Plasma vs LCD longevity

[Ext User(Mike La Pietra)]

ok... heard all arguments in here re: advantages of one over the other in
terms of quality etc... but does anyone know which will last longer? Which
would - potentially - have fewer problems in terms of servicing, maintenance
and costs in the long run?

Love to hear opinions, as my parents are looking to buy and it's my job to
"help" (!)

Cheers,
Mike

[Ext User(John)]

Mike La Pietra wrote:
> ok... heard all arguments in here re: advantages of one over the other in
> terms of quality etc... but does anyone know which will last longer? Which
> would - potentially - have fewer problems in terms of servicing, maintenance
> and costs in the long run?
>
> Love to hear opinions, as my parents are looking to buy and it's my job to
> "help" (!)

You've got it wrong. There's no arguments here (apart from the trolls)
about advantages of one over the other :-) It's horses for courses.
Apart from a small cross over at ~40", if you want up to 40" you get a
LCD, if you want above 40" then plasma (except if you want a projector
and/or rearpro).

There is little difference betwen the life expectancy. Thet both rival
normal CRT TV's, so not a problem. Servicing (ie. the electronics
tuner, scaler etc.) is similar on both as well.

Like anything these days, most people will keep them for 5-10 years,
then replace.

Hope this helps.
John

[Ext User(Mike La Pietra)]

"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:43eeaa36$1@mail.netspeed.com.au...
> Mike La Pietra wrote:
>> ok... heard all arguments in here re: advantages of one over the other in
>> terms of quality etc... but does anyone know which will last longer?
>> Which would - potentially - have fewer problems in terms of servicing,
>> maintenance and costs in the long run?
>>
>> Love to hear opinions, as my parents are looking to buy and it's my job
>> to "help" (!)
>
> You've got it wrong. There's no arguments here (apart from the trolls)
> about advantages of one over the other :-) It's horses for courses. Apart
> from a small cross over at ~40", if you want up to 40" you get a LCD, if
> you want above 40" then plasma (except if you want a projector and/or
> rearpro).
>
> There is little difference betwen the life expectancy. Thet both rival
> normal CRT TV's, so not a problem. Servicing (ie. the electronics tuner,
> scaler etc.) is similar on both as well.
>
> Like anything these days, most people will keep them for 5-10 years, then
> replace.
>
> Hope this helps.

thanks John. I just thought that with two very different technologies one
may be more reliable/cheaper to run etc.
btw, by "argument" I didn't mean it in the fighting sense... more along the
"carefully reasoned opinion" sense.

Cheers,
Mike

[Ext User(John)]

Mike La Pietra wrote:
> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:43eeaa36$1@mail.netspeed.com.au...
>> Mike La Pietra wrote:
>>> ok... heard all arguments in here re: advantages of one over the other in
>>> terms of quality etc... but does anyone know which will last longer?
>>> Which would - potentially - have fewer problems in terms of servicing,
>>> maintenance and costs in the long run?
>>>
>>> Love to hear opinions, as my parents are looking to buy and it's my job
>>> to "help" (!)
>> You've got it wrong. There's no arguments here (apart from the trolls)
>> about advantages of one over the other :-) It's horses for courses. Apart
>> from a small cross over at ~40", if you want up to 40" you get a LCD, if
>> you want above 40" then plasma (except if you want a projector and/or
>> rearpro).
>>
>> There is little difference betwen the life expectancy. Thet both rival
>> normal CRT TV's, so not a problem. Servicing (ie. the electronics tuner,
>> scaler etc.) is similar on both as well.
>>
>> Like anything these days, most people will keep them for 5-10 years, then
>> replace.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>
> thanks John. I just thought that with two very different technologies one
> may be more reliable/cheaper to run etc.
> btw, by "argument" I didn't mean it in the fighting sense... more along the
> "carefully reasoned opinion" sense.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike

Oh yes, plenty of that here!! :-)

If you're looking for something for the folks, maybe look at the 42" LG
plasma with built in HD tuner. The good thing about it is that it has a
high PAF (parent acceptance factor) because it just has the one remote
(ie. no separate tuner, remote, cables etc.), is easy to use and has a
pretty good picture for the price. I wouldn't get one for myself, but
I'm looking at one for my folks for this reason.

Regards

[Ext User(mindesign)]

Hi Mike

I finally elected to go with Plasma after checking the specs and physically
watching around 15 - 20 units. I found LCD to have trouble with fast motion
video. Specs-wise both have advantages and disadvantages, though I believe
Plasma will be a lot more expensive to run as it consumes up to 300 - 400
Watts when running

Dead pixels are a fact of life on both and for the most part will not be
allowed for warranty replacement unless "excessive" - it's in inverted comas
because each manufacturer holds their tongue a different way when
calculating it.

