Dell Enters HDTV Market with Plasma Display

ThinSkin writes "It was only a matter of time before PC giant Dell would jump headlong into the HDTV market. But what does a company built around making inexpensive PCs know about HDTVs? ExtremeTech has done a full review with benchmarks on Dell's offering, the Dell W4200HD 42" Plasma HDTV."

Comments

Oh no, the tuner scare again

[Anonymous Coward]

having the ATSC tuner built in is a big plus, since a standalone ATSC tuner will set you back another $200-300

Blah! I have to say that the cost of a tuner is either in or out of the price. I mean that if a TV sells for $3000 with a tuner than I bet a bargain based TV will sell for $2700-$2800 without a tuner. The cost doesn't magically go away. Besides I like the tuner to be outside the TV so I can upgrade one component for a little money verses buying a whole new TV when (I-Z)DTV comes out or when I want new features that haven't been invented yet. Read tuner not tuna, so no dolphins were injured in the making of this post.

Re:Oh no, the tuner scare again

[mzwaterski]

Having a built in tuner is a feature added component. It doesn't lock you into using that tuner as long as the TV has the same inputs as the tunerless model (DVI, HDMI, Components, etc...) If you are going to have to buy external tuner 1 for the same price as the increase for the internal tuner you might as well reduce the number of cables/remotes and just get the included tuner.

If your cable company provides a tuner for a cheap rental fee, that is when you may want to save the money on no internal tuna.

Re:Oh no, the tuner scare again

[caronc]

I can upgrade one component for a little money verses buying a whole new TV when (I-Z)DTV comes out

Well it just has! How about my nice SDTV :-)

Re:Oh no, the tuner scare again

[Rude Turnip]

"Having a built in tuner is a feature added component."

True, but pretty much *everyone* (heck, everyone period) that can afford this TV is going to be using a Hi-def cable/sat box. In other words, if you can afford this TV, you're not going to waste it on just a few OTA HD channels.

Re:Oh no, the tuner scare again

[Kevin Stevens]

Well, I have experienced four different providers in the past year (time warner in upstate ny, cablevision on LI, comcast in NJ, and RCN in NJ) and to get cable HDTV, each service needed you to use one of their boxes which have the tuner built in. This is not to say that you can't get it over the air, but presumably if youre buying a high end tv, you are going to be getting digital cable. For the low end market I agree with including tuners, but on high end HDTV's 40" and over, I would rather save the space, weight, and price and have the speakers and tuners left out. Its just a completely different market.

Re:Oh no, the tuner scare again

[sharkey]

How about my nice SDTV :-)

Is that better than SCTV?

:)

Re:Oh no, the tuner scare again

[Jeremy Erwin]

Well it just has! How about my nice SDTV :-)

You have a SDTV? Isn't that kind of a waste? Sure, it's nice to be able to watch the subchannels on one's PBS feed, (avoiding Tucker Carlson, and the more marginal programs) but most channels don't use them for anything more than weather graphics... I suppose the picture's marginally nicer than a ntsc feed.

Re:Oh no, the tuner scare again

[dpilot]

So what kind of signal comes out of the cable/satellite box?
How do you get that signal into an HDTV-ready set?
How do you get that signal into an HDTV-built-in set?
How did they remove the possibility of recording?

Re:Oh no, the tuner scare again

[Kevin Stevens]

If you have an HD box, generally you have the option of composite, component, and DVI outputs. Possibly a coax one too. There are also optical and/or coax digital audio outputs too.

You plug one of the outputs into your tv, which on high end sets there are usually a plethora of (IMHO too many because its more convenient to plug these devices into a reciever which then has one output to the TV.

On an HDTV ready set, again you just use one of the many inputs other than the coax input.

Remove the possibility of recording? I don't know where you got that idea from, but as long as you have a recording device that can accept one of the inputs on your cable box, you can record.

Re:Oh no, the tuner scare again

[dledeaux]

If you are using a DVI connection then there is the possibility that the material you are watching might be using HDCP (High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection). This isn't a problem with analog sources like component, s-video, and composite.

Re:Oh no, the tuner scare again

[iowannaski]

How did they remove the possibility of recording?

1280 vertical lines * 720 horizontal lines * 20 bit color * 30 frames / 1 sec
=
552,960,000 bits / sec

That's how they prevent recording.

Re:Oh no, the tuner scare again

[That's Unpossible!]

1280 vertical lines * 720 horizontal lines * 20 bit color * 30 frames / 1 sec
=
552,960,000 bits / sec

That's how they prevent recording.

Strange, my time warner HD PVR records HD just fine.

Re:Oh no, the tuner scare again

[iowannaski]

Strange, my time warner HD PVR records HD just fine.

As long as Time Warner wants it to. The original question was "How do they prevent recording from the output of the cable box?"

The answer, for those who insist on being obtuse (I'm looking at you parent), is that there are as yet no consumer devices capable of recording an uncompressed HDTV stream.

Cable company PVRs are irrelevant to the discussion, as they will be first in line to honor the broadcast flag, whether or not thewy are legally required to.

Re:Oh no, the tuner scare again

[That's Unpossible!]

Relying on the large bandwidth requirements as a way of preventing someone from recording something seems to me to be incredibly shortsighted...

They do it well

[erick99]

Dell is a smart company that runs a lean & mean R&D machine. They seemingly put a lot of thought into new product introduction as well as price point. These folks are going to be hellish successful for a long time. It doesn't really matter much what product they are putting out, they seem to do it well. Hate 'em or love 'em, you gotta admire them.

They are particularly good about not reinventing the wheel, rather, working with other vendors or manufacturers who have already figured it out (so to speak) and then putting the Dell spin on it if needed. Once again, a pretty cool business process from my point of view.

As an aside, I don't work for Dell and I don't buy their products (I like Sony Vaio's and HP printers for some reason) but I do admire their business acumen and their business models. (I do, however, have extreme HDTV Plasma Display envy).

Re:They do it well

[Silverlancer]

If they're so smart, why do they still use AMD, use such horrible motherboards in their systems that my old 667mhz Micron outperforms my 866mhz Dell by 50% in 3Dmark03 (when the same graphics card is used in both), and still insist on the stupid "Dude you're getting a Dell" line?

Re:They do it well

[Mantorp]

Dell is a smart company that runs a lean & mean R&D machine

If that means "Dell doesn't really invent anything they just take already good ideas and commoditize them", then I agree.

Re:They do it well

[erick99]

Look at their bottom line. Also, they are not trying to be all things to all people. They do an excellent job with most of the market and they make business decisions that provide reasonable products at good prices and maintain shareholder value.

Re:They do it well

[KyleJacobson]

Dell buys in bulk, so they get everything at a discounted price, throw it together, and sell it to the consumer. I'm sure they buy the cheapest they can, while still getting a decent bang for their buck, and if the consumer sees big numbers for a low price, thats all that matters.

Re:They do it well

[Jerf]

And that implies Dell isn't a smart company, how? Like the guy said, sounds like a good business model to me.

Re:They do it well

[lucabrasi999]

Dell is a smart company that runs a lean & mean R&D machine.

Dell might be a well run company. But, a "lean & Mean R&D machine"? I don't think so. Dell isn't known for inventing new products. They are known for taking someone else's invention and using their supply chain advantage to put that someone else out of business.

Re:They do it well

[AddressException]

From TFA it's a Samsung panel.

Re:They do it well

[Mantorp]

I think DELL is a very smart company but it has very little to do with their R&D which is what I was commenting on.

Re:They do it well

[muckdog]

if you RTFA you'd know it was Samsung

Re:They do it well

[jangobongo]

• Dell is a smart company that runs a lean & mean R&D machine. They seemingly put a lot of thought into new product introduction as well as price point. These folks are going to be hellish successful for a long time. It doesn't really matter much what product they are putting out, they seem to do it well. Hate 'em or love 'em, you gotta admire them.

You are not alone in admiring Dell. Fortune magazine has named Dell as #1 on their annual list of most admired companies.

Re:They do it well

[hubs99]

FTA: " Dell has put together a good panel (from Samsung) with a good video processor (from PixelWorks)" Hope that answers your question

Re:They do it well

[f0dder]

Successful company? Slashdot? Does this make Dell evil?

