Slashdot Mirror
Flat Screen Monitors Sales to Reign This Year
swimfastom writes "Yahoo! News reports that sales of flat-panel computer monitors will top sales of bulkier traditional models this year, signifying a long-expected turning point in the computer monitor market. Flat-panel screen sales are expected to grow at a 49-percent compounded annual growth rate from 2001 through 2006, giving them an 82-percent share of the desktop computer market."
Until 19" flatscreens are available for sane prices they will not sell as well as they predict. the 15" models are ok priced ($299.00 compared to $100.00 for a 15 inch monitor is a tough one) but anything larger is nuts and any model that is fast enough for gaming get's up in price really fast.
and then you have that nasty problem with not running at the native resolutions...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I don't see it happening. There has to be another alternative. LCDs just don't look as good as CRTs. They just cannot display colors as well. Hard core gamers, graphic artists, etc. will demand better. What ever happened to those really thin CRTs I heard about a while back?
flat panels, in general, cost a lot more than traditional CRTs, so "measuring by dollars" isn't necessarily the best way of calculating market share. it's like saying that more people saw "the waterboy" than "gone with the wind," just because it made more money in the theater.
I have been saying for the past couple of months that flat panels will replace CRTs for monitors within 2 years. I think thay are being VERY conservative, it their estimates.
Not everyone deserves a 320i
I have two 21" Sony monitors on my desktop. My desk makes eerie straining noises whn I put my glass hands on the keyboard and a have a tan just on my face.
It's a worry.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
The actual report that the Yahoo article is talking about is here. Anyone else here think this is a little premature? I don't know a single person who has an LCD panel or is planning to buy one anytime soon. Everybody seems to be upgrading to nice big CRTs (now happily down in price) instead.
-
Maciek
-- Maciek
Has anyone calculated the price per inch of flat screen monitors and of CRT's. It would be interesting to compare those rates to monitors 6 months ago.
"What we have here is a failure to communicate"
The Warden, Cool Hand Luke
The rise of the flat panel is very good for colleges, not just in terms of power-saving costs but also in terms of space. The CRTs just take up a lot of space on the small college desks. My CRT/keyboard prevents me from even having room for a notebook and pen to do math problem sets on - I need to go to the library to do any non-computer work. Whenever I go support someone with an LCD I eye it with envy, and the day approaches when I will be forced to get one for myself :-)
I bet LCDs have a slighty higher percentage of the laptop market.
Look, ma! I'm a karma whore
I don't have glass hands, it's a typo.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
Most people say the biggest advantage of the LCD screen is that it is compact, but most people who I've seen using them put the screen so it is as close to them as a traditional CRT. That leaves a large empty spot behind the LCD that they don't see.
For gamers, price isn't SUCH huge concern for the screens, but the ghosting itself. Sure, the ghosting for these guys are getting better, but still aren't nearly close to what a CRT can do. Also, refresh rates are very poor compared to CRTs, so playing a fast paced game with a high end video card doesn't look as good when the screen is tearing (most LCDs are at 60 or 75 hz, my monitor will do 120hz at those gaming resolutions). Sure, not everyone is a gamer, but gamers are finicky and won't convert unless the solution is perfect. Nothing worse than killing someone and listening to their complaints about their low FPS system lag.
That's a pretty optimistic prediction, because the current price ratio is about 5 CRT monitors for the cost of 1 flat-panel. Common sense tell us that the price of a flat-panel screen would have to drop by about 60%-70% before the majority of consumers would consider buying forking out the extra cash to save 1 or 2 cubic feet of desk space.
Maybe we should go back to reporting sales statistics after they actually happen rather than the reverse?
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Dammit, you and Ted Waitt need to figure this out once and for all. Any monitor can have a flat "screen". Flatscreen CRT's have been around forever. Look at most any Sony Trinitron. Flat PANELS refer to LCDs.
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
The best part about this report is that it will hopefully kick some people in the pants and get them to make more, better, and cheaper LCD monitors (anything less than 1600x1200 and I'm not interested). This will in turn mean that there is more competition in the market, meaning lower prices, meaning more people adopting.
Seriously, if I could get a 19" LCD for $200-300 more than a 19" CRT with the same resolution, I'd do it. I know that price point is a long way off, but if you've got lots of companies making the parts, and serious competition, it could happen (closer to their 2006 time frame). Anyway, LCD's are so much easier on the eyes.
Just a thought...
- Sighuh?
I'm not so sure on that one. I've helped alot of people put together computers and in some cases, they had used a flat panel at work and were willing to pay the rediculous price for the monitor since I got the rest of the PC for them so cheap. You can also get E-machines with 17in flat panels from Best Buy for under $1000. I have also used these flat panel displays at work and it is damned tempting. The screen is much sharper and brighter. However, I'm in love with my $350 19in that I've had for a year and a half, so I personally will wait. The question is, how many home users(read mom,dad, grandma, etc...) who only use a PC for IM and email actually have a 19in or larger monitor? The article may have some validity.
