Do CRTs last longer than LCDs?

[Phisherman]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

When I buy a monitor, I'd like it to last at least 5 years (7 is
better). I usually I buy the best I can afford with $500. My
eyesight is not getting better with age. I use my monitor perhaps 3-4
hours a day and turn it off at night. I know the LCD will cost less
to operate (anyone want to calculate this power consumption?) but
which one will give me longer service, a CRT or LCD? TIA

 

[Philo]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"Phisherman" <nobody@noone.com> wrote in message
news:h1h461962calusiqcpj05eeojfun1racts@4ax.com...
> When I buy a monitor, I'd like it to last at least 5 years (7 is
> better). I usually I buy the best I can afford with $500. My
> eyesight is not getting better with age. I use my monitor perhaps 3-4
> hours a day and turn it off at night. I know the LCD will cost less
> to operate (anyone want to calculate this power consumption?)

no need to calculate...
the mfg states power consumption on it's spec sheet and it's usually
stamped or marked on the back of the monitor

but
> which one will give me longer service, a CRT or LCD? TIA


in theory the LCD monitors will last considerably longer...
even before a CRT dies, it will probably begin to fade and blurr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <h1h461962calusiqcpj05eeojfun1racts@4ax.com>,
Phisherman <nobody@noone.com> wrote:
>When I buy a monitor, I'd like it to last at least 5 years (7 is
>better). I usually I buy the best I can afford with $500. My
>eyesight is not getting better with age. I use my monitor perhaps 3-4
>hours a day and turn it off at night. I know the LCD will cost less
>to operate (anyone want to calculate this power consumption?) but
>which one will give me longer service, a CRT or LCD? TIA


IME monitors last for many years. I just replaced a monitor that was
in use for almost a decade. Image quality is another matter and if
you are doing digital photography you may want to dispose of a monitor
before it dies. They do get dim and a little fuzzy. Photoshop
professionals may spend $1000+ on a monitor and replace it in 2 years.

LCD monitors don't get fuzzy and will work until the cold cathode
backlight dies I have not heard what the expected lifetime is. It's
easy to spend more on a decent LCD and a good CRT will be better by
some criteria. If you're a gammer you need a fast LCD.

Are you talking US $ ? Have you priced monitors lately ? $250 will
get you a gorgeous 18 inch monitor (Viewsonic P95f+, in my case) today
and change to buy another one when this one wears out.

Actually, the dumpsters and used equipment market is awash with CRT
monitors becuase so many pwople are buying LCDs today. If you look
around you might find a decent monitor for free.



--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <h1h461962calusiqcpj05eeojfun1racts@4ax.com>, Phisherman
says...
> When I buy a monitor, I'd like it to last at least 5 years (7 is
> better). I usually I buy the best I can afford with $500. My
> eyesight is not getting better with age. I use my monitor perhaps 3-4
> hours a day and turn it off at night. I know the LCD will cost less
> to operate (anyone want to calculate this power consumption?) but
> which one will give me longer service, a CRT or LCD? TIA
>
THink of how many laptops you see on E-Bay that are 5+ years old and
still working. THen consider how much further TFT technology has
advanced. Most TFT manufacturers offer a 3 year warranty.

Basically, the only thing that goes is the cathode tube and you can
replace them but typical operational lifetimes of the tubes a year ago
was 10,000 hours which would last you 10 years.

As for power consumptioin, an average 3W standby and between 25W-48W
maximum depending on brand.

Oh and unlike a CRT, the image doesn't become more blurry as time goes
on.


--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <MPG.1ccc793c7d194347989827@news.individual.net>,
Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <h1h461962calusiqcpj05eeojfun1racts@4ax.com>, Phisherman
>says...
>> When I buy a monitor, I'd like it to last at least 5 years (7 is
>> better). I usually I buy the best I can afford with $500. My
>> eyesight is not getting better with age. I use my monitor perhaps 3-4
>> hours a day and turn it off at night. I know the LCD will cost less
>> to operate (anyone want to calculate this power consumption?) but
>> which one will give me longer service, a CRT or LCD? TIA
>>
>THink of how many laptops you see on E-Bay that are 5+ years old and
>still working. THen consider how much further TFT technology has
>advanced. Most TFT manufacturers offer a 3 year warranty.

