Slashdot Mirror
Super Large, Super Hi-Res LCD Screens?
"I did some digging and found that while the VP181 is advertised as having a maximum resolution of 1600x1200, its native resolution is a piddly 1280x1024 (every image I've seen so far is intended to be displayed on a device with square pixels, and 1280x1024 crams a 5:4 resolution into a 4:3 space resulting in squished pixels) and the higher res is just emulated. Then there's the 17.3-inch SGI 1600SW, which does 1600x1024, but I understand it locks you into a specific video card and the product is no longer supported. Every once in a while we hear about new flat panel technologies being developed (IBM developed the QX20, a 20.8-inch, 2048x1536 LCD (this was last year. Where is it now?). Then there's the 22" Apple Cinema Display, which can do 1600x1024, but it's made by Apple, and I'm not quite so sure about that one."
I'm working at a small company that has upgraded some decomissioned military equipment used for War Room displays. They're like imagesetters, they use 3 colored lasers and can easily kick out 4000x3000 pixel displays at any size from desktop to projecting them on the side of a building. The only problem we have is finding an video image source with resolution that high, it can go way beyond HDTV rez. Its the ultimate display, the Air Force wanted to use them as displays for air fighter simulators, but abandoned the project and put the whole technology up for sale (and we bought it). Now with some upgrades, they're the ultimate computer display, movie projector or HDTV system.
The bottom line:
Basic unit: $500,000. Quantity discounts available.
ADC is just Apple's name for another standard called "Plug & Display." There was a Slashdot story on this a while back, in fact.
The standard never caught on, it seems. I don't know why; IMHO it makes a lot of sense. Then again, it seems very few standards get popular until Macs start including them on all its machines. Witness USB, which existed but was languishing in no-peripheral-support limbo until the iMac came along and gave it the boost it needed.
----------
It appears that an i128 driver was checked into the XFree86 CVS tree recently, so a future 4.x release will probably support the Revolution IV-FP.
I don't think there's yet support for the 3DLabs Oxygen VX1-1600SW, though. (Anybody know of a store in the UK that sells the SGI monitor + 3DLabs card and that lets you order online? Yes, the UK - I want to buy one from the US and have it delivered to an address in the UK.)
It's also supported by the 3DLabs Oxygen VX1-1600SW. I don't know whether that card's better than the #9 Revolution IV-FP or not. (Presumably one reason SGI switched is that #9 is out of business....)
One has been checked into the XFree86 CVS tree, so some future 4.x release will probably support it.
I don't think there's currently any XFree86 4.x support for the VX1-1600SW, but it may appear in the future.
...although, as I read SGI's FAQ on the MultiLink Adapter and, in particular, the answer to "What happens if my card is not SuperWide savvy?", you don't get 1600x1024 unless you have a "SuperWide Savvy" adapter - and you may need driver support for that; see the SuperWide Savvy page.
Unless the colored plastic can turn a 17.3-inch (diagonal) display into a 22-inch (diagonal) display, I doubt that the Apple Cinema Display is a colored-plastic-covered SGI 1600SW.
It was recently checked into the XFree86 CVS tree (I don't know if it works yet, all I know is that it was checked in).
The high costs come from having to scrap large peices. Why not interconnect smaller peices to make one large peice. Basic Lego or JigSaw Puzzle strategy. One peice that will attach to any other type of peice. Then special peices for each of the borders. With 5 peices you could interconnect to make one large peice. To get a LARGER monitor, you just put more of the global peices in the center.
This is not the sig you are looking for...
From what I recall of the original IBM project page, this beast was designed to be as readable as printed text in a book.. basically the images are sharper, less blurry than current CRT/LCD technology, which typically has 80/100 ppi. This is something to watch out for, I think.
"World domination...and scantily clad females, of course. Who cares if it's below zero outside?" -Linus Torvalds
As a long-time owner of two SGI 1600SW panels, I have only one response to the news of the Multilink adapter:
Yeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Nine is just fine for 2D graphics, but sucks rocks for 3D (especially OpenGL).
I recently assembled a game machine with a GeForce card, and I'd love to be able to move the SGI to it.
You are thinking of depth of field, which expresses the range in distance where correct focus is maintained.
This is different then maximum resolution, though of course if your eye can't focus, then your maximum resolution will be severly limited.