I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
I have an NEC MultiSync LCD 1700v in front of me. I have noticed no problems with either movies or games. Also the viewable area is almost as good as the 19" ViewSonic Monster that sits beside it.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
I think that this is a good thing, but flat panel technology still has to improve drastically for me to use it over my nice Samsung 955df. The newest flat panel I have used was a laptop screen, but I have seen some of the nice flat panels at CompUSA. From my experience, view angles are still a big issue for me to upgrade. While more people site in front of their computer, I like using my monitor with my TV Tuner and I don't want to sit in front of my monitor all the time. Speaking of 19" monitors, I can't take out a loan to buy a 19" flat panel.
:-)
The laptop monitors and flat panels that I have use are not highly advanced like CRTs are, but this will come in time. They don't like resolutions other than their native resolution, they don't have nice full colors all the time, and they some panels still have ghosting! This is all ok for web browsing, but for image editing, web design, programming, anything to do with graphical design, and gaming flat panels are not adeqaute for my need. Maybe I am just bitter because my laptop doesn't go over 800x600 unless I want to scroll the actual screen.
Flat panels surely have their advantages. The technology just needs to mature a little.
The past is not a real indicator of the future. If it was I would be making $60,000 a year instead of fight battling with a bunch of people with 4+ years of experience to get a level 1 help desk job. Flat panel monitors are just too damn expensive if you want something large.
I am the PC tech for a large BUSINESS, 17" is too small, we order on 19" or larger. For business the LCD's are nice and easy on your eyes, for gaming they just plain suck, slow blurry and running at low end resolutions. I'll stick with my 21" .23 monitor at 1200X1600.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Most computer sales are to corporations. Home users only account for something like 20% of Dell or Gateway's sales. Corporations are interested in the presumably increased life of LCDs, their reduced power consumption, space savings, and the effects of CRTs on their employees' eyes (People sue for everything after all). I work for a medium-sized credit union (which, unlike banks, are non-profit) with ~250 seats and we are already to the point of being 30% flat panels. By next year we will be over 70%. I love not pulling a muscle every time I have to swap a display out.
There is an awful ambiguity here between flat screen displays such as LCD displays, and flat screen monitors, which are still big bulky CRT based monitors, but have a flat screen rather than the slightly curved screens on earlier CRT monitors. Many manufacturers, including mainstream names like NEC and Viewsonic market Flat Screen Monitors . If these are getting into the count of expected sales then of course they will top sales of bulkier traditional models this year, but it will not do much to make space available on your desk.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
yeah - you're right. i guess all those people buying them are just confused.
So logically the next thing I would buy would be a fancy schmancy flat panel.
Are these figures skewed for reasons like this?
Everyone should take not that this article probably refers to sales in "dollars" and not sales in actual "units." This is why we barely see or know anybody who has a flat panel display.
Sunny
Sunny
Be my Friend
Have you noticed that in every recent movie and tv show, and every commercial for any kind of product whatsoever, almost every visible computer monitor is a flat-screen? Walk around in the real world and they are far from universal, but in media-land EVERYBODY has one.
Their product placement investment must be through the roof!
Anybody got quality concerns? I have never seen an LCD screen which colors come and crisp display come close to my CRT. And what I hate the most about LCD, its that the colors change with the angle of viewing; a little slight tint change when you move your head. Its very anoying. Some people say that this only occur with passive LCD screens, but then stores only sell passive LCD screens because I never saw an LCD without this tint changing effect.
They better substantially increase the quality of the displays before I buy one, and I hope keeping my CRT at work until the quality improves.
But, I agree that business might buy them for saving power, space and avoid the "bad" radiations emitted by CRTs.
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
Yes, the >17 are still way to expensive, and I would be happy to pay a few hundred less for a one the size I have now, but the difference in cost is now small enough to justify the advantages (depending on importance to you, of course).
I was in the market for a larger flatscreen since my 4 year old Hitach superscan elite CRT was showing its age. After looking around, there was no way I was going to pay $2000 for a 21in LCD when good 21in CRT's are available on ebay for less than $300. I ended up purchasing a Sony CDP-G520P at NewEgg. Its flat. its 21in, and its silver so it will match everything else since silver seems to be dominate color these days. Whenever someone walks in to my room the first thing the comment on is the monitor. Stick with CRT unlesss you can deal with a 15in LCD.
I've got a new Dell LCD in front of me, and the only artifacts I notice is slight blurring of text when moving a window quickly around the desktop. For stuff like games and movies (that aren't as sharp as text) I have noticed absolutely zero artifacts. DVD's (even high action ones) look incredible on this thing.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I will NOT own a flat screen monitor, until the price is the same as CRTs.