Re:They do it well

[Mordaximus]

Dell is a smart company that runs a lean & mean R&D machine.

Unless you consider that many other companies are getting right out of plasma production. At any rate neither of their displays are HDTV devices. They lack the resolution to even display 720p at 16:9. Suprised no one sues for false advertising.

Re:They do it well

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats wrong with that? Why does a business need to invent things in order to get respect?

They're a business. They make money. They're good at what they do. They used the internet to make money AND save money on a large scale before any other company I can think of.

You sit at work doing jack shit (reading slashdot) and you have the guts to put down Dell because they don't make their own processors or what not? hahaha.. What a joke.

Re:They do it well

[Anonymous Coward]

R&D doesn't have to be applied directly to inventing cool new tech toys you know?

There is many things a company can R&D.

For instance researching and developing better, cheaper methods for building computers so they can make more proffit and pass savings on to customers. That is R&D.

What about research and development of their online business?

Me thinks Dell does a lot more than you think.

Re:They do it well

[shawb]

Because Dell does most of its sales to companies. These companies want to go with the "safe" bet, and that is Intel in their minds. It's all about brand recognition from people that don't know the difference between one spec sheet and another. All they care about is the "Pentium Inside" sticker so they think they bought the best.

On another note, I've seen an interesting switch in the past couple of years. When buying prebuilt home computers, it's generally the lower end ones that carry intel processors (generally celerons.) while the "extreme gaming" or "ultimate home media" setup or whatever that particular vendor calls it tends to be AMD.

Re:They do it well

[CodeBuster]

That is not necessarily true. The pieces that Dell brings to the table are, as you mention, comparative advantages in their supply chain, superior marketing and brand awareness, and a hyper efficient delivery and distribution system. One company does the R&D and licenses the design/specifications, another company does the actual fabrication/manufacturing, and the third company, Dell in this case, does the marketing, branding, and distribution. Each of these companies is specialized in their particular area of expertise delivering maximum efficiency through comparative advantages wrought by their specialization. The end result is generally reasonable quality products delivered to consumers at reasonable prices. In previous decades large, vertically integrated firms controlled all aspects of design, manufacturing, distribution, marketing, and branding and the result was a few large firms delivering products of comparative quality but at much higher prices than consumers pay today in inflation adjusted dollars. The good news is that there many levels of markets from mass to niche and everything in between which serve all types of customer from custom projects to mass produced goods and services. Dell is just another link in the chain.

Re:They do it well

[Jerf]

Fair enough. Happens to me about 125% of the time. :-)

Re:They do it well

[rcamans]

Dell does invent things.
Read their patent portfolio.
And, strangely enough, they are not one of the big patent bastards, like some companies I can think of.

Yes, I work for Dell as an EE, and my name is on some patent applications.

Re:They do it well

[Mantorp]

Can you get me a cheap mp3 player :)

Re:They do it well

[Anonymous Coward]

You think Dell became a multi BILLION dollar company with out any R&D?.

Sure they had R&D: Intel's R&D, Microsoft's R&D, Lexmark's R&D....

Re:They do it well

[iowannaski]

A brief R of TFA would reveal to you that Dell is not and has never been in the business of procucing plasma TVs.

Hell, they don't even make computers, what would make you think they have suddenly decided to open a plasma factory?

Re:They do it well

[puto]

You mean like apple?

1. OSX=BSD
2. Apple(someone elses idea and product
3. Cases you can open(apple 1 and 2 you could crack
4. Downloadable music.
5.USB
Not to down push apple, as for r and d they do the same thing.

Puto

Re:They do it well

[pete6677]

I've thought all along that it was not smart of Dell to become just another consumer electronics company in a crowded marketplace. The competition from dirt cheap Chinese manufacturers will only get tougher. Dell needs to differentiate themselves from other companies in some meaningful way, like what they used to do when they provided high quality custom-built machines and excellent support. When they decided they must also be the cheapest in the industry, things fell apart and I know many people that won't buy Dells anymore even though they used to. Trying to commoditize all of their products will be the death of them once the Chinese companies truly catch up. What they need is the opposite, specialization.

24" 1920x1200/12msec LCD is pretty interesting too

[xmas2003]

While the W4200HD is pretty cool but a bit pricy (nutshell summary of the article), a perhaps more interesting display coming from Dell is the 24" LCD offering 1920x1200 resolution and 12-16 msec response time - also reviewed by Extreme Tech with a sticker price of $1,199 ... although I have not see it for sale yet on Dell's websitee. This is going to put a lot of pressure on the large LCD makers, and with the occasional 25% off deal from Dell, could drop below $1,000.

My christmas lights and BBQ Grill would look HULK'ing on that monitor! ;-)

One page version

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.extremetech.com/print_article2/0,2533,a =146388,00.asp Far easier to read, IMHO.

Selling plasma HDTVs is not a rocket science...

[slobber]

But what does a company built around making inexpensive PCs know about HDTVs?

Gateway seems to do it just fine, why not Dell?

Re:Selling plasma HDTVs is not a rocket science...

[jellomizer]

I always find it funny. When a company finally beats there competitor they start taking on many of the competitors traits. There was a time where Dell wasn't considered Low Cost PC, But Reliable systems, The same with Gateway a decade earlier. If you let quality drop to far (from tring to be the most afordable) people start disliking your brand. I knew so many people back in early 2000 who got a Gateway because it was cheaper then the Dell and by 2001 They were going I should have put the extra money in and got a Dell. But now Dells quality is going down a bit and we are looking for a New Company to come up to the plate. Compaq/HP The Compaq name means it sucks, Gateway Sucks, Dell Starting to suck. IBM Getting better but they are selling their PC market. The other guys have trouble with making midrange Desktops.

Re:Selling plasma HDTVs is not a rocket science...

[klubar]

What does a company known for making expensive computers know about portable music players?

Re:Selling plasma HDTVs is not a rocket science...

[iowannaski]

Gateway only sells EDTV plasmas.

Re:Selling plasma HDTVs is not a rocket science...

[Maskirovka]

If I was a gambling man, I'd put money that the new wintel consumer workstation quality king will be Alienware.

Re:Selling plasma HDTVs is not a rocket science...

[jellomizer]

Well I avoided mentioning Apple. Because Apple is a tangental market to the PC Market. With Different style of processors, their own OS, in short apple computers are to different then other systems for me to be in the same category as PC. The PC Business is the ability to choose what off the shelf technology is the best/affordable. and combine it to a system. Good Makers makers make sure that they use top quality dependable parts and arange them for optimal durability. Poorer Makers just get whatever works and pushes them in a box and gives it a fancy case. Dell use to make sure that they used high quality parts. Now I am not sure anymore.

Re:Selling plasma HDTVs is not a rocket science...

[jellomizer]

Alienware are nice but still they have the Hardcore Gaming image. People don't want the fastest computer they want a dependable one that is fast enough. Companies will buy more consertive systems they don't want everyone to have a computer that looks like it came off of a 1955 Chevy. WIth choose of their own color they just want a white box that needs little maintenance.

I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome our high-definition plasma overlords.

Please mod me down right now!

[50000BTU_barbecue]

"But what does a company built around making inexpensive PCs know about HDTVs?"

Who cares? Do you honestly think manufacturers build their own parts? Evderybody is selling something to someone else. A SONY DVD player with Panasonic chips and a Matsushita mechanism with a taiwanese PCB designed with Japanese software... Sold in Europe to play American movies.

Dell will probably re-brand someone else's design, or outsource the design. Remember the Casio products re-branded as Tandy in the 80s? Same idea.

Re:Please mod me down right now!

[Anonymous Coward]

"But what does a company built around making inexpensive PCs know about HDTVs?"

Not much, I'd wager...since said company doesn't know much about making inexpensive PCs to start with (see above post).

What Dell does know a lot about is marketing inexpensive PCs...and I'll bet that knowledge can be made to apply to the HDTV market fairly easily.

Re:Please mod me down right now!