And most of the ones that don't work don't make it to ebay.

>
>Basically, the only thing that goes is the cathode tube and you can
>replace them but typical operational lifetimes of the tubes a year ago
>was 10,000 hours which would last you 10 years.
>

>As for power consumptioin, an average 3W standby and between 25W-48W
>maximum depending on brand.
>


The best thing you can do for either a CRT or LCD is to not use a
fancy screensaver. Just let the screen go dark if not used for a
period. This will extend life and also minimize electricty costs

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ccc793c7d194347989827@news.individual.net...
> In article <h1h461962calusiqcpj05eeojfun1racts@4ax.com>, Phisherman
> says...
>> When I buy a monitor, I'd like it to last at least 5 years (7 is
>> better). I usually I buy the best I can afford with $500. My
>> eyesight is not getting better with age. I use my monitor perhaps 3-4
>> hours a day and turn it off at night. I know the LCD will cost less
>> to operate (anyone want to calculate this power consumption?) but
>> which one will give me longer service, a CRT or LCD? TIA
>>
> THink of how many laptops you see on E-Bay that are 5+ years old and
> still working. THen consider how much further TFT technology has
> advanced. Most TFT manufacturers offer a 3 year warranty.
>
> Basically, the only thing that goes is the cathode tube and you can
> replace them but typical operational lifetimes of the tubes a year ago
> was 10,000 hours which would last you 10 years.
>
> As for power consumptioin, an average 3W standby and between 25W-48W
> maximum depending on brand.
>
> Oh and unlike a CRT, the image doesn't become more blurry as time goes
> on.
>
>
>

Where did you get the 10000 hours = 10 years figure from. If you do the
division that works out to only 2.8 hours a day. I don't know about you but
my machine's on a lot more than that.

--
Derek
..

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Phisherman writes:

> When I buy a monitor, I'd like it to last at least 5 years (7 is
> better). I usually I buy the best I can afford with $500. My
> eyesight is not getting better with age. I use my monitor perhaps 3-4
> hours a day and turn it off at night. I know the LCD will cost less
> to operate (anyone want to calculate this power consumption?) but
> which one will give me longer service, a CRT or LCD?

At five years and four hours a day, just about any monitor is likely to
last for a decade or more. The half-life for CRTs is about
10,000-30,000 hours; that of LCDs (usually limited by the lifetime of
the backlight) is about 30,000 hours or so. So in the worst case, you
still have at least a good seven years of product life to look forward
to.

LCDs usually fail in fewer ways than CRTs, and it's usually the
backlight that fails. I believe LCDs maintain their performance more
consistently over their lifetimes, although both types of monitors
gradually deteriorate over time.

LCDs have more advantages than disadvantages, but if one of the
disadvantages is a showstopper for you, you might still need a CRT. The
disadvantages I can think off for LCDs offhand include:

- higher purchase price

- best performance only at one built-in resolution (1024x768, etc.)

- for critical applications, such as photography or color matching, CRTs
may still have a slight edge, and the cost of an LCD with performance
equal to that of a high end CRT is going to be several times higher than
that of the CRT

- LCDs still have problems with dead pixels in many cases

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Al Dykes writes:

> Actually, the dumpsters and used equipment market is awash with CRT
> monitors becuase so many pwople are buying LCDs today. If you look
> around you might find a decent monitor for free.

