Flat Screen vs LCD?

[kimbahpnam]

does anyone know how a Flat Screen Dinosaur compares performance wise to an LCD (19" preferibly)? ie Gaming (online/offline), Movies, etc. and is it worth to buy an LCD compared to a flat screen?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kimbahpnam on 01/10/03 00:54 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[the_Prisoner]

The price is a big difference between a LCD and CRT. CRT is still better for gaming and moving watching. Even the best LCDs do not compare to the flatscreen CRTs.

For business use they are fine, but for high end graphics editing and etc, LCDs still have some time to go. When they meet the quality and price of a CRT, I will buy some for high end use.

I am sure you will get many opinions, but check out sites where gaming and graphics is important.

Also, is you plan on buying a CRT or LCD, make sure you try them out with many different sources and options to see what you like best, and return what you do not like.

It is important to spend some time with a monitor. The LCDs
like a certain resolution and I find that annoying. They also seem to break down faster.

For the cool and space factor go with an LCD, for a good all around monitor, the CRT is a better choice.

Read some Reviews,

the Prisoner


I'm not a number, I'm a free man! 😡

 

[nja469]

I mostly agree except I don't see how you can say LCD's break down faster? Problems arise in both LCD and CRT monitors, it's part of standardized mass production of anything.

Cutting edge flat panels, with 25ms response times or less offer superb gaming and video output quality. Even the newer LCD TV's are fast enough for DVD watching without ghosting. While these monitors currently cost about $600-$1000 US (depends on size), as with anything they will be cheaper since better technology will be available likely within 6 months.

So it really boils down to preference and your budget. This time last year I wouldn't consider an LCD because they were still too slow for intense FPS games. Now that isn't an issue, but they still can be budget busters. You can get a very nice CRT for less than $250, but a cutting edge flat panel will run about 2 1/2 times that.

 

[GoSharks]

I agree LCD's are much more reliable.

The life span of a CRT is usually considered the time it take to get to half brightness (its useful life). As you use CRT's the phosphors and the cathode of the electron gun start to degrade. These days we are using techniques that make the cathodes last much longer than the rated life of the phosphor.

The life span of the electronics easily determined. There are military standards based on active component count. Most CRT monitors are rated for 50,000 hours MTBF excluding the CRT.

LCD backlights are the weakest link. Most CCD tube manufacturers state that the backlight tubes have an MTBF of 50,000 hours based on the same military calculation. These fluorescent tubes will degrade over time and loose brightness just like a CRT. The backlights on LCDs are NOT easy to replace. LCD panels are rates at well over 70,000 hours excluding the backlight. And this is conservative IMHO.

Plasma has a much shorter life span than CRT’s and LCD’s in the 30,000 hour range. BTW Plasma technology does not use backlights so there is nothing to replace. Plasma uses phosphor just like a CRT to generate the light we see. Plasma is very susceptible to screen burn, do not leave a static image on a Plasma display, you will be sorry and I do not know of any manufacture that warranties against screen burn.

Jim Witkowski
Chief Hardware Engineer
Monitorsdirect.com


<A HREF="http://www.monitorsdirect.com" target="_new">MonitorsDirect.com</A>

 

[the_Prisoner]

Thanks for the info. Backlights is what I was thinking about.

That is interesting about the Plasma displays.

the Prisoner

I'm not a number, I'm a free man! 😡