[FuturePastNow]

Panasonic chips and a Matsushita mechanism

So, which company is it?

Re:Please mod me down right now!

[calculi]

No, no, no. Dell knows supply chain management... Allowing them to pass on to consumers the savings in the form of lower prices.

What's so great about Dell's prices?

Re:Please mod me down right now!

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Hehe... Touché, sir... I guess I made my point for myself there somehow... If you enter Matsushita in Google the first hit is www.panasonic.com...

I used to be closer to the consumer electronics repair field, but I don't remember who makes who anymore.

Re:Please mod me down right now!

[FuturePastNow]

Heh...I know...I typed it into Google before replying just to make sure ;)

Dell probably hasn't much to do with it

[kalpol]

Dell is really good at taking people's money and selling them someone else's product with their name on it (which is not a bad thing if the product is good-quality and well-supported). I doubt that they ever really own their inventory - they just transfer it from one place to another.

Re:Dell probably hasn't much to do with it

[DemingBuiltMyHotRod]

I doubt that they ever really own their inventory - they just transfer it from one place to another.

I belive they do - but for less than an hour between when it is unloaded into their facility and when it is assembled into a final product for which a customer can be charged.

Dell

[NerdConspiracy]

what does a company built around making inexpensive PCs know about HDTVs

Do they really need to know much about HDTV? It's probably like with PCs, buy cheap components in large volumes, assemble them together. Sell online at a discount. Works with pretty much anything.

Re:Dell

[adrianbaugh]

It's the original slashdot route to riches:

1) Buy stuff cheap
2) Add value ...

3) Profit!

Not everyone...

[Avyakata]

"But what does a company built around making inexpensive PCs know about HDTVs?"

For a lot of people, it probably won't matter. Dell is a name that most people know, and a good amount trust, so it is expected that they can make fairly reliable/quality products. Some consumers need to go no further...

Re:Man

[Anita Coney]

Especially for a crappy LCD monitor. Call me crazy, but actually having the color black AND actually being able to view the screen from differnet angles are very important to me.

And what about burn-in. Who wants to spend several thousand on a TV that WILL need replacing in three to four years?!

My parents still use a color TV they bought in the fucking 70s!!!

I hate this dishonest junk....

[otis wildflower]

... HDTV is _NOT_ 1024x768!

That is a SQUARE resolution, not widescreen.

What a bunch of crap. If you're going to put out a widescreen, use a wide aspect ratio to square your bloody pixels for Cthulhu's sake!!!

Besides, plasma is notso hotso, unless you like burn in and short life...

Re:I hate this dishonest junk....

[HFShadow]

Actually, that's a rectangular resolution. 1024x1024 or 768x768 would be a "SQUARE" resolution. Granted, it's still not high enough for the HDTV spec.

Personally, I can't wait for the days of hexagonal resolutions.

Re:I hate this dishonest junk....

[hab136]

... HDTV is _NOT_ 1024x768!
That is a SQUARE resolution, not widescreen.

They mentioned that the model with that resolution had non-square pixels. So 1024 fat pixels by 768 skinny pixels.

Re:I hate this dishonest junk....

[lucabrasi999]

From TFA

The W4200HD has a native pixel resolution of 1024x768, and as such, isn't a true HD device, since it doesn't have enough pixels to draws a 1280x720 (720p) HDTV image. This is common among 42-inch PDPs, and to the W4200HD's credit, its PixelWorks video processor does a very good job scaling both 720p and 1080i HDTV images to fit onto its panel.

Not to defend Dell for calling it HD, but it appears they are not alone.

Re:I hate this dishonest junk....

[INeededALogin]

That is a SQUARE resolution, not widescreen

Not a square... 1024x1024 would be square... I learned that in the second grade.

What you mean is that it is not a 12x9 resolution(all HDTV res's), instead it is a 4x3 resolution.

Re:I hate this dishonest junk....

[sahonen]

HD is 16x9. 12x9 is the same as 4x3.

Re:I hate this dishonest junk....

[gatzke]

Yeah, finding a HDTV that will do 1080i is nearly impossible (for flatscreens). That is a resolution around 2000x1080, interlaced so that on 540 lines are drawn per pass.

The CRT models should handle it in most cases

I have an old 21 inch CRT monitor that does 2048x1536, so real 1080 works fine with my pchdtv card. Apple does have a couple of LCDs that can do it, but they are spendy.

Re:I hate this dishonest junk....

[cft_128]

Yeah, finding a HDTV that will do 1080i is nearly impossible (for flatscreens). That is a resolution around 2000x1080, interlaced so that on 540 lines are drawn per pass.

It won't even do 720p, 1280x720, which is still HD. I believe in the next 6 months or so we will be seeing more flat panel 1080p capable TVs coming out. I'll be happy as I cannot stand interlaced video.

Plasma/LCD vs DLP

[Bruha]

I'm sorry but there is no compelling reason for me to ever want a plasma tv. We've got plenty and they have all had burn in issues.

I dont think image quality is better than a CRT

And I dont need to mount it on the wall.

I consider either a DLP big screen or projector as a more logical choice and the price helps also.

Re:Plasma/LCD vs DLP

[FirstTimeCaller]

there is no compelling reason for me to ever want a plasma tv.

Amen. While I love the large screen, the cost and lifetime issues make it a non-starter for me. Personally, I'm holding out hope for OLED TV's. But it looks like we'll need to wait until 2007... hurry up already!

Re:Plasma/LCD vs DLP

[Eccles]

I dont think image quality is better than a CRT

No, but few CRTs go beyond 34". If you need larger than that, with brightness sufficient for lit rooms, plasma is your main option. (There are a few flat-panel LCDs up to 45", butthey're substantially pricier.) I did see a Sharp 37" LCD next to a 42 HD Sony plasma, and I preferred the picture on the Sharp (more detail), but even at Costco it's $4K for the Sharp.

DLPs don't have as good a picture to my eyes, although I agree about the price.

I'll grant you if you don't need plasma's features, then plasma is a poor choice for you, but that's tautological, isn't it?

Re:Plasma/LCD vs DLP

[Malc]

Personally I don't want a TV even as large as 34". Something that big dominates your room and makes a big statement about your life. A fireplace I don't mind. Even a stereo, although I perfer that to be off to one side. I do not want my living space dominated and ruled by TV. Some companies seem to have some smaller CRT HDTVs at quite affordable prices now. I see Toshiba has a 26" at the same price I bought at 27" a few years back. BTW, I have a 19" in my living room these days and I'm happy with it.

Re:Plasma/LCD vs DLP

[Alomex]

We've got plenty and they have all had burn in issues.

Not anymore.

I dont think image quality is better than a CRT

Image quality is way better than CRT. Pixels are sharper than either rear projection (the optics are tricky) or even DLP.

Re:Plasma/LCD vs DLP

[labnet]

I must agree.
Plasma Rocks. We have a 42" unit that cost only AUD$2688 (about USD2100) and I continue to be blown away by the PQ. Half Life is now 30k-60k hours.
LCD's have higher colour saturation but all seem to suffer from edge artifacts.
DLP reverse projection are yuk (mainly in the viewing angle)
Forward projection is great if you have light control on your room.
Plasma is the best current technology.
I predict LCD will eventually take over, then perhaps OLED in 5-10 years.

Re:Plasma/LCD vs DLP

[Particle010]

The biggest problems I have that are preventing me from getting a DLP are the bulb life and fan noise. The more I dig, the more I find out that these pricy $300 bulbs blow out VERY OFTEN, and the fan noise is quite noticeable. The bulbs get so hot you can't even touch them for 30 minutes after powerdown, however, you can't touch them anyways or the bulb will explode. Don't let the bulb get dirty either or it will explode. (so... if you can't touch the bulb because it'll explode, and you have to keep it clean by means of touching it or it will explode, then how are consumers supposed to prevent the bulb from exploding hmm?) It's madening knowing that you'd pay $3000 for such a TV only to have so many issues with it. Heck my $300 trinitron has been running like a champ for 10 years.
Oh, I forgot one thing, don't turn the DLP on/off too quickly or.... you know.... the bulb will.... you know.... poof ^_^
(BTW, the exploding info comes right from the manuals.... crazy!)