I understand a move toward LG for the reasons stated but reinforce that I
wouldn't have one either as the quality just isn't there and I can't ignore
that as I am the mug who is paying for it AND sitting in front of it for
thousands of hours ...... it would just be toooooooo much.

I became very (over) excited when the Bravia was released and thought it
might finally do the trick - for me, it didn't - by a longshot...... and I
am no purist. Seeing it with my DVD video source (Thanks DVDShrink) of
action sequences, next to a Panasonic, Pioneer and Fujitsu/Hitachi Plasma,
there was no contest - again, FOR ME. All screens were calibrated as far as
is possible by my friend who owns the store I checked them in. I spent at
least an hour with all units.

Finally, I feel any of the Plasmas mentioned would be suitable, given the
budget. I chose the Hitachi for two reasons. 1. 68Billion colours
displayable compared to Pioneer's 16.7 million. and 2. size - at 55inch for
the same price as the Pioneer 50. Issues like warranty came into the mix,
but if you read each of them, they are both pretty crappy. Inputs matter and
while I can't recall what the Pioneer has now, the Hitachi has two of
everything basically. Neither has a bloody digital tuner which sucks
(where's the remote?). Hitachi has a swivel base that is operated by the
remote - it is a wank..... like electric seat adjustment on my car - the
only time I use it is after my wife drives. The Pioneer looked nicer being
all black, but I figure I watch TV, I don't look at the TV.....and the
Hitachi looks fine, it just has silver/grey speaker covers, which I can't
bring myself to remove and repaint. Burn-in and screen life issues are all
addressed now - Hitachi is rated at 60,000 hours which represents 17 years
at 10 hours a day, from memory, and the rating is to half-luminance of the
screen, not death.

To me, the 42/43 inch Plasmas were all nice by these manufacturers.

I wish I still had my 94 CM Loewe CRT though

:)



"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:43ef1d97$1@mail.netspeed.com.au...
> Mike La Pietra wrote:
>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:43eeaa36$1@mail.netspeed.com.au...
>>> Mike La Pietra wrote:
>>>> ok... heard all arguments in here re: advantages of one over the other
>>>> in terms of quality etc... but does anyone know which will last longer?
>>>> Which would - potentially - have fewer problems in terms of servicing,
>>>> maintenance and costs in the long run?
>>>>
>>>> Love to hear opinions, as my parents are looking to buy and it's my job
>>>> to "help" (!)
>>> You've got it wrong. There's no arguments here (apart from the trolls)
>>> about advantages of one over the other :-) It's horses for courses.
>>> Apart from a small cross over at ~40", if you want up to 40" you get a
>>> LCD, if you want above 40" then plasma (except if you want a projector
>>> and/or rearpro).
>>>
>>> There is little difference betwen the life expectancy. Thet both rival
>>> normal CRT TV's, so not a problem. Servicing (ie. the electronics
>>> tuner, scaler etc.) is similar on both as well.
>>>
>>> Like anything these days, most people will keep them for 5-10 years,
>>> then replace.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> thanks John. I just thought that with two very different technologies one
>> may be more reliable/cheaper to run etc.
>> btw, by "argument" I didn't mean it in the fighting sense... more along
>> the "carefully reasoned opinion" sense.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mike
>
> Oh yes, plenty of that here!! :-)
>
> If you're looking for something for the folks, maybe look at the 42" LG
> plasma with built in HD tuner. The good thing about it is that it has a
> high PAF (parent acceptance factor) because it just has the one remote
> (ie. no separate tuner, remote, cables etc.), is easy to use and has a
> pretty good picture for the price. I wouldn't get one for myself, but I'm
> looking at one for my folks for this reason.
>
> Regards

[Ext User(Dean)]

I would pick LCDs over plasma. I have seen lots of LCDs and Plasmas and The
LCDs that i have seen consume minimal power ( compare to the Plasmas i have
seen ) and inturn generate less heat ( nothing worse than watching -high
power consumption TVs -in hot summer). Pixel ratio is much better than most
plasmas as well.

In short, quality wise, I would choose LCDs
Durability wise, they are very much the same ( LCDs technology should last
decades but like most other electrical appliances today, LCDs are designed
to last as long as when the manufacturers decide you should buy from them
again.