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
There was no factual error made. The ADC is not proprietary. It is a little known extension, allowed for in the DVI spec., that apple implemented. It is true that you, currently, cannot use an ADC display on non-Apple hardware, but that may very well change.
I have this kind of setup on my desk at work (twinhead, two NEC 18" LCD screens side-by-side to give a wide desktop) but although the screens are nice the width of the bezels effectively forces you to treat it as two separate displays. It's impossible to read any window that spans the two screens as the eye loses its place as you scan along each line of text or spreadsheet row.
The suggestion was. I believe, to join LCD displays edge-to-edge so there is no gap.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I'm sure the developer concerned would be delighted to hear your opinion that his efforts are trivial.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
There are plenty of 21" and 19" monitors that don't flicker at 1600x1200. I went for one of those in the end, a flat-screen Sony, and I'm very happy.
I'm sure big LCDs will be more viable in a few years time. In the meantime, I'd rather save my money for some other toy.
Samsung makes a couple of flat panels that may suit you better. I've been rather happy with the 770TFT and the 170MP that I've had a chance to play with.
Specialization is for insects. - R.A.H.
Good ones can be had for around $5000 USD now. (Paid $9000 CAD for ours, and it's wicked)
Bulbs are the killer. $500 a piece for ultra high pressure sodium bulbs.
High-end CRT's don't have flicker problems.
Color reproduction is still more accurate on a monitor..
And.. although it's fact that digital input to an LCD is accurate.. it is also less versatile until the digital connector is standard.
Creates problems with anything that does video passthru (like DVD decoders and such).
For those of you that don't know.. there ARE competing standards for Flat panel displays. DVI which is backed by intel, and proprietary.. and OpenLDI, which is the standard that is currently used in notebooks. OpenLDI consumes much less power and is capable of driving much higher resolutions. (yes there is such a thing as bandwidth when it comes to displays).. but anyway.. by the end of december, there will be a new crop of lcd displays these are 24" UXGAW displays w/ a resolution of 2048x1536. So far, these panels use OpenLDI.. ok.. I'm biased.. I used to work for a company that supports OpenLDI, but if anybody would care about proprietary standards I'd think the linux community would be the one to support the open standard. Too bad not enough consumers even know there's such a battle going on. Most geeks only care about rambus and ddr sdram. btw currently.. those 24" panels alone (like buying just a crt tube) costs around $5k
AFAIK, it's not the kind of adapter you want. The apple store web site clearly states that the ADC-DVI adapter is so that you can attach an "old" Apple DVI flatpanel to a new Cube or G4 with an ADC connector. It doesn't let you hook up a new ADC-only flatpanel to your DVI video card.
For that matter, the G400 specs don't list 1600x1024 for the DVI daughtercard, but SGI lists it under their SuperWide Savvy list and a search of the Matrox support forums has responses from Matrox tech support claiming the G400 will drive 1600x1024.
Incidentally, I know some people love the SGI 1600SW, but IMHO, a 17" monitor running 1600x1024 is just painfully small. We had a couple at the last place I worked and I didn't think they were so hot. Of course If I had spent $3k on one, I might find reasons to think that ;)
I really don't know much about monitor technology, but what exactly is the story on why pixels AREN'T square? I mean, why aren't they? And what's the big deal about them becoming square? Is ti harder to accomplish technologicaly?
The link the article was a link into the Apple store that timed out. http://www.apple.com/displays/acd22/ ; ; ; is a more permanent link to information. (square pixels, top notch image quality)
The input is TMDS from the Digital Display Working Group. Follow the link, hit product list, search for vendor and cards. (Be aware the the connector changed recently. New Cinema Displays have a combined power/video/usb connector, you may need a fancy cable to get into it from your video card.)
I have used a number of flat panel displays from different vendors. I must say the Apple ones are the best I've used, no exceptions. Its especially striking when an Apple display is next to another brand.
If you decide to buy one you should go by smalldog. You won't find a better reseller and they sell off refurbished Apple units at reduced cost. All my displays are refurbs, I've never had a problem.
This is TI's "Digital Light Processing" system. It is indeed very cool: It's a direct digital output device, there's no DAC or pixel drivers required. That's because it's really just a video RAM with a set of MEMS mirrors which rock back and forth on a duty cycle proportional to the "on-ness" of a particular pixel. They ysed to have a site explaining in detail at www.ti.com/dlp (Warning - I haven't checked this link to see if it still works, since Netscape is acting flaky and I want to get through this post.)