When I dumped my trusty Sony, the tube of which had finally failed
completely, I wrote "tube failed" on the outside and put the CRT on the
sidewalk. Even so, before I had a chance to call the city to come by
and pick up the CRT, someone apparently walked off with it. Either he
couldn't read or he had some way of cobbling together a working monitor
from the remaining parts, I suppose (the rest of the monitor was fine,
but the tube had finally worn out totally).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Al Dykes writes:

> The best thing you can do for either a CRT or LCD is to not use a
> fancy screensaver. Just let the screen go dark if not used for a
> period. This will extend life and also minimize electricty costs

As long as it's actually being turned off. A dark screen doesn't
necessarily mean that the backlight is off or that the CRT isn't
operating. In anything brighter than a dark room it can be hard to tell
whether the CRT/LCD is really off by anything other than the power
indicator.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:15:01 +0200, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Al Dykes writes:
>
>> The best thing you can do for either a CRT or LCD is to not use a
>> fancy screensaver. Just let the screen go dark if not used for a
>> period. This will extend life and also minimize electricty costs
>
>As long as it's actually being turned off. A dark screen doesn't
>necessarily mean that the backlight is off or that the CRT isn't
>operating. In anything brighter than a dark room it can be hard to tell
>whether the CRT/LCD is really off by anything other than the power
>indicator.

Nope, just having it dark-but-not-off helps similarly too...
maybe even more because it's not going through the most
drastic power (thermal) cycling.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:17:30 GMT, Phisherman
<nobody@noone.com> wrote:

>When I buy a monitor, I'd like it to last at least 5 years (7 is
>better). I usually I buy the best I can afford with $500. My
>eyesight is not getting better with age. I use my monitor perhaps 3-4
>hours a day and turn it off at night. I know the LCD will cost less
>to operate (anyone want to calculate this power consumption?) but
>which one will give me longer service, a CRT or LCD? TIA

$500 will get you a really nice monitor though it's a bit
overkill for a CRT unless you want > 19".

LCD will last longer, ignoring random failures of either
type. It will progressively, gradually get darker but you
may not even notice it, unless you used it for a few years
then directly compared to same thing new.

If you're willing to spend $500, get the LCD. CRTs are now
best reserved for those who need truest color reproduction
(imaging/etc) or those on a tighter budget (I'd still
suggest a CRT for someone with $200 max budget).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

A good quality CRT will probably last a bit linger than an LCD. The
backlight in the LCD monitor is its limiting lfe factor.

--
DaveW



"Phisherman" <nobody@noone.com> wrote in message
news:h1h461962calusiqcpj05eeojfun1racts@4ax.com...
> When I buy a monitor, I'd like it to last at least 5 years (7 is
> better). I usually I buy the best I can afford with $500. My
> eyesight is not getting better with age. I use my monitor perhaps 3-4
> hours a day and turn it off at night. I know the LCD will cost less
> to operate (anyone want to calculate this power consumption?) but
> which one will give me longer service, a CRT or LCD? TIA

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

The CRTs and LCDs themselves should have no problems lasting at least
5-7 years, although I'd bet on more CRTs living to old age, at least
Japanese and Korean ones. Also CRTs are much, much less likely to have
bad pixels. and I've seen only a single bad CRT pixel, in a Sanyo TV
that otherwise still looks new after 29 years of heavy use. Most
monitor failures occur outside the CRT or LCD, usually in the power
sections or because of bad solder joints, and this is why you want to
avoid the cheaper brands, except maybe AOC/Envision.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:

> The CRTs and LCDs themselves should have no problems lasting at least
> 5-7 years, although I'd bet on more CRTs living to old age, at least
> Japanese and Korean ones. Also CRTs are much, much less likely to have
> bad pixels. and I've seen only a single bad CRT pixel, in a Sanyo TV
> that otherwise still looks new after 29 years of heavy use. Most
> monitor failures occur outside the CRT or LCD, usually in the power
> sections or because of bad solder joints, and this is why you want to
> avoid the cheaper brands, except maybe AOC/Envision.
>

CRTs can have burn spots, or larger areas, in the phosphors or mechanical
damage but, technically speaking, they don't have 'dead pixels' because
there is no fixed relationship, even with DTV, between the image displayed
and which phosphor dots get illuminated. Plus, analog TV signals are not
pixelated to begin with.

