bright and moving pictures on the screen don't look quite right, or that games don't look quite as well on them, or that they still cost more - they're new and getting better, that's what matters.

Seriously though, flatscreens are nice. Wouldn't you buy one if you had to replace your old CRT that got colour-warped when someone left it next to magnets too long, or died when you dropped it? ;)

LCDs are not for the rest of us yet (1)

tftp (111690) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566098)

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 may want resolution as low as 800x600.

CRT Disposal (5, Insightful)

asv108 (141455) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566112)

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.

But the lines are blurring.. (5, Interesting)

Xzzy (111297) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566116)

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.

What the...? (1)

thatguywhoiam (524290) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566158)

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.

gaming on an lcd.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566165)

I game on an LCD monitor all the time, and i love it. I find it way easier on my eyes. Now, granted, i have a slight visual disability, but i don't think that would make LCD's "better, just for me".

Refresh rates != response time (5, Informative)

Comrade Brightski (450221) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566171)

"...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. ;)

Pro's vs Cons (2, Interesting)

sh0rtie (455432) | more than 11 years ago | (#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

Hey, I got your LCD, right here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5566205)

Right now my wife and I use three CRT-based monitors. Two of these (17 inchers. Mine, of course), were picked up at the ARC for $4.99 each and either is easier to look at than any LCD monitor I've looked at except for the beautiful, monstrously expensive Apple Cinema Display. And even that doesn't look as good as our 21" Viewsonic G810. ("Look at", not "show off.")

I'll deal with the heat. I'll pay for the electricity. You find a source for extra eyes _then_ maybe I'll be interested...

My eyes, my eyes! (1)

CheesyMoo (655560) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566213)

My main computer has an LCD, and I can stay up late gaming or coding on it with no problems. But those CRTs man those will make you see lights and burn holes through your brain. Ouch.

LCD revenues... (1)

AyeRoxor! (471669) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566223)

"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.

new technology tax. (1)

Suppafly (179830) | more than 11 years ago | (#5566236)

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?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>