LCD Overtaking CRT

prostoalex writes "IDC has a new report out, claiming that revenues for LCDs by the end of this year will top the CRT revenues. The only market not susceptible to the shift will be gaming and graphics-intensive applications, where the refresh rates of LCDs are not satisfactory yet."

Comments

of course

[jonnyfivealive]

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

Ah !

[bain_online]

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

Re:Makes sense

[stratjakt]

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.

refresh rates

[syle]

It was my understand that the notion of 'refresh rates' doesn't really apply to LCDs. So, while your CRT monitor may redraw its screen anywhere from 60-85 times a second, the limiting factor in LCDs is the speed at which each individual pixel can change color.

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

Re:refresh rates

[redgren]

Refresh rates don't make sense on an LCD... The parameter you need to look at is the Rise/Fall time of the pixels (also known as response time). The pixels don't change unless they need to, whereas for CRTs, every pixel on the screen is being redrawn (60 times a second at 60Hz, obviously)

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

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

Most of the hardcore gamers I know don't like less than 85Hz on their CRTs, so still lots of room for improvement on the LCDs.

My LCD Experance

[YokuYakuYoukai]

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.

Re:Burned out pixels suck

[aksansai]

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

[tchuladdiass]

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:Makes sense

[oznet]

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.

CRT Disposal

[asv108]

One of the big questions is where are all these CRT's going to end up? I have no problem finding takers for old computers, but nobody wants to take 15in and soon 17in CRT monitors. Selling them on eBay doesn't work because usually the shipping is 3x more than the monitor itself. 21in CRT's that cost $1500 three years ago are going for under $100. I've seen quite a few companies with closets full of old CRT's.

But the lines are blurring..

[Xzzy]

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.

Re:Graphics Design

[Visigothe]

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.

Refresh rates != response time

[Comrade Brightski]

"...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. ;)