Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Cancels LCOS Development

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the another-one-bites-the-dust dept.

kfstark writes "It looks like the sub $2000 42" flat panel TV has been pushed back for a while. Intel has announced they are cancelling their Liquid Crystal on Silicon development. Guess I'll have to pick out a different gift for for the umm... kids." Earlier we reported their plans to delay their launch of the LCOS chips. Sadly, now it would seem they've been scrapped altogether.

138 comments

  1. FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Woohoo!

  2. What's up with Intel? by jmcmunn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They cancel their 4Ghz chips...and now LCOS? Are they hurting for money, or did they just make a couple of bad choices lately that has led to them deciding to end R&D on some projects?

    Or is there something really awesome coming out that they are diverting funds to...doubt it.

    1. Re:What's up with Intel? by CountBrass · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah rambling rubbish: the more subtle karma whore's answer to "first post".

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    2. Re:What's up with Intel? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Funny

      Intel is rumored to have begun R&D for HCOS, the Hi-COSt replacement for LCOS. Intel's bean-counters say that the screens will retail for an estimated $250,000, and will be much more profitable than the sub-$2000 LCOS screens.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    3. Re:What's up with Intel? by jmcmunn · · Score: 1


      Laughed out loud for that one, great way to wake up in the morning. Nicely done...I'd mod you if I could.

    4. Re:What's up with Intel? by erick99 · · Score: 1

      After reading the 2nd article referenced in the topic, I think this chip "package" was more than they could pull off in a reasonable amount time and expect some kind of decent ROI. Why they wanted to go into this entirely different market and have to build plants just to make this chip is beyond me. That same money can now be used to move forward with their core business (no pun intended) of processors for computers.

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    5. Re:What's up with Intel? by metlin · · Score: 1

      Now this is when one of those Netcraft style Intel is dying joke would be appropriate ;-)

    6. Re:What's up with Intel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > After reading the 2nd article referenced in the topic, I think...

      You 700000+ UIDs are all alike. Don't you realized that by actually reading the articles linked in the story you are totally discrediting yourself? Tis not the Slashdot way!

    7. Re:What's up with Intel? by sandwiches · · Score: 1

      Don't be jealous ;)

    8. Re:What's up with Intel? by geraldkw · · Score: 1

      That was my thought exactly. Why waste money developing something that you will sell cheaply. It's like the marketing execs have forgotten that if you offer the best price, you will likely have the most sales.

      Another blow to the consumer, Goddamn corporate lack of foresight!

    9. Re:What's up with Intel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Marketing ran this spreadsheet and they saw all this expense in R&D - specifically engineering salaries.

      So they dumped all their high-paid senior engineers and recruited a whole bunch on the H1-B program from countries where engineers are used to working for less than the US minimum wage.

      Hey - an engineer is an engineer right?

      Guess what's happening now?

      **From an unemployed US engineer - the Feds say that I don't exist and we need to IMPORT talent, funny all the guys I meet at the market in the afternoons**

  3. read this, yanx ! by Adolf+Hitroll · · Score: -1, Troll

    Open letter to the citizens of the United States of America
    10/18/2004 13:10

    Never in the history of humankind has an election had so much at stake

    Dear friends,

    As a journalist who has the good fortune to write for an international journal with millions of readers around the world, I have the individual responsibility to inform you of the feeling in the international community regarding the outcome of the election on November 2nd.

    As citizens of the United States of America, who have the power to endorse or to dismiss the policies of the Bush regime, you have a collective responsibility not only unto yourselves, but to the world, which will hold you accountable for your decision.

    I write this letter as a citizen of this international community and as a journalist for a newspaper whose name is Pravda (Truth), I have the obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    I can say for a start that the vast majority of the international community will agree with the thoughts and requests expressed in this open letter. As proof, one only has to see the opinion polls held around the world, in which only a small handful of citizens from a tiny percentage of states prefer a re-election of George Bush to regime change in Washington.

    It is not for foreigners to dictate to the people of the United States of America how to vote, however since the media in the USA is controlled and since people do not have access to the current of opinion in the international community, it is an act of friendship to inform the citizens of the USA how the world feels about the state of affairs today and it is our right as citizens of the world to express our concern, for the Bush administration does not confine itself to its shores.

    9/11 was a horrific event, which went against the grain of human civilization, as did the horrendous terrorist attack in the school of Beslan in the Russian Federation. However terrible these events were, it is necessary to envisage the facts with maturity and to draw the correct conclusions from them, not to use an evil event to justify another act of evil.

    Unfortunately this is what the Bush regime has done. While the attack against Afghanistan was understandable in the circumstances (although such an attack had been planned well before 9/11, not because of the Taleban regime, which George Bush Senior created, but because of the gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan), the attack against Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with international terrorism.

    From a moral point of view, the Bush regime could not have descended lower. Lies, forgery, blackmail, bullying and belligerence became the modus operandi of American diplomacy, instead of discussion, dialogue and debate, the fundamentals of democracy, which Bush and his clique of corporate elitists threw out of the window in their haste to get their hands on the resources of Iraq, a country which did not possess chemical or nuclear or biological weapons, despite the repeated claims that it did.

    The raw truth is that Saddam Hussein was the man telling the truth and that George Bush was the one who "stiffed the world".

    The fundamental precepts which justified the war have since been refuted and denied, in their entirety, by the very people who stood before the cameras and lied through their teeth, saying they knew where the WMD were hidden and they knew where the evidence would be found.

    These people are the members of the Bush regime, not one or two members, but all of them. It is not only George Bush who stands for election on November 2nd - it is the entire regime, including the substantially important Jewish lobby within Washington. It is not only Capitol Hill which controls your foreign policy, it is also, and with increasing importance, the Knesset in Tel Aviv.

    George Bush may have tried his level best at being President of the United States of America and nobody doubts that he will have wanted to give it his best shot and do a go

    --
    Smile, don't click...
    1. Re:read this, yanx ! by vandan · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Well said. In fact, that's the best off-topic post I've read.

      But keep in mind that Kerry is only very slightly better.

      If you want real change in the US, you have to promote people like Nader. Honestly, Kerry will do the same thing as Bush ... maybe even more so. He's suggesting sending more troops to Iraq.

    2. Re:read this, yanx ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      The Death of the Bill of Rights in America
      10/22/2004 13:27

      The Bill of Rights is moribund in today's America because in the view of many powerful people it should never have been born.
      James Madison said two centuries ago, "We are free today substantially, but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. ... A Republic cannot stand upon bayonets, and when the day comes, when the wealth of the nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation to the changed conditions." Has this day arrived?

      It is sanctified by words during the best of times, when it is not needed; It is ignored by deeds during the worst of times, when it is needed most; It is presented as the bedrock of American freedom; It is in reality as fragile as a pane of glass; It is praised when one requires its protections; It is scourged when one"s foe demands those same protections; It is promoted as a vibrant, living document; It is dying a slow, but certain, death.

      With apologies to Charles Dickens for paraphrasing the opening sentence of his immortal classic A TALE OF TWO CITIES, this opening passage describes the demise of a single document: The Bill of Rights.

      The Bill of Rights is moribund in today"s America because in the view of many powerful people it should never have been born. During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates, having recently won a war against a monarchy, were astutely aware of the corrupting influence of political power, particularly when concentrated into too few hands.
      James Madison went so far as to state, "The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. So a system of "checks-and-balances" was devised to ensure that no individual, or branch of government, would obtain absolute power.

      But a conflict arose over what rights and freedoms, if any, should be extended to the governed. Some delegates believed the "checks-and-balances" system alone guaranteed that the government would never abuse its authority, and were distrustful of vesting too much freedom in the common people, whom Alexander Hamilton described as "a great beast."

