invariably more expensive than replacing the whole thing. I had a lovely
Sony 21" CRT die after less than 2 years. (OTOH, I've had a 21" NEC for 5
years.)
Did anybody mention dead pixels? Most manufacturers won't replace under
warranty if there's less than 3-5, which is very visible and hugely
irritating. But the QC is getting better. The last 4 LCD buys I've been
involved in showed NO dead pixels.
The biggest issue for gamers is picture quality (tons better w. a CRT) and
response time (every LCD I've seen shows some blurring...a big issue if you
play 3d-centric games like auto racing and FPSs).
That said, I won't go back. As my CRTs die, they're being replaced by LCDs,
which just get better and better, cheaper and cheaper.
go
> out.
> Backlights are the 'dirty little secret' of the LCD industry.
> Don't think you can replace a $20 lamp. No, you have to replace the
entire
> panel at a cost usually greater than the cost of the Monitor itself.
> What makes it so bad there is no physical reason for this.
> -Larry
> > >>I use a BENQ FP937S which has a 12ms response time,
> > > And I bet it only displays 8bit color. That's how they get the
> > > response timing down usually. Less colors to display = faster response
> > > time.
> > Everything about the LCD world seems to be about compromise. The only
> areas
> > that they can beat a CRT conclusively are size, weight, power
consumption
> &
> > geometry. I'd dearly love to buy an LCD for their convenience but I
can't
> > find one that has contrast even remotely comparable to a CRT and at the
> same
> > time a decent response time. You really notice an LCD's shortcomings
when
> > watching a DVD with lots or dark scenes - you can't see any detail in
> those
> > scenes on an LCD screen.