- I don't care about the power consumption
- I SO don't care about saving desk space... my desk is built to handle a bigger monitor anyway
- CRTs look just as good as LCD monitors, IMO, if not better
Why spend any more? I have a 21" monitor, and there is no way in hell I could afford a 21" LCD. Even a 19" LCD probably costs more than what I can get a 21" for.
For people that want flat screen monitors, I say go for it, but it is nothing but a waste of money...
Mark
However, they do have lots of advantages too:
Smaller size, quiet (i can hear the sound of many CRT monitors and TVs), less power, easy to move and rotate, no startup time, no need to degauss, no flicker, environmentally safe, less hazardous when breaks, less heat, no geometry problems and so on.
When I talk machines with my friends, flat-panel monitors arent usually mentioned, but 21-inch monitors are.
Among non-geeks (most of my friends) flat-panels are more highly admired, for their sleekness and "hi-tech" look.
Its not worth the $$. (You could buy a lot more ram for the difference)
Sure, but I have half a gig of RAM now, and I've never noticed my system starving for more. I do notice slight headaches and eyestrain after looking at my 17" CRT at home for more than an hour or so. I'm considering a flat-panel for that reason. If it saves me from needing eyeglasses or contacts, it'll nearly pay for itself.
Just pointing out that anecdotal evidence goes both ways. The analysts are probably just going off sales forecasts from manufacturers, though, so who knows how close they'll be?
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
I got my 17" LCD a little under a year ago and am sold. I don't play games enough to care if there are any artifacts due to "refresh rate". When reading/coding, it's easier on my eyes, doesn't flicker, and is WAY more convenient.
I will NEVER buy another CRT.
-----------------------
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.
The supplier of this news to Reuters is the DisplaySearch firm, "The Worldwide Leader in FPD Market Research and Consulting." Hello, they make their money offering information and marketing data to help sell more flat panel displays. Not really surprising that they'd release this kind of economic news--free advertising anyone?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I noticed a few people said that LCD's are more expensive and worse quality than CRT's, but they are more compact, so they sell.
This got me thinking. Cellphones are worse quality than landed lines, and more expensive, but they are compact, and they sell (and people use them at home). Laptops are slower and more expensive than desktops, and they're hard to type on, and the mouse sucks, but they're compact, and they sell (even in the home). Music CD's have a horrendous markup, but they're compact, and they sell. MP3 players sound worse than CD's, and flash memory is expensive, and you have to upload all the songs (which is the same work as burning a cd), but they're compact, and they sell.
It seems like compactness is the ultimate feature. But then why do so many people drive SUV's?
Walk around in the real world and they are far from universal, but in media-land EVERYBODY has one.
That's because everyone in media-land is rich and attractive, and we all want to be just like them.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Prices will fall that is inevitable, but for the gamer market (which is many, many people) - you need a screen that can refresh fast enough. Current "cheap" LCDs can't do this - a refresh rate of 40 ms is common. But, realistically you need 25ms.... have you ever played Quake on an LCD with a refresh of even ~30ms - it is wishy washy to say the least!
Fast refreshing LCD monitors won't be cheap for a while.
===> An eye for an eye makes everyone blind - MG
Are they counting only monitors or laptops also (since they include flat screen monitor)? If they count laptop monitors, then obviously the sales will be larger than CRT for simple reason that the laptop monitors cannot be reused while CRTs can be reused.
There is a funny thing about LCDs. The desktop LCD market is a bit behind the laptop one in screen quality. My laptop has a 1600x1200 15" screen, and it has perhaps the most perfect image (color aside) I've sever seen. At 133 dpi, text is rendered more than one pixel wide, which improves quality immensely. I've yet find a desktop LCD, however, that hits that high a DPI. Which is a shame, because high-DPI LCDs are just the thing for people who stare at text all day (a large percentage of computer users!)
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
not on my new salary in the post dot com era. although i am thankful for my job - and my 21" crt that I was able to buy when work and money was plentiful.
I remember sometime back the lust I had in my heart for one of those new, fancy 17" monitors. There were occasionally rumors or adverts of something larger. But 17" was the holy grail of geekness above the 14-15" myself and everyone I knew had.
"Someday, it'll be afforadable" I thought to myself. That someday came in the late 90s. So I got one. Of course, I liked it.
Flat panels are the same way. Do I want one? Yes. Will I eventually buy one? Yes. Will I spend 700-1500 for a good quality one right now? Not on your life.
If these industry experts really belive that it will pass up CRTs this year, then they really have to change the pricing structure on them.
In the meantime, I'm very happy with my current 19" NEC, in black, which looks dang cool and cost me $250.
The Internet is generally stupid
Actually they're usually more like 60hz, which is more than sufficient. LCDs don't work the same way as CRTs; they don't fade between scans, so you don't get flicker.
The 60hz number on an LCD is confusing, try thinking about it like 60FPS. 60FPS high enough that most people see smooth movement anyhow, so it's quite sufficient.