      Others, however, recognized that the potential for abuse still existed. In support of this belief, Patrick Henry remarked: "Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt."

      So, to ensure ratification of the Constitution, it was agreed that amendments would be added to acknowledge there were certain rights and freedoms so sacred to the individual they could not be removed or suppressed, either by the government or the "tyranny of the majority." On December 15, 1791 the first ten of these amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, went into effect.

      When America was primarily an agrarian culture, the fundamental weaknesses of the Bill of Rights largely remained dormant. But, as the nation became more industrialized and as wealth and power in the private economic sector became concentrated into fewer hands, these weaknesses became more palpable, revealing that the tyranny to be feared was not from the majority of the people, but the minority of the people with the majority of the money.

      Even a cursory examination of the evolution of the Bill of Rights reveals two such weaknesses: First, the Bill of Rights only dictates what the government CANNOT do. (For example, it cannot interfere with an individual"s right to freedom of speech or religion, and it cannot deprive a person of the right to vote because of race or gender). It does not (with limited exceptions regarding the rights of criminal defendants) place any affirmative duties upon the government; Second, the Bill of Rights (again with limited exceptions) does

    3. Re:read this, yanx ! by mixmasta · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Please.. Bush is a fool, and I won't be voting for him next month, but comparing him to Hitler is rediculous. You do yourself a disservice, and undermine the other good points you made.

      You seem to conveniently forget the tens of thousands killed under Saddam, or the two wars he started, execution/torture of political enemies, or the gassing of the Kurds, just to name a few examples.

      What about the generations of Iraqis suffocated in past decades, with no opportunities or freedom of speech? 25 million lives wasting away. Where was your outrage then?

      The truth is the war was fought for the wrong reasons (wmd), but it was time for a change in Iraq anyway. The standard european practice of ignoring genocide or worse on their own doorstep, (see the real hitler or milosevic), is not good enough. No one likes war, but evil must be fought. Ignoring it because, "my life is great here" as you would have us do is just as evil, in my opinion.

      The main problem is that Bush and his cronies are not quite smart enough to do the job intelligently. But even if the occupation were handled perfectly there would lots of problems just like now. At least Iraq has the possiblitly of a future now, although it may turn out worse for quite a while.

      Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence." -- Napoleon Bonaparte

      --
      #6495ED - cornflower blue
    4. Re:read this, yanx ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      > The truth is the war was fought for the wrong reasons (wmd),
      s/wmd/oil

    5. Re:read this, yanx ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter how well thought out your points may be, I stopped reading at "rediculous". If you can't spell "ridiculous", it's game over for me.
      It's just one of those things, like "nucular", it's like getting an icepick right through the optic nerve everytime!

  4. Reality Meet Intel. by tomstdenis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seems like they're falling-through on many of their more recent promisses? That couldn't possibly be to steal thunder from other people...... no way!

    Hey intel, do what many of us said years ago, ditch the P4 crap, admit that it was a mistake and go the normal high IPC route already. K8's are already smoking you at "non-gaming" [re: serious work] tasks and at least as good if not better at the little fps's anyways.

    So take your Pentium-M and advance it already!

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    1. Re:Reality Meet Intel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Athlon 64 shits on an Intel P4 for gaming.

      Intel made a very bad mistake with the Prescott core. They should have simply shrunk the Northwood core and added more L2 cache. Instead, they made a 30+ long pipeline behemoth of power consumption, where under load a 3.6GHz P4 consumes nearly 100W more at the socket than a faster A64 based system.

    2. Re:Reality Meet Intel. by tomstdenis · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      I can attest to the power. My Athlon64 [3200+ NewCastle] runs cooler and faster than my P4 [2.8Ghz Northwood]. At 1Ghz [I clock down when idle] it goes as low as a few degrees over ambient [it's 23C now, the mobo is 21C the room with window open is probably around 17C or so].

      At 2.2Ghz [full speed] the cpu idles at ~35C or about +10C over ambient and under full load hits around ~46C [about +21C over ambient]. ... With a 36$ Thermaltake SilentBoost K8!!!

      Compared that to my P4 which had a Polo735 Thermaltake it idled at 33C and hit 55C at full load.

      When you take into account that the K8 smokes the P4 [specially for building software which is what I do]... yeah.

      As for gaming, well I have a GeForce 5200 so I can't really say. I get a good framerate in ut2k4 but I can't say it's "much faster". Maybe a few fps faster when there are many bots [and I run the amd64 build...] but that's about it.

      My point though is that the K8 beats the P4 in both power and performance. Right now Intel is holding onto irrelevent metrics/benchmarks to win over the crowd.

      I own both cpus and I know for a fact that where it matters most [and sorry, gaming isn't it] the K8 is sweeeeet!

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    3. Re:Reality Meet Intel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Um, P4 was hardly a "mistake" or "crap". Except for the very beginning, it completely dominated the Athlon line in almost all applications. It took AMD one whole new architecture (A64) to catch up.

      Since then, it's only been recently (starting a couple months after Prescot release, with Intel not being able to ramp clock speeds as intended, despite the ridiculous power-consuming and heat-generating changes made) that the A64 has been decidingly kicking its ass in every application but media encoding (and Intel's coming pretty close to losing that, too).

      That said, I agree, it's time for Intel to shift to an IPC-improving strategy, based on the P-M. Both IPC and clockrate are important, but we're getting to the point where further clockrate scaling will take us to a point where sending a signal to different parts of the chip requires a different number of clock cycles (at 4GHz, even at light speed a signal can only travel 7.5cm in once clock, at 10GHz, it's 3cm), and that will lead to a host of architectural problems I don't think any of the big chip companies are ready for.

    4. Re:Reality Meet Intel. by renoX · · Score: 1

      >So take your Pentium-M and advance it already!

      Pentium-M are low power and good at SpecInt ok, but are they good at SpecFP?

      Games need serious FP power usually..

  5. Bad year for Intel, technology wise? by hattig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not much has been going for Intel this year, and now they've cancelled these chips as well. Sure, maybe they wouldn't have got a good return on them, but why not put the price up a bit to compensate at the beginning?

    With all the delays on the processor side of things, with only the Pentium-M still executing to plan (well, sans 533MHz FSB at the moment), and this new issue, what is going on at Intel?

    1. Re:Bad year for Intel, technology wise? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It's called the mud on the wall principle. There was no clear-cut path the Industry has been going in for some time. They simply dumped money into a pile of projects in hopes that one would pay off.

      With the explosion in laptop sales, it would seem that the Pentium-M was a good bet. They simply had options on a few other racehorses as well.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  6. This is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    I was hoping we could talk about accepting Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior, and how it can change your life for the better.

    I'm willing to share my own personal experience - I accepted Christ at a recent Billy Graham revival here in Kansas City. Feel free to ask any questions you like.

    Please let the love of Jesus Christ into your heart today.

    1. Re:This is more important by chawly · · Score: 1

      Yes well ....... Now does Jesus Christ have anything to do with Intel ? I, for one, thought so until recently. Let's all love Jesus - but let's try to keep our mind on the subject in hand, and our eye on the Intel ball; at least in this discussion. Can hear it now, the song Concentration In Kansas City Is not as pretty as you think In fact it stinks Aberation In Kansas City Is not so rare As to make you stare Anybody want to contribute the music ?

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
    2. Re:This is more important by 1_interest_1 · · Score: -1

      Yes you speak the truth.

      Soothsayer, who be ye?

      Shellrocked ramparts, movers and shakers. The world has come to halt, we've seen it in the past and we're living it now.

      Rated 'M' for mature.

      very funny satellite tv, here's the local channels.. extra equipment, charge for extra teevee's????

      Free HiDEF programming?

      Don't get stuffed with satellite.

      My hookers await, friend. Goodbye, sweet Kansas City.