I looked at this technology a few years ago, and all the better portable "LCD" projectors out now are actually DLP units. There is *no* visible separation between pixels, unlike LCD or other systems, and the brightness is incredible - easily viewable in a daylit room.
At one point a year or two ago, the TI web site said that Nokia was planning a (40-ish inch) DLP-based TV, which while not a flat panel, was still planned to come in at only about a foot deep. I don't know what happened to this product, but it looks like Samsung beat tehm to that form factor with their new FLCD TV.
(I do know that TI had real problems in getting the DLP chips to scale up in resolution - they were stuck at 6x4 and 8x6 for a long time... (Yes, that's 640x480 and 800x600, really - it's a common abbrev. in the laptop business...)
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
More information about PALC, at least a nice picture and some details, can be found here:
www.meko.com/palc.html
As of last December, the three companies appeared to still be developing the technology.
"Why should I be content to simply live in this world, when I, as a human being, can CREATE it?" - Oertel
The newest ones use Apple's new proprietary connector, which carries power, USB, and video from the video card to the monitor. If you can still find an older model with the standard DVI connector, you'll still have to ensure it will be recognized by your video card.
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
i actually worked on lcds from a research point of view. the reason why lcds will not be cheap is, as stated, the manufacturing limitations. to create an lcd, you have to make individual transitors for each pixel (and don't forget, for each 'pixel', you need three- red/green/blue). so on a 22" display, you're requiring uniformity in the plasma processing chamber (how they create the transitors) that is very hard to mantain from step to step. so, for 1600x1200, you have 3x1600x1200 pixels to define- each pixel probably needs a few transitors. it's not the number of transitors, but the fact they are distributed over such a large area. there is a reason why cpus and such are made on 6" wafers, and not 21" ones... of course, there is a solution other than lcd or plasma displays (which throw out enough heat to keep your coffee warm) it's called PALC- plasma addressed liquid crystal display. a small spin-off company from techtronix was developing it and showed some wonderful prototypes. sony bought their rights and then killed the project a couple of years later. the beauty of this thing is that it was easily scalable to any resolution and any size. a plasma was used to switch individual rows/columns on and off. thanks sony. [yeah, i developed the plasma model to describe the thing (running on linux, of course)]
Check this out:
A mouth-watering picture of the new Samsung 24'' LCD. Was just tested in lastest (?!) issue of C't (germanies only computer magazine)
Here are the technical details.
Cheers,
Chris
I've got a Sony VPL-CS1 LCD Projector.
;-)
I haven't tried to measure the dimensions (Kinda depends on the distance you can get it from your screen)
It is great.
I can plug my DVD system into, my Laptop can connect to it, and it's got USB connectors so you can control your mouse through the remote control.
It can deal with PAL and NTSC.
Quake III is NICE!
All you need is a big White wall (or projector screen) good curtains/blinds, oh and about 2000UKP sterling (I bought mine in April, so the price may have come down since then).
So, 20" + screen - check; Hang on the wall - er-check; $3000 - check!
I think you're all out of excuses...
ys
-- "To ask a question is to show ignorance; Not to ask a question means you'll remain ignorant."
Actually, no. The problem is that the lens of your eye is not optically perfect. This imperfection is magnified (no pun intended) when the pupil is wide, and reduced as the pupil comes to a point.
This is the reason why some of the contact lens companies are making a big deal about "better than 20-20" correction: the contact lens can correct the imperfect lens of the eye to a point where near-optimal focus is achived.
Additionally, some researchers are looking into using active optics to bring focus in the eye to the limits of diffraction: in fact, the focus so achivied is so fine, that a HeNe laser (red, 632.8 nm) can be perceived as green, IF the spot falls on a green cone, rather than a red cone. In short, our vision system does not approach the limits of diffraction, but is limited by the accuraccy of focus of the lens.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Actually, the wider the pupil, the less resolution you have. This is the same effect as a pin-hole camera or squinting: by reducing the apeture to a point, the image will be in perfect focus for any focal length.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Its true, Apple has the highest-quality LCDs out there. Theyre bright, crisp, and a pleasure to look at. It sounded in your post that you were knocking them, or at least that you were reluctant, simply because they were Apple.
