Find the perfect gift for everyone
Community weekly poll: Should manufacturers stop building direct-view (tube) sets?
- 9/7/06 2:50 PM
Too bad...
by Treker - 9/9/06 8:19 AM In reply to: IN THE UK THERE IS VERY LITTLE CHOICE ANYWAY by kevin.gottI still prefer choice...not someone "telling" me what I "have" to buy...
I like choice as well...
by BlazeEagle - 9/10/06 5:39 PM In reply to: Too bad... by TrekerBeing forced into things is not the way I want live. Espcially when it comes to technology & entertainment.
Choice & freedom are good things to have.
Let's not keep the horse and bugy!
by beachtech - 9/8/06 5:40 AM In reply to: Should manufacturers stop building direct-view (tube) sets? by Marc Bennett
No more steam cars, not many horse and bugy models,
chariots and such. Can you imagine where all the big tube TVs are now?....enough have been made to cover New York City completly over...even to the tallest bldg. with the ''dead'' units that have or need to be disposed of.
Don't throw the baby out with the washwater
by Treker - 9/9/06 8:23 AM In reply to: Let's not keep the horse and bugy! by beachtechThe horse and buggy will still be operational when everything's annihilated and there's no electricity. New isn't always better
New may not be better, but it gets you somewhere
by maxibemis - 9/10/06 12:11 PM In reply to: Don't throw the baby out with the washwater by TrekerNew may not be better, but it gets you somewhere.
Using the horse and buggy anology isn't really realistic.
Sure, you can still use the horse and buggy, but you'll note that they aren't being produced by any major manufactures like they were over a 100 years ago. and if you want to get anywhere, you use whatever is modern to do it, i.e. some sort of motorized vehicle.
And this bit about choice and not wanting others to dictate what your choices are, that has and always will be dictated by demand. If people want more LCD/Plasma stype sets then CRT, it only makes sense that companies will quit wasting their monies on none selling items.
And let's face it, the rest of the world wants to get on with the digital age and be done with the anolog age, finally.
This whole thing about how CRTs are better or not is sort of a joke anyway. The fact is that each has it's good and bad points, but the real fact is, that digital WILL over take the anolog age and has much, much more to offer anyway, especially as time goes by.
And something I keep seeing everyone here forgetting about, is these flippin huge CRTs crank out the heat, despite that some will claim that their's doesn't, they still put out way more heat then a flat panel does.
I just replaced my 27'' Sony Trinitron TV set with a 32'' Samsung LCD and I love the new set.
The old set, for one, didn't last anywhere near as long as all these life spans I keep reading here, after a mere 6-7 years, it croaked and it would of cost more then the set was worth to replace the tube, so I had to pay the guy a $100 bucks to put in an used tube so I could get a little more life out of it. And the whole time I had that thing, it cranked out the heat, just like my two CRT monitors currently always do and I have the fans running in my little appartment all the time.
Personally, I'll be happy when everyone else gets on the bandwagon so prices can fall even more.
And speaking of which, what is this bit about price?
Doesn't anyone remember how expensive TVs were just not that long ago?
Growing up, all we could afford was a crummy used black and white set and we felt rich because we even had a set and I'm only 48. We didn't get a color TV until I was already grown up and moved out and in my mid twenties and then it was because someone gave us a set. Cuz at the time $400-$500 bucks for 19" color set was insane! I couldn't afford my own NEW color set until about `86!
So this whole thing about choice and all is kind of pointless, as your choices are no different then they've ever been for any product at any time.
You either can afford new technologies or you can't.
It's that simple.
Times move on as technologies advance and those who can't keep up, don't.
This bit about subsidizing TVs so the elderly can still have TVs is insane and more attempts at wasting tax dollars LOL
The poor, elderly and dissabled, which I am the first and last of these choices listed, if they couldn't afford a new device called TV, were stuck with radio, if they could even afford that? And nothing has changed still. Only you don't have radio shows like they once did, only talk and music programs.
I wished they did still have good old radio shows, but it doesn't make money and that's life.
Tubes offer a superior, more flexible picture, much cheaper!
by JayScott - 9/8/06 5:53 AM In reply to: Should manufacturers stop building direct-view (tube) sets? by Marc Bennett
Okay, so maybe you don't care how much you spend.
And maybe you don't care if a tube offers better brightness and contrast.
Maybe you don't play games or fast-action videos (or don't watch too closely) and don't care that tubes offer MUCH better speed.
(Or maybe you get a plasma to get the brightness, contrast and speed and don't care that tubes typically last 4 times longer, for 1/10th the cost.)
Maybe you don't even care that tube computer monitors let you change resolution without making a mess.
You can decide to be concerned about how heavy a big tube is. Even though your TV is probably like mine, which gets moved roughly once every 10 years.
You can decide to be concerned about the depth a big tube takes up, even though most people put a flat screen in a place where there would be room for a tube, too.
But, let's face it, this is really all about FASHION! Flat screens are COOL! Why else would people pay AT LEAST twice as much, and usually much higher?
Just yesterday, I was speaking with a 16-year-old son of a friend, and I told him, ''whenever you see people dointgsomething cool, it's a useful exercise to ask yourself, 'would that be a good idea, if it weren't cool?' and notice that the answer's usually No." Example: would people put $2,000 wheels on a $3,000 car, when they get ones that work just as well for free, if it weren't cool?
