LCD monitors (was Re: tube technology and EMP)

Eric Smith eric at
Fri Apr 22 16:20:30 CDT 2005

Allison wrote:
> My .02 is sure LCDs are nice, small and expensive but, they even come with
> a guarentee that 99.99% of the pixels are good. The rest are well, bad.

The rate is better than that.  I'm not sure of the manufacturer's spec,
but Newegg will accept returns if 8 or more pixels are bad.  On a 21"
LCD (1600x1200), that is 99.9995% good.  In practice, there are not
that many bad.  The last several Samsung ones I've inspected had no bad
pixels at all.

> A lot of users have noted that getting an LCD with 100% good pixels
> is either tough or expensive.

If you buy a name brand LCD, it's likely to cost a bit more and have
fewer (or no) bad pixels.

A monitor (CRT or LCD) is something I expect to use for quite a few years.
I think it's a false economy to try to save money by buying an off brand.

I've had an LCD monitor for eight years now.  It is a 14" 1024x768, which
was VERY expensive back then; now the equivalent can be found for under
$250.  It had one bad pixel, for which blue was always on.  This is *much*
more annoying than bad pixels that are stuck off.  Generally the
threshold for acceptable bad pixels that are stuck on is lower than that
for stuck off, or even zero.  Anyhow, I've used it a fair bit, and it
has never developed any more bad pixels.  I've never even heard of that

The normal failure mode for an LCD monitor is for one of the fluorescent
tubes of the backlight to fail.  These can be very expensive to replace
as they are usually not common tubes.


More information about the cctech mailing list