Re:Plasma/LCD vs DLP

[swillden]

We have a 42" unit that cost only AUD$2688 (about USD2100) and I continue to be blown away by the PQ.

Either you get much better prices in Australia, or your TV isn't HD. I just bought a DLP TV and I found lots of plasmas in that price range, but they're all ED (enhanced definition).

DLP reverse projection are yuk (mainly in the viewing angle)

Mine looks really nice, and the viewing angle isn't a problem as long as it's mounted well above the floor. Side to side angle isn't a problem, and neither is downward angle. DLPs look really dim if you're above them. My HD DLP set doesn't look as crisp as an HP plasma, but it cost $2K less and looks quite a bit better than an ED plasma.

On the downside, projection DLP and LCD screens have a bulb that burns out, and the life of that bulb is much less than the half-life of the plasma screen. It can be replaced, of course, but a replacement costs about $400. So in the short term, DLP is cheaper than a comparable plasma. In the medium term, it's nearly a wash after you factor in bulb replacements (DLP is still a tiny bit cheaper). In the long run (assuming you keep the TV that long), it'll depend on whether or not it's cheaper to continue replacing projector bulbs or to replace the plasma TV with whatever's available then.

I opted for DLP because I couldn't afford HD plasma, and the HD DLP looked so much better than the ED plasmas.

Re:Plasma/LCD vs DLP

[Eccles]

Personally I don't want a TV even as large as 34". Something that big dominates your room and makes a big statement about your life.

The optimal TV size largely depends on the room size, and its purpose: if you have a specially designed movie room, a display that dominates one wall is what the room is meant for. But flat-panels dominate the room less than projection systems or CRTs, with their substantial depth and, in some cases, bases. An LCD display could be configured to slowly change between family photos when not in use as a TV, which I think would reduce its perceived domination when not in use.

As for me, I find my current 27" is too small, especially when viewing widescreen stuff. But the 20" LCD monitor right in front of me couldn't be any larger and still allow me to take it all in.

Only in usa...

[Folmer]

The danish store (europe) doesnt sell anything HD related, but then again theres no way of recieving HDTV here anyway. (welcome to the middle ages :) )
It would be great to be able to get an inexpensive HDTV when HDDVD and BLU-ray hits the marked later this year... maybe dell should start making players too...

Gamers shouldn't bother with plasma

[Audigy]

I surely hope people aren't planning on gaming on that thing... don't plasmas suffer incredibly from burn-in?

They're still not user-repairable... they're good for HDTV and DVDs and that's about it.

My Samsung HLN567W (56" DLP, no HD tuner, but cost less than this) weighs about the same, and holy god does Halo 2 look spectacular on it.

It cost about $2799.

If you're a gamer, go with DLP and leave plasmas for your grandparents' theater rooms.

Re:Gamers shouldn't bother with plasma

[ultramk]

If you're a gamer, go with DLP and leave plasmas for your grandparents' theater rooms.

Do your grandparents live in Korea, by any chance?

m-

Re:Gamers shouldn't bother with plasma

[krakelohm]

"They're still not user-repairable..."

Can you tell me which TV's are?

Re:Gamers shouldn't bother with plasma

[Audigy]

Replacing the lamp in a DLP set is common and possible. Re-infusing a plasma set with gas is currently not. :P

Plasma short lifespan...

[cayenne8]

I dunno. Unless plasma TV have gotten a lot better...I don't want one. I guess I'm old school, but, when I lay out money for a nice, large TV, I expect to get more than 2-3 years use out of them. We have plasma tv's in the lobbies of the bldgs I work at...they're on during the day on the news channels. They have to be replace almost annually as you can see where the logos and talking heads of people are....the first ones were early ones at $25K each...cheaper now, but, still. My $2K 60' projection tv has a great picture on it in my living room...is on every hour I'm at home...and doesn't have the problem with display degradation over such a short period of time.

Are LCD tv's any better?

If I'm gonna lay out over $3K...I expect a tv that will still be working well for at least 5-10 years. All my old ones did....

Re:Plasma short lifespan...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are LCD tv's any better?

Yes. They don't burn in images.

You're 100% right, Plasma TVs are not worth buying unless you are the type of person who buys a new TV every year anyway.

Re:Plasma short lifespan...

[lowrydr310]

I'm asking myself these same questions. I'll soon be in the market for a big ass TV and I started doing a little research. As thin and light as plasma TVs are, their price doesn't exactly make them disposable.

Are there any issues with burn-in on the HD projection TVs? Can you play video games on them without loss of picture quality?

From what I understand, LCD TVs don't have these problems, however they're not exactly cheap.

Re:Plasma short lifespan...

[Koiu Lpoi]

Did you mean 60' or 60"? Because, if you've got a 60 foot television - for 2 grand no less - well DAMN. Tell me where I can get one, and then tell me a place to house it!

Re:Plasma short lifespan...

[ganesh129]

Definitly agree. That is a reason why my step dad went with a DLP instead. Still very large, cost about the same, but it will last when compared against the plasma.

plasma just has its name, and when people out there who dont know a whole lot about them hear that a plasma is lower priced they buy it with the research, or knowing what it actually is.....thats why they sell.

Re:Plasma short lifespan...

[shawb]

Maybe you want to look into low profile CRT then. They aren't QUITE on the market yet, but neither are you, from what I understand. They are cabable of getting a bit larger viewing area than standard CRTs, and have less depth (physically, not colorwise.) They also have better color/contrast/brightness/viewing angle than LCD/Plasma. Of course they will cost a bit more than standard CRTs, but less than LCD/Plasma. I haven't heard anything about how well they hold up, though. Haven't been able to find much info online, just what I heard from a friend who sells TVs for a living, who heard it from a rep (I believe Toshiba, but don't quote me on that.)

Or depending on your definition of big ass TV, you could go with a standard Sony CRT up to 36". True, those are some heavy SOBs, but the tubes will last through anything. If you're looking for a good clean picture, this is the way you probably want to go. If you're looking to impress people, just spend that extra couple thousand dollars you would have spent on flat panel to build up an impressive movie and video game collection, or spend it on a really good sound system.

Seriously, If there is so little room in the house that you NEED flat panel, then you probably won't be able to sit far enough from the screen that you need anything larger than 36". Unless you just want to show people how much disposable cash you have. And if you're looking to impress, girls would probably be more impressed with you spending money on a good set of copper pans and learning how to cook well enough that you can actually use them.

Re:Plasma short lifespan...

[lowrydr310]

I was thinking more along the lines of a standard HD projection TV. I saw a few models that I'm interested in, all around $1500.

I don't watch much television now and I don't play many video games. For the past three years the only television in my house is a tiny 10"(?) TV/VCR combo (not sure of the exact size, but it's definitely smaller than 13"). Also, I may be moving into a nicer place soon where I'll be able to entertain guests so I'm thinking I may go with something a little bigger than a 13" TV.

And if you're looking to impress, girls would probably be more impressed with you spending money on a good set of copper pans and learning how to cook well enough that you can actually use them.

I'm married, and I'm always impressing my wife with my cooking skills. The best investment I ever made was in a nice set of high-quality stainless steel cookware.

Re:Plasma short lifespan...

[Justin205]

Indeed. I have a 27" TV, that's probably around 16 or 17 years old now, and it still works. It's only a game playing TV at the moment, because it has some problems with bright pictures on it, but most games run well as long as I set the brightness and contrast right.

But for a 16 year old TV, it's great.

Re:Plasma short lifespan...

[hackstraw]

I don't get the plasm hype aside from the gee wiz factor because someone actually dropped all that cash for one.

If you need a thin TV go with LCD or DLP. Plasmas are heavy as hell, typically have lower resolution, and they burn in (I've heard that this is a myth, and I've heard that its true).

I've got a 46" HDTV RPTV, and the picture is amazing. It has better resolution than both models of these Dells.

Re:Plasma short lifespan...

[cayenne8]

"Seriously, If there is so little room in the house that you NEED flat panel, then you probably won't be able to sit far enough from the screen that you need anything larger than 36". Unless you just want to show people how much disposable cash you have. And if you're looking to impress, girls would probably be more impressed with you spending money on a good set of copper pans and learning how to cook well enough that you can actually use them.

