LCD Marketing BS we are fed.

And as I keep pointing out to you guys, you're attitude will put people off buying good quality LCD{a friend is buying a 22 today, so it'll be interesting to see how "bad" it is}.......so when anyone discusses marketing BS, they need to qualify that genuine upgrades do exist despite the BS.

I've seen older LCD's and they were terrible, but even a lowly 19in LG from 2006 looked reasonable, and there was two on the same desk...try that with 21in CRT's.

No objections from me regarding manufactures behaviour, but some people don't want to wait forever till OLED or whatever is sizeable and affordable, as such, good quality LCD's do exist, and I strongly suspect that my mate's new 22 will crush, kill and destroy his old 17inch LCD.
 
My web developer buddy just bought a 22in Samsung 226bw.....he says it's a considerable improvement over his 19in LG LCD from 2006, so whilst the specs might be exaggerations, ongoing improvement is occuring.
 
We have talked so much about the Marketing BS, what are some actual USEFUL Specs when shopping for an HDTV/Monitor?
Useful Specs that they don't fudge much:
  • Weight
  • Housing Color
  • Native Resolution
  • Pixel Pitch

The other specs are always subject to interpolation, manipulation and imagination. For example, viewing angle spec. The accepted standard was CR>10, which is a very low threshold. However, NEC and others have decided that their TN models needed a better 'paper' viewing angle, so now it's measured at CR>5. Voila! Instant performance enhancement.

Really useful specs like input lag and backlight uniformity aren't likely to get much attention by the VESA FPDM committee.
 
I have found dynamic contrast useful for some things. An example would be on a map called de_train in Counter-Strike Source. In the usually dark areas dynamic contrast make players hiding a lot easier to see without making the screen overly bright. I'm not sure how it achieves this but it's been a life safer countless times so to speak. There are also certain movies when it helps me make out the backgrounds better. This is the dynamic contrast on Samsung lcds I'm talking about.
 
yall just mad. My LCDs all look beautiful and my eyes don't weigh 20 lbs each after I use them.
 
yall just mad. My LCDs all look beautiful and my eyes don't weigh 20 lbs each after I use them.

It's a religion to some people, ie, new tech must be superior by every measure otherwise it's "mediocre"......lucky I listened to my own instincts otherwise I'd still be on 19in CRT:eek:
 
I have found dynamic contrast useful for some things. An example would be on a map called de_train in Counter-Strike Source. In the usually dark areas dynamic contrast make players hiding a lot easier to see without making the screen overly bright. I'm not sure how it achieves this but it's been a life safer countless times so to speak. There are also certain movies when it helps me make out the backgrounds better. This is the dynamic contrast on Samsung lcds I'm talking about.
You're messing contrast enhancement/optimizing processings to dynamic contrast.
Dynamic contrast works by lowering backlight brightness when image is dark and brightening backlight when image is bright so if anything it would just make dark image darker.
 
It's a religion to some people, ie, new tech must be superior by every measure otherwise it's "mediocre"......lucky I listened to my own instincts otherwise I'd still be on 19in CRT:eek:

What exactly is your deficit? This thread had nothing to do with CRT vs LCD until you showed up with your little thread dumping crusade.

I was just sick of the specification race which on one hand is essentially false advertising and on the other is actually making monitors worse with insanely overpowered backlights, dynamic contrast BS.

In your bizarro world someone can't criticize the marketing department without it becoming an CRT vs LCD war.
 
In your bizarro world someone can't criticize the marketing department without it becoming an CRT vs LCD war.

I agree with your criticism, however, I don't agree that there aren't upgrade options available despite it.
How does the average person decide which LCD to buy if the spec warriors do nothing but criticise them all the time?.....the implication from your type of unqualified criticism leads people to assume ALL LCD are junk.

My LCD is a monumental upgrade over my old CRT, and it would be the same if I had a 19-20inch LCD.

Every major HDTV website in the world agrees that 2008 HDTV's are better than 2007 and especially 2006, so once again, even though the specs might be an exaggeration, the PQ and performance has improved whilst cost has dropped significantly.....that sounds like progress to me.
 
It may of been a monumental upgrade over *YOUR CRT* but Ive tried a variety of LCD's and they were all downgrades vs my current FW900 CRT.