I've not seen a flat panel that can pass the toddler test:
1) Find a 2 year old.
2) Give them a random hard, pointy object such as a ball-point pen. (This step is optional, toddlers can create such objects out of thin air. You just have more control this way.)
3) Put said toddler within 6 feet of flat panel monitor with a pretty screen saver being displayed.
The problem with an LCD is that you don't hear the "ting ting ting" warning bell that a CRT gives you when a toddler is too close.
null sig
I'm not sure, but this may have something to do with how they look when you film them. If you're shooting with a fast shutter speed, you can get some ugly effects from the scanning of the monitor. That's why you'll see some odd flickering of the screen on CRTs in movies. IIRC, there's not the same problem with LCDs so they should be easier to film.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I've noticed that LCD screens have been appearing all through the department in which I teach - administrators, who constantly argue that there is no money for us to spend buying equipment for teaching and research, seem to have a great love of LCD monitors, in spite of the increased cost. As I'm still happy with CRTs (for the reasons outlined in the above posts) I was curious as to why. Most of the people I asked said that it was because they took up less desk space.
:) Thus saving no space whatsoever over a CRT. And thus I conclude - as per normal in a university, the major reason why people buy LCDs is image. As they certainly aren't performing any of the other professed roles. If just one person moved their case under the desk or something I'd be happy - but no, not one did.
I had to laugh - all of these people, spending hundreds of extra dollars on LCD monitors in order to save desk space, keep putting the monitors on top of their desktop computer cases.
Well, my 21" CRT will do 120Hz at 1024x768, which is my prefered gaming resolution. I can definately notice the difference at refresh rates below 100Hz while gaming, so basically I have the same price break as you, but with the added requirement that it has to be able to match the performance of my CRT with no ghosting or tearing.
If I weren't a gamer I'd probably be waiting for my current monitor to burn out so I could replace it with a 17" LCD, which I expect will be under $400 by the time that happens. No sense throwing out perfectly good hardware just because it's big!
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I've had a "flat-screen" monitor for years, as have probably most people...but that is NOT necessarily the same as "flat-panel"...
Minor term-useage quibble...
You are absolutely correct! They ARE confused. Since when do people do stupid things for ego or status? Like every second of every day?
For pure text, LCDS are great, if very expensive. But for graphics, video, or gaming, even the best of them don't work well. The very thing that makes LCDs great for text editing (Extremely high contrast) also make imaging on them nearly impossible. Everything 70% gray is white. It's impossible to see the details of the low and high ends while the details of the middle spectrum are largely exagerrated. LCDs also are not very linear with their reproduction of color from bit to bit. Also making profesional imaging nearly impossible. They get better abd better every year, but are still atleast 5 years from matching CRTs on image quality.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
It takes most LCD monitors 30 to 40ms to change a pixel... there are 1000ms in a second, 1000ms/35ms = 28.5 fps
I also have a 171P, and I too want to chime in with the, "Damn it's cool, and by association, so am I." (If you think I'm trying to brag, rest assured that since my bank account is now empty, the bragging is all I have left. :)
But there is some actual data I'll bring to the discussion: as you shop for an LCD monitor, the specs vary widely. The contrast ratio on the 171P I think is 500:1; I've seen monitors with a ratio as low as 200:1. When actually looking at the monitors, the difference is dramatic. Other stats, including brightness, viewing angle, and response also vary widely model-to-model, too.
I guess the moral is: the variance in specs on LCD monitors is surprising, so you need to absolutely check them out, or you can be disappointed. Additionally, the fact that things like "viewing angle" are important is probably new to the "CRT spec evaluation engine" you have in your head; be sure to make adjustments as needed.
I'd like to address a point some other people have been making about how LCDs are too expensive. Remember, the LCD is effectively bigger than a tube because of the way they measure the size. I have the 17 inch LCD next to my 19 inch CRT, and dammed if the actual viewing area isn't exacly the same. (The specs actually say the 19 inch screen is viewable something like 18.1, but I have my doubts. I need to go home and measure, I guess.) In any case, you should probably do the same: measure your current monitor, and measure any LCD you're considering buying. You might be surprised.
How about checking out the roundup of LCD's that appeared on SLashdot yesterday the? Use either Slashdot's article or go directly to the article in question via Tech report's article link.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
I see a lot of posters ranting away because they don't think LCD monitors save much desktop space. Okay, fine. But you're missing lots of other issues:
1. They're much lighter and easier to move. You don't need a heavy-duty desk that's able to withstand a 50lb monitor.
2. They're much, much easier to see in normal sunlight and well-lit rooms. No glare. Geez, just walk into Best Buy and look at how awful CRTs look in the store lighting.
3. A perfectly sharp, rock-solid image that is much easier on the eyes. It isn't worth sticking your head in the sand about this. It's your eyes we're talking about.
If you factor in the lower power consumption, we have a winner.