I dunno...if you're very nearsighted...big tv in a small room helps...

:-)

Like I posted...I've got a 60" in a small room...with surround....hell, even Klipschorns on either side as part of the stereo. With being that close to a tv that big...is very much like being at a movie theater (except I can pause for bathroom and have a fully stocked bar). To me...a 36" would be a minimum for a living room...especially if you want to entertain...at 36" is for the bedroom...

I do agree on the good cookware...I prefer All-Clad Stainless Steel...has an aluminum core for good conductivity encased with SS....nice and heavy, easy to care for. It is expensive...but, you buy a piece, and it will live forever...good knives are a must too. Being able to cook DOES help to impress girls. Strange thing is...I find so many girls today do NOT know how to cook. Hell, I've trained my last few girlfriends over the years how to cook and clean....some of them have husbands now that are GLAD I showed them how....maybe I should open a finishing school on the side to at least make a little bread off the training...hahaha.

But, cooking is easy...just takes working at it a bit. And start off with as skinny a girl as you can...if you're a good cook, you can fatten them up pretty easily...helps if she likes to work out too....

Re:Plasma short lifespan...

[Jherek Carnelian]

Leave your projection TV on the same news channel, with all those mostly-static images, all the time and you'll have the exact same burn-in effects.

Re:Plasma short lifespan...

[iowannaski]

Three words...
dee ell pee

Re:Plasma short lifespan...

[iowannaski]

Sorry for the omission, but in the name of full disclosure, I will add that my father works for TI.

Re:Plasma short lifespan...

[iowannaski]

Seriously, If there is so little room in the house that you NEED flat panel, then you probably won't be able to sit far enough from the screen that you need anything larger than 36".

720p HDTV has 4x the resolution of (the effective resolution of) NTSC. Thus, the ideal ratio of viewer distance to screen size is halved.

If you like to sit 8' from your 27" NTSC TV, you'll want to either sit 4' from your 27" HDTV, or get a 54" HDTV and put it in the same place.

Putting a 27" HDTV in the same spot as your old 27" TV is a waste of money. The picture will look noticably clearer, but you'll be missing most of the added detail. Pixeated pictures look crappy, so people general put their TVs far enough away that the percieved resolution is limited by the eye, not the TV.

Re:Plasma short lifespan...

[iowannaski]

If its a CRT projection, sure, but not if it is DLP or LCD.

Not HDTV

[mamer-retrogamer]

At 1024X768 this "High Definition" television can not fully render neither of the two High-Def resolutions of 720p (1280x720) nor 1080i (1920x1080 interlaced).

-Mike

Re:Not HDTV

[byronmiller]

As I replied to others, not many displays in the consumer market offer pixel to pixel HDTV resolutions. Most scale the image and do a decent job thereof on consumer end displays. My projector at home is only 1024x768 however HDTV looks great because the scaler is good.

Re:Not HDTV

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Wha, 640p? What the hell is that? The number represents the number of scan lines, the vertical axis.

The only resolutions that are "HD" in the ATSC standard are 720p and 1080i.

Re:Not HDTV

[Creechur]

At 1024X768 this "High Definition" television can not fully render neither of the two High-Def resolutions of 720p (1280x720) nor 1080i (1920x1080 interlaced).

I don't think there are ANY big-screen TVs that are native 1080i, except for maybe a few in the $20k range. And few are even 720; "quarter HD" is considered pretty high for most (960x540). Compared to most HDTV displays out there that are just barely higher than 480p, this is actually pretty good.

Re:Not HDTV

[KrackHouse]

The tube based CRTs can do 1080i and 720p. Mine does both, 1080i is sharper but 720p seems to look better for certain shows. CSI looks great in 1080i but Fox does football in 720p which looks better than the 1080i CBS football broadcasts. LCDs generally have better resolution than the plasmas but plasmas are better at creating accurate colors.

Re:Not HDTV

[jeffgeno]

The 45" Sharp Aquos LCD can do it. They're working on a 60" now. And I believe the Sony 60" Qualia LCD rear projection model is 1920x1080 as well.

Who is making it for them?

[swb]

Last I paid attention to plasma, you pretty much HAD to have one of the 'industrial' Panasonics, although this was right about the time that Pioneer came out with their updated line of plasmas.

Dell is NOT making this (any more than they "make" anything else), so who is? Sampo? I can only guess its one of the lower end companies, especially to meet Dell's price point.

Broadcast Flag

[Metapsyborg]

Yes, but does it utilize the broadcast flag?

Re:Broadcast Flag

[iowannaski]

Yes, it won't record any flagged content.

Of course, it's a fucking display so it doesn't record anything, but it honors the broadcast flag anyway.

Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably re-badged

Not a true HDTV

[That's Unpossible!]

I quote:

"The W4200HD has a native pixel resolution of 1024x768, and as such, isn't a true HD device, since it doesn't have enough pixels to draws [sic] a 1280x720 (720p) HDTV image."

Which means it also can't do 1080i (which requires 1920x1080, almost twice the horizontal resolution this TV is capable of).

Re:Not a true HDTV

[byronmiller]

Not much if anything is truely pixel to pixel hdtv resolution. (at consumer pricing that is)

Re:Not a true HDTV

[Datasage]

I have seen alot of projectors and tvs adverising that its able to do HDTV. but with almost all of them, They have an acutal resolution lower than 720p.

There is a difference between doing true HDTV and being able to accept an HDTV signal. To marketing though, it doesnt matter. HDTV is just a buzz word.

Re:Not a true HDTV

[delus10n0]

Reminds me of arguing with a co-worker; he claimed his Sony 4:3 CRT TV was "HD". I told him it may be capable of receiving an HD signal, but it's definitely not putting out a full HD picture.

Re:Not a true HDTV

[That's Unpossible!]

It doesn't have to be pixel-to-pixel, but it does need to be at LEAST that number of pixels to be truly HD.

I bought a 50" RPTV for $2400 about 3 years ago. I Believe that is "consumer pricing" for an HDTV, right? It has 1600 horizontal scanlines, meaning it can at least do 720p, and is not too far away from true 1080i resolution. (Toshiba 50H81.)

Re:Not a true HDTV

[Jeremy Erwin]

As long as the (4:3) monitor is capable of at least 1280x768, it will display 720p hdtv, within a letterbox.

Re:Not a true HDTV

[Leo McGarry]

CRT displays don't work like that. Measuring the resolution of a CRT display -- fundamentally an analog device -- is a very tricky proposition involving lots of hand-waving. Two absolutely identical TVs are going to behave slightly differently because there's that much variation in the process of manufacturing a CRT.

There are, as far as I know, no CRTs that can actually resolve 1,000 lines of resolution. Really expensive tubes from Sony (found in their BVM series, $30,000 and up) will hold 800 or 900. They've got a 40" BVM that I think will resolve something close to 1,000 lines, but that's simply because it's a bigger tube.

When it comes to television -- CRT-type television, I mean-- you need to stop thinking in terms of digital resolution. TVs don't have pixels at all, so it's kind of pointless to talk about them as if they did.

Re:Not a true HDTV

[delus10n0]

What's the point of watching letterboxed HD content?

Using your logic, these Sony CRTs are putting out an even _higher_ resolution than 1080i? I fail to believe that..

Also, see the reply above mine, regarding silliness with measuring a CRT's "pixels".

Re:Not a true HDTV

[Jeremy Erwin]

So, all of those people spending hundreds of dollars on 21"--24" inch monitors are wasting their money. Interesting

Re:Not a true HDTV

[Leo McGarry]

Wow. What a dumbass comment.

Re:Not a true HDTV

[Jeremy Erwin]

Interesting. You might have shown slashdot the true breadth of your knowledge by explaining how you came to your essential conclusion:

"People who buy CRTs with the aim of displaying more than 786432 pixels are wasting their money."

Instead, you have regressed to the level of a twelve year old. I sometimes have that effect on people. Annoying, really.

Re:Not a true HDTV

[delus10n0]

How about:

1) You're posting anonymous.