You need to expand your mind a bit and realise not all CRTs were crappy Shadow mask based Hitachi's that looked good when they were new but quickly lost there vibrancy over time. Most Trinitrons last years and years without this happening and are still brighter 7 years later than a Shadow mask ever was.

And PC LCD's still have crappy black levels the only LCD ive seen with truly improved black levels is the Samsung 81 series HDTVs.
 
What exactly is your deficit? This thread had nothing to do with CRT vs LCD until you showed up with your little thread dumping crusade.

ROTFLMAO :D

yall just mad. My LCDs all look beautiful and my eyes don't weigh 20 lbs each after I use them.

I'm happy for you. But as a fellow LCD user, I sure don't hope you have a screen that has dynamic contrast, because then after use you won't have any eyes left to weigh 20 lbs . :p

And as I keep pointing out to you guys, you're attitude will put people off buying good quality LCD{a friend is buying a 22 today, so it'll be interesting to see how "bad" it is}.......so when anyone discusses marketing BS, they need to qualify that genuine upgrades do exist despite the BS.

Do you mean your LCD marketing BS?

I've seen older LCD's and they were terrible, but even a lowly 19in LG from 2006 looked reasonable, and there was two on the same desk...try that with 21in CRT's.

I'd rather have 2 quality CRTs on my desk than 2 pieces of trash that can barely output a decent picture.

and I strongly suspect that my mate's new 22 will crush, kill and destroy his old 17inch LCD.

Too bad that same new 22" can't do the same to a 10 year old 19" Trinitron CRT. Oh wait, that was "spec fetish". :rolleyes:
 
We have talked so much about the Marketing BS, what are some actual USEFUL Specs when shopping for an HDTV/Monitor?

There are big differences between TV and computer monitors. You really need to talk about one at a time. For computer monitors the best thing to do is read the reviews on this forum. For TV I would suggest reading the AVS Forum: http://www.avsforum.com/

You really need to see them in person or get first hand info from someone that has one. I have read a lot of so called "Pro" reviews and they always leave out improtant stuff or have a personal bias for certain vendors, (like the ones that pay them or their ads).

Best of luck

Dave
 
It may of been a monumental upgrade over *YOUR CRT* but Ive tried a variety of LCD's and they were all downgrades vs my current FW900 CRT.

You need to expand your mind a bit and realise not all CRTs were crappy Shadow mask based Hitachi's that looked good when they were new but quickly lost there vibrancy over time. Most Trinitrons last years and years without this happening and are still brighter 7 years later than a Shadow mask ever was.

And PC LCD's still have crappy black levels the only LCD ive seen with truly improved black levels is the Samsung 81 series HDTVs.

Yes; you have nailed it exactly. Start with the proper reference point and you will see what other are saying is true.

Dave
 
Could you tell me what the display area is?

Who cares? It's all about the picture quality, which, on the FW900, destroys almost anything in it's path, up till the present.

Stop the 2 faced argument. You keep talking about "PQ", and then you go to size, like they are magically hand in hand. Those two are not correlated save a few instances.
 
We have talked so much about the Marketing BS, what are some actual USEFUL Specs when shopping for an HDTV/Monitor?

It must be understood that the larger the screen, the more important the specs, so a small 22 or 24 can have an actual native contrast ratio of 900:1 and still perform very well.

My view with flat panels is that plasma is better overall, but the top dog LCD's produce outstanding PQ with good quality sources......so if you have a lot of DVD's and also have a SDTV feed, you should choose plasma, but if you're mainly concerned with HD, then LCD will be fine, that said, LCD is more expensive than plasma, and isn't as good overall, so it always amazes me that people buy 52in LCD over 50in plasma.

LCD is lightyears ahead if lighting is factor, you can see this instore anytime a plasma is out in the open, but if you control your lighting it's all good.

Plasma has better horizontal viewing angles, in fact, they're excellent.
Plasma has better black levels, especially 768p models{Kuro the exception}
Plasma has better native contrast ratio.
Plasma has more realistic colour reproduction.

LCD has 3 advantages IMO....

1....superior performance with heavy lighting.
2....better for gaming.....res+ no image retention
3....styling, most plasma's are ugly....even the Kuro is "just okay" styling wise IMO, whereas many LCD's look sleek and "hot".

I hold the view that one should make their purchase around their primary interest, so if it's DVD/SDTV, then plasma, but if it's HDTV and HD gaming, I'd go LCD.

