How come LCD's are still so expensive?

[Dave Perry]

I got my near-mint 17" NEC for a grand total of $28 + shipping. A review called that model the best 17" CRT ever made. It is very beautiful to look at (Corel Painter 8).

 

[sharkeeper]

No it doesn't.

And you can pick up a NICE 19" CRT for about 250...

Sigh...

I guess the tape measure is wrong. Try again. :roll:

I'd much rather have a 17" LCD then an inferior 19" CRT with poor focus, geometry issues, flicker, blotchy colour across the screen and lack of text clarity (at 1280x1024) that would give me eyestrain in less than an hour...

I won't even mention notebook displays such as 15.4" WUXGA running at 1920x1200! A CRT that size would strain (the user's eyes) to do 1024x640!

Let's face it...the CRT is *dead*.

I do prefer the superior contrast and response time for playing games, but my days are spent looking at charts and text for 120 hours+ a week and a CRT would kill my eyes.

Anyways...

LCD's are going to be expensive compared to CRT's. At least for another few years. The most expensive part (obviously) is the panel. Probably the biggest drop in price has been with larger panels. Quality has been excellent even with the bottom feeder sub $300 17" models! Compared to 1998, when the 15" NEC panel that cost $2,000.00 was out, I'd say things have changed.

Cheers!

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: PliotronX

Originally posted by: arod
450 is alot to pay for 17 inches.... a 17 CRT costs half of that.

The difference is that the 17" LCD has a native res of 12x10 whereas the 17" (16" viewable) CRT has an "optimal" resolution of 10x7 which is a lot less real estate. On top of that, as time goes on, the LCD will pay for itself in electricity savings (and moreso for areas that get hot like here in SoCal).

True you lose the one inch on teh 17" CRT, however, mine ran native 1600x1200 which was awesome. Is there a 17" LCD that can display 1600x1200? Sure the heat, but for me, its soo hard to use a lower resolution on a similar sized screen. Ive gotten real used to 1600x1200 real estate.

Edit: Since there are none, i was "forced" to purchase a Samsung 213T. Which, i find to be more nice than the Syncmaster 900ift I replaced

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Yea but who the hell wants a big azz CRT on their desk when they can have a nice and thin elegant looking screen that takes up little desktop space? I personally think the $450 is nothing compared to the benefits of having more desktop realestate. Also I don't want my room looking like some ancient 80's computer room.

a gamer.

:roll:

and the 80's were

except disco)

Yep, LCD prices are falling . . . but the best of them are still pretty expensive . . .
. . . and as i understand it, new technology is going into CRTs to makes them much 'thinner'.

At this point, i (still) MUCH prefer a CRT.
(CRT is NOT dead . . . some of us like true Black; no ghosting, etc. etc.)

 

[thirdlegstump]

I also do recording and CRTs would introduce buzzing into my guitar pickups. No time to turn away or turn off my monitor. Dual LCD's rule in my case.

 

[Anubis]

another thing is that argurment that LCDs give you more desk space, that is pure crap BECAUSE every person i know with lCDs and thats lots has just as little desk space as a person with a CRT, and 95% fo people dont need it because they dont do work on their desks, especially in college, the arguement fails miserbially there, same with laptops, they just sit on teh desk as well

fact is i have more room on my desk running Dual 19in CRTs then my friend does with a 17in LCD

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Triforceofcourage
LCD's have been around for quite a while now. How come they are still pretty expensive? I would have thought all of these different companies making them would boost supply and drop prices alot so that the average joe would buy one. Whats going on?

What's going on? It looks like someone needs to get a better job so he can afford one. What, do you want a 19" LCD for $100? Prices of LCDs have have come down A LOT! I bought my Sony G500 (CRT) for $1000 back in the day, and I thought I was getting a steal. I now have my eye on a BAD ASS Sony 12ms LCD, and it's only $750! It's not cheap, but I definitely think it's priced reasonably.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Originally posted by: Anubis
another thing is that argurment that LCDs give you more desk space, that is pure crap BECAUSE every person i know with lCDs and thats lots has just as little desk space as a person with a CRT, and 95% fo people dont need it because they dont do work on their desks, especially in college, the arguement fails miserbially there, same with laptops, they just sit on teh desk as well

fact is i have more room on my desk running Dual 19in CRTs then my friend does with a 17in LCD

You're on canibus Anubis.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: deathkoba

Originally posted by: Anubis
another thing is that argurment that LCDs give you more desk space, that is pure crap BECAUSE every person i know with lCDs and thats lots has just as little desk space as a person with a CRT, and 95% fo people dont need it because they dont do work on their desks, especially in college, the arguement fails miserbially there, same with laptops, they just sit on teh desk as well

fact is i have more room on my desk running Dual 19in CRTs then my friend does with a 17in LCD

You're on canibus Anubis.

no not anymore anyway, what i say is true from my own expirences,

 

[thirdlegstump]

Man pleaseeeee don't tell me my old 21" Radius doesn't take up more space than my 2 LCD's. It is no where near comparison. I have so much more space in front of the monitors, I can actually place a keyboard in front of them and still have room for paperwork. My CRT didn't allow for that.