Am I the only person irritated by calling LCD monitors "flat screen", when there are plenty of CRT monitors where the screen part is entirely flat. Calling an LCD monitor flat panel seems to be fine, where you label the entire panel as flat instead of just the screen.
rm -rf sig
I have a Dell C800, with a 15" LCD which can display 1600x1200. I love the thing to death. My eyesight has improved a great deal since switching from a 1600x1200 21" monitor to the LCD.
I would love to find the same screen, or similar in an LCD. 15" is fine for me as long as I can do 1600x1200. I havn't done much research, except browsing in stores, but none of the 15" LCD's seem to do 1600x1200. What gives?
Suggested things to look at anyone? I bought my last CRT about 3 years ago (a great Sony Trinitron 21"), I know my next monitor purchase will be an LCD.
I have been putting it off due to the price, although that aspect has come along quite a ways. I am sure there are others like me putting off CRT purchases and planning to go with LCD's instead once prices seem reasonable. 1600x1200 LCD's arn't cheap. LCD sales will only pick up once my "market segment" decides to shell out the cash.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
I moved into a new house almost a year ago. (Am I starting offtopic enough for you?) As anyone who has moved knows, things get broken in the move... My 17" CTX CRT was one of the casualties of the move. While I was carrying the monitor from one side of the room to the other, I tripped over some misc. stuff that happened to be on the floor and down the monitor went. Fortunately, instead of imploding violently, it had just cracked and *slowly* lost its vaccuum.
If I wasn't moving, I'd have probably just got another CRT to replace it... But since I still had a few more weeks to go at the old house and whatever monitor I bought had to move with me, I started looking at LCDs. After reading a few comparisons and reviews, then finally going to the local Best Buy, CompUSA and Office Depot stores, I decided on the KDS RAD-5.
Since the majority of my computer usage is just browsing the web, wordprocessing, photo cropping, using VB and some very infrequent gaming, the slower refresh of an LCD hasn't been a problem. While DivX and DVD movies seem to look fine on the monitor, I prefer using my video card's (a Radeon 8500) TV-out for video - 15" is just too small for good movie enjoyment.
Besides the sharpness and the perfect screen geometry, the other thing I like about LCDs is that they give off very little heat. My old 17" CRT was having a space heater on and would quickly heat up the entire room. I have a feeling though that when I upgrade from a PIII 850MHz to an Athlon XP2000 that the computer will pick up where the monitor leaves off in the heat department.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
I, too, used to think flat-panel LCD monitors were useless in the home desktop mixed-application (office apps, coding, gaming, etc.). I do a lot of outside contracting so my home computer occasionally doubles as an after-hours workstation. I long ago discovered the joys of multiple monitor programming and so for several years had two 19" Sony Trinitron-tube monitors running - it still allowed for high-color gaming and I was able to split my code windows up over the two displays (it is nice to have code on one screen and the output and references on the other).
:) In short, you won't notice lack of clarity due to resolution size difference.
:)
:)
As luck would have it, I also own a wonderful Dell Inspiron 8000 laptop with the 15" 1600x1200 display. For the longest time I was running Windows 2000 on it, but when I heard about ClearType (sub-pixel font rendering) on Steve Gibson's site (GRC.com) I thought I'd give it a try. I was pretty impressed and decided to try the full-blown item with Windows XP Professional a try.
It was, in a word, mind-blowing!
Never before had text looked so sharp and clear - and after using it for several multi-hour coding sessions (aside from only the single display) it didn't give me headaches like my two CRTs did (even though I'd tried virtually every refresh rate setting from 60 to 120Hz).
That made the difference for me, so I slowly replaced my two 19" CRTs with two 17" Iiyama black LCDs (retail around $640 US for the digital versions, $610 for analog). Remember that CRTs cheat and don't really measure the actual diagonal, so that the 19" CRT is much more like 17.something (mine were 17.8"), whereas the LCDs are ACTUAL diagonal. So those who are saying, "Not until they have affordable 19" displays!" are missing the boat - for all intents and purposes a 17" LCD *is* equal to a 19" CRT in terms of usable display size. The LCD goes from bezel edge to bezel edge with ZERO loss in quality in the corners, something my CRTs could not claim. So in practice, I would guestimate the actual screen real estate are about equal.
As I didn't have the cash right away to drop on two, I ran for quite a while on one LCD (digital through my GeForce4 Ti4400) and one CRT. The differences were astounding - the CRT was noticeably not as bright as the LCD, and text was HORRIBLE to read. It was like trying to focus on a blurry photograph - your eyes keep trying to find the right focus and could never really adjust. It game me a TERRIBLE headache after only a few minutes, so I sold the CRT and waited for my next paycheck and got the second one. While both displays are digital (along with secondary analog inputs) my Ti4400 only has a single DVI output, so my secondary monitor is in *analog* mode until I can fix that (maybe a PCI card with digital?). I won't lie and say they look identical, but it is not nearly as dramatic as the CRT comparison.
