Why are LCDs more popular than plasma?

Actually Plasma units last longer then the old tube technology, people just never put a number on life hours.

I own a plasma, as I prefer the picture over LCD and DLP. However, that 60,000 hour number is just a theoretical number tossed out there by the plasma manufacturers. The technology itself is too new to justify if that number is actually correct or not.
FWIW, the power supply crapped out on my plasma after only 13 months. Fortunately I had purchased the extended warranty, so it was repaired for free. Unfortunately, it took Tweeter 10 weeks to repair it.....

Regards,
John

Here's an exerpt from a site that also refers to 60,000 hours of life for a plasma TV:

"Now, there are varying degrees of phosphor ignition along the way (the same way a CRT fades). Dissipation begins the moment you turn the set on. After 1000 hours of usage a plasma monitor should measure around 96% of its original brightness, which is barely noticeable to the naked eye. At 15,000 to 20,000 hours the monitor should measure around 80% brightness, or to state is technically, 80% of the original phosphors (gases) are being ignited".

My TV is on about 10 hours/day (mainly CNBC with the ticker constantly flowing along the bottom of the screen, so I'm concerned about burn-in too despite the improvements in this area). At this rate my plasma would be at 80% of brightness/phosphors somewhere around 4 to 5 years. I'm skeptical of the 60,000 hours figure in the real world as well, but it really doesn't matter if the TV has already lost 20% of its output after the first 5 years.

For many (and probably most) this might not be a problem, but for me it is enough to keep me out of the plasma realm (for now) despite the fact that I find the picture superior to LCD.

TV 10 hrs a day? I feel sorry for you.

Rw, was that a bit out of line?, I assume he watches while he is working.
I cant get out of the house because of health reasons and I find myself watching alot of TV, so I guess I am pathetic also?