2) How is a CRT capable of producing 1080 lines of resolution exactly? Or, in the case of these 4:3 Sonys, more vertical resolution than 1080 lines? Do you know how expensive a television that big with true 1080 lines of scan resolution would be?

3) There's a difference in saying a television is capable of receiving an HD signal, and that the television can accurately display said HD signal in it's full resolution. These 4:3 Sony CRT TVs cannot reproduce 1080i in full resolution, no matter what you yourself may feel about the matter.

Re:Not a true HDTV

[delus10n0]

I meant to say on 2:

"How is a 30+ inch TV/CRT capable of producing 1080 lines of resolution, in that exact amount?"

Re:Not a true HDTV

[delus10n0]

There's a difference in a 20" CRT and a 32"/36" CRT, which the Sony "HD" televisions are.

Do you know how expensive those larger televisions would be if they could truly reproduce 1080 individual scanlines?

Re:Not a true HDTV

[Jeremy Erwin]

Oh. My current setup involves the use of a smaller CRT hooked up to the VGA output of a set-top box. It's only 720p, but technically, 720p is still High Definition.

I figure that if I need a bigger screen, I'll move to a projector-- sometime, way off in the distant future.

Re:Not a true HDTV

[iowannaski]

and is not too far away from true 1080i resolution. So that's what, more almost 1080i than the Dell?

Re:Not a true HDTV

[Leo McGarry]

Sounds like a personal problem to me. The solution, as is always the case with such things, lies within. Hint for you: Be less of a dumbass.

Re:Not a true HDTV

[That's Unpossible!]

So that's what, more almost 1080i than the Dell?

In case you can't read, the Dell can't even do 720p. Mine can. 720p @ 16:9 is considered true HD quality. Another true HD format is 1080i @ 16:9. Mine is almost at that quality level. Rather than downsampling a 1920x1080 picture to 1024x768 like the Dell has to do, mine only has to downsample down to 1600x900. So yes, it is a hell of a lot sharper and closer to the 1080i standard than the Dell, and it is a true HDTV, unlike the Dell.

Probably not made by dell

[arudloff]

But what does a company built around making inexpensive PCs know about HDTVs? Without RTFA, I'd venture to say probably nothing. Their lcd tv's were/are made by a company called Planar.

+ in home service...

[ShineyMcShine]

Having the less than glamerous title as a dell onsite service provider I will find myself in the business of going to a site and un-packing and repacking to facilitate the replacement of the plasma on failure. Wow, I can't wait!!!!

Semi-offtopic: LCD vs Plamsa

[Mustang Matt]

I recently went to look at the current crop of HDTV displays.

I quickly realized that I want LCD instead of plasma because of the lifespan and power consumption efficiency.

That being said, the other hold up is 1080p. I know nothing is using it but I want it and to my knowledge only SHARPs 50" LCD has it. It seems to me it makes sense that 1080p will be a lot sharper than 720p since it will be running in a native resolution to my understanding.

Does anyone know of any sites or resources that thoroughly compare LCD vs Plasma? I've seen some reviews on Google but I'd like to see reviews from a more practical standpoint on real products vs theoretical analysis.

Re:Semi-offtopic: LCD vs Plamsa

[lovswr]

Actually Mr Sony has what you want. The buzz letters are something like WRX. LCD (projection) at about 10,000 USD. From what I read of people who were at the most recent CES, this set is better than anything before; professional or private.

Re:Semi-offtopic: LCD vs Plamsa

[Rew190]

LCDs are cool, but beware of black levels. Demo your TV in the dark with a space movie (I use 2001). LCDs generally don't do pure blacks too well. This can really bug people, especially those who like to watch movies in pitch black.

As far as LCD vs Plasma, go to a store and test it. LCD has better longevity with the added bonus of being able to replace the lamps yourself, and are generally lighter than plasmas (assuming we're talking about rear projection). If you're doing flat panel, however, I'd probably lean towards plasma as they tend to be cheaper.

Re:Semi-offtopic: LCD vs Plamsa

[Rew190]

The parent poster is referring to Sony's "XBR." It's Sony's top-of-the-line. They make awesome LCD rear projections, but again, beware of black levels.

Re:Semi-offtopic: LCD vs Plamsa

[ntropic]

If you want 1080p, besides LCD, the new Samsung DLP TV is also an option. Dunno if it is in stores yet but it was on display at CES (model HLR6768W). At the same size this should be cheaper and better at pure black.

Jumping the shark

[krygny]

Slapping the brand on anything works for a while, but eventually the brand loses its "cachet". (Not that Dell has a whole lot to begin with.)

Reminds me of a TV commercial for a brand of salsa sauce where the executives of a large conglomerate are seated around the boardroom table trying to decide what their next product should be (like it matters):

"Should we make salsa or oven mits?"

Dell is not HP and they're not IBM. When they started branding TVs, printers, PDAs, etc., they jumped the shark

Re:Man

[prewashedironman]

Especially for a crappy LCD monitor. Call me crazy, but actually having the color black AND actually being able to view the screen from differnet angles are very important to me. And what about burn-in. Who wants to spend several thousand on a TV that WILL need replacing in three to four years?!

On a plasma you get true blacks. You also have ~175degree viewing angle, which is practically perfect. Burn in is a non issue - it's only the first 100hours that you need to worry about it for.

Plasma doesnt matter anymore

[Anonymouse Cownerd]

For the most part, LCD and DLP is better than Plasma. LCD prices are dropping quite a bit, has better quality, and will debug in larger sizes this year. Plasma is intermediary technology - better than fat CRTS and projection TVs but not as good as LCD. While we were all trying to figure out how to create larger LCDs at affordable prices, we needed something in the interim - which ended up being Plasma. (Projection HDTV is still the undisputed champion as far as image quality goes)

Re:Plasma doesnt matter anymore

[Overzeetop]

Interesting...I have not been impressed with LCD - direct view or RP. Direct view suffers from poor off-axis viewing and rp suffers from noticable screen door (DLP, imho, looks fabulous in RP, but the old 1x/2x color wheels gave me rainbowitis in FP). Plasma produces a bright display with a wide viewing angle. The down sides are burn in, lifetime, and hideous RF noise (bad if you want to do IR routing).

For the size of the screen, I haven't been impressed with any of the direct view prices. Then again, I was spoiled by an HD FP setup with a 120" screen for four years.

disposable $4000 appliances

[SuperBanana]

I love how everything is disposable these days. Lithium Ion, for example...the wonder technology that lasts only a year or two. Hard drives that suddenly aren't designed for "continuous or heavy duty use". Capacitors in everything from stereos to motherboards that last a few years before leaking all their electrolyte out and maybe starting a fire.

Plasma TVs are being pushed like crazy, but the things burn out, guaranteed. A friend of mine said a coworker dropped well over $4,000 on a top of the line plasma screen from Sony several years ago. One day, he pushed the power button, there was a fizz noise, and...that was that. He said sometimes they go dim, or parts stick on or off like a defective LCD, etc...sometimes it just doesn't turn on one day.

Since when was that acceptable? We pay 4-8 times less for a dishwasher, refridgerator, washer, or drier...and they are considered "major appliances", and expected to last at least a decade!

I know at least in Massachusetts there's an "implied merchantability"(implied warranty, to grossly simplify) on any product...and wouldn't you expect a TV, devices which traditionally last decades, to last more than 3-4 years?

Re:disposable $4000 appliances

[ad0gg]

Plasma TVs are being pushed like crazy, but the things burn out, guaranteed. A friend of mine said a coworker dropped well over $4,000 on a top of the line plasma screen from Sony several years ago. One day, he pushed the power button, there was a fizz noise, and...that was that. He said sometimes they go dim, or parts stick on or off like a defective LCD, etc...sometimes it just doesn't turn on one day.

You pay the price for being an early adopter. New plasma screens have a 60,000 half life(Half brightness on screen). Thats 6 years of it being on constantly on. As for price, plasma tvs are relatively new. Hence they are expensive. They used to be $10k a piece. I have feeling they'll drop to below $1000 in a couple years. There's many choices for the consumer, you could get an lcd rear project, tube(42" tube would way a few hundred pounds), dlp.