Resolution-wise 1280x1024 is not a big deal to me. I enjoy my laptop's 1600x1200 and would hope we start seeing 17" affordable desktop LCDs in that range soon, but it isn't killing me. XP's ClearType provides for amazingly sharp text as it is, so the slightly larger fonts look pretty anyway.
Gaming, or LCD's *supposed* Achilles' heel. I play a couple games - Half-Life Counter-Strike, UT, Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, Stronghold Crusader - and have noticed ZERO blurring problems. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Get it? It's a NON-ISSUE. Perhaps my system (Athlon 1.333Ghz, 512MB PC2100, ATA100 HDD, 128MB GeForce4 Ti4400, etc.) is not fast enough to get the frame rate above the pixel response rate, but it is not a problem with my Iiyama digital LCD displays. Certainly it can be an issue with older or slower displays, but anything in the sub 30ms rate should be fine. The calculation (from Tom's Hardware) to turn response into FPS is: 1 / (rate * 0.001). So 30 ms = 1 / 0.030 = 33.3 images displayed on the screen per second. 25ms = 40fps. Your eye notices things at 25fps or higher to be continuous 'full-motion' and at 30 it seems to be the 'magic number'. Remember to read the fine print on each monitor since some companies will list 'average' display rate or some other random numbers. Find the worst-case percentage and see if you can live with it. The only problem I've noticed is that when the games exit and the video mode switches the LCD panel never 'wakes up'. I am sure everyone knows what I am talking about - the screen flickers, the green indicator turns amber for a while, and then it dumps you back to your desktop. Well, the LCD (or my Beta 4 Detonator drivers) must give up early on the video card and goes to a 'You have nothing hooked up' screen. I have to turn it on and off to re-cycle the display.
I have noticed that certain extremely light web-page backgrounds (the old background pattern on http://www.angsttechnology.com for example) the colors appear to be washed out (you could only see a little bit of the pattern) but it is generally not an issue for anything you are *actively* looking at (games, photos, etc.). Contrast seems to be better than my CRT as well, and the images appear to be more saturated on the LCD, somewhat startlingly so. When playing something like Command and Conquer: Red Alert 2 (or any other real-time strategy game) the colors are MANY TIMES more vivid - it is hard to explain but a really cool feeling the first time you fire up a game. First-person shooters look different as well; generally I have to turn the gamma up a notch or two since they all appear BLACK in the dark areas. I am not sure if that is how it *should* be and my CRT was inadequate or it is an LCD artifact, but I generally noticed LCD improvement over the CRT images.
I also notice that certain images online are not as smooth looking on the LCD. Again on InkTank (http://www.angsttechnology.com/AT/index.cfm, a really good geeky comic; if you have time check out the archives!) you can see 'jaggies' or anti-aliasing artifacts far more clearly on the LCD. It appears to happen on thin black antialiased lines more than any other. The black outline on PennyArcade looks (I think) how it should be, but the lines on Ink Tank were the #1 first thing I noticed after I got the displays. Now, of course, my eyes have gotten adjusted and so I no longer see them any more.
Anyways, to make an entirely too long post short, I have no misgivings about the LCD purchase. You often get what you pay for, and a cheap panel will probably yield a poor display picture. Mine is pretty much perfect. Give it a try, you might like it!
www.LCD.com/switch
Thanks,
--
Matt
Percieved longer lifespan?
Believe me the only advantage is space.
My company maintains the hardware (over 30000 devices) for one of the worlds top 3 hospitals.
I can tell you there is no way in he11 that any flatscreen will outlive many of the 7+ year old 15/17 inch CTX's (yes, crappy CTX's) I see on the floor everyday. (These monitors have been turned on LITERALLY THEIR ENTIRE LIFE) The place is starting to rollout fold-down stations with flatpanels/winterms and the flatpanels (under 24 hour hospital use) are crapping out far quicker than the CRT's. (usually inverter boards, they power the lamp that lights the lcd)
Before you say "buy better brand and/or "industrial model" LCD's" please understand these are for the most part Viewsonic high end flatpanels. All brands are showing a higher failure rate than CRT's though.
All I see for now is a space advantage. I know they comsume less power but many companies could care less.
Remember, cheap and effective usually wins out over everything else.
Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
HUH? the 10 year old kids can haul around any 17" crt! Get in shape dude! Seriously, maybe you should try those diet pills I get in my email... I could forward if you're interested.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
I just bought a Samsung 172T (read an early glowing review). It's the first LCD screen I've owned, although I've used plenty before; I have a laptop for work.