Personally, I would only buy plasma as Panasonic, Pioneer and Samsung....LCD as Panasonic, Sony, Samsung and Philips.

Both LG and Toshiba are raising their game, but I see no reason to reward them at this point.
 
Who cares? It's all about the picture quality, which, on the FW900, destroys almost anything in it's path, up till the present.

Stop the 2 faced argument. You keep talking about "PQ", and then you go to size, like they are magically hand in hand. Those two are not correlated save a few instances.

You're literally stupid mate......your only goal is to act as some sort of pro-CRT hero, when most people think they're junk, and have no interest in 2nd hand products.
You seem oblvious to VISIBLE RESOLUTION, but it's quite easy to recognize the improvement when viewing a larger monitor compared to a smaller one......larger monitors allow one to visually take advantage of an images RESOLUTION.

You really are quite ridiculous......you act as though you have some sort of insight or authority despite representing perhaps as few as 1000 people in the entire world.

The fact is, people are dumping their Sony's and selling them for peanuts, ie, they're considered to be junk in this day and age regardless of their black level capability.
 
Wow I actually agree with a post from Dogmapog, except for the LCD better for gaming comment.. Take into consideration Plasma's have zero motion blur and superior black levels, Also the Kuro's are very resistant to image retention , I play a lot of videogames and ive never seen even a hint of IR after hours of gaming (360 / PS3 / Wii).

Anyone that has seen Bioshock on my Plasma are awed by how amazing it looks ..the combined black levels (its a dark game) and vibrant contrast output / amazing color seperation makes for one beautiful display.

Also I find the Kuro's piano black glossy look a nice design choice, its simple and far from ugly.
 
You're literally stupid mate......your only goal is to act as some sort of pro-CRT hero, when most people think they're junk, and have no interest in 2nd hand products.
You seem oblvious to VISIBLE RESOLUTION, but it's quite easy to recognize the improvement when viewing a larger monitor compared to a smaller one......larger monitors allow one to visually take advantage of an images RESOLUTION.

You really are quite ridiculous......you act as though you have some sort of insight or authority despite representing perhaps as few as 1000 people in the entire world.

The fact is, people are dumping their Sony's and selling them for peanuts, ie, they're considered to be junk in this day and age regardless of their black level capability.

Your ignorance is appalling. The obvious nature of people to accept marketing trash BS is fully complemented in your behavior. Bravo for being such a dope.

No one disputes that a larger monitor is better than a smaller monitor. Going back and doing a history check on your posts on this forum, about 75% of them argue that a screen is simply better because its size is bigger, not taking into account the rest of the well perceived shortcomings of an LCD. You argue this to no end, and in vain, might I add.

Second, you are proving through your arguments that you are more convincingly either blind or just plain dumb. We are talking LCDs here, and you drag in plasma? If I wanted to argue plasma, I would have done that, but we're not talking about that are we? If you want to talk about plasma or some other tech, start another thread. Don't start dragging in other technologies just to suit your arguments, and then get mad when someone beats you down.

And just as before. Just because I'm not willing to bend over to products that are poured onto the masses, that are subpar, and can't equal/beat 10+ year old tech, doesn't make me "stupid". Call me what you want, but I define that as a competent customer. If you are going to get my hard earned money, you'd better make something that's worth it.

Leave this thread. It's better for you, because I can just keep on. You have no argument.
 
LCD marketing is pumping out increasingly misleading specifications and features. I am getting annoyed by the BS factor. In the quest to quote a bigger number than the other guy, the concept of usability and image quality has been lost, in fact some of these features make image quality worse not better. Now on to some of the current....

Couldn't agree more with the original poster's summation and the many excellent comments in this thread.

Dynamic Contrast:

Yeah, I switch it off first thing. Only useful thing about this spec, is that among sets by the same manufacturer, it may suggest more user control over the backlight. For example, the Samsung 4071F appears to obtain its higher dynamic contrast over the 4065F, by being able to go darker. I found the 4071F actually went darker than I could use, which was nice. (This is however in the context of an LCD's more limited contrast ratio.)

Wide Gamut backlights

A mixed bag as the movie critics say...more is better than less, if it's properly controlled...(which as the OP points out is often not the case....)

Backlights brighter than the Sun.

