DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - would a Hi definition tv tube ever be made ?

**Abaronos** · 08-17-2009, 02:08 PM

Dead pixels are pain too. Never seen dead pixels in CRT monitors and I use only cheap models.

My Dell 17" CRT has one dead pixel actually. Kind of sucks, though I have had this monitor for so long, I don't really notice it unless i am looking for it.

Though I hope to get new LCD monitor here soon. This CRT is kind of frustrating because it is so big and heavy. Plus I can increase my screen size 4~6 inches and still decrease my energy consumption by 50% or more.
This tube sucks in 90watts, while there are two LCDs that I am looking at. One that I am looking at for example is 22inches and consumes only 45watts. There is a 24" 19x10 LCD that I would like to get that consumes just 31 watts, but costs way to much for what I would be willing to spend on a computer monitor.

Manufacturing costs, a long with what the general public is looking for in a TV shifts what is sold on the market and what dies off.
Like Plasma for example. Picture quality, again, superior to LCD though it was too expensive, too heavy and consumed a minimum of twice the wattage per inch than an LCD does. This is why Plasmas are no longer.
If you bought a TV purely for having the best quality TV that money could buy in a general price segment, you always went Plasma.
Same goes for DLP. Better quality, but still not what the general public was wantingr. Had a lot of great pros, but has some cons as well and DLP is pretty much dead and never even really took off the ground.

08-17-2009, 02:08 PM	#20
Abaronos Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 452 Senior Member	Dead pixels are pain too. Never seen dead pixels in CRT monitors and I use only cheap models. My Dell 17" CRT has one dead pixel actually. Kind of sucks, though I have had this monitor for so long, I don't really notice it unless i am looking for it. Though I hope to get new LCD monitor here soon. This CRT is kind of frustrating because it is so big and heavy. Plus I can increase my screen size 4~6 inches and still decrease my energy consumption by 50% or more. This tube sucks in 90watts, while there are two LCDs that I am looking at. One that I am looking at for example is 22inches and consumes only 45watts. There is a 24" 19x10 LCD that I would like to get that consumes just 31 watts, but costs way to much for what I would be willing to spend on a computer monitor. Manufacturing costs, a long with what the general public is looking for in a TV shifts what is sold on the market and what dies off. Like Plasma for example. Picture quality, again, superior to LCD though it was too expensive, too heavy and consumed a minimum of twice the wattage per inch than an LCD does. This is why Plasmas are no longer. If you bought a TV purely for having the best quality TV that money could buy in a general price segment, you always went Plasma. Same goes for DLP. Better quality, but still not what the general public was wantingr. Had a lot of great pros, but has some cons as well and DLP is pretty much dead and never even really took off the ground.
	Quote