As a matter of general curiosity I'd be interested to hear what the bad
spot on your TV looks like.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Phisherman wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2005 10:20:19 -0700, do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:

> I was not aware of "bad pixels" on a CRT, although I suppose there
> could be something wrong with the video card.

Random dots on the screen are much more likely to be caused by the
video card than the CRT, but over a decade ago there were reports of
Chinese-made CRTs having several bad pixels, like 5-20 (at least that
number wouldn't increase in use).

> It looks like a CRT is the way to go at this time. I'll
> probably get a 21" and a common name brand, perhaps
> Viewsonic, NEC, Sony, Samsung or Rosewill.

Fry's Electronics sells refurbished NEC and Dell 20-21" CRT monitors
for about $250, and they seem to be of good quality and almost like
new, unlike some other refurbished products.

 

[Phisherman]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On 19 Apr 2005 10:20:19 -0700, do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:

>The CRTs and LCDs themselves should have no problems lasting at least
>5-7 years, although I'd bet on more CRTs living to old age, at least
>Japanese and Korean ones. Also CRTs are much, much less likely to have
>bad pixels. and I've seen only a single bad CRT pixel, in a Sanyo TV
>that otherwise still looks new after 29 years of heavy use. Most
>monitor failures occur outside the CRT or LCD, usually in the power
>sections or because of bad solder joints, and this is why you want to
>avoid the cheaper brands, except maybe AOC/Envision.

I was not aware of "bad pixels" on a CRT, although I suppose there
could be something wrong with the video card. Anyways, thanks to all
for all the responses. It looks like a CRT is the way to go at this
time. I'll probably get a 21" and a common name brand, perhaps
Viewsonic, NEC, Sony, Samsung or Rosewill.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"Phisherman" <nobody@noone.com> wrote in message
news:tsab61lcp6lgt4kbuhlo1cmopb41ne08no@4ax.com...
> On 19 Apr 2005 10:20:19 -0700, do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >The CRTs and LCDs themselves should have no problems lasting at least
> >5-7 years, although I'd bet on more CRTs living to old age, at least
> >Japanese and Korean ones. Also CRTs are much, much less likely to have
> >bad pixels. and I've seen only a single bad CRT pixel, in a Sanyo TV
> >that otherwise still looks new after 29 years of heavy use. Most
> >monitor failures occur outside the CRT or LCD, usually in the power
> >sections or because of bad solder joints, and this is why you want to
> >avoid the cheaper brands, except maybe AOC/Envision.
>
> I was not aware of "bad pixels" on a CRT, although I suppose there
> could be something wrong with the video card. Anyways, thanks to all
> for all the responses. It looks like a CRT is the way to go at this
> time. I'll probably get a 21" and a common name brand, perhaps
> Viewsonic, NEC, Sony, Samsung or Rosewill.

This 21" Trinitron seems like a deal to me.
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0182542

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:40:32 GMT, "Gary C"
<Clem_Kadiddlehopper@CrazyGooginhiemer.com> wrote:

>
>"Phisherman" <nobody@noone.com> wrote in message
>news:tsab61lcp6lgt4kbuhlo1cmopb41ne08no@4ax.com...
>> On 19 Apr 2005 10:20:19 -0700, do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >The CRTs and LCDs themselves should have no problems lasting at least
>> >5-7 years, although I'd bet on more CRTs living to old age, at least
>> >Japanese and Korean ones. Also CRTs are much, much less likely to have
>> >bad pixels. and I've seen only a single bad CRT pixel, in a Sanyo TV
>> >that otherwise still looks new after 29 years of heavy use. Most
>> >monitor failures occur outside the CRT or LCD, usually in the power
>> >sections or because of bad solder joints, and this is why you want to
>> >avoid the cheaper brands, except maybe AOC/Envision.
>>
>> I was not aware of "bad pixels" on a CRT, although I suppose there
>> could be something wrong with the video card. Anyways, thanks to all
>> for all the responses. It looks like a CRT is the way to go at this
>> time. I'll probably get a 21" and a common name brand, perhaps
>> Viewsonic, NEC, Sony, Samsung or Rosewill.
>
>This 21" Trinitron seems like a deal to me.
>http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0182542

