Computer monitor vs TV quality

[Ltank]

I see lots of LED and Plasma TV failures but very few 21 to 26"
Computer monitors that are also used for TV. Regular TV have a much higher failure rate. The TV panels have a high ribbon cable failure rate as compared to computer monitors. Is due to higher resolution and drive current of bigger screens? Why do the put the chip on film. Plasma TV has all the chips on a board
and the ribbon cables have no ICs. The days of reliable TV are long gone. They build crummy quality, wanting you to buy a new set instead of repairing the old.

[tom66]

Re: Computer monitor vs TV quality

Two main reasons:

Most people don't bother fixing smaller monitors, and those who do, for example retiredcaps do not do it for profit. So you'll see a lot less on these forums than TVs, for example.

As you mentioned larger panels have higher failure rates. More power dissipation in the unit, and in the power supply. Longer strings of LEDs or more CCFLs. Driver chips driving larger capacitances in the panel, leading to increased driver heating.

Plasma displays still have some chips on film, but these are high voltage ASIC and they seem to last longer than LCD source drivers. Panasonic for example rarely has problems with them.

[shovenose]

Re: Computer monitor vs TV quality

I think computer monitors (usually) outlast TVs because:
-smaller = less power consumption = less heat
-simplicity. TVs have remotes, speakers, tuners
-better quality panels and other parts