 

[freeject]

My 15" lcd saved me a hell of a lot of desk space in college. I couldnt even fit a 17" monitor on the scrawny desk they had in my dorm without my face being 5 inches from the screen. With the flat panel, I could have a monitor AND a keyboard on my desk. yay!

Expect LCD prices to drop even further. LCD panel makers have overestimated 4th qarter demand for their screens and have set themselves up for a large lcd surplus. That means cheaper screens for us between now and next spring. This christmas may be the perfect time to get that 19" flat panel w/ DVI and 1600x1200 capability.

http://www.contracostatimes.co.../printstory.jsp&1c

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper
I guess the tape measure is wrong. Try again. :roll:

I'd much rather have a 17" LCD then an inferior 19" CRT with poor focus, geometry issues, flicker, blotchy colour across the screen and lack of text clarity (at 1280x1024) that would give me eyestrain in less than an hour...

I won't even mention notebook displays such as 15.4" WUXGA running at 1920x1200! A CRT that size would strain (the user's eyes) to do 1024x640!

Let's face it...the CRT is *dead*.

I do prefer the superior contrast and response time for playing games, but my days are spent looking at charts and text for 120 hours+ a week and a CRT would kill my eyes.

19" monitors have nearly 18" viewable. That is MORE than a 17" LCD. Your tape measure is incorrect. You also must have had inferior CRTs. A good CRT (not a trinitron, but a good one) won't have geometry issues, flicker, or blotchy color areas.

You are right that LCDs can have higher resolution for a given area. Most people I know though complain about text that small and then need tools to make it readable. CRT size is even too small for many with bad eyesight. But I give a plus to LCD in this category.

CRTs have the one huge advantage of multiple resolutions. I've got a 21" CRT at work. Great for programming with many lines of text (I also use CRTs 120+ hours per week on many weeks, but usually just 100 hours). But then when I run the program, I need to test it on multiple resolutions for the various customers. An LCD cannot do it without totally f()cked up text. Thus ruining any of the benefits in my paragraph above. Or when guests/coworkers come by, they cannot read the 1600x1280 text from 3-5 feet back, so I temporarilly drop the resolution down. Again, your 15.4" WUXGA running at 1920x1200 cannot do that without making the text nearly unreadable.

Same for games. I play 5 games regularly - all at different resolutions to maximize the look while keeping FPS up. I couldn't do that with an LCD without making parts look like crap. Instead I have to sacrifice FPS or sacrifice resolution.

I use LCDs all the time (laptop + other work computers), and cannot stand them. Yes CRTs are dying, but they aren't dead yet. As long as I can get two quality 19" CRTs for the price of your 17" LCD, I'll be happy. There are many uses for them, and the lower price is just another great benefit.

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Man pleaseeeee don't tell me my old 21" Radius doesn't take up more space than my 2 LCD's. It is no where near comparison. I have so much more space in front of the monitors, I can actually place a keyboard in front of them and still have room for paperwork. My CRT didn't allow for that.

It really depends on the type of desk you have. For me, the 21" Syncmaster 213T takes up same desk space as 19" Syncmaster 900ift. The amount of space saved is behind the desk, or behind teh lcd. The space behind teh LCD is useless. "But you can push your lcd back farther" Not really, sure technically you can, but then you cant see the screen as nicely since the viewing area is about 6-9" farther away from you if you choose to "save the desktop space"

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Tiamat

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Man pleaseeeee don't tell me my old 21" Radius doesn't take up more space than my 2 LCD's. It is no where near comparison. I have so much more space in front of the monitors, I can actually place a keyboard in front of them and still have room for paperwork. My CRT didn't allow for that.

It really depends on the type of desk you have. For me, the 21" Syncmaster 213T takes up same desk space as 19" Syncmaster 900ift. The amount of space saved is behind the desk, or behind teh lcd. The space behind teh LCD is useless. "But you can push your lcd back farther" Not really, sure technically you can, but then you cant see the screen as nicely since the viewing area is about 6-9" farther away from you if you choose to "save the desktop space"

exactly you beat me to that

and dullard: you and I are alike, and if you look hard you can almost actually get 2 22in CRTs for the price of 1 20in LCD

20in LCD does a native res of 1600x1200, i will not buy a LCD that does anything less, they cost close to 900$

i can get a 22in CRT that does a max res of 2048x1536 @ 88Hz and does 1600x1200 @ 100+ Hz for around 500$

2 is always > 1

 

[thirdlegstump]

I did push back my LCD and have absolutely no problems viewing it, in fact my eyes don't get as tired since I got this bigger desk. (with the same LCDs that is) You're probably near-sighted?