IMO, Trinitron is the best tube for CRT, Mitsubishi being a
distant second. However with $500 budget a refub might be
unjustified.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

kony wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:40:32 GMT, "Gary C"
> <Clem_Kadiddlehopper@CrazyGooginhiemer.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Phisherman" <nobody@noone.com> wrote in message
>>news:tsab61lcp6lgt4kbuhlo1cmopb41ne08no@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On 19 Apr 2005 10:20:19 -0700, do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The CRTs and LCDs themselves should have no problems lasting at least
>>>>5-7 years, although I'd bet on more CRTs living to old age, at least
>>>>Japanese and Korean ones. Also CRTs are much, much less likely to have
>>>>bad pixels. and I've seen only a single bad CRT pixel, in a Sanyo TV
>>>>that otherwise still looks new after 29 years of heavy use. Most
>>>>monitor failures occur outside the CRT or LCD, usually in the power
>>>>sections or because of bad solder joints, and this is why you want to
>>>>avoid the cheaper brands, except maybe AOC/Envision.
>>>
>>>I was not aware of "bad pixels" on a CRT, although I suppose there
>>>could be something wrong with the video card. Anyways, thanks to all
>>>for all the responses. It looks like a CRT is the way to go at this
>>>time. I'll probably get a 21" and a common name brand, perhaps
>>>Viewsonic, NEC, Sony, Samsung or Rosewill.
>>
>>This 21" Trinitron seems like a deal to me.
>>http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0182542
>
>
> IMO, Trinitron is the best tube for CRT,

Well, it depends on how you judge it. Vertical color alignment is easier on
a Trinitron because of the vertical bar shadow mask but horizontal
resolution is less for the same reason.

> Mitsubishi being a
> distant second. However with $500 budget a refub might be
> unjustified.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:35:38 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:


>> IMO, Trinitron is the best tube for CRT,
>
>Well, it depends on how you judge it. Vertical color alignment is easier on
>a Trinitron because of the vertical bar shadow mask but horizontal
>resolution is less for the same reason.
>


Neither, they inherantly have greater contrast, _MUCH_
better contrast. Like all things it could be a personal
preference, _I_ prefer Aperture Grill monitors.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard writes:

> Well, it depends on how you judge it. Vertical color alignment is easier on
> a Trinitron because of the vertical bar shadow mask but horizontal
> resolution is less for the same reason.

I don't see any reason why horizontal resolution would be less.

The Trinitrons I've seen have always blown all the competition away.
I'm not surprised that Sony won an Emmy for the technology.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

From what I've read on AnadanTech...(spelling????), it is somewhat possible to rid
the LCD of a bad pixel by:

1. First press above the pixel, with your finger, as you would a door bell.
2. Then below the pixel, as you did in the first, not pressing either overly hard.
3. Don't have any dead pixels YET, so I wouldn't know....but if and when I do?????!