    3. Re:This is more important by chawly · · Score: 1

      My goodness, and I thought I was alone.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  7. What does this have to do with cheap flat panels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Samsung predicts that a price for the 42" PDP will drop to $2099 in the next year and to $1000 in 2006.

  8. In other words .... by binaryDigit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "What we've decided is that for the investment that's required and the returns we would get and the timeline to get to those returns, that it doesn't make sense for us to pursue this particular technology," Intel spokesman Bill Calder said.

    Intel initially planned to deliver chips to TV makers in the second half of this year. But in August, the first signs of trouble surfaced, as Intel indefinitely postponed the project, saying the company had decided to improve picture quality before introducing the product.

    So basically they're saying that they thought they could bust into market because their so awesome at making anything made of silicon. They got their first samples done and they sucked compared to their competitors who haven't exactly been sitting around. Then they realized that hey, it's gonna take a lot of money to have something competitive and just how big is the market for $2000 tv's anyway, esp considering how technologically fickle it is at the moment (almost any technology can assert itself during any given generation). Then they figured, why bother.

    1. Re:In other words .... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Informative

      They got their first samples done and they sucked compared to their competitors who haven't exactly been sitting around.

      Their LCOS competitors, primarily JVC have been just sitting around, which is one of the reasons some of us were really glad to see the initial announcement and really bummed by this one. The DLP guys have made incredible increases in performance - primarily in contrast levels over the last 5 years or so, and yes they too are competitors to LCOS. But, even the essentially five year-old LCOS tech that JVC is still using beats DLP in color quality, resolution and fill factor.

      If JVC had been motivated to make the same kind of progress the DLP guys have been making, we'd have 4096x2048, 4000:1 contrast with 96+% fill for under $4K today. Since we don't, I sure was hoping Intel would get there instead.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:In other words .... by JQuick · · Score: 1

      They sucked only slightly re the technology. It's more that they underestimated their competitors.

      When they announced the initiative most digital display technologies were only capable of natively displaying at 720p. This is simply because the native resolution was typically 768 or 770 vertical rows of pixels. They can display 1080 images, but of course the conversion loses detail in the image.

      The hdtv standard also has a format with 1080 vertical lines. 1080i (1080 lines interlaced) is a common broadcast standard. The top end (1080p) is the highest resolution in the standard. This year high end plasma displays are now shipping that can natively display 1080 lines (Sharp is one).

      The rival rear projection technology for LCOS is DLP. DLP chip-sets have typically had a native resolution of 1280 x 768. TI started shipping a higher end version (the xHD3 chipset) that is capable of 1080p native resolution.

      From Intel's standpoint:

      1. They started planning an LCOS rollout at 720p native resolution.
      2. Their competitors got to significant volumes of 1080p faster (and at lower price points) than they initially assumed.
      3. They began redesigning to ship 1080p at rollout.
      4. They had problems rolling out smaller line sizes in all of their fabs (IBM and others had similar difficulties). Their LCOS proved more difficult than they thought.

      Poof. Longer time to recover investment now makes it less desirable.

    3. Re:In other words .... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If JVC had been motivated to make the same kind of progress the DLP guys have been making, we'd have 4096x2048, 4000:1 contrast with 96+% fill for under $4K today. Since we don't, I sure was hoping Intel would get there instead.

      Maybe AMD could take up the torch and do it. Unlike Intel, they seem to be able to actually succeed in bringing great products to the marketplace, instead of just empty promises.

  9. Back to back product cancelations? by peterdaly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What up with Intel? Just a few days they announced they don't think they can pull off a 4Ghz chip. Today they announce this?

    This doesn't bode well for Intel's R&D/Engineering leader image. They really don't need things like this at a time where AMD is eating their lunch for the first time ever, or at least starting to take bites.

    I wonder if this is a sign of things to come from Intel.

    -Pete

    --
    Soccer Goal Plans
    1. Re:Back to back product cancelations? by dj245 · · Score: 4, Funny
      What up with Intel? Just a few days they announced they don't think they can pull off a 4Ghz chip. Today they announce this?

      Sure they can make a 4ghz chip. They just can't cool it without using two vacuum clean motors and a bucket of refrigerant R132.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    2. Re:Back to back product cancelations? by cerberusss · · Score: 1
      Intel's R&D/Engineering leader image

      That image got a knock when they copied AMD's x86-64 extensions.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    3. Re:Back to back product cancelations? by Teddy+Beartuzzi · · Score: 1
      Good. Nothing pleases me more (ok, a few things do) than seeing Intel bite it. I've hated them and their business practices for so long.

      Tomorrow, I order my first AMD computer. This old P3 will be tossed into the junk pile.

  10. I am curious as to what exactly the trouble is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With the way the technology was headed, they must have hit some real big show stoppers to not finish off developing a technology they've sunk so much money into, and potentially end up forever outside a HUGE market.

    1. Re:I am curious as to what exactly the trouble is. by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      TV's may be a huge market, but with the advent of Best-Buy, Walmart, and cheap imports from China, there are almost no margins left in it. You could charge $5000 for a 48" Tv 5 years ago. Today, price it more than $1000 and it will collect dust on the shelf.

      And it's a market that already has an 800 lb Gorilla.

      Sony has been manufacturing far more complex chips, figuring out how to make them uber cheap, and has brand name recognition in the consumer electronics industry. They also sell their cheap stuff under several other brands. If Intel started trying to eat into Sony's lunch pail, Viaos would probably start running a Sony designed x86 compadible.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:I am curious as to what exactly the trouble is. by imsabbel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      i think they underestimated the R&D costs involved in producing the panels (its nothing like cpus..) AND they realized that they can make more money per fab producing flash or processors than the relatively large LCOS-dies (a 200mm^2 p4/opteron can be sold for a few 100$, but a chip for a tv cant...)

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:I am curious as to what exactly the trouble is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Yep, this is where technology is headed.

      Prices fall, performance goes up and technology ages. It isn't going to be long before PCs with 2GHz, firmware OS and gig of RAM will cost $79 and plug it into your TV. And they will not run an unstable OS like Windows either.

      It will be slow to start but take off when consumers realize they don't have to putz with patches and service packs. PDAs and x86 toaster boxes are the future and at $300 per CPU - Intel will not be in the market.

      With flat panels they showed up far too late in the market and a few dollars short.

      Intel is under increasing financial presures... likely off shore like everyting else.

    4. Re:I am curious as to what exactly the trouble is. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Also, it's because none of the major Japanese electronics companies are interested.

      Given that Sony is selling LCD RPTV's, Panasonic is selling both LCD and DLP RPTV's, and now Mitsubishi is selling DLP RPTV's, small wonder why Intel shelved its LCOS program.

    5. Re:I am curious as to what exactly the trouble is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are still big margins on high end TVs. I know this because a friend of mine gets near cost prices on products at Best Buy, and on HDTVs he gets a big discount.

      There are definitely some gorillas in the market: Sony, Samsung, LG, enough said.

  11. PDP11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mmmm, cheap retro 'supercomputer' :p

    $1000 in 2006? Neat, I'll get one then to replace my 24" widescreen TV that I got in an emergency.

  12. Fucking Intel by rosewood · · Score: 2, Funny

    All year long, I have been wanting to buy a big TV. However, every time I would see a great deal, I would pass. I kept thinking that Intel would have this out by Christmas. If I spent $1500 on a TV, I would get one twice as large at Christmas time.

    I bought into Intel hype like a stupid kid.

    I wanted big TV, I got big NOTHING. Thanks Intel, make big promises to gain investment and then just say "Awh fuck it, never mind!"

    Score for user Intel: -1, sucking

    --
    The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
    1. Re:Fucking Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks Intel, make big promises to gain investment and then just say "Awh fuck it, never mind!"