Depending on how frequent you use it, I reckon10 years max )

Cheers
Dean

[Ext User(mindesign)]

but what about the quality of the image? Have you found an LCD panel that
you feel is equal to CRT or even a good Plasma display?

Steve


"Dean" <dean128@msn.com> wrote in message
news:XAWHf.7099$yK1.6329@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> I would pick LCDs over plasma. I have seen lots of LCDs and Plasmas and
> The LCDs that i have seen consume minimal power ( compare to the Plasmas
> i have seen ) and inturn generate less heat ( nothing worse than
> watching -high power consumption TVs -in hot summer). Pixel ratio is much
> better than most plasmas as well.
>
> In short, quality wise, I would choose LCDs
> Durability wise, they are very much the same ( LCDs technology should last
> decades but like most other electrical appliances today, LCDs are designed
> to last as long as when the manufacturers decide you should buy from them
> again.
>
> Depending on how frequent you use it, I reckon10 years max )
>
> Cheers
> Dean
>

[Ext User(grumpy@mailinator.com)]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:37:57 +1100, "mindesign" <seriph_I_SAID_NO_BLOODY_SPAM@consultant.com>
wrote:

> but what about the quality of the image? Have you found an LCD panel that
> you feel is equal to CRT or even a good Plasma display?

A friend has an 80cm BenQ LCD panel and the display on it is magnificent. Better than that of my
old JVC IntelliArt CRT.

[Ext User(Dean)]

but what about the quality of the image? Have you found an LCD panel that
you feel is equal to CRT or even a good Plasma display?

One of the LCD pannels that i have seen was LG with Resolution of around
1400 x 800 ( approx ) and the image was brilliant and better than most
plasma. There were some Plasmas that have great image resolution but they
were really expensive. Comparing Plasma Pannels around $3000 mark against
LCDs at the same price range, the plasmas are smooth on the eyes of viewers
but the images werent defined. LCDs on the other hand are just as smooth but
have better image definition.

If LCDs pannels were sh*t then US consumers would not buy them because LCD
Technology was founded by the US and they sold it to Japanese decades ago
after they perceived the economic value of LCD technology could only be in
the form of calculator's screen or CD player's screen (etc). The great
business mind of Japanese Corp turned this old tech into something new and
now selling back to US and the rest of the world.

[Ext User(mindesign)]

I am still smiling about that last paragraph

:^)

helluva piece of logic that one


"Dean" <dean128@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bZ8If.7532$yK1.6911@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> but what about the quality of the image? Have you found an LCD panel that
> you feel is equal to CRT or even a good Plasma display?
>
> One of the LCD pannels that i have seen was LG with Resolution of around
> 1400 x 800 ( approx ) and the image was brilliant and better than most
> plasma. There were some Plasmas that have great image resolution but they
> were really expensive. Comparing Plasma Pannels around $3000 mark against
> LCDs at the same price range, the plasmas are smooth on the eyes of
> viewers but the images werent defined. LCDs on the other hand are just as
> smooth but have better image definition.
>
> If LCDs pannels were sh*t then US consumers would not buy them because LCD
> Technology was founded by the US and they sold it to Japanese decades ago
> after they perceived the economic value of LCD technology could only be in
> the form of calculator's screen or CD player's screen (etc). The great
> business mind of Japanese Corp turned this old tech into something new and
> now selling back to US and the rest of the world.
>
>
>

[Ext User(Mike La Pietra)]

huge thanks to both of you... much needed input. Certainly given me a lot to
think about & appreciate the guidance.