On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:15:45 GMT, Phisherman <nobody@noone.com> wrote:

>On 19 Apr 2005 10:20:19 -0700, do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>The CRTs and LCDs themselves should have no problems lasting at least
>>5-7 years, although I'd bet on more CRTs living to old age, at least
>>Japanese and Korean ones. Also CRTs are much, much less likely to have
>>bad pixels. and I've seen only a single bad CRT pixel, in a Sanyo TV
>>that otherwise still looks new after 29 years of heavy use. Most
>>monitor failures occur outside the CRT or LCD, usually in the power
>>sections or because of bad solder joints, and this is why you want to
>>avoid the cheaper brands, except maybe AOC/Envision.
>
>I was not aware of "bad pixels" on a CRT, although I suppose there
>could be something wrong with the video card. Anyways, thanks to all
>for all the responses. It looks like a CRT is the way to go at this
>time. I'll probably get a 21" and a common name brand, perhaps
>Viewsonic, NEC, Sony, Samsung or Rosewill.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

kony wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:35:38 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>IMO, Trinitron is the best tube for CRT,
>>
>>Well, it depends on how you judge it. Vertical color alignment is easier on
>>a Trinitron because of the vertical bar shadow mask but horizontal
>>resolution is less for the same reason.
>>
>
>
>
> Neither, they inherantly have greater contrast, _MUCH_
> better contrast.

That, again, depends on the conditions. The aperture slot has a larger
percentage of phosphor area, vs the tri-dot shadow mask, so it can be
brighter for the same drive level but phosphors also reflect light, which
makes for a 'minimum dark' depending on the ambient light and the more
phosphor area there is the less dark the 'darkest' can be.

Some 'pea under the mattress types' are disturbed by the horizontal damper
wires in trinitron tubes.

> Like all things it could be a personal
> preference, _I_ prefer Aperture Grill monitors.

I wasn't saying one was 'better'. I was just pointing out some of the
tradeoffs.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:24:13 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:35:38 -0500, David Maynard
>> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>IMO, Trinitron is the best tube for CRT,
>>>
>>>Well, it depends on how you judge it. Vertical color alignment is easier on
>>>a Trinitron because of the vertical bar shadow mask but horizontal
>>>resolution is less for the same reason.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Neither, they inherantly have greater contrast, _MUCH_
>> better contrast.
>
>That, again, depends on the conditions. The aperture slot has a larger
>percentage of phosphor area, vs the tri-dot shadow mask, so it can be
>brighter for the same drive level but phosphors also reflect light, which
>makes for a 'minimum dark' depending on the ambient light and the more
>phosphor area there is the less dark the 'darkest' can be.
>
>Some 'pea under the mattress types' are disturbed by the horizontal damper
>wires in trinitron tubes.

Yes the damper wires can take getting used to, but theories
aside I disagree with the above statement that it "depends
on the conditions". All one has to do is _look_ at the two
side-by-side to see a difference. I dont' claim to have
done an A/B comparision with every possible candidate vs a
Trinitron or Mitsubishi tubed model(s) but nothing else I've
seen comes remotely close in contrast.

Now, there are some which seem to like "smooth", "pretty"
text, and gripe that they dislike the text on aperture
grills, but I feel just the opposite that regardles of
whether that text resembles someone's idea of artistic
purity (for lack of a better description- I'm not them), the
additional contrast makes for better text, IMO.


>
>> Like all things it could be a personal
>> preference, _I_ prefer Aperture Grill monitors.
>
>I wasn't saying one was 'better'. I was just pointing out some of the
>tradeoffs.

True, one needs to see the monitor in person to be sure
that's what they'll be happy with for (hopefully) the next
few years.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Leon Manfredi writes:

> From what I've read on AnadanTech...(spelling????), it is somewhat possible to rid
> the LCD of a bad pixel by:
>
> 1. First press above the pixel, with your finger, as you would a door bell.
> 2. Then below the pixel, as you did in the first, not pressing either overly hard.
> 3. Don't have any dead pixels YET, so I wouldn't know....but if and when I do?????!

That has worked for me on one occasion, with a Samsung SyncMaster 151s.
It had a hot pixel and the above procedure made it go away permanently.
However, it does seem a bit risky (this was an inexpensive monitor that
I used only as a system console, so it wasn't critical). The monitor
has been running continuously for several years and there are no dead or
hot pixels now.

I tried it on cheaper Synco monitor and it had no effect. At least it
didn't get worse.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.