Just like plenty of comments from this thread from yesterday, plenty of non-LCD-owning people here seem to have a strong opinion on the matter :)
I couldn't be happier with my new screen. At the stated response rate of 25ms, I have an effective screen refresh rate of 40 updates a second, ie. faster than my eye can detect. The monitor can handle being fed 72Hz at 1280x1024 (native res), which is better than my old Acer 77c 17" could manage. I've always played games with v-sync switched on to prevent tearing in the past (for the uninitiated, v-sync means the card sends the same number of frames per second as the screen refresh rate, so that monitor doesn't try to display parts of two frames at once and cause visible tearing). The long and the short of all this is that the screen is happily updating as fast as my eyes and brain need it to. As a bonus:
- I have a "true" 17" viewable monitor (equiv. to a 19" CRT)
- a screen that doesn't hurt to look at for day-long gaming sessions
- I can lift it with two fingers! ie it's portable for LANs
- It chews far less power than a CRT
- it gives off far less HEAT than a CRT - a cool room makes for a cooler PC
- it looks way cooler than any CRT on the planet
- I can use a smaller desk, or fit more on my existing desk
- My girlfriend thinks I'm cooler for owning it
:)
Yes it cost more. But doesn't almost everything worthwhile cost more?Sure - many gamers won't get an LCD because on paper they doesn't match current CRT capabilities. But good ones come close enough.
"If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
Actually most of the better displays have a pixel response time of 25ms, not 35ms. Which works out to 40 "fps".
I really doubt this is going to happen so soon. But, hey there are always a lot of computers newbies who will buy whatever the comissioned sales person tells them to.
Right now I have a 17" Samsung 700IFT (nice flat screen CRT). My next display is going to be at least 19". LCDs at those sizes seem to always have dead pixels. A lab partner of mine dropped around a grand on a nice big LCD and it had a red pixel stuck on in the center of the screen. He returned it and manged to get another with a green pixel stuck off more towards the edge of the screen. They claimed that they 'usually' don't even let you return one unless it has multiple dead pixels.
I'm not going to start considering an LCD until I can get one that is at least 19" with all the pixels work correctly, and at less than twice the price of a CRT.
I really like the space and energy saving aspects of an LCD, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done before CRTs go the way of the dodo.
Life is too short to proofread.
Kindly collect your inbreed clan and fuck off, lest you should render /. an even less tollerable place to hold a discussion than it currently is.
-- RLJ
Another study, Meko reports that LCD market has stalled in Europe, disagrees. Their report indicates that both CRT and LCD sales are down this year over last year. CRT sales have declined more, so LCDs are gaining market share. But in some countries, LCDs are losing market share slightly to CRTs, probably reflecting budget cutbacks and somewhat increased prices for LCDs.
Not really true.... in practice CRT's are a nightmare.
1.
Shoot film at 24 fps. Now set your monitor to a multiple of 24. 48Mhz is not really an option, so its 24 * 3 = 72Mhz, if you are lucky enough to find a screen / video card combo with this resolution. When you do, you cherish and preserve it like your first born child.
This problem, and the ones below, also apply to video at 30fps, or 25fps. Don't even get me started on interlaced fields though.
2.
Now sync your cameras shutter speed to the computer monitor, taking phase into account. Ever notice that phase varies slightly with the environment over time. The more EM in the area, the more it varies. We have an office next to a high power streetcar line, and we had to switch to LCD near the lines because the monitors strobe so bad in response to fluctuations in the lines that staff were getting sick from looking at the monitors.
Needless to say, a film location shoot is one major source of RF. Stick a few light kits in the region, a few wireless lav mikes and some other toys, and you have a prime situation for phasing. Which means forget about perfect sync.
Solution, you get a device that slaves the shutter on the camera to the shutter on the monitor. NOT a cheap option.
4
Now you arrive on set, having obtained and tested all your equipment, to discover they are running a 'Hollywood Interface' designed in flash running at 15fps (if you are lucky).
You are now doomed. You often end up having to completely remove the interface of the monitor in POST and digitally replace it with a rendered version of the same interface in POST.
Expensive, very expensive.
In most productions, we got to the point of giving up and setting a pure green image in the display. We key it out later and add the interface in post production. It's cheaper when it's planned that way.
The scene in Swordfish where Hugh Jackman dances his little hacker dance - screens were empty (IIRC, I wasn't involved). The scene in men in black where tommy lee jones pines for his lost love, the screen was blank. etc., etc.,
LCD's have made filming infinitely easier. ESPECIALLY for low budget production. It's far from perfect, but I will settle until video card write back performance reaches reasonable enough speeds to allow full frame rate capture of the ikntgerface at high resolutions (1024x768 or above).
Even then I will take a LCD over a CRT for 90% of filming tasks any day. Which is one of the prime reason why you see them everywhere in media. Another is certainly coolness, but I assure you, no comapny has to give me a CRT to make me use it in production. It's more like I beg for them....
BONUS POINTS
Exercise 1.
Try lugging a complement of CRT monitors around on location shoots. Compare with
LCD.
Exercise 2.
Power a CRT off a battery pack for a remote location shoot. Time the battery life. Repeat experiment with LCD.
- sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
I believe viewsonic and others have or will have shortly sub-10ms LCD reponse time as well. I use a LCD for gaming and don't notice too much difference at the native resolution relative to my Sony E400 CRT. Of course, I also think that mp3s are more than sufficient quality, too. Heh.
..don't panic
...When they fix these problems:
1. The resolutions. CRT's have better resolutions and you can freely change resolutions. LCD's are limited when it comes to max-resolutions (the ones that can do 1600x1200 cost too much) and the image-quality deteriorates if you use a "non-native" resolution
2. Response time. It's just too high on LCD's. Luckily this is getting better all the time.
3. The price. They cost quite a bit more than CRT's.
When those three points are fixed, I might consider it.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
As mentioned by several people already, they're not talking about actual units sold, they're talking about money - in terms of LCDs surpassing CRTs.
Something most people don't realize is that the price of actually making an LCD is significantly lower than that of making a CRT. The reason for CRTs to be so much higher priced is simple: demand.
Now, granted, most people would love to have a flatscreen LCD, but they also want to be able to play games that don't look like crap. Consumers wouldn't, for the most part, put up with games running poorly in that fashion. Thus, why CRTs are predominantly sold to the home user by people like Dell. Only now that LCD technology is getting reasonable on that area are people getting LCDs for personal use.
However, the price of LCDs is still high because their main consumer is the professional: businesses, graphing technicians, artists, and the like. Simply put: the people with money that are willing to spend it on a specific tool for their job. Having a 17" monitor on a secretarial desk isn't rational; however, having a 17" LCD is feasable.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
It is a closely held secret in the health care industry that 90% of all hernias in the IT sector are caused by monitors. What most people don't realize is that HMOs have been underwriting the purchase of lead weights for Sun monitors for years. With widespread adoption of LCDs, they expect dramatic decreases in fees collected for hernia operations on out-of-shape IT professionals. The future of low cost high quality health care in the US is in jeapardy!
KK4SFV
Then maybe the price of CRT's can start reflecting demand more than they are. Oh yeah. We're in a recession. Prices aren't supposed to reflect reality.
Nope, POKE 65495,0 was a way of "overclocking" a Tandy Co-Co.
Jerry
> I'd be interested, in the Slashdot community, how many people use LCDs, and for those who don't, what would the price/size have to fall/rise to that you would buy one?
I'm currently looking at getting another LCD -- either one the same size & resolution, or another one, that is the next size up to support 1600x1200. I found 17" 1280x1024 LCDs to be the best buy(s) right now. This table lists various sizes and resolutions. Unfortunately it doesn't list prices, but you can manually tally them to see how the prices escalate.
You may find my previous post on the subject helpfull as well.
I use the 17" as my primary monitor for coding all day, and want another LCD to replace my CRT. Parhelia triple head support is also something else I'm considering, as I use 3 monitors for debugging: 2 on the PC, and 1 TV on the PS2.
Cheers
Sorry for the repost, but it seems some LCD-only moron moderator can't handle the truth.
----
Just what I want. A display which, if priced under the cost of the computer it's attached to, has these problems:
- Requires periodic fluorescent tube replacement
- Looks like crap unless you're head-on with it
- Adds temporal smoothing to all my movies due to slow pixels
- May require me to buy another videocard (DVI)
- Looks like crap in anything but the native resolution
- Will be totalled the first time I throw a pen at it
- Gets scratched with nails alone
- Requires special cleaning fluids
- Has an external power brick
- Has inconsistent/poor brightness/contrast
- Has dead/bright pixels and can't be returned for them
- Has no BNC connectors
Fix 75% of the above and make it cost the same price as a CRT for an equivalent size, and I'm game. Till then I tell everyone to just get a CRT (unless their desk requires it, in which case I ask if they're willing to change the desk to save money).
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I think while your concerns are currently legitimate, as flat-panel technologies improve over the next four years by 2006 flat-panel LCD's will have response times probably well under 10 milliseconds. With that much faster LCD response time compared to today's 25 ms response time for the good quality LCD monitors, motion blurring will pretty much disappear even on high-end games.
Also, by 2006 we'll see alternatives to TFT LCD's on flat-panel monitors that offer even brighter displays, CRT-speed response times, better color and even better graphics sharpness.
In this case, it REALLY matters!
Administering dozens of machines on a 17" monitor vs. a 21" monitor is a world of difference.
But the size of the price is what still matters most. Until LCDs are competitively priced with CRTs, they will not have sales that come close to that of the CRTs (when it comes to pure volume, not rape $$$$$ produced by over priced LCDs)
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
There used to be a company that sold a monitor that rotated. When rotated, the drivers would change the resolution, and the display geometry.
they were marketing it specifically for people browsing the web, or working on large documents. This was back when people still used the web to diseminate knowledge, instead of having flash movies, or jpegs of text.