Alien user-interface designs, insane business practices and an extra helping of hubris aside, Apple has always made superior hardware, bar none. (Okay, so there was that exploding Powerbook back in 1997 but hey, we ALL make a mistake from time to time).
Truth is, Apple is the first place I'd look for a display because I know it will last, and if it does't, that they will back it up. (And if it DOES break, maybe you'll get a phone call from Steve-O himself!)
You can use the new 15" and 22" displays on any graphics card with a DVI-out connector with a DVI-ADC adapter, availible now for about $15.
The last generation, which you should still have no trouble getting your hands on refurbished or even new, use DVI.
And if you wait another month or two, it is HIGHLY rumored Apple finally has a 17" or 18" display in the pipeline to fill the gaping chasm in their product line between 15-22". It will have a new case design and should be a beauty. Best of all it should be priced compeditively, about $1500.
--Xel
========
"Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines."
If you use the ADC to DVI adapter, it should work fine with a DVI-based digital video card.
As a reseller, I was able to do some research with our suppliers and there is not much choice in terms of large LCD screens (e.g. something over 20") with the exception as you found, the Apple Cinema Display.
:(
:)
I have found something that seems to be what you may be looking for -- the NEC LCD2110. 21.3" viewable, 1600x1200 native resolution. Link to the NEC press Release.
There is a price sticker shock though - MSRP is $7999.
Minotaur Technologies, the company that I own sells it for $7595. Free shipping!
If you want a really big high-resolution screen then go with an LCD projector. Something usable in a well-lit room will cost about ~$9000 USD + the cost of bulbs.
If you want a resolution higher than 1280x1024 native then buy two of them with a dual-head video card and align the images to make a seamless display. This would be very cool.
Jason.
Must resist temptation... Must not read such articles... must not buy huge lcd screen.. must buy clothes... arrrrrrrrgh!
(Can slashdot have a "disable-temptation-and-bankrupcy-causing-articles " button?
The resolving power of the eye is measured in degrees i.e. what is the smallest angle subtended by an object that can still be seen. This resolving power is related to wavelength, but is also related to the current open diameter of your pupils (changes with light conditions). When it is dark you can see much smaller objects (stars) because your pupils are dilated. If I remember correctly (could be wrong), for a circular aperture, like eye or optical telescope, the maximum resolving power is given by:
p = c*l/D
where D is diameter of aperture, l is wavelength of light and c is a constant (1.22 may be?). p is in radians.
No it won't, because of difraction. I checked my physics books and my formula was actually correct. It gives the theoretical limit of resolution by a circular aperture. For rectangular, the constant is 1 instead fo 1.22.
The 22" Cinema Display has a DVI connector.
The ADC-DVI adapter at the Apple Store allows you to connect an ADC Computer (Cube) to a DVI monitor (Cinema Display). As far as I can tell, it does not allow you to connect a ADC monitor to a DVI computer (old G4 or a PC).
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Oops - it's the OLD Cinema Display that has a DVI - the new one is ADC.
The question still is: Can you just turn around the Apple adapter and do DVI to ADC?
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
The Apple Cinema Display, the 22-inch one, is made by LG in Korea. LG makes some pretty good stuff, but having worked with LCD panels from LG and Philips for a while, I have to say, I am waiting just a bit longer.
Why?
Two things are coming that will make a big difference in the quality of the display.
There are other things, like new forms of backlighting that are brighter and longer-lasting, and new ways of designing the dot layout on the glass. Let's not forget front-lighting, which is already available and makes for a much better image.
Besides all this, LCDs are still expensive and not that great in general. Once LCDs make it into televisions, the production costs will come down as the yields come up (they will have to!), and it may be possible to have a nice, large LCD computer monitor for the price of a large CRT today. It better be possible, anyway.
Anyone travel to Dallas often enough to get the brand names?
sulli
RTFJ.
it's because the edges have all the connectors required to power the millions of individual pixels. When I've seen LCDs naked, they're surrounded on all sides by circuitry. Hard to get rid of that.
sulli
RTFJ.
The tech I'm excited about is that one pioneered by Texas Instruments, (of all players!) The one which uses an array of micro-mirrors that you reflect a light from onto a screen.
They're already using this for theatrical film releases in some test markets. It looks awesome. (I actually forced myself to sit through a showing of 'Mission to Mars' to preview this system.)
When I can project my computer screen onto my wall, (and back up my hard drive on to 30gig phosphorescent CDR disks), then I'll finally be happy with the state of affairs in the computer world.
