led vs. lcd monitors

[Robert Spanjaard]

On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 17:42:19 -0400, Fred A. Miller wrote:

> On 11/02/2011 12:56 PM, Doug wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>> Doug,
>>> As most people are lured by sales-speak, Led-displays are
>>> LCD-displays. The only difference they have LED's as light-source
>>> instead of lamps. The display is in both cases LCD. I think that
>>> actually to produce LED-lights is cheaper but it is a new fad and
>>> therefore more expensive. (My last screen was a "cheap" (Philips)
>>> LCD-screen from the sales corner: works as a charm).
>>> Cheers,
>>> Joep
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, I know that the image-forming technology is the same, but perhaps
>> the folks who make LED sets use fewer pixels? I couldn't understand why
>> what I was seeing was true, but it was.  It was mostly noticeable with
>> black text on a white background, which is much of what I use a
>> computer for.
> 
> Sharpness depends, in part, on the brand you choose. There are 2 other
> differences
> between LCD and LED in monitors AND TVs. They are; LED "anything" costs
> less
> to run...less electricity, and the life of LED is far longer than plasma
> and also LCD.

As explained by Joep, LED screens are LCD screens. So stating that LED 
has a longer life than LCD is like stating that a horn has a longer life 
than an engine, so you'd better get the horn.

What _is_ true is that LEDs have a longer life than CCFL tubes used in 
'regular' LCD screens. CCFL tubes lose a noticable amount of brightness 
over time. The CCFLs in my own screen lost about 25% in 5 years of 
extensive use (say 5 hours per day).

-- 
Regards, Robert                                      http://www.arumes.com