Mike

"mindesign" <seriph_I_SAID_NO_BLOODY_SPAM@consultant.com> wrote in message
news:OEWHf.1553$k6.31796@nasal.pacific.net.au...
> Hi Mike
>
> I finally elected to go with Plasma after checking the specs and
> physically watching around 15 - 20 units. I found LCD to have trouble with
> fast motion video. Specs-wise both have advantages and disadvantages,
> though I believe Plasma will be a lot more expensive to run as it consumes
> up to 300 - 400 Watts when running
>
> Dead pixels are a fact of life on both and for the most part will not be
> allowed for warranty replacement unless "excessive" - it's in inverted
> comas because each manufacturer holds their tongue a different way when
> calculating it.
>
> I understand a move toward LG for the reasons stated but reinforce that I
> wouldn't have one either as the quality just isn't there and I can't
> ignore that as I am the mug who is paying for it AND sitting in front of
> it for thousands of hours ...... it would just be toooooooo much.
>
> I became very (over) excited when the Bravia was released and thought it
> might finally do the trick - for me, it didn't - by a longshot...... and I
> am no purist. Seeing it with my DVD video source (Thanks DVDShrink) of
> action sequences, next to a Panasonic, Pioneer and Fujitsu/Hitachi Plasma,
> there was no contest - again, FOR ME. All screens were calibrated as far
> as is possible by my friend who owns the store I checked them in. I spent
> at least an hour with all units.
>
> Finally, I feel any of the Plasmas mentioned would be suitable, given the
> budget. I chose the Hitachi for two reasons. 1. 68Billion colours
> displayable compared to Pioneer's 16.7 million. and 2. size - at 55inch
> for the same price as the Pioneer 50. Issues like warranty came into the
> mix, but if you read each of them, they are both pretty crappy. Inputs
> matter and while I can't recall what the Pioneer has now, the Hitachi has
> two of everything basically. Neither has a bloody digital tuner which
> sucks (where's the remote?). Hitachi has a swivel base that is operated by
> the remote - it is a wank..... like electric seat adjustment on my car -
> the only time I use it is after my wife drives. The Pioneer looked nicer
> being all black, but I figure I watch TV, I don't look at the TV.....and
> the Hitachi looks fine, it just has silver/grey speaker covers, which I
> can't bring myself to remove and repaint. Burn-in and screen life issues
> are all addressed now - Hitachi is rated at 60,000 hours which represents
> 17 years at 10 hours a day, from memory, and the rating is to
> half-luminance of the screen, not death.
>
> To me, the 42/43 inch Plasmas were all nice by these manufacturers.
>
> I wish I still had my 94 CM Loewe CRT though
>
> :)
>
>
>
> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:43ef1d97$1@mail.netspeed.com.au...
>> Mike La Pietra wrote:
>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:43eeaa36$1@mail.netspeed.com.au...
>>>> Mike La Pietra wrote:
>>>>> ok... heard all arguments in here re: advantages of one over the other
>>>>> in terms of quality etc... but does anyone know which will last
>>>>> longer? Which would - potentially - have fewer problems in terms of
>>>>> servicing, maintenance and costs in the long run?
>>>>>
>>>>> Love to hear opinions, as my parents are looking to buy and it's my
>>>>> job to "help" (!)
>>>> You've got it wrong. There's no arguments here (apart from the trolls)
>>>> about advantages of one over the other :-) It's horses for courses.
>>>> Apart from a small cross over at ~40", if you want up to 40" you get a
>>>> LCD, if you want above 40" then plasma (except if you want a projector
>>>> and/or rearpro).
>>>>
>>>> There is little difference betwen the life expectancy. Thet both rival
>>>> normal CRT TV's, so not a problem. Servicing (ie. the electronics
>>>> tuner, scaler etc.) is similar on both as well.
>>>>
>>>> Like anything these days, most people will keep them for 5-10 years,
>>>> then replace.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>
>>> thanks John. I just thought that with two very different technologies
>>> one may be more reliable/cheaper to run etc.
>>> btw, by "argument" I didn't mean it in the fighting sense... more along
>>> the "carefully reasoned opinion" sense.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mike
>>
>> Oh yes, plenty of that here!! :-)
>>
>> If you're looking for something for the folks, maybe look at the 42" LG
>> plasma with built in HD tuner. The good thing about it is that it has a
>> high PAF (parent acceptance factor) because it just has the one remote
>> (ie. no separate tuner, remote, cables etc.), is easy to use and has a
>> pretty good picture for the price. I wouldn't get one for myself, but
>> I'm looking at one for my folks for this reason.
>>
>> Regards
>
>

[Ext User(Mike La Pietra)]

"Dean" <dean128@msn.com> wrote in message
news:XAWHf.7099$yK1.6329@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> I would pick LCDs over plasma. I have seen lots of LCDs and Plasmas and
> The LCDs that i have seen consume minimal power ( compare to the Plasmas
> i have seen ) and inturn generate less heat ( nothing worse than
> watching -high power consumption TVs -in hot summer). Pixel ratio is much
> better than most plasmas as well.
>
> In short, quality wise, I would choose LCDs
> Durability wise, they are very much the same ( LCDs technology should last
> decades but like most other electrical appliances today, LCDs are designed
> to last as long as when the manufacturers decide you should buy from them
> again.
>
> Depending on how frequent you use it, I reckon10 years max )

Many thanks Dean. I need to bear in mind all comments made here when we're
looking (r-e-a-l-l-y looking) at them together.

Cheers,
Mike