Probably won't become available for the lowest common denominator, though. Reflected light is too passive. You can't play Black-Ops team and scan a room from a white van like you can with CRT rays. (Paranoia, Paranoia. . .) I expect the dominant tech will end up being something that bathes us with rays, in order to keep the secret government happy!
-Fantastic Lad
Gentlemen, we have the technology to rebuild this man, but let's dick around and act like children and not actually do it for another decade, Okay?
Why don't you try QING (QING Is Not Geiss) - it's a visualisation plugin for SoundPlay, the kickass backwards-playing sound player for BeOS?
Aliasing is less of a problem with the newer video cards. Also, starting with a higher resolution helps. I've seen one 1024x768 LCD run 640x480 and it looked just as good as a CRT, but it was the video card doing the magic.
Except that you have to use an Apple product with it...
Is there any info on using the display with a non-Apple product?
On the other hand, the question doesn't give us enough info on why the Apple display wouldn't work for him/her?
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
I would think that putting the USB connection in the same cable (as the video and power) is the added functionality; less cost, less space, less hardware, less clutter. It's usability issue in which people need not figure out where cables go, etc.
IE, if Apple decided to eliminate cables altogether in their nextgen G4 tower by going wireless (wireless USB, keyboard, mouse, speakers), the added functionality is *zero* clutter, zero confusion, zero space loss.
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
I like them, but so far I haven't read of any which provide decent graphics quality, say for high frame rates in Quake 3. Picture quality is fine for static images or low refresh rates, as for your ...yawn... everyday business suite of applications.
--
Chief Frog Inspector
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is a difficult question to answer. Apple assemble's them (or contracts out) from parts and adds custom boards (ColorSync, for example). It's the custom boards and their choice of only using high quality parts that make them stand out. Their color accuracy is astounding, expecially considering that all of the color calibration is done in internal hardware.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Apple offers, pretty much, the best monitors (or one of the best monitors) on the planet. Their flat panels are no exception. You'll need Apple hardware, which I assume you don't have. Sony also has a fine selection of flat panels. Altough slightly unrelated, they even offer a wall mountable 24' TV. I bet you can get a TV card, and hook up your computer to it.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Good question, and in fact this is exactly what an old "dual-scan" screen is (two passive matrix screens, one above the other - in this case the main reason was to double the scan rate, since passive screens are pretty slow otherwise). I don't know if it's as feasible to do this with active matrices, since they require more traces to feed the transistors individually. I also dunno whether you could accomplish something similar with four quadrant panels - probably not easily. In any event you'd almost certainly be able to see the joins, as you can with dual-scan screens.
> So why don't you just buy a new G4
> (Cube?), and plug that 22" LCD in?
> Okay, before you flame me - I know, I know... > They have no floppy drive (!), and the company > spends
i'm happy that the cube doesn't have floppy drives. i'd be happy enough to buy one if:
- it was a *dvd-ram* device (dvd-rom would have seemd cool in 1996 or so)
- it also lacked a hard drive (and used the resulting xtra space for a couple of pci slots)
- that is, if it was a "info-toaster appliance" instead of a weird attempt at a mini-micro-computer....
add those features and continue to tout it as a digital video port and apple has something imho...
--oxo
My laptop has a ATI Rage Mobility in it that can apply what I think is a bi-linear filter to the image before it displays it. The result is that the image does not have any of the horrible aliasing that results with most video cards. The result is a little fuzzy, but rather than annoying it has an almost attractive "magnified" look to it.
The result is that the lower resolution are 100% usable. To be honest, I don't even know why vendors implemented the old stretching method at all. It looked so crappy as to be useless. I always turned it off, and just had the display use the center 640x480 pixels with a huge black border. At least then I could read things.
However, I don't know if this solution is available outside of laptops. It is a function of the video chipset, and I don't know if the desktop ATI's implement it. I also don't know how it would work with the VGA connection that most LCD displays use. I wouldn't be suprised if it didn't. But, if you get a laptop with the ATI Rage Mobility, you won't have this problem. However, you might want to check for a BIOS setting to let you turn the stretching off on your laptop. All the one's I've used have had an option for this. The 1:1 mapping isn't great because it's so small, but at least it looks OK.
As long as you don't switch resolutions they are great, but the instant you do, you have:
;-)
Aliasing.
