Computer Question for TV Guys
 

Question: does a modern LCD computer monitor (laptop or desktop) need a screen saver any more these days besides watching pretty fish swim around? I remember the CRTs of old (orange or green text) used to suffer burn-in from the DOS prmopt, but I've heard that more modern displays do NOT suffer from this problem.

Can anybody who is screen-savvy spread some light on this?

No, but you might want to turn it off. The CCFL's that backlight the LCD do have a limited life. I've fixed dozens of LCD monitors whose owners were unaware of this, and they left them on indefinitely, only to have them die in the first 6 months or so - and each (give or take one or two that had bad inverters) had bad lamps.

Depending on the configuration, your computer may be able to power down the monitor for you while it's idle. This depends on your operating system.

Cheers,

Brian (also retired Navy...)

There's no risk of burn in, but you can get "dead pixels" (Pixels that are stuck on one color)

Also, as already mentioned, the backlight does tend to wear out, and can be expensive/difficult to replace.

My power saver setting turns the monitor off after 30 minutes, but when I power the machine down (desktop) I leave the monitor on. It's a new Dell, and the first monitor failed after about six months but that one I did turn on and off every time I used it, so this one I've been leaving "untouched".

If you left a fixed image on an LCD monitor long enough, it could get "image retention", which looks like a burn when the display is lit (but is not visible with the power off, unlike true CRT burn-in). It can be cured, though, by displaying non-fixed content for some amount of time.

This used to happen on my old crappy personal DVD player. If you display one image for a long period of time(I used it for gaming), the image will 'ghost' over the screen when the image changes. It lasted for about two minutes on my particular screen before disappearing.

So, yes or no: does the modern LCD flatscreen computer monitor still need a screen saver?

Well, a screen saver would be better then showing a static desktop for an extended period of time.

I think your best option is a screensaver combined with the monitor powering down after X amount of minutes of non use.

No. It's impossible to burn an image into an LCD under normal use. The only cases of LCD burn in I've seen were from years of displaying the exact same high contrast image.

I'm not a fan of screen savers, even for CRTs. It's better just to set them to turn off after around 20-30 minutes rather than switch to a screen saver. A screen saver won't reduce wear on the CRT, and it won't save any power.

Nah.

Tom

If you're still uncertain, then in Settings | Control Panel | Display, just set the Screen Saver option to (none) or [Blank] and the inactivity timeout to something like 10 or 15 minutes. The output to the screen will go black, basically shutting off the need for the back lights.

Better yet is the suggestion to go into Settings | Control Panel | Power Options and set the monitor to turn off after 15 minutes. Keep in mind that if you're sitting there watching a DVD movie on your monitor, then because there's no perceived activity (i.e., mouse or keyboard) the monitor will turn off while you're watching.
Always an adrenalin rush thinking the computer just went Poof! the first time it happens... :D

Well, what I was looking for was a definitive technical answer that says "due to the high refresh rates, and changes in manufacturings <yada yada yada>...." that a screen saver for an LCD is needed or not. I know all the coloquial answers and I am well familiar with the screen saver and power saver settings, but so far nobody from the TV screen guild has chimed in to say if technology has rendered a screen saver any more than just purty pictures and waste of processing power. That's whay this was posted in the TV forum, and not the general discussion forums.

No TV guys out there?

Well, to tell you the truth, until I read this thread I just assumed screen savers were just that-pretty pictures, a novelty, and that was all. I never thought of them as offering any benefit to the monitor. Basically, any kind of monitor: crt, lcd, plasma, etc, should benefit by being off more than anything. As others have proved, burn-in won't be a problem in most situations.

Truth be told, I don't use a screensaver. I just lock the computer and turn the monitor off when I'm not using it.

If a monitor is on, it's aging. This is true for LCD, plasma, CRT, and in fact, it's true for pretty much anything electronic.

If you want a screensaver, go ahead and use one. It has no real benefit for an LCD that I am aware of.

The first screensavers were made to prevent burn-in on early monochrome CRT monitors which were prone to such things. Burns were much 'easier' to produce on those earlier single-color screens, so a constantly moving image was designed to prevent a burn. After those screens went obsolete, however, I believe screensavers became largely a novelty; a way to brighten up your computer screen. :yes:

Well, to answer the question directly, technology rendered the screensaver obsolete years ago when computers gained the ability to turn the screen power off. Before that, you were *supposed* to turn the brightness down, or shut the screen off when not using it. It's easy to forget. Changing the content displayed on the screen was something the computer *could* do to save the screen when it had no control of the monitor power.

Screen savers are only still around because some people like to look at them. As an early TV set enthusiast, displaying fish is something I am not really keen on doing. :p:

John

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

I'll make an exception for Charlie. :D

I will categorically say, "technology has rendered a screen saver nothing more than just purty pictures and waste of processing power". At least as applied to LCD monitors. I do recommend that you just let the monitor go to standby (the green or blue power LED will change to yellow/amber) when you are not using the monitor. If you plan to leave the computer running 24 hours per day, set the monitor power-down to maybe 30 minutes in the Windows settings.

Gotta love it. Two pages of replies and jokes and STILL not a technical answer regarding whether a modern LCD "needs" a screen saver or not. I don't care about Windows power-saver features. I don't care about what people do based on which way the wind blows their grass. I don't care about if a pigeon alights on the car but only on the second Monday while Aunt Helon's lumbago is flaring up.

Does, based on the design of the interleave, the refresh rates, the graphics mode and so forth, does a modern LCD need a screen saver, or is it immune tioburn in due to any of those technical issues?

Read my post. No, an LCD cannot be damaged by burn-in; they are built differently and are not affected permanently. Cheaper displays may show a 'ghost' for a few minutes, but nothing that lasts. :yes:

In other words, a screensaver is not necessary for an LCD of modern design.

That's headed in the right direction. Why? What makes them different?

LCD's don't use phosphors, nor do they use a beam to draw images.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCD

Probably everything you wanted to know about how an LCD works. If this doesn't answer your question, I don't know what will.

There ya go. THANK YOU.

The inside of the front of a CRT is coated with a phosphor which reacts to light. The gun at the back of the tube projects a picture onto the phosphor and the image is displayed. If this image is left on for an extended period, the areas where the phosphor is lit by the beam will become burned by the beam.

LCD's use a liquid sandwiched between two layers of glass. When electricity is applied to part of the liquid, it changes to a darker color. This is physically different from a CRT, so no burn can occur.

:thmbsp: Thanks to both of you guys.

No problem. :yes:

Did you miss my reply? No, and LCD can't get burn in under normal use. Screen savers are completely pointless.