      I can't believe the nerve of Intel. I think the govt should force all companies to release product, doesn't matter if the company later determines that it's not in their best interest to do so. After all, I'm sure the landscape is littered with individuals like the parent poster, who had their poor little hearts set on buying that whizz bang new technology, only to have their hopes crushed and their xmas plans ruined. After all, now he feels so bad about being taken, he can't just go ahead and spend his money on a new tv, nooooooo. No he has to wait for some other company to promise some big technology so he can avoid spending his money a little longer in hopes of getting "the next big thing".

    2. Re:Fucking Intel by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      on the other hand, you could say 'thanks Intel', as whilst you've been keeping your pennies in your pocket over the last year, prices have been 'competivitised' so now you can buy a screen that is larger than what you could have had. Due to intel, you've saved your money instead of spending it on the first shiny toy in the first shop window you walked past. :)

    3. Re:Fucking Intel by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

      Now tell me there's no more notebooks with a ATI mobility Radeon 9800 chip coming out. Grr, I'm waiting for any manufacturer other than Dell and Apple to sell such a product but they don't.

    4. Re:Fucking Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But in August, the first signs of trouble surfaced, as Intel indefinitely postponed the project, saying the company had decided to improve picture quality before introducing the product."

      TRANSLATION: The products they had ready SUCK and they don't want to release SUCKY products. This is a GOOD thing!

    5. Re:Fucking Intel by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This isn't just whining; besides products, companies have to maintain an image. Intel made a stupid mistake by hyping up their involvement in a new (for them) technology. By now calling off their plans, they look like they can't deliver on what they promise.

      So, next time Intel promises some great new microprocessors, people will remember their crying wolf about LCOS, decide that it's not worth waiting to see if they can actually deliver or if it's more hot air, and they'll simply buy AMD chips instead.

      If you're not sure if you can deliver on something, you shouldn't promise it.

  13. Why not just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    buy the new for christmas inventory at the after christmas sale like you were wisely going to do anyway?

  14. Time to clean house... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it's time to get some new blood into the company. I think you'll see some "cleaning of house" in Q1 2005.

    I'm surprised people are not talking about it.

    1. Re:Time to clean house... by devaldez · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the person responsible for this decline is Craig Barrett, and unless the Board decides to can his ass six months from retirement, you're not gonna see anything for at least another year.

      Have you noticed how far Intel has declined under Barrett? You wonder how the Board could put up with this noob for so long.

      --
      "... but you can love completely without complete understanding." - Norman Maclean, "A River Runs Through It"
    2. Re:Time to clean house... by Combuchan · · Score: 1

      Andy Grove probably realised that the tech boom was not forever, and given his increasing age probably wanted to just let the company hold its own with his name not attached to it as it once was. See if it'll manage and grow old like IBM (they came from the Hollerith era of computing.)

      Jack Welch probably realised the same about GE. A CEO can only hold the company for so long. Company life cycle theory is quite interesting, and I'd like to see how Intel favors under it.

      Put it another way. It's all about how well the company can do when the CEO jumps ship. Some CEO replacements were up to the task, like IBM's and GE's, whereas others might just sink. Does Intel need to be in every market it's in? Probably not.

      How long they go on is a good question. Are they going to be like the 171-year-old Shell in Royal Dutch/Shell. Will they be swallowed up somewhere along the way like Seagate buying up Conner? Or will they just disappear...for a while (like Napster) or forever (like a dotcommer). Just think, only one of the original DJIA-30 is still on the DJIA-30 (if you exclude the years-ago hiatus). It's GE. Go figure.

      --sean

      --
      "[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
  15. Why a TV? by naitro · · Score: 2, Informative

    How come everyone is so fixated on big screen TVs? A decent projector + a TV-tuner can be bought for far less than $2000, and I don't mean off eBay. Xbox on a 90" screen is the shiznit.

    1. Re:Why a TV? by IvanD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The TV is way cooler!! But that is not the point, the TV has already the "screen" and better definition, resolution and if you set the brigth to the highest... you don't have to be worry of burning the "bulb".

    2. Re:Why a TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      better definition, resolution and if you set the brigth to the highest... you don't have to be worry of burning the "bulb".

      Err, no, sorry, your wrong. Price per pixel, projection kicks plasma and lcd's butt. If your talking rear projection, it's exactly that, a projector inside the tv. So you have the same bulb issues and the SAME resolutions availible as front projectors. Also, unless your walls are some funky colour, an off white wall works wonderfully and you don't have to have a screen (and even so, you can easily pick up a reasonable one for $100).

    3. Re:Why a TV? by ColdGrits · · Score: 1

      "A decent projector + a TV-tuner can be bought for far less than $2000"

      True, but compared to a good TFT/LCD/Plamsa TV, the projector image sucks.

      It is less clear, harder to view in anything other than total darkness, and is more intrusive on the room to use.

      I've seen side-by-side comparisons, and the projectr looses out every time (except if you can guarantee that the viewing room will be in total darkness - e.g. in a cinema - or you want a display far larger than a plasma et al can produce.

      --
      People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
    4. Re:Why a TV? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      Don't forget though, that you are going to be popping $800 bulbs into the puppy every 6 months to a year.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    5. Re:Why a TV? by colins · · Score: 4, Informative

      I call Bullshit.

      Typical home theatre projectors have a 2000 to 3000 hour bulb life these days. If we use the low end, 2000 hours, you would have to run it five and a half hours a day to burn out a bulb in a year.

      A quick check on froogle shows a replacement bulb for the popular Infocus 4805 is $395 USD.

      So your cost estimate is double what it should be, and your life estimate is probably half what it should be at best.

      A $400 bulb every two years or so is more realistic, and for that you get a 100"+ screen to watch in the comfoprt of your own home. Sounds like a good deal to me compared to the alternatives.

      See the forums at http://www.avsforum.com/ for all the info your could ever want on this topic.

    6. Re:Why a TV? by swb · · Score: 1

      I call further bullshit, with some exceptions.

      I don't disagree that a good projector setup is an awesome experience, and ALL RPTVs eat high-dollar bulbs, so the bulb issue is kind of moot.

      RPTVs (especially the tabletop models like Sony's LCD RPTV and Samsung's DLP) offer far better ambient light pictures than a projector and are much simpler to integrate into a room.

      The latter is important for most people -- mounting a projector in a ceiling or floor and then cabling it to your video sources *neatly* isn't trivial. If you just want to run a ton of cables around the horn or don't give a shit, it doesn't matter, but most people don't want that look or have a dedicated theater room where it could all get mounted in the back of the room.

      And then there's the matter of the screen. A quality, high-gain screen ain't cheap. And unless you're building a cinema-specific room, you're talking even more money to install a screen in the ceiling that can get dropped down and raised up.

    7. Re:Why a TV? by cve · · Score: 1

      I looked at data projectors when I was shopping for TVs a few months ago. The costs are similar (or higher) when you look at the price of doing it right.

      Some things to consider:
      - If you can't sufficiently control the light in the viewing room, you'll need a screen. Tab-tensioned glass bead screens are not cheap.
      - You will probably want to buy a projector mount.
      - You'll need to run signal/power to the projector.
      - Controls are not as intuitive for non-tech types.
      - Most data projectors are loud.

      I went with a LCOS Wega.

    8. Re:Why a TV? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      Well, in my living room A) there is no space to mount a projector properly without it looking ghetto. Even if there were, the construction work to wire and set it up would have cost about as much as my LCD RP set. B) FP works great with low light conditions, but not great in average light. I have lots of windows in a Manhattan apartment, so an FP setup would only be usable late at night - even with all the blinds drawn, the light level is still too high, it would look insanely washed out.