Yes! And this is so annoyingly stupid. I was originally planning on getting a 27 inch display, but thought forget it when I saw how badly they had screwed up the backlighting. Originally LCD TV's were brighter on the notion that they were viewed from farther away and such. But now, some of the better LCD TV's can go substantially darker than many computer monitors. It makes no sense.

Viewing angle nonsense

Yeah...and with Kuro and probably with some of those new Panasonics (if their great specs withstand real world scrutiny), this certainly suggests plasma as a better option. Except for my PC usage especially, I think I would live in a constant state of fear regarding image retention...


Anyway, I've been through 3 LCDs recently: a GP3U, a 71F, and a 65F -- which might be hitting the price/performance sweet spot and thus be the keeper.

Why am I looking at such large panels for computer usage? Because to be at least a somewhat worthy replacement for my F520 and FW900 CRT displays, I think an LCD needs to play to its strength and be huge...
 
It may of been a monumental upgrade over *YOUR CRT* but Ive tried a variety of LCD's and they were all downgrades vs my current FW900 CRT.

You need to expand your mind a bit and realise not all CRTs were crappy Shadow mask based Hitachi's that looked good when they were new but quickly lost there vibrancy over time. Most Trinitrons last years and years without this happening and are still brighter 7 years later than a Shadow mask ever was.

And PC LCD's still have crappy black levels the only LCD ive seen with truly improved black levels is the Samsung 81 series HDTVs.

I had a 2141 (a well respected diamondtron CRT) next to an LCD and greatly preferred the LCD. The LCD was clearly brighter and more vibrant. Yes, the CRT had better blacks but also imperfect geometry. It had better response times but text sometimes appeared blurry at 1600x1200@85 (attached to 9700pro).

Point is, everyone needs to try and keep an open mind. Some people will prefer LCDs and others will prefer CRTs. There are advantages to either and it's up to the consumer to decide what is best for them. For some, including myself, an LCD is better.

However, as to the topic at hand, manufacturers are being deceptive and it is stupid. Instead of improving the technology, they are trying to cheat to hide faults. Often times, this means worse performance than if they had just not cheated at all. I think the best LCD to get would be the series or generations just prior to the cheating becoming popular. You get the most refined crystal twisting technology while avoiding the "enhancements" that reduce the picture quality. I really love the quality of my BenQ 241 (prior to BFI).
 
I had an FW900.. calibrated properly... I prefer my 24" Soyo I sold it for...

I can actually take this one to LAN's :D
 
...And PC LCD's still have crappy black levels the only LCD ive seen with truly improved black levels is the Samsung 81 series HDTVs.

Took another look at the 81F last night.

I like my displays on the darker side and I'm concerned about not being able to get that display dark enough.

Blacks are pretty true, which is great. However, it looks like they've really pumped up the ANSI contrast ratio, leaving the whites very bright.

Didn't have much luck with the backlight and power saving modes to get it darker. However, maybe I should have focused on the contrast control...if that control controls the LEDs and not just the panel...

(Also, it's 1.76 times what I've paid for the 65F, which is a lot more exposure in a market where everything is changing so quickly. Whereas I never really had any regrets over the large amount I paid for my FW900, these days I find myself more trying to find the fleeting price/performance sweet spot of the moment...)
 
No one disputes that a larger monitor is better than a smaller monitor. Going back and doing a history check on your posts on this forum, about 75% of them argue that a screen is simply better because its size is bigger, not taking into account the rest of the well perceived shortcomings of an LCD. You argue this to no end, and in vain, might I add.
.

A complete and utter lie, the fact is, and the record proves it, I've been arguing in favour of 8 bit 24-27 in LCD as a worthy upgrade to old and small LCD and CRT.
I did mention a friend bought a 22 to replace one of his 19's, but the 19 was a 12x10, and he commented on the natural viewing angles of the WS display and the superior contrast.

If you need to resort to blatant lies, it would appear "you got nuthin" but a grudge against me....I think this is because you assume you're an IT guru of some sort, and can't stand the idea that a regular joe home user would put you in your place.
Go into the DELL 27 and Samsung 27 threads and look for unhappy people, LOLOLOL.....people who buy these expensive LCD are usually well educated and well paid, yet you expect the average person to take you seriously just because you own and worship a puny 20. something Sony CRT.

Virtually no-one cares what you think, actually, most so-called experts are incapable of giving proper advice to people looking to buy in because they hate the tech they're being questioned about, even if 98% of people think the product is better than what they had.