Re:disposable $4000 appliances

[CarrionBird]

The MBAs have sucessfully taught a generation that buggy, overpriced products that don't last even half a decade are perfectly normal. As long as it looks cool....

Re:disposable $4000 appliances

[MonMotha]

Now be fair. The bad capacitors that you're referring to were caused by some shoddy manufacturer cutting corners (and a fair bit of industrial espionage gone wrong too, I've heard). In general, that was considered a product *failure*. True, there were some motherboard makers who refused to provide replacements (whom I, for one, will never buy from again), but on the whole, leaking electrolytic capactitors (at least over any reasonable term) is considered to be component failure. Capacitors are not considered user replacable, and certainly aren't considered disposable.

Also, I don't know about you, but my Li-Ions don't "last for a year or two". Sure, after a couple years they're not like they were at first, but neither is a Ni-Cd or Ni-MH, and you're forgetting that most battery types aren't rechargable at all. The world of batteries hasn't caught up with the uses of batteries yet. It's not like there's some other product on the market that's not "disposable" or that similar products in the past were more reliable. The only battery I can think of that handles recharge/discharge cycling better is good ol' Lead-Acid (like in your car), and I'm doubting you want to lug one of those around to power your PDA (they don't scale down to that size very well).

I agree, though, that Plasma TVs are silly. I personally like a good DLP for larger sizes or a direct view LCD or CRT in smaller sizes (depending on the use). Even projection CRT is still viable up at larger screen sizes (and, while they require continuous twiddling to keep a good picture, they generally don't fail completely in any reasonable term). Plasmas just don't cut it in my opinion. They're expensive and subject to burn-in. There's no real reason to buy a plasma unless you absolutely need to hang a large screen (bigger than a feasable direct view LCD) on your wall, in which case, like the batteries I mentioned before, there's no feasable alternative, so you have to accept the state of technology.

Now, hard drives that aren't rated for "continuous or *heavy duty* use" (emphasis mine) is silly. What exactly constitutes "heavy duty" use? I would say that basically any use of a hard drive is normal use. Continuous I could understand if the normal failure mode for hard drives wasn't the stress of power-on...

Re:disposable $4000 appliances

[AsimovBesterClarke]

> Since when was that acceptable?

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps about the time rebooting or flat out reinstalling became the accepted means to fix a computer problem?

Re:disposable $4000 appliances

[poot_rootbeer]

Lithium Ion, for example...the wonder technology that lasts only a year or two.

Hey, feel free to stick with nickel cadmium technology instead... the wonder technology that may only last for hours or even minutes depening on the application, and once it's discharged once, you can't re-use it!

Li-Ion ain't so bad after all, huh?

Hard drives that suddenly aren't designed for "continuous or heavy duty use"

Oh, those are still available if you're willing to pay for them. The MTBF for a server-class drive hasn't decreased much. But for the consumer market, the manufacturers found that people would rather have a drive that cost 50 cents per gigabyte and lasted only 3 or 4 years before breaking, than one that would survive a nuclear apocalypse but cost twice as much, and adjusted their manufacturing processes accordingly.

The same thing is true of televisions and any other appliance. They could make a TV that will work perfectly for 20 years, but it probably will not incorporate all the latest technological advances, and/or it will cost you a lot more. If you're willing to make that trade-off, you will be accomodated.

Most people simply prefer cheap and disposable, it seems.

Re:disposable $4000 appliances

[asylum]

"My friend's TV burned out, so all Plasma TV's are guaranteed to burn out!"

Nice logic.

There is a lot of FUD out there concerning the longevity of plasma displays. Check out this article for a sensible analysis of the problem.

(If you're too lazy to read the article, it basically says that you can reasonably expect to be watching your plasma tv 10 years from now)

Re:disposable $4000 appliances

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Hey, feel free to stick with nickel cadmium technology instead... the wonder technology that may only last for hours or even minutes depening on the application, and once it's discharged once, you can't re-use it!

You are thinking alkalines or maybe the older dry cells. Nickel Cadmium (NiCd) batteries are rechargeable. The same goes for Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH). NiCd is the oldest of the small rechargeables, I think. Lead-Acid is older but I don't remember them in sizes smaller than motorcycle batteries.

Re:disposable $4000 appliances

[greed]

Lead-Acid is older but I don't remember them in sizes smaller than motorcycle batteries.

They're around. Sealed lead-acid gel cells can be had as small as about 0.5" x 1.5" x 2", and about 0.2 lb. (That one is two cells, 4V total, .5 Ah.)

If you've got a UPS, you'll probably have one or two SLA batteries in it, they're usually about half the size of a motorcycle battery. And, more importantly, won't dribble sulphuric acid all over the place if you tip the UPS over. And you won't kill it by forgetting to check the water level that ONE time....

The same sorts of batteries are used in emergency lighting, burglar alarms, and things like that. Fairly easy to get at electronic components stores. Generally you want to use a 20h charge (current 1/20th the Ah capacity), unlike the 10h charge typical for flooded lead-acid. But most of the times you see an SLA, it will be connected to a brain-dead trickle charger; the sort of thing that would destroy a NiCD or NiMH (both respond poorly to overcharging).

Reminds me, it's time to replace the battery on one of my UPSes.

Re:disposable $4000 appliances

[Senobyzal]

That looks like a good source, with some interesting articles... of course, it's the "Plasma TV Buying Guide," so what are they going to say, "plasmas suck, don't get one"? Based on the amount of advertising there, it looks like the site is hardly unbiased.

Re:disposable $4000 appliances

[Bertie]

Well, I dunno. Anecdotal evidence and all that, but I know of a recording studio in Dublin which has a plasma screen in its reception. Only it's not on the wall or showing pictures of any sort. They've had it made into a coffee table. It hung in one of the studios for a couple of years, showing volume levels and stuff, but so many pixels died that they had to stop using it. The cost of repair was greater than the cost of a new screen, so now it's got a pane of glass and four legs stuck to it.

And the screens in my gym, which only opened in 2001 or 2002 or something, are fucked with burn-in.

I wouldn't take a chance and drop thousands on what is clearly flawed technology, just so I could show off to my friends for a while. I'll stick to my CRT, thanks.

Re:disposable $4000 appliances

[hesiod]

> Uh, how much is 4 times less than $100? $-300? Retard.

$20, you moron. Just like 100 is 4x more than $20. Math not your strong suit?

(P.S. No, I don't mean 25... 4x MORE, that means in addition to the original 20, a total of 5x)

Their LCD monitors kick butt

[limabone]

This is a logical step for them. Their 19" and higher LCD's are great (I have the 1905FP and love it), and would definitely feel comfortable buying a TV from them if the quality was comparable.

What do they know?

[Shkuey]

But what does a company built around making inexpensive PCs know about HDTVs?

Apparently not much, because at a native resolution of 1024x768, that panel is NOT HD.

Rectangular pixels

[doormat]

The pixels on this display are wider than they are tall. Which is what'll end up happening if you watch too much TV.

Yea, I agree, it is dishonest to say this is a HDTV since it isnt 1280 wide.

Maybe just wait for SED display.

[zymano]

Flat panel SED

Photos of SED

Re:Maybe just wait for SED display.

[AddressException]

Maybe just wait for SED display
But for how long?

Seriously...

Re:I would like to enter Michael Dell

[lucabrasi999]

"RAR! BIG TV! small penis".

Wrong! I have a big TV, and my penis is decidedly average in size.

Re:I would like to enter Michael Dell

[voorko02]

Ah, the bitter words of someone with both a small penis and small TV.

How tired and cliched is this arguement. At least you didn't say it was bought by men going through a mid life crisis.

Hell this overcompensating logic could apply to just about everything posted on slashdot. Why do people buy iPods? Small penis. Why do people overclock a mac mini? Inadequate in bed.

Sorry its just this combined with another comment using the term "Jump the Shark" was a little too much for me. Lets just Skip the Monkeys and stop spouting tired cliches to give meaning to our opinions.

Re:I finally figured it out

[ultramk]

Six comments.