      I guess if you live somewhere where usable space is not an issue (here in Manhattan, the cost per square foot of living room space is much more than the cost of any of these sets), or you are building a windowless home theater room from scratch in a house in the burbs where you can have everything mounted properly in a housing that looks good, the 1500 bucks you save might be worth it. For me, a 60" Grand Wega LCD RP was a good deal at 2200 bucks (big sale price, I got a great deal), was far less mounting/install effort, and made sense, and apparently most people feel the same way.

    9. Re:Why a TV? by AnyNoMouse · · Score: 1
      - If you can't sufficiently control the light in the viewing room, you'll need a screen. Tab-tensioned glass bead screens are not cheap.
      You can build your own screen for far cheaper and have just a good finished product as all but the most expensive screens. It's not hard to do and doesn't take very long.
      - You will probably want to buy a projector mount.
      Or you can buy a security camera mount that costs around $20. Or just set it on a coffee table, depending on your kid/animal situation. Many projectors can be set on a bookshelf in the back corner and have adjustments to square out the picture.
      - You'll need to run signal/power to the projector.
      preplanning and finding the best room in the house to do this. This is probably the biggest hurdle because if you don't have a room that works, then you don't have a room that works and there isn't a lot you can do about it. Fortunately, it's not usually a problem.
      - Controls are not as intuitive for non-tech types.
      A little misleading. Actually, the biggest problem facing a FP system user is their viewing habbits. Generally, your bulb will not last the rated hours if you don't treat it well. This involves leaving it on for at least an hour or two before turning it off and leaving it off for about the same before turning it back on. The absolute minimum is around 10 or 20 minutes (the bulb won't spark unless it's cool), but it will take a toll on the life of the bulb. When bulb costs are 300-400 bucks you want to make that thing last :-)
      - Most data projectors are loud.
      Most Home Theater projectors are not. There is a price premium, but in many cases you not only get a quieter projector, but one with better saturation and a faster color wheel (when dealing with DLP).

      --
      -Redundancy Man strikes again!
    10. Re:Why a TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are much simpler to integrate into a room.

      Eh? RPTVs are huge. They completely dominate a room. Rooms with RPTVs (or most any tv) are generally reconfigured to accomidate the tv.

      In contrast most people don't even notice I have a projector unless I point it out to them. It's tiny. Routing cables took about an hour. The pull-down screen is about the same color as the ceiling, and is even more discrete than the projector.

      Integrating with a room is one of the best reasons to get a projector.

    11. Re:Why a TV? by swb · · Score: 1

      Routing the cables is trivial for the typical Slashdot reader, but for the kinds of people that want to hook up the VCR(!), DVD player and cable/sat box, having the thing in the ceiling isn't something they do themselves.

      I'm not sure I'd be crazy about it, either -- I finally got an HD cable box a few months after getting my RP TV. Dunno where I would have found decent 25' component video cables or how I would have felt about having to fish them into the ceiling.

      A dedicated room for a projector setup makes the most sense, since you can mount the components and the projector on the back wall and not play electrician each time you want to change something, but that's not something most people have.

  16. Oops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1
    Looks like the technology isn't living up to the hype. Oh, wait, they have at least a decade of that.

    Next up? Positive hype about something else. Why-o-why does this remind me of politics?

  17. Rear Projection by cHALiTO · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, sagem is selling this set, which looks like it could make me drool in a very homerish way. Does anyone have one of these? Do they look better than a plasma screen?

    --
    "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    1. Re:Rear Projection by jacksonj04 · · Score: -1

      RP sets are far superior to plasma screens for the reason you don't need to recharge them after 2000 hours viewing. LCD are all well and good, but decent sets like the Sagem you pointed out trounce them (afaic) in nearly every field.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
  18. Re:What does this have to do with cheap flat panel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I can quite PDPs will drop dramatically in price. Just before graduating from university last summer, the Professor lecturing us did a quick "what can you expect to see in the next couple of years" talk. Apparently he along with Sharp have been working on a nano optical technology (something to do with prinitng LEDs on to a sheet with a resolution greater than the wavelength of light) which allows them to make virtually any size screen for a fraction of the cost of current plasmas and with an energy to light converion more efficient than any other (display or lighting) technology currently available.

    This, he said, was why sharp were not currently pushing their PDPs or LCDs and are actually just rebadging currently.

  19. Attention Mr. Slashdot reader by carnivore302 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear Mr. Slashdot reader,

    First of all let me appologize for asking for your attention in this rude way. And before I continue, let me first humbly introduce myself. I am Youko Grant Youka, daughter of the late Nigerian prime minister Omboukou Grant Youka. It is with great anticipation that I seek contact with you.

    There is technology available called LCOS. My father, the late Omboukou Grant Youka has invested 300 million dollars in a very secret project to develop inexpensive flat panel displays. When my father passed away, in his will it was determined that whatever was left of the 300 million dollar investment would go to me, his only daughter Youko Grant Youka.

    It is with great discomfort that I now must conclude that since the military has gained power in my country I no longer can rely on the enforcers of the law. There is 206 million dollars left of the investment, which I must transfer to a foreign bank account as soon as possible. If you will help me in achieving this I will as a reward for your kindness share half of this amount (103 million dollars) with you. Does this proposal sound attractive to you?

    With most sincere regards,

    Mrs. Youko Grant Youka

    --
    Please login to access my lawn
  20. I smell... smart decision making... by AndyBassTbn · · Score: 0

    Could it be that Intel has learned the hard lesson - "One must break a few eggs to make an omelette?"

    They probably recognized that the product would likely be sub-par, low in supply (and thus, impossible to put into competition with current flat panel designs), or some other design flaw. Rather than release an inferior product anyway for the sake of a few Christmas dollars (ahem... Microsoft - are you listening?!?), they cut their losses and are moving on.

    I would expect a much improved version of similar designs in the not-too-distant future, perhaps with the kinks worked out.

    --
    I hope the land around you yields, a crop like all the other fields, and then your waiting might make sense...
  21. Oh puleeezzze by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like the technology isn't living up to the hype. Oh, wait, they have at least a decade of that.
    Next up? Positive hype about something else. Why-o-why does this remind me of politics?

    What a load of crap. This is an industry wide, wait no, a planet wide phenomenon. People/companies hyping abilities/products and not being able to deliver in the end. I want to work for your company where your product announcements read:

    LameCo is mildy proud to announce plans to try to produce a new technology that will, if they manage to pull it off, do great things, if everyone will adopt it and we can keep to our schedules. Company execs tried to downplay any enthusiasm for the product saying "we don't want to get our customers hopes up too high, hell, we don't want to get OUR hopes up to high, after all, we've failed before and as we all know, there are no guarantees in life". Company execs also state that one of the primary risks is their inability to garner investment funding for their projects, this has left the execs confused considering the promise the technology will probably have.

  22. Intel Falling Apart by Bruha · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It seems lately Intel has been met face on with many failures. Lately I've been keeping my eyes on Ibm's power developments and AMD's work also in how they push CPU power without the Mhz factor. However while Intel produces a lot of chips you have to remember AMD is one of the largest chip makers in the world and their CPU business is only a small fraction of that. Maybe AMD will pick up where Intel gave up.

    1. Re:Intel Falling Apart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, ummm Intel has 80-85% of the marketshare while AMD has about 15%, If Intel was producing at half-capacity, it'd would still be more than AMD producing at full. Just because AMD has the edge right now, doesn't mean Intel is going to be gone the next day.

  23. Cancelation may be Redirection by hcob$ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been reading up on some of the "up and coming" display technologies, and I have a theory!

    The new devices that are coming out are "Organic LEDs." These devices are looking to offer brighter displays, no backlighting required, even FLEXIBLE TV! Lets just say that with a screen thickness as small as 1mm (yes that's millimetres) I'll wait for that 42" TV you can hang on the wall like a picutre(and not need a forklift/specialty anchorage).