SIZE does matter, but ideally, you want an 8 bit panel and want to check website reviews for excess backlight bleed, screen uniformity issues and general quirks that may accompany any specific model.
 
.. Take into consideration Plasma's have zero motion blur and superior black levels, Also the Kuro's are very resistant to image retention , I play a lot of videogames and ive never seen even a hint of IR after hours of gaming (360 / PS3 / Wii).

.

I have terrific respect for Pioneer, but these are the Mercedes Benz of flat panels.
I'll give you an example of what I'm up against in my neck of the woods{Australia}.
Samsung 46inch 1080 LCD with 15 000"1 contrast=$2700
Pioneer 50in Kuro 768=$3500....but the 1080 50 is about $5000.
 
I had an FW900.. calibrated properly... I prefer my 24" Soyo I sold it for...

I can actually take this one to LAN's :D

Mate ajm786 isn't concerned with being practical, he's only concerned with worshipping an old and bulky piece of texch which lights up his eyes on the spec sheet.
 
A complete and utter lie, the fact is, and the record proves it, I've been arguing in favour of 8 bit 24-27 in LCD as a worthy upgrade to old and small LCD and CRT.

The fact is, and the record proves it, you've been arguing off-topic. Take your "bigger and newer is better" sermon to another post. Maybe another forum.
 
ajm786.

It seems like you hate the truth, but the truth is, there are some good LCD's, ie, they're better than smaller LCD and CRT overall.
I don't dispute that there's some gimmicks being used, but how many times do I have to tell you that good quality 24-27 will satisfy most people.....now obviously it won't satisfy someone like you, but you represent a tiny minority prepared to tolerate puny screens because of a spec fetish.

Your going off track.

Yes there are some good LCD monitors. In fact i like my Dell 2405 FPW and i think the newer Dell 2408 WFP looks like a gorgeous upgrade prospect.

However, what we are discussing here is THE BAD MARKETING SCAM GOING ON FOR LCDS !!!


Dead pixels ? GTG latency ratings, dyanamic contrast ratios etc.
 
You are just trolling now.

The fact is, and the record proves it, you've been arguing off-topic. Take your "bigger and newer is better" sermon to another post. Maybe another forum.

Great to see that I'm not alone in recognizing it.

A complete and utter lie, the fact is, and the record proves it, I've been arguing in favour of 8 bit 24-27 in LCD as a worthy upgrade to old and small LCD and CRT.

See above.

If you need to resort to blatant lies, it would appear "you got nuthin" but a grudge against me....I think this is because you assume you're an IT guru of some sort, and can't stand the idea that a regular joe home user would put you in your place.

Angry trolling, anyone? :p

Go into the DELL 27 and Samsung 27 threads and look for unhappy people

Been there, done that. Plenty of people mad, complaining, and returning them.

LOLOLOL.....people who buy these expensive LCD are usually well educated and well paid, yet you expect the average person to take you seriously just because you own and worship a puny 20. something Sony CRT.

Well then people, let's reason here! I didn't know I wasn't well educated?! Nor did I know that I don't get well paid enough to buy "expensive" LCDs!? Wow! You know more than I do about myself!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

</not.>

Let's see. I own and currently use:

1. Viewsonic VP201b LCD
2. Viewsonic VX922 (2 of them)
3. Sharp LCD projector (forgot the model number, cuz it's mounted on the ceiling :eek: )
4. Acer 19" Widescreen (at work)
5. Hans 19" LCD (at work)
6. Dell 2007FPW (3 of them for work)
7. Gateway VX900T Trinitron CRT

Out of those, 9 are LCD or LCD based. Need any more proof?

Virtually no-one cares what you think, actually, most so-called experts are incapable of giving proper advice to people looking to buy in because they hate the tech they're being questioned about, even if 98% of people think the product is better than what they had.

I hate LCD so much. Yet they are the majority of the displays that I own. Brilliant. :rolleyes:

I think it's clear by now the divide between competence and utter lack of common sense. Blindly defending flawed technology is useless, so end it. No one is saying it can't be used. We simply have no choice and have to live with what is out there. But that doesn't mean that we unquestionably embrace the garbage that's been shoved on us up till now. I refuse to do it, and so will most COMPETENT people.
 
You guys rubbish LCD without conceding that large good quality LCD are better than small and older CRT and LCD.....who cares whether the Sony has better black levels, it's old, small and bulky and cannot be bought new.

