LCD Overtaking CRT 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."
of course (Score:5, Insightful)
not only reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd love to have one, but not for the price of a P4 3ghz.
Re:not only reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:not only reason... (Score:4, Informative)
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.)
Re:not only reason... (Score:5, Interesting)
I do a lot of programming, and having a good quality screen for text would help quite a bit.
Re:not only reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
I am not a technician... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:not only reason... (Score:3, Interesting)
15" LCDs of good quality can be purchased for about $500, if you want an 18" or 19" you're l
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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 (Score:2)
True, but LCD prices have dropped since you checked two years ago.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
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)
To get the res I'm used to on a 21" CRT (1920x1440), I need some $3k 24" LCD display.
Re:My resolution gripe (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My resolution gripe (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My resolution gripe (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:My resolution gripe (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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)
$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]
How often do you move your monitor (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How often do you move your monitor (Score:4, Informative)
If you like a high refresh rate then you will LOVE an LCD. As much as you don't want to hear it, and LCD is MUCH better on your eyes mainly because of the refresh rate. Because if a pixel doesn't change color, then the refresh rate is infinitely fast. That is why LCDs shouldbe set at a refresh rate of 60 Hz. No more headaches for you. EVER.
And I have yet to see any ghosting on my Dell FP2000 or my sgi 1600SW. Cheap LCDs may ghost though.
I'm sure brightness is the same or close to a CRT, but picture geometry can't come close. On my LCD every line is PERFECTLY straight. No CRT can claim that. And 2 years from now, every line will still be perfectly straight.
Other nice things include 4 inputs on my FP2000; DVI, analog, S-video, composite. And I can watch the S-video or composite signals for Picture in Picture inside the DVI or analog screen. Very nice.
About the only thing CRTs have over LCDs in color trueness. But LCDs are catching up fast and this really only applies to graphic designers who need to use perfectly color calibrated monitors.
Still kinda funny you said not to mention 'better eye sight' and 'I get a headache' in the same sentence.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
This baby just came out last week.
Re: Can't be right (Score:3, Funny)
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
TV wouldn't lie, would it.
The article mentions total sales (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Revenues != unit sales (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
A bit decieving (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A bit decieving (Score:2)
But Do They Run Linux? (Score:3, Funny)
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? (Score:2, Informative)
Digital video card support is limited, but it is there, AFAIK, in Linux.
Re:But Do They Run Linux? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But Do They Run Linux? (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:But Do They Run Linux? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
I have a 17" DVI pannel and a Nvidia Quadro 4 card at work.. no problems..
Re:But Do They Run Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:But Do They Run Linux? (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re:But Do They Run Linux? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:But Do They Run Linux? (Score:2, Funny)
Wow, what a bunch of suckers...hook line and sinker.
But... (Score:3, Redundant)
Could this just be because the profit margins are higher on LCDs?
Re:But... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:3, Funny)
Its not the refresh rates (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Its not the refresh rates (Score:3, Informative)
The prices aren't ... (Score:2, Funny)
Health benefits (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Health benefits (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Why? (Score:2)
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)
7 is the magic number (Score:2, Funny)
Graphics Design (Score:5, Informative)
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)
I've proofed on one of the SWAP monitors, and *damn* Quite nice. Of course, all ouput is different, YMMV, etc.
Re:Graphics Design (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Exciting, because (Score:3, Insightful)
refresh rates (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I misunderstanding something, or was the article author just intending a more generic meaning of refresh rates?
Re:refresh rates (Score:5, Informative)
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)
It was only a matter of time (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
we'll see (Score:2)
Large companies are already adopting LCDs (Score:5, Interesting)
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 well. (Score:2)
LCDs are not for the rest of us yet (Score:2)
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)
Re:CRT Disposal (Score:4, Interesting)
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:2)
Care to share with the masses -- please?
Re:CRT Disposal (Score:3, Informative)
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.
But the lines are blurring.. (Score:5, Interesting)
> 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...? (Score:2)
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.
Refresh rates != response time (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Refresh rates = 1 / response time (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Pro's:
LCD revenues... (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
Could that be because a lcd costs like 3x that of a comparable crt even though there is no real increase in production costs?
gaming on LCD's (Score:2)
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
some LCD's are good enough for games (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
the other market that will hold out (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I HATE LCDs!!! (Score:2)
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
Advances in Display Technologies (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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.
Why? (Score:2)
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
Let's not forget short life-span (Score:2, Informative)
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
I am still sticking with CRTs.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Already there for games (Score:4, Informative)
Re:To Expsensive (Score:2)
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 (Score:2, Funny)
Re:To Expsensive (Score:2)
Re:To Expsensive (Score:2)
Or for the same price you can get two 19 in CRTs and have a double headed display.
In short, no gracias.
In the words of David Hannum... (Score:2)
Re:Burned out pixels suck (Score:5, Informative)
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/lc
Re:Burned out pixels suck (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Burned out pixels suck (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Burned out pixels suck (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Burned out pixels suck (Score:4, Informative)
If something (a speck of dust perhaps) was blocking the aperature grille, the electron beam would never reach the Phosphor to illuminate it. Dirty manufacturing facilities could be to blame. You don't see this often because manufacturers check for this sort of thing, and don't generally let defective CRT's leave the factory.
Re:Burned out pixels suck (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I should get one (Score:3, Interesting)
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 g
Re:I should get one (Score:5, Interesting)
I love my LCD but reality is that ghosting (blurring of moving images) is very noticeable on LCDs. They are nowhere near CRTs for watching movies and such. However, for text work (99% of my time) I love it. The decision boils down to WHAT you do with your PC. If you game or do a lot of multimedia, it's not as good as a CRT. In my case, I couldn't go back to CRTs since I'd lose the "crispness" of text on an LCD.
Re:Impressive! (Score:3, Funny)
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.