    --
    Cliff Claven
    K.E.G. Party Chairman
    Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    1. Re:Cancelation may be Redirection by Naffer · · Score: 1

      Currently OLED technologies have a very serious screen-aging problem that makes OLEDS just not useful in the TV market. Plasma screens burn in very quickly, but OLEDs lose brightness accuracy within a few thousands hours. They need to fix that first.

    2. Re:Cancelation may be Redirection by hattig · · Score: 1
      Plasma screens burn in very quickly, but OLEDs lose brightness accuracy within a few thousands hours. They need to fix that first.


      Large strides have been made in this arena recently.

      Even so, if they can make the damned things by printing them, then sell me a 10 year display package that will include a new screen being shipped to me every 2 years (high use) and just reusing the base electronics. The manufacturers get to recoup the technology costs, and sell products soon, and the consumer won't get affected by the dimming issues for certain OLED components.

      That, or sell the displays for cheapish with "suitable for 5000 hours viewing time (5 years at 20 hours/week) that people will know they'll have to replace. Anyway, the new stuff in 5 years time will be even better! This would be great for the viewer that wants a big screen to watch the occasional movie on, but doesn't watch TV much - I'm sure quite a lot of people here come under that category.
  24. Display technologies review? by anandrajan · · Score: 1

    Is there a good, recent review of the various competing display technologies [LCOS, DLP, Plasma etc.]? It seems to be a very confusing and chaotic place with many disparate technologies jockeying for dominance.

    --
    Anand Rangarajan anand@cise.ufl.edu
    1. Re:Display technologies review? by anandrajan · · Score: 1

      Is there a good, recent review of the various competing display technologies [LCOS, DLP, Plasma etc.]?
      I know it's bad form to reply to one's own message but for those who had the same question, I found a very nice comparison of various display technologies at Audioholics.com.

      --
      Anand Rangarajan anand@cise.ufl.edu
  25. Someone smart at Intel by samael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like there's been a shift in priorities at Intel recently. Someone high up's insisted that all projects be analysed to see if they wil actual be profitable and a few are being canned because they aren't worthwhile.

    Almost certainly a good thing - so long as they're still investing heavily in R&D.

    --
    My Journal
    1. Re:Someone smart at Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get off of Slashdot now! You're far too insightful to be wasting time here.

  26. It's not just Intel by jmichaelg · · Score: 1
    I wonder if this is a sign of things to come from Intel.

    Boeing dropped out of the large airframe race leaving the field to Airbus. Silicon Light had a really interesting technology which they sold to Sony who are just sitting on it.

    It's not just that we just don't make things the way we used to - it's getting to where we just don't make things.

  27. Sub-$2000 flat-panel TV right here by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's one you can get right now: a Maxent ED Plasma. I'm sure there are other examples.

    How about sub-$1000?

    --
    Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:Sub-$2000 flat-panel TV right here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing that is nice about Bestbuy is you get to see the same video feed side-by-side on different models.

      Unless the sales people are de-tuning some models away from the best picture (in order to sell the more expensive brands), you can truely see the differences between quality.

    2. Re:Sub-$2000 flat-panel TV right here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the description:

      "Displays high-definition digital content at reduced resolution."

      Sounds like a great bargain.

    3. Re:Sub-$2000 flat-panel TV right here by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

      For people who really only watch DVD's (standard definition) and don't want to spend twice as much for a 42" HD plasma, they're a bargain.

      Suppose you have $4000 to spend.

      Option 1: Buy 42" HD plasma for $4000 ($3800 plus wall mount, cables, et cetera).

      Option 2:
      1. Buy 42" ED plasma for $2000 ($1800 plus wall mount, cables, etc).
      2. Enjoy lots of standard definition content including DVD's video games, et cetera.
      3. Upgrade to new HD unit available in a few years for half the price (maybe $2000).
      4. Relegate "old" plasma to duty in game room or 2nd den or bedroom.

      I'd seriously consider option 2. Aparrantly so are a lot of people.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    4. Re:Sub-$2000 flat-panel TV right here by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 1

      Well, the summary didn't say anything about HD, just "flat-panel". Anyway, as it happens, I have an EDTV plasma myself -- not this one, but a $2500 Samsung -- and it looks spectacular with an HDTV feed. Quite a bit better than with SD material or DVD, and better than an SD set looks with downconverted HD material. So I wouldn't dismiss EDTV, nor consider it a DVD-only display.

      Also, note that even so-called HDTV displays usually don't match any of the standard HD resolutions -- you'll see things like 1024x768 (as on the Panasonic HD plasma that's just below that Maxent on the Best Buy page), as opposed to ED's 852x480. Most HD material is 1920x1080i or 1280x720p; the only exception I can think of is DirecTV, which is currently squeezing some of its 1080i channels to 1280x1080i.

      --
      Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  28. Maxent?? by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 1

    I only buy name brand electronics, like Magnetbox and Sorny.

    1. Re:Maxent?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Bart: "Don't be a sap dad. These are just crappy knock-offs."
      Homer: "I know a genuine 'Panaphonics' when I see one.

  29. Re:What does this have to do with cheap flat panel by drfireman · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Samsung predicts that a price for the 42" PDP will drop to $2099 in the next year and to $1000 in 2006."

    I'm guessing you mean DLP. They're almost flat, but I'll give them full credit because they're so light. There's a lot to like about DLP, but from recent visits to electronics stores (okay, Best Buy), I'm not happy with how the image quality degrades when you're a few feet below the level of the screen (e.g., playing with your dog on the floor). They seem to handle off-angle left and right just fine, it's just down that's a problem. Does anyone know if this is liable to be solved in newer models?

  30. LCOS tech outline by jilbert · · Score: 1

    Can be read at Audioholics plus a link to JVC's similar DILA technology.

    LCOS isn't really used to make flat panels, but you can make thinner rear projection TVs.

  31. Recommendations for flat panels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone have any recommendations for a good flat panel tv, around 42" I'm thinking. LCD looks better but seems to be more expensive than an equivalent Plasma. Is there a huge noticable difference between the lower res 480(?) and the 1080i?

    Heck, does anyone have a good review website?

  32. Intel can only be doing this because of AMD by twfry · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Basically AMD has the better server option over Xeon for the next year or two. If it lasts any longer than that Intel will lose dominance and they know that. Because of this they have done the following to refocus on their core process, microprocessors.
    • Canceled - Next versions of the P4, Tejas
    • Canceled - +4GHz chips with ever diminishing returns
    • Canceled - The Alviso chip for notebooks
    • Realized they had to extend 64-bits to the Xeon/P4 line
    • Realized they had to make Itanium run x86-64

    So now they have a crappy processor core and to save themselves they are throwing every resource available at making dual core chips because AMD is ahead of them on that by 6-12 months and it is going to kill their cash cow business.
    1. Re:Intel can only be doing this because of AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Realized they had to make Itanium run x86-64"

      Or, as eweek.com would put it: "x22".

  33. Ever hear of DLP Front Projection? by Timtimes · · Score: 1

    For about a thousand bucks you can get into a nice DLP front projection unit. I bought a Benq PB 6200 a couple months ago. I laugh everytime I think about what I would have had to spend to get a similar size/quality plasma/lcd (Benq PB6200 projects from 36" to 330" - I run it between 55-70" mostly). IMHO Front Projection DLP's are going to dominate the market once the word gets out. Word. Enjoy.

    --
    This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
    1. Re:Ever hear of DLP Front Projection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For home theater use, DLP (front or rear projection) has LCOS beat hands down. Better contrast, better color, more portable. I think home theater is going to be all DLP, at least for the next few years.

  34. Re:What does this have to do with cheap flat panel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No he does mean PDP. Plasma Display Panel. Having said that I think I prefer the LCD panels that are getting large and tempting now.