Yes the manufactures are exaggerating/lying about the specs, but that doesn't mean all LCD is bad or unworthy of upgrading, especially from old and small CRT and LCD.

You guys are effectively wasting your time complaining about it, the manufactures have a timeslot for the products, and also have to make profits from the money they've spent on R&D+factories to produce these products, so don't expect to see any a newer tech in a range of sizes and prices until the business cycle is completed.

In the meantime, one can buy a good quality LCD for their PC or a plasma for HDTV.
 
You're messing contrast enhancement/optimizing processings to dynamic contrast.
Dynamic contrast works by lowering backlight brightness when image is dark and brightening backlight when image is bright so if anything it would just make dark image darker.

well this was on a Samsung 206BW, Dynamic Contrast under the MagicBright settings and it did seem to help. I'm not sure how though when you put it like that.
 
I think Dogmapog is missing the point of this thread entirely. The point is the false marketing tactics that make finding a good LCD next to impossible. For instance, if the specs we all are interested in were acurate and included, such as panel model number, black point and input lag, it would make finding the right LCD less of a chore.

Right now, the manufacturers would rather play the numbers game than be honest about their products. In my opinion they should all be reported to the Better Business Bureau. But it's the same in every portion of the tech industry, specs lie and always will lie.
 
I think Dogmapog is missing the point of this thread entirely. The point is the false marketing tactics that make finding a good LCD next to impossible. For instance, if the specs we all are interested in were acurate and included, such as panel model number, black point and input lag, it would make finding the right LCD less of a chore.

Right now, the manufacturers would rather play the numbers game than be honest about their products. In my opinion they should all be reported to the Better Business Bureau. But it's the same in every portion of the tech industry, specs lie and always will lie.

Correct; and beyound that those of us that have been in the tech industry for many years, (over 20 years in my case) are very frustrated by the fact that LCD tech still has not surpassed CRTs in many ways. When you consider what quality LCDs cost as compared to how they perform, you can't help but get POed. LCDs are better than CRT when working with text. I prefer my LCD for programming, documentation and browsing these forums, but I still have my Sony CRT so I can actually see what pictures look like. LCDs are not good with pictures or video, and for what they cost they should be.

As someone already stated the marketing BS is a scam to shorten the life cycle of current displays. They get away with it because most consumers just look at the price. The end result is that we are going in circules. Just look at all of the new TN pannels with the super low prices.

Have fun

Dave
 
I think people here have specific complaints about LCDs and I think the largest part of those complaints is the fact that they feel like they are being lied to...

How is it that I can have a BenQ G2400W monitor sitting in front of me with supposed 160 degree viewing angles that change colors when I move my head vertically, yet my Dell 2005FPW with only (supposedly) 9 degrees each way advantage (18 total) does not?

How is it that I've seen 2ms displays that ghost or blur as much or more than my BenQ FP241VW (6ms) or Westinghouse L2410NM (8ms)?

How is it that the Samsung 2493HM (which I've looked at in store) has such a huge, listed contrast advantage over my monitors yet, (oh wait it's dynamic) the blacks are blacker on my monitors (pick one) and whites are whiter and the Samsung looks washed out comparatively?

And YET, these are not only specific complaints about the numbers being fed to us by @$$wipe marketing departments, but all specific complaints about LCDs that I don't remember about CRTs?

What people here are looking for is honesty and real technological progress THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. No one is saying that moving to LCDs is completely a bad idea, but in their eyes it may NOT be an upgrade, considering their issues with the technology and how it's marketed.

So stop arguing like you're on PMS and stop hijacking threads with your diatribes and questions about size and thickness, please.

10e

You guys rubbish LCD without conceding that large good quality LCD are better than small and older CRT and LCD.....who cares whether the Sony has better black levels, it's old, small and bulky and cannot be bought new.

Yes the manufactures are exaggerating/lying about the specs, but that doesn't mean all LCD is bad or unworthy of upgrading, especially from old and small CRT and LCD.

You guys are effectively wasting your time complaining about it, the manufactures have a timeslot for the products, and also have to make profits from the money they've spent on R&D+factories to produce these products, so don't expect to see any a newer tech in a range of sizes and prices until the business cycle is completed.

In the meantime, one can buy a good quality LCD for their PC or a plasma for HDTV.
 
Back
Top