My personal opinion....go with LCD. Every display I've looked at that has all size and brands of tv's, the LCD seemed to have a better and less fuzzy picture with more vivid colors. The LCD's also use less energy and of course, cost less to operate as well as cost less to purchase. The Plasma also require more installation, setup and periodic maintenance expertise and a bump or change in ambient temperature has an adverse effect on them. After looking into these things for over a year, I think a Samsung LCD would be the best choice.

What is this periodic maintenance that you speak of?

Windslam's remarks on plasma panels are inaccurate.

I have a Panasonic unit that's over 6 years ago. The installation involved pulling it out of the box, attaching the base pedestal, and connecting the power cord and inputs.

I have not performed ANY "maintenance" procedures. If Windslam is referring to the erroneous claim that the "plasma" leaks out and must be refilled, that's ridiculous. Doesn't happen.

If physical contact is what "bump" means, I'm not in the habit of bumping into it, so I can't say what effect that'd have ... but I'd suspect none unless it's enough of an impact to break the glass.

Most households maintain a room temp on a range of about 15°F to 20°F ... highly unlikely that'd have any effect. My extremes run on the 20°F range (82°F to 62°F) and I haven't noticed any effect on the plasma.

I can't speak to current LCD vs. plasma cost, as I haven't shopped in years ... but last I recall when size gets up to and past the 50"+ range, plasma tends to cost less.

Power consumption, that point is true ... but we're not talking massive amounts of power anyway. I've clocked my 42" unit as pulling between about 375 to 425 watts on average. That's four 100-watt light bulbs. Newer units are likely more efficient.

dadoes,
...no such thing as inaccurate opinions. Sorry you were so offended by my comments but, there's no reason to be rude. I certainly wasn't taking aim at your particular equipment. It's good to hear someone is satisfied with plasma.

My opinion is based on what I have seen and the comments from several people who have plasma tv's, either in person or, through various forums on the web. I've also heard plenty of horror stories from owners of plasma concerning the after market support costs. Again, the Plasma opinions I'm offering are totally on hear-say.

Marciagaye...You'll certainly need to do, as a lot of us are doing with the Christmas season coming, research the hell out of the subject. I'm sure there will be as many differing opinions as there are pieces of equipment to choose from.

Another opinion....I have found, during my web searches, just as a caution....don't be too easily swayed by the people who wait until others give an opinion and then jump in and rudely tear everyone else's comments apart and therefore become an "authority" on the subject. If they can't offer an opinion of their own without trying to belittle other people, their advice is usually bias. I'm sure you've had your experiences with back biters before. This particular site is full of them.

Again, the Plasma opinions I'm offering are totally on hear-say.I've owned one for 7 years. I checked the purchase date, 9/28/2002.

Ok gang, the debate here would be the same as anywhere...it probably points to personal preference and word of mouth from family and friends on whether you end up buying a "Ford or Chevy" of the flat screen panels. They work on 2 different technologies to produce the same thing, a picture. Energy costs of the Plasma are higher because of the need to introduce an electrical charge into a gas (neon, Xenon, etc) at every pixel to produce a color (even to produce the color black). Thus all the pixels together, produce a picture. How long does it take the various gases to leak out? Probably just like refrigerant in a refrigerator, etc....varies depending on the particular unit itself. As the gases leak, the picture fades until eventually, there is none.The gases cannot be replaced.

The LCD unit works on the principle of refracting light. It has one cfl type light that is refracted to provide different characteristics on the liquid crystal to provide the picture as current is passed through it. The liquid crystal is very similar to liquid dish soap with a lot of salt mixed in it, sandwiched between 2 types of polarized glass. Over time, the cfl type light may change color, similar to that in a florescent light tube (when it turns pink or black, etc.), which will alter the images. The light source usually cannot be replaced.

The Plasma will show high speed action better than LCD, which will show a bit of blur to those who are attuned to it. The LCD has the advantage where the screens can be made as small as 5 inches diagonal where the plasma cannot. The LCD provides better clarity when connected to a computer where Plasma does not. The Plasma provides better picture quality when viewed from far left, far right, from above and from below than the LCD.

Basically, they both provide a good picture when operating normally, cost is close to the same and they both are good for at least 60,000 hours of viewing before the possibility of deteriorated picture quality.

Here's my opinion on this as well as any other competitive product.....what kind of warranty will you get, what kind of customer service can you expect from the supplier and the manufacturer.

I hear Samsung is one of the better of all the evils....I don't know because I still use all my older tv's that give great pictures. As they wear out, I'll be in the same boat as the OP !!!

I'll answer the question that I asked Windslam about in a previous post.

Other than wiping off dust and finger prints, there are no periodic maintenance procedures that need to be done on a plasma TV.

Both LCD and plasma TVs offer a fine picture.

Plasmas "tend" to have better black level and more vivid color. LCD TVs "tend" to have higher brightness levels, cost less in 40" to 50" sizes, and use a bit less electricity.

And I don't believe that Dadoes was rude in the least bit.

Yeah he was, it's rampant on some of these threads.

maryland..I noticed that when I first joined the site. One of my first posts was questioning whether anyone else noticed it and I got a lot of responses that agree. I found out how to block those violators and not even see them when they post anything and then can move on to more constructive conversation. It's unfortunate because I'm sure the rude and crude occasionally have good info to offer at times.

We've all had to deal with them from time to time. They're the one's who cut you down to the boss to make themselves look more knowledgeable. In time, their true colors prevail.

Apologies are hereby offered ... although I was surely not aiming to be rude. I simply took each of the points and explained why they were wrong. I knew when windslam brought up the maintenance claims that he/she likely didn't have direct experience with owning a plasma panel, and may have been quoting erroneous information that had been heard/read elsewhere. In the early days of plasma, salespeople sometimes used the claim of required maintenance, replacing gas that had leaked out, etc. as the basis for steering people away from plasma or for selling service contracts.

I'll say again, I've owned a plasma unit for seven years and have done no maintenance (other than wiping off dust and the occasional fingerprint, as jdbillp references), have had no repairs, and it was no more difficult to install than the two LCD computer displays I got a few weeks ago ... except the LCDs had pedestal bases preattached while the plasma did not.

plasmas also suffer from burn in,lcd does not although plasmas do not suffer from burn in as bad as they used to they still do(IT IS THE NATURE OF THE BEAST),yet most average consumers never notice it until some one points it out.LOL,it is usually very obvious.

Thanks dadoes and please accept mine. You're right, I didn't have direct experience and I've explained that. Please understand, I watched the OP's post sit for 2 days with no one offering anything, so I gave what I considered to be my honest opinion from the information I had.

I will say, when I'm in Walmart, Best Buy, Sears where they have multiple size and types of these things set up, the LCD, to me, appear to look better.

If u r going to evaluate the LCD and PLASMA in terms of energy then , LCD scores over Plasma ,

Period.

LCD is just a type of shining present at the screen tips , which makes pics looks cool, whereas plasma is totally about the pixels , it means plasma have more pixels than any normal one,
but reviewing it in terms of power consumption LCD stands out.

i personally feel plasma is better than LCD,

When Plasma and LCD TV's came out, I believe that one was better than the other when viewing in a brightly lit area, such as a room where the sun is shining in. I forget which was better, though, and it may not be the case nowadays.