  35. LCOS and DRM by phage434 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have always thought that the real reason for Intel's interest in LCOS was the ability to decrypt content and display it from the same chip. This would make most attacks on DRM protected material quite difficult. By making LCOS displays on the chip technology as the decryption/decompression engine, they could control the DRM food chain quite effectively. Meanwhile, don't forget that there are still many players successfully manufacturing LCOS displays. Intel just is not one of them. You may still be able to buy one for Christmas.

  36. Plenty of options. LCOS not missed. by LeiGong · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The option for ~$2k, 42" HDTVs are still out there. The fact of the matter is Intel would have been one of the last companies to stand by the LCOS technology. Pretty much every TV company has abandoned it for LCD or DLP technology. I was recently in the market for HDTVs and went through looking at all the sub-$3k ones. I did my research and was very eager to check out how LCOS stacked up against the competition. A lot of articles made it sound like the holy grail of HD quality... Surprisingly, the LCOS TVs by Phillip looked the worst and I was informed by the sales guy at Tweeters that Phillips is discontinue selling LCOS due to technical and quality issues. And that was the only LCOS TV they carried among the over 2 dozen big screens. The LCD projection (not LCD flat panel) by Sony and DLPs by Samsung were much much better quality for almost the same or less price. I personally think DLP projection is now the way to go and so many new manufacturers are jumping in that LCOS will not be missed.

    1. Re:Plenty of options. LCOS not missed. by smartalix · · Score: 3, Informative

      LCoS is actually a superior technology in many ways, but it seems that nobody can make it cheap and plentiful. When I saw the Intel demos of the product at CES (private suite), I was very impressed with the image quality. There are other companies like Brillian and Spacialight currently selling 720p and 1080p LCoS chips, but in relatively small quantities for high-end and private-label applications.

      The primary advantages of LCoS involve its construction. In an LCD, since the light has to pass through the display, there is a limit on the size of the pixel since the transistors in it are opaque. This means that the pixels can only be shrunk to a certain size before light transmission is compromised, forcing high-resolution projection LCDs to increase in size to accommodate more pixels.

      A similar problem also exists in DLP chips, but due to mechanical considerations of the mirrors and clearances needed. An LCoS chip has its transistors behind immobile pixels, and therefore does not share either shortcoming.

      Yet another advantage to having the transistors behind the pixel is that you can then add more than control transistors to each pixel. This allows you to add features like video memory and logic on-chip.

      Frankly, I think it is shortsighted of Intel to pull the plug on LCoS, and has increased the pessimism in the industry of whether any company can field these devices in quantity.

      --
      Read a preview of my novel CYBERCHILD at www.smartalix.com/cyberchild
    2. Re:Plenty of options. LCOS not missed. by nsxdavid · · Score: 1

      Well I own a 55" Phillips LCOS HDTV. The only quanlity issue I have with it is the black levels and some banding in dark areas. I've noticed the same symptoms on other technologies too. In typical images, the HD scenes are outstanding.

      -- David

      --
      David Whatley
    3. Re:Plenty of options. LCOS not missed. by faster · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, it's really really hard to build LCOS TVs because there the three color chips have to be aligned perfectly in order to get a crisp picture.

      From a pure technology perspective, LCOS may be better then DLP, but when you consider that people (and machines) have to be able to produce these things before you can put one on your wall, LCOS obviously lost the battle.

    4. Re:Plenty of options. LCOS not missed. by ed1park · · Score: 1

      Sony will be coming out with a $10,000 LCOS based (SXRD) rear projection TV very soon. It will be from their Qualia line of products. it does native 1920x1080 HD and makes LCD/DLP pale in comparison.

      And then there is the Qualia 004, which is their $30,000 Lcos based projector. I've seen this projector myself in action and can attest to the amazing image.

      LCOS will be around simply because it is one of the best technologies, which is why Sony uses it in their most cutting edge line of products. Hopefully it will trickle down to normal consumers soon.

      You'll find a picture of the 70" Qualia RPTV here:
      http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.p hp?s=c7 6bad0f96f456a932d103581426c91c&threadid=444834

  37. Couldn't make it work well by Namarrgon · · Score: 3, Informative
    RTFA:

    the company had decided to improve picture quality before introducing the product.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    1. Re:Couldn't make it work well by ed1park · · Score: 1

      Go RTFA again.

      Back in *August* they postponed the project to improve the picture quality. But on Thursday they cancelled it outright. Apparently they could not improve the picture quality.

      "Intel Corp. on Thursday said it has scrapped plans to enter the digital television chip business"

      "...in August, the first signs of trouble surfaced, as Intel indefinitely postponed the project, saying the company had decided to improve picture quality before introducing the product."

    2. Re:Couldn't make it work well by Namarrgon · · Score: 1
      But on Thursday they cancelled it outright. Apparently they could not improve the picture quality.

      Exactly my point. Thank you for explaining it for me.

      That would appear to be the reason for the cancellation, but it would be nice to know more than the article tells us, I agree.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    3. Re:Couldn't make it work well by ed1park · · Score: 1

      Ah. I thought you were correcting the editor who posted and summarized the article. Sounded like you were saying that the LCOS development was only being delayed. :)

  38. LCOS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought LCOS was used in rear projection TVs. Perhaps they decided they can't compete with DLP from TI in projection systems.

    1. Re:LCOS? by spike+hay · · Score: 1

      Yeah. The story seems to be incorrect on that. Although LCOS or DLPs are not flat panel, with some optical tricks they aren't deep at all.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  39. Hey ass-clown, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That doesn't tell me anything the headline doesn't. What about their process fell short of their expectations, what were those based on, how big was the hurdle. Interesting questions. Surely with interesting answers, as were the meditations on economics previously cited.

  40. Replying to my own AC post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I should have known. What the hell is it with you austrailians? They paint everything with lead paint, put mercury in the drinking water, why are nine tenths of you so stupid? Is it congenital?

    1. Re:Replying to my own AC post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course, you must be American. No wonder half the world wants to blow you up.

  41. NOT FOR FLAT PANELS! by kraemer · · Score: 0

    LCOS technology is not used in flat panels. Its only used for rear and front projection HD televisions...

  42. Sony "black's out" the competition. by holland_g · · Score: 2, Interesting
    IMHO, the Wavelength Selectable black front projector screen demonstrated by Sony at the 2004 Society for Information Display conference in Seattle will make anyone reconsider a LCOS, LCD, or PDP purchase. The InFocus DLP based projectors would do quite well matched with the Sony screen.

    Basically it makes placing a projector and screen in the solarium a viable option.

    Brillian's LCOS engine looked nice at the show, but this screen got me more excited.

    Reference Links:

    http://www.insightmedia.info/emailblasts/InsightMe diaAnnouncesBestBuzzAwards.htm

    http://www.extremetech.com/slideshow_viewer/0,2393 ,l=&s=1005&a=128243&po=10,00.asp

    http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB108742977 261939595-IRjg4Nllal3nZyva3qHbqyCm4,00.html

    --
    Holland
  43. Re:What does this have to do with cheap flat panel by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

    You are right, LCOS isn't used in flat panels, it is used in projection, be it rear or front.

  44. Re:What does this have to do with cheap flat panel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    DLP = Digital light projector
    PDP = Plasma display panel

    Samsung was talking about plasma displays instead of DLPs.

  45. fu3k. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    has significantly VITALITY. LIKE AN develo4ment models gone Romeo and

  46. Canon has released an LCOS projector. by BenFaremo · · Score: 0

    It looks like Canon may be picking up some of Intel's slack:
    http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=Mo delDetailAct&fcategoryid=131&modelid=10678

  47. LCOS displays are not flat panels. by bryan_chow · · Score: 1

    They are for projectors or projection TVs.