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper

No it doesn't.

And you can pick up a NICE 19" CRT for about 250...

Sigh...

I guess the tape measure is wrong. Try again. :roll:

I'd much rather have a 17" LCD then an inferior 19" CRT with poor focus, geometry issues, flicker, blotchy colour across the screen and lack of text clarity (at 1280x1024) that would give me eyestrain in less than an hour...

I won't even mention notebook displays such as 15.4" WUXGA running at 1920x1200! A CRT that size would strain (the user's eyes) to do 1024x640!

Let's face it...the CRT is *dead*.

I do prefer the superior contrast and response time for playing games, but my days are spent looking at charts and text for 120 hours+ a week and a CRT would kill my eyes.

Anyways...

LCD's are going to be expensive compared to CRT's. At least for another few years. The most expensive part (obviously) is the panel. Probably the biggest drop in price has been with larger panels. Quality has been excellent even with the bottom feeder sub $300 17" models! Compared to 1998, when the 15" NEC panel that cost $2,000.00 was out, I'd say things have changed.

Cheers!

Sigh...

Your tape measure must be wrong..

Most 17" LCD's are 17" viewable.. Most 19in CRT's ( flat of course ) have a 18 or 18.1 inch viewable..

The only thing LCD's have on CRT's is quite a bit smaller, and virtually no eye strain..

CRT's are by no means dead.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Tiamat

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Man pleaseeeee don't tell me my old 21" Radius doesn't take up more space than my 2 LCD's. It is no where near comparison. I have so much more space in front of the monitors, I can actually place a keyboard in front of them and still have room for paperwork. My CRT didn't allow for that.

It really depends on the type of desk you have. For me, the 21" Syncmaster 213T takes up same desk space as 19" Syncmaster 900ift. The amount of space saved is behind the desk, or behind teh lcd. The space behind teh LCD is useless. "But you can push your lcd back farther" Not really, sure technically you can, but then you cant see the screen as nicely since the viewing area is about 6-9" farther away from you if you choose to "save the desktop space"

"behind the desk"? Most desks are next to the wall, and with a smaller desk, the problem with CRTs is usually that the screen is forced *too close* to you, not that an LCD would be too far away. If you have a giant desk sitting in the middle of a room, I suppose it's not much of a space savings, but for, say, college students with a cramped desk in up against the wall in a dorm room, it's significant.

And even if you want the monitor up close while you're using it, with an LCD (or a laptop sitting on your desk) you can easily move it back or out of the way when you're *not* using it, so that you can actually have desk space.

Seriously, in terms of ergonomics, LCDs have CRTs beat hands down. The only disadvantages of LCDs right now are response time (rapidly improving), color reproduction (which has also been improving), and cost (again, improving).

 

[thirdlegstump]

Say it like it is brotha Matthias.

 

[apoppin]

So . . . "saving space" is the BEST you can come up with?
(as an "excuse" to drop big bux on an LCD)



i have a BIG desk

:roll:

lame "excuse" imo
(unless you are in a dorm*; keep your CRT and get a bigger Apt . . . )


*edit: LCDs are also MUCH easier to steal.

 

[thirdlegstump]

A bigger apt may not be an option when a 1000' sq apt costs well over $3000 a month in nyc. I'm also talking about appearance and presentation when people come over. I don't want old ass looking CRTs on my desks. LCD's look cool and IN.

 

[jspeicher]

LCDs have fallen of course, but the price for what you get is still an investment for many people. Sure there are cheap 17" lcds out there, but they have high response times and no DVI, among other missing features.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Think most people need or even know what 12ms responce and DVI is? Mine were cheap and has 16ms and VGA. Looks sharp and plays games quite killer.

 

[JackBurton]

*edit: LCDs are also MUCH easier to steal.

Can you tie an 80lb weight to the LCD to make it harder to steal and feel more like a CRT?

lame "excuse" imo
(unless you are in a dorm*; keep your CRT and get a bigger Apt . . . )

Wouldn't getting a new LCD be cheaper than getting a bigger Apt?

I LOVE my Sony G500, but since I have a corner desk, I don't gain anymore space going to an LCD. HOWEVER, I will be adding an LCD for a dual monitor setup, and this is where I'll run out of desk space if I go CRT. I have a BIG desk, but adding another 21" CRT would kill A LOT of my deskspace. I'm planning on getting an LCD with a swivel arm which would basically use up zero desk space. This also gives me the ability to pull the monitor close or push it away very easily. It should be a kick ass setup!

Also, LCDs look cooler.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Think most people need or even know what 12ms responce and DVI is? Mine were cheap and has 16ms and VGA. Looks sharp and plays games quite killer.

Only the people that count.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Think most people need or even know what 12ms responce and DVI is? Mine were cheap and has 16ms and VGA. Looks sharp and plays games quite killer.

Only the people that count.

That's messed up man hahaha