"Steve" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:19:52 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?



Power consumption, heat generation, picture brightness, operational
lifetime, reliability. Another big reason is that even if you go by
the rated spec for Plasma length of service, that doesn't include
burn-in. I use my LCD TV as a *big* computer monitor and also for
playing games with the PS3. LCD does not suffer from screen burn with
static areas of bright screen. Plasma does.




Steve, please don't think I am arguing with you or against LCD, but your
information is dated.

Newer plasma displays are not permanently affected by screen burn. If used
as a
video game monitor for hours and hours, they may develop a temporary
residual image, but it goes away in a short period of time. The older
plasmas *did* have a permanent screen burn problem and the owner's manuals
warned against using them for extended periods of time with static images
like video games or watching in a non-wide screen mode. That is no longer
true, but the reputation remains.

BTW, my daughter with the two boys has a 3-4 year old plasma and the boys
use it for hours and hours (too much) playing their various video games.
There's no evidence of screen burn on their set.

Power consumption is an issue, although the difference between a large
screen LCD and a large screen plasma is not a huge issue. 100 watts or less
difference.

I still maintain that the plasma, when adjusted properly, produces a better
quality picture than a properly adjusted LCD, and I just spend an hour or so
re-confirming that. The new LCD is very nice. The older 50" plasma is
better. Both are Samsungs. The difference is really only important to
nit-pickers, like me.

Frankly, since I picked up, carried into the house and installed these TV's
myself, the biggest advantage of the 46" LCD over the 50" plasma is that the
LCD weighs about half that of the plasma. :-)

Eisboch