And it looks like crap.
I have a 2 year old laptop with a LCD screen of 1024x768. You switch to a resolution like 640x480 and you have TERRIBLE aliasing problems. The video card scales the 640 pixels up to the same physical width as the 1024, and the 480 up to the same physical height as the 768 instead of just doing a 1:1 scale and having the 640x480 image shrink. Now, since you need 1.6 pixels across and down (1024/640 = 768/480 = 1.6 scaling) and the LCD screen doesn't have fractional LCD's you end up with very bad aliasing artifacts.
Analog tubes do NOT have this problem. (They have temporal aliasing, but that's another discussion
For most uses, you just leave the LCD screen running at max (highest) resolution and it's not an issue. But playing, or developing games, on a LCD, and unfortunately the problem shows up.
I love the cleaner and sharper look of the LCD screen. It seems to be easier on the eyes. I would switch over to LCD screens in a second, if this is non-issue nowadays.
Have "modern" LCD screens fixed this scaling problem?
Cheers
--
"Those who fail to learn from the past, are condemned to repeat it" - paraphrasing George Santayana
The 1600SW is fantastic but the Number Nine card could be better (and doesn't have a driver in XFree86 4). They now supply a MultiLink adapter which allows the monitor to accept many types of video input.
How is it that Dell has a laptop with 15" 1600 X 1200 resolution (native), but you can't find one for a desktop computer? You'd think whoever builds their screens (Quanta? not sure) would be able to market that tech elsewhere. Of course, I'd like to see that pixel density on a 20" screen...
This is the kind of think I would advise waiting on. You can use this argument for anything(wait 5 more months and you can get a faster computer for the same price) but when looking at getting a flat screen monitor it would probably be prudent to wait for the technology to further develop. If you are looking for a flat screen with the same quality as a nice CRT then you should wait a while. CRTs have been around forever and have had a really long time to develop. Buying a flatscreen now could be a waste of money because Im sure new better technology will come around tomorrow. Then again... they look cool so maybe you should get one now. Chicks dig them.
Because of rising demand for high quality hangable high resolution imaging, the new company known as ArtistInc has been formed.
ArtistInc has some very major selling points in their special project code-named Painting. It has an infinite maximum resolution, with the average being 6 feet wide by 4 feet long. When asked about Flicker the CEO demonstrated the project in front of a large group -- one person their commented that "It looked like it was real and right in front of my face."
One possible problem with this new technology is that it is incompatible with turpentine.
(Someone please mod this information up as it's fairly important to combat the misinformation raised in the extended posting.)
The SGI 1600SW is definitely still sold an supported and still winning awards. With the fairly new MultiLink Adapter it is no longer necessary to have special video cards -- absolutely any VGA signal capable of doing 60 Hz refresh can drive the screen.
Keep in mind however that a standard VGA signal will go through an analog stage so you lose some of the theoretically possible crispness of pure digital. To keep pure digital you would indeed need one of the supported digital cards.
Here's a set of questions and answers about the 1600SW and the MultiLink Adapter.
I just wish I had one on my desk!
Cyrano de Maniac
This has been bugging me for years now.
Everyone knows that the reason LCD screens are expensive is that they have to be made as a single piece, and the larger the piece the more likely that a few pixels are out causing them to have to throw the whole mess away.
What on earth is stopping them from producing a bunch of those little gameboy color screens, or maybe even something cheaper, and placing them side-by side??
You would be able to have a TV the size of your whole living room wall where you could place various channels, perhaps even nature settings. Add a touch sensor and you could even have the worlds coolest (and largest) white board.
And the price should be relativly trivial--probably under $1000/wall for the LCDs, a bit more for the control hardware.
If something like this was available, I would even forgive a little bit of a line or border where two LCDs meet (Hell, putting 4 TVs side-by-side to show one ballgame looks pretty cool, this would be MUCH better than that).
Anyway, anyone out there know why?
Good question, and in fact, it's been done. And discussed in this slashdot article. It's not exactly what you describe, and costs well more than $1000/wall, but it's in the right direction.
My name is 11223.
And what is your quest?
I seek the holy grail of flat-panel technology!
And what is the ModeLine of an ATI Rage Fury Pro with DVI connector neccessary to hook up to an Apple Cinema Display?
Uhh.. uhh... I don't know... Aieeee!
I see what you mean, then.