Okay; I can hear all those New Yawkers complaining right now that they don't have ROOM for a tube. Well, duh. But what's living in New Yawk, but the ultimate fashion statement?
I have a 2800 sf 4br/3ba house in an upscale well-wooded suburb so close-in I can easily bike downtown (in a city of 5 million), for about $1100 a month. Or, I could move to Manhattan and sleep on a convertible sofa, sharing a 500 sf studio for the same. Sensible?
If you're not willing to be sensible, you don't have to be; it's a free country. But don't insult everyone else's intelligence by pretending to have sensible reasons for just following fashion and trying to be cool.
It's like all those Bozos (apologies to the clown) who say it saves money from energy efficiency: if an LCD uses 100 watts less and you pay $.10/kWh, and you're a total potato and watch 8 hours a day, it would take 7 years to pay back only $200 higher cost. Now, most in the business don't expect them to last any longer than that.
By the way, tubes last 20+ years, typically.
Okay; if you're a slave to fashion, you tuned this out long ago, anyway.
Sorry, not quite.
by ehlainee - 9/8/06 6:28 AM In reply to: Tubes offer a superior, more flexible picture, much cheaper! by JayScottFor the last few years, the average rated lifespan of a plasma is 60000 hours. Better than the average CRT - Do the math. And LCD's life is indefinite - you merely change the bulb.
Finally, for many, buying a flat panel isn't about being cool - it's about the fact that it offers perfect geometry, no flicker, is digital (no picture degrading D/A conversion required), wall mountable to stay out of a child's reach, and, most importantly, is available in sizes CRT cannot attain.
Good food for thought on the cool discussion, but you missed something basic - one doing something "cool" isn't necessarily doing it to be cool. Someone armed with antiquated ideas and inaccurate specs could certainly think so though.
so says the manufacturers BUT...
by AVPro - 9/8/06 6:45 AM In reply to: Sorry, not quite. by ehlaineeas an AV profesional I can say for sure that most specs are what I call 'marketing specs' and have no relationship to the real world. Did they mention that most of their numbers are calculated to the time when brightness has been reduced to 50%. Set your plasma up and then turn the brightness down 1/4. Still watchable? If it is that's what it will look like at 1/2 the manufacturer's stated life. Now turn it down by half. Still happy?
You digess...
by Zeppo - 9/8/06 1:52 PM In reply to: so says the manufacturers BUT... by AVProI've heard so called experts before - they're so "expert" that they disagree with each other constantly.
Besides, most people will be very happy with an LCD or Plasma that lasts 10 years or so, the average life of a CRT.
And, when I got my 20" ViewSonic monitor, I did have to turn the brightness down about 50% to get the picture to look proper. I guess that means it will last a loooooong time, hunh?
Well stated!
by Zeppo - 9/8/06 1:44 PM In reply to: Sorry, not quite. by ehlaineeI applaud you sir! And completely agree - Great message. 
Availability of LCD
by thirdrail2002 - 9/8/06 6:13 AM In reply to: Should manufacturers stop building direct-view (tube) sets? by Marc Bennett
The one big reason NOT to stop manufacuting tub TVs is the availability of Liquid Crystals. If they stopped making tube TVs the cost of LCD screens would go through the roof due to suppy and demand. You would price TVs out of range for the poor.
Those wanting standard definition can get a tube TV for less than half the cost of an LCD TV that has as good or better picture for standard definition.
For now, I'm sticking with my CRT...
by baseman - 9/8/06 6:55 AM In reply to: Should manufacturers stop building direct-view (tube) sets? by Marc Bennett
I couldn't wait to get an HDTV. About 6 months ago I got into the game even though I knew there were trade-offs and that standard definition would not be as good as my old CRT-based TV. Well, it was far worse...to the point of being unwatchable to me. I returned it and purchased another brand. Same thing. Even though the prime time lineup and sports are broadcast in HD, as well as the movie channels, much of my viewing is still non-HD. The trade-off of dazzling HD sources wasn't worth the poor standard definition...for me. I know many other people that have purchased HDTVs only to find they are shocked at the poor non-HD sources. My old 27" gets a beautiful crisp clear picture all the time. PS: I kept the HD cablebox from my cable company and it works great with my old CRT Panasonic. Watched the US Open on the HD channel and it was eye-popping...though not HD.
Absolutely not!
by john55440 - 9/8/06 8:02 AM In reply to: Should manufacturers stop building direct-view (tube) sets? by Marc Bennett
We have flat-front CRT TVs, and they offer a great picture at a great price.
Manufacturers love the high profit margin of flat panel TVs, but I would rather spend my money on something else.
crt
by dellbundy - 9/8/06 8:19 AM In reply to: Should manufacturers stop building direct-view (tube) sets? by Marc Bennett
I have a samsung 26 " crt in my bedroom (hdtv) other than it a little weighty exellent picture the crt has alonger self life than lcd - plasma i think dont quote me on that There is new tech coming w/ crt tech some macro mini thousands of little crt's to make up one screen awnt to let techies do their thing to give the consumer choices
Maybe
by lebonmarchant - 9/8/06 8:44 AM In reply to: Should manufacturers stop building direct-view (tube) sets? by Marc Bennett
They are in auto-phaseout anyway. Our local discount store hasn't had a CRT monitor for a couple of years.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