    1. Re:LCOS displays are not flat panels. by Zed2K · · Score: 1

      But physically they are extremely flat and thin. They aren't flat panels anymore than a DLP is a flat panel, but the physical description is correct.

  48. Re:What does this have to do with cheap flat panel by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    Samsung's DLP rear projection TV (RPTV) units are excellent, but its cost is still quite high--their current HL-5063W costs around US$3,400 to US$3,500 depending on where you buy it from.

    Fortunately, more manufacturers are bringing out DLP RPTV's, and other competing technologies such as IL-DLA and LCD RPTV's will result in lower prices over the next 18 months.

    But you have to admit that Samsung DLP's are impressively sharp--I've seen widescreen DVD movies and ESPN HD broadcasts on them and it's not likely you will go back to normal TV's again. :-)

  49. Didn't they just release that the press release? by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 1

    What was the previous press release, just a trick to get the stock to jump?

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  50. Uh...LCOS is *not* for "flat panel" displays... by Splendid+Turd · · Score: 1

    A minor nitpick of the submitter's quote, but...

    LCOS technologies are used in (rear-) projection displays and not "flat panel" displays (LCD/Plasma).

    LCOS displays have long suffered from a shimmering effect that I found distracting to the point of being annoying. Compared to the latest DLP designs, LCOS has a ways to go before it can seriously compete.

    --
    Como? Cuando? Que?
  51. What??? You're a troll. by megalomang · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You think that Intel cancelled LCOS so they could shift resources to their processor line? You think they cancelled LCOS because of AMD? You don't think that TI's extremely successful DLP has anything to do with it? That's absurd. You, sir, are a troll.

    Basically AMD has the better server option over Xeon for the next year or two
    Really? Please... substantiate this with facts. What the hell are you talking about?

    Canceled - Next versions of the P4, Tejas
    Tejas was cancelled. Next version of P4 will still come out. There will definitely be a dual-core solution out early next year to fill the void that the 4GHz P4 left.

    Canceled - The Alviso chip for notebooks
    Really? I heard it was only delayed. Here is a press release from a month ago indicating the Alviso chip set will be released with Dothan, the second generation Centrino, later this year. Since AMD chipset business is stagnated, and AMD has failed to gain market share in laptop processors, this will be a big win for Intel.

    Realized they had to extend 64-bits to the Xeon/P4 line
    They obviously realized this years ago. They just didn't tell you about it because they wanted to give more momentum to 64-bit Itanium.

    Realized they had to make Itanium run x86-64
    This is still a rumor, probably true, though. But since Itanium has always been able to run all P4 code in legacy mode, would x86-64 be an exception?

    So go back to how is any of your FUD relevant to LCOS? It's not. Intel is obviously getting down to the fundamentals across the board. Trimming off projects that will not be successful, refocusing those that could, and pursuing only those that have growth potential in the future. LCOS is just another part of that.

    This demonstrates that Intel is willing to play the survival game the way that AMD and other competitors play. What mileage will AMD get out of saying "we were the first ones to publicly announce an x86-64 solution"? Big deal. If they fail to execute on it, they got nowhere. If anything, AMD has more to be concerned about than before.

  52. Fuc*ing spammer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eat my dust, dust eater.. (ref: bart simpson)

  53. semantics by galt2112 · · Score: 1

    This hasn't been pushed back. It has been pushed forward. The "back" refers to a schedule, where "back" means earlier and "forward" means later.

    Don't feel bad, lots of people incorrectly use this term....

  54. Sub $2K, 42 Inch At Walmart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was walking thru our Reno Walmart last night and there it was, a 42 inch plasma for $1984!

  55. Re:What does this have to do with cheap flat panel by will-el · · Score: 1

    > image quality degrades when you're a few feet below the level of the screen... Does anyone know if this is liable to be solved in newer models?

    Yeah, that's the deal breaker for me too. There is a solution for this on the horizon, but I forgot the
    vendor's name. Currently, the plastic screen on
    a microprojection TV (DLP or LCOS) is frosted plastic. A startup is working on an optically directional plastic that will be equivilent to zillions of tiny lightpipes from the back of the screen to the front. At the front will be little
    domes, for fixing the viewing cone problem. I don't have a timeframe for this, though.

  56. Blame it on wall street by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel now seems to be more concerned about meeting wall street analysts' expectations than ever before.
    In the past, they were willing to invest truckloads of money to develop and nurture a market for years. Now they won't touch anything that doesn't have a payout within a year. Perhaps yet more evidence that Intel is now more of a manufacturer than an innovator.

  57. In other news, TI DLP selling very well by vincob · · Score: 1
    TI on the other hand has never sold that many DLPs!

    From http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/investor/quarterly/3q0 4.shtml

    ... double-digit growth across all the company's major Semiconductor operations, with particularly strong contributions from wireless, DLP and high-performance analog products.

  58. Oh, LCOS. That's ok. by wrf3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    For a second there, I though it said LCARS.

  59. Re:What does this have to do with cheap flat panel by Bitmanhome · · Score: 1

    I suspect that's intentional; the less light they throw on the floor, the more light they can shoot in your face. It also means less stray light illuminating the room, and it all makes for a better experience directly in front of the screen.

    If you wanna watch from the floor, you might have to tip the screen forward, or just set the thing on the floor.

    --
    Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
  60. Re:What does this have to do with cheap flat panel by ikea5 · · Score: 1
    'DLP = Digital light projector'

    actually it's 'Digital light processor'

  61. LCOS and purple color by MetalNoise · · Score: 1

    Many of the Phillips LCOS displays were having problems with images having a strong purple hue to them. Apparently the colors would fade towards purple over time. The only LCOS display that I have seen in a store was quite purple. I don't know if this is a Phillips or an Intel problem. My guess is that the Intel chips had serious quality issues.

  62. JVC Technology by rssrss · · Score: 1


    JVC has an LCOS technology, which is not cheap because it uses 3 monochrome chips with separate color light sources, but is supposed to produce very nice pictures. Projectors MSRP $29.9K described here Television MSRP $4.5 -- 6K here.

    IIRC, Intel was trying for a single chip solution. TI's DLP chip is a solo and the television mfgs' use a rotating color wheel.

    I am really kind of amazed that Intel is throwing in the towel on this one. The eventual winner in this category stands to make a lot of money. Yes, TV is a low margin business, but the display chip will be a proprietary high margin part. The FCC has said that it wants the whole country to go HD and quickly.

    Rear projection based on a chip seems to be the eventual winner. Plasma's are nice, but they are inherently more expensive (bigger fab area) and burn out more quickly. Transmisson LCD same fab issue. The only thing that keeps me from declaring TI the winner is that they have not yet produced commercial 1920 X 1080 systems, which will be the highest level HDTV defined by the FCC, at least for a while.

    --
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
  63. Prices are dropping without lcos anyways... by sampspoon · · Score: 1

    Uh, if you haven't noticed plasmas are dropping massively. you can get a 50" lg plasma for $4000 right now and they're only getting cheaper...32" sony for $1800. LG(zenith) owns so much of the panel manufacturing business that now they can start dropping the prices...and are...that 50" was $8000 a few months back.

    Expect both LCD and Plasma to continue going down.

    Personally I've never seen much of a future for LCOS..The cabinets are still huge and bulky and doesn't look very nice. Compared to say, rear projection LCD or DLP that's about half the depth and also half the weight and not *that* much more in cost. Plus those technologies are only getting cheaper too! :D

  64. because TI is kicking ass with their DLP by Bob+Bitchen · · Score: 1

    http://www.ti.com/home_dlp

    This is the coolest video tech to come along in a while. I already bought stock in TI. I think these will be replacing all tubes sets in the near-term and will give all competing tech a hard time. They have already released the 2nd gen chips and those chips are in products now.

    --
    http://tinyurl.com/3t236