USB is a 4 wire standard; 2 for power/ground and 2 for signal. All you add to the ADC then would be the 2 signal wires, assuming that there is hardware on the monitor end and the PC end to handle the power conversion (as opposed to having 2 sets of power on the cable, though stupid engineering could very well have allowed for that as well). This is speculation on my part.
So you can conceivably get rid of the wiring and shielding necessary for the power, if it rides along the same line as the monitor's power lines.
You don't get an argument that it will take more engineering to get the wires, at different clocks, shielded, flexible, and working. On the other hand a new solution was needed for next generation displays, at least as defined by VESA, due to the fact that clock/refresh was increasing, display size/resolution was increasing, and the old VGA cables could not handle the bandwidth, limited at 150MHz, to the 2GHz limit of the newer interface.
See <a href="http://www.vesa.org/news81798.html">this page</a> for more info.
Your second point is also noted; but it is definitely an engineering solution, and not one that is insurmountable. I suspect Apple's future plan is to integrate Firewire as well into the cable, and produce a product with only one cable out the back:
ADC.
Speakers would migrate to USB, which collapses into the ADC, while video, firewire, and power are also provided by the ADC(Advanced Display Connector, if it's adopted outside of Apple, I would hope). Networking, of course, would be wireless.
And it isn't the cable that your saving money on; it's the ports and complexity and chipsets on the motherboard that get condensed. Say future PCI/AGP chipsets collect USB and FireWire functionality onto them. Instead of 3 or 4 chips, you now have 1 chip running all four functions. Instead of 3 ports, you now have one. Engineering wise, this makes placement and layout easier, I think, as well as heat disippation and traces simpler.
This has nothing to do with the stupidity of the user, though stupid people definitely benefit/gain from this arrangement. It is a convenience thing too. One less cable to package and ship. One less cable to test and try. One less cable to produce and buy. A $2 cable, a $1 in chips, $3 in ports, across a million machines => $6 million not spent. And since Apple seems to be shipping in the millions a year, I don't think saving $10-20 million is something one can laugh at easily...
Considering that's 250 engineers for a year of about $80k, it would be worth it if it cost 5 engineers 3 years of development time to design/implement this, at $100k salaries. One year of sales, if it's even close to $6mil saved, is enough to warrant the cost/difficulty in implementation.
My numbers are pure guesswork and rough numbers, nothing scientific. But on cost analysis, it isn't *outrageous* for Apple to implement something like this...
On the user end, it really is 2 less cables: Instead of video, power, and USB, it is only ADC.
So it may not be such a big deal on our end...
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
Well, I have a SGI FlatPanel 1600SW. This is, by far, the best LCD monitor I could find today--and that includes LCDs by Apple.
With a Number Nine Rev 4-FP (Do they make these anymore?) 1600x1024 @ 32-bit color really kicks ass in X. What I like most is that it's unusually crisp and very clear... I can read small text from a few feet away.
People have already mentioned that X 4.0 hasn't had the Number Nine drivers ported over, but that's trivial--I know they are working on this.
In any case, the SW-1600 is unbeatable. They just had a deal over at sgi.com where they were selling a kind of "G3"-looking Flatpanel for something like $US 1,699. It normally sells for $3,000 and I think they throw in a card too, a 16 MB Formac if you have a Mac, or a 32 MB Oxygen VX1-1600SW if you have a PC (Oxygen VX1-1600SW is not supported under X, unfortunately, not even with Xig's (www.xig.com) Oxygen VX1 driver.) But so what? Sell it (Value=$400) and get a Number Nine Revolution 4-FP instead.
So, that's about a 3,500 value which they are selling for 1,699. And no, I don't work for SGI, it's just that I think that this FlatPanel LCD is the best. (And believe me, I've looked.)
For price versus quality, I think this deal is quite good--if the deal is still there. (http://www.sgi.com/flatpanel).
Even so, I would shell out $5000 for this monitor, because I can't live with anything else anymore. I know most people don't have the money for this, but apparently the poster of this story does.
Hope this helps.
My roommate works at Panasonic and brought home one of their Plasma Displays. There's nothing quite as cool as playing Quake 3 Arena on a 42" 16x9 aspect screen. :)
:)
For our Y2K party we set it up to use Ryan Geiss' Winamp Plugin as a nice conversion piece.
Of course it costs around $13999.95...
---
I wear pants.