1. It's plasma, not LCD. Big, big difference. LCD is FAR more expensive in the same sizes. Like 10x.

2. Some plasma screens ARE true HDTV, just not these.

3. It's hard to tell the lifespan, because they haven't been around long enough.

4. They have GREAT angular viewing ability, and have the most intense, bright colors of any technology out there. Compare them at an angle with any type of rear projection.

5. Burn-in is a problem, BUT... for the same money as one of the other flat-screen technologies, you could buy a new plasma every couple of years.

6. Some of us don't have houses the size of Rhode Island. Plasma TVs hardly take up any room at all.

maybe you were thinking of something else? have you been inside a Circuit City since the '90s?

m-

Re:I finally figured it out

[Anita Coney]

1. Yeah, I screwed up. Plasma LCD are both over-priced crap as far as I'm concenred.

2. You don't find it odd to pay $3,400 for a TV that does NOT do real HD?!

3. My parents use an old Zenith TV they bought in the 70s. Do you think that any LCD or plasma TV built today will be used in thirty years?

4. I was wrong about that too, thanks.

5. Oh yeah, spending $3,400 every couple of years is a great idea!

6. You can buy smaller CRTs for practically nothing. Exactly how small is your house that you have to spend $3,400 to get a TV into it?

16:9 please: 1366x768 1280x720

[GodWasAnAlien]

1024x768, no. please use 16:9, and no (laptop makers), 15:9 is not good enough.

Re:16:9 please: 1366x768 1280x720

[Overzeetop]

Actually, most lappys are 16:10 (it's a nit, I know). The WUXGA ones are 1920x1200, allowing full 1080p resolution. The WXGA are 1280x800, allowing full 720p.

And you might as well get a 1280x720 vs 1366x768, so at least your ABC and FOX can be displated native. (I'd like to kill the numbskull who though interlaced was good idea for HD)

Re:I would like to enter Michael Dell

[dustinbarbour]

I second this.. only my penis is decidedly HUGE!

There is a bigger fish to be had... better n cheap

[zioncity]

A friend of mine recently got a Pioneer Plasma at Best Buy recently. The size is like 42 or 43 inches... After all rebates, 500 from Pioneer, 100 from Comcast and also with buying the 4 year warranty for like 400 clams.. and taxes... I believe the set was costing about 3500-3550. Now he also got a 300 dollar best buy gift check and 200 in bonus bucks... for 500 in extra spending cash.

This set also comes with their PureDrive video processor which handles processing, filtering of all HD, SD and ED signals... for those rednecks out there... Standard TV or SD, ED or 480progressive signals and of course, HD or 720p. This processing unit on his tv.. a 43 inch now confirmed, fuckin rocked serious ass. Cartoon Network and Dexters Laboratory or Toonami never made Standard TV look so good and for us size queens,.. bigger is better... LOL.

But seriously.. even with the PixelWorks chip... the Pioneer is not only superior quality in terms of longevity, but that PureVision Box rocks and is an excellent video processor for the buck. Another comparison is my 30 inch Syntax Olevia HDTV lcd has the same PixelWorks chip and contrary to popular belief... it is freaking awesome for the buck... especially after you fine tune each input via the setup on the remote, each input has it's own settings...

So unless Dell can come up with a better trick,.. I say go Pioneer for Plasma... Syntax Olevia or other for a better deal and and better quality LCDs. By the way... I got mine for $999 at MicroCenter in Boston and with my Denon 1910, with DVI and 720p upscaling... Finding Nemo, Sky Captain and LOTR 3, Return of the King with very good night fight scenes on the Syntax... gave me a good ole woo... er uh... you know what I mean.

Nuff said.

Zion

W4200HD

[Jaguar777]

Anybody else see this and think of a Western Digital 4.2GB hard drive? :)

here is where I found some info

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

PLASMA

LCD

really the same site, but anyway I have both a Plasma and an LCD TV. Both come highly rated from everywhere I looked.

Plasma: Panasonic TH-42PWD6UY (I think it may be the 5, I've had it two years) which is an EDTV

LCD: Sharp LC-30HV6U LCD TV which is 720p HDTV (1280x768) which I've had about a year.

In my opinion, the overall eye candy goes to the plasma. the contrast / color / picture just looks better. Now this is from a Comcast Cable source, and I haven't kept up on the very latest in the LCD vs PLASMA war.

Mods on Crack

[endoboy]

Funny? huh?

how about lame, trite, repetitous, or sophmoric?

Re:Mods on Crack

[JoshRosenbaum]

Funny? huh? how about lame, trite, repetitous, or sophmoric?

I agree. You beat me to responding, though. ;) Slashdot needs a way to restore balance to the force. We need to invent: "-5 Anti-Mod-Crack". :)

Re:24" 1920x1200/12msec LCD is pretty interesting

[Overzeetop]

Yeah, I'm drooling over this one. Comes with usb and mem card slots on it, too. It will help soothe the pain of knowing that I can't really justify an Apple 30" Cinema HD...yet.

Re:(I-Z)DTV and floppy drives.

[grumpygrodyguy]

HDTV has been a long problematic transition, which won't be replaced in the foreseeable future.

Yes, but many of us have been waiting for years to play PC games on a widescreen. Some of us are already doing it, but the majority of us would like to be doing it very soon. Some companies like these guys are recognizing the demand.

So I guess my point is that the 'killer app' that starts widespread adaptation of HDTV may have nothing to do with television at all, but rather with the PS2, Xbox, Gamecube, and PC.

why would you blow your money on one of these?

[utexaspunk]

when you can get the 30" apple cinema display for less? Sure, it's 12" less in the diagonal dimension, but is TV really any better that much bigger? And at 2560x1600 (as opposed to the Dell's measly 1024x768) it can actually display HDTV, and will be much more usable for computing. ...not to mention that it looks way cooler...

What do they know?

[sharkey]

But what does a company built around making inexpensive PCs know about HDTVs?

The same thing they know about making inexpensive PCs: Shovel it out the door and deflect all problems with unresponsive, unhelpful outsourced tech support.

...and who's on second?

[sapgau]

could someone copy/paste the first 10 rows of that list? It's an [F] article.

Advertorial Alert

[SethJohnson]

This fellow, ThinSkin, is a schill for ExtremeTech.com. Check his user info. In February, ThinSkin has submitted four articles that were accepted for Slashdot publication and all of them were links to ExtremeTech.com content.

Clearly this is paid placement to increase traffic to ExtremeTech.

Re:Advertorial Alert

[EvilStein]

Around here, this is hardly surprising anymore. Seems to be occuring more often, too.

Re:Advertorial Alert

[arcmay]

Isn't it possible that he just reads ExtremeTech.com everyday and submits articles he thinks are interesting?

I'm not saying he couldn't be "slashvertising" (or whatever that term is). But clearly there is an alternate explanation.

Re:Advertorial Alert

[null etc.]

This fellow, ThinSkin, is a schill for ExtremeTech.com. Check his user info. In February, ThinSkin has submitted four articles that were accepted for Slashdot publication and all of them were links to ExtremeTech.com content.

Or, these are the only two websites he ever reads.

Still, I have to admire his ability to get submissions accepted. In my six years here, I've never done so, even though my submissions usually cover topics of substance.

Hmmm, I'm clearly going about this all wrong!

I'll set up a script that automatically checks for new articles on ExtremeTech, and then submits them to /.!

Re:Advertorial Alert

[leighklotz]

Actually it's nice to see an article that's not been taken from the New York Time Circuits section, hi hi.

Re:Advertorial Alert

[SethJohnson]

I appreciate your objectivity. However, in support of my assertion I'd like to also point out that ThinSkin also has no posts in his/her history. As if it were a throw-away Slashdot account created simply to attribute ExtremeTech.com stories.

The sharp has no problem.

[Mustang Matt]

The sharp lcd had no problem with black. I'd say it's colors were every bit as vibrant as the plasma displays.

You're right though all the others had mostly washed out color when compared to plasma.

RIP Heathkit.

[jmichaelg]

I'm waiting for two things before I buy an HDTV.

1. A large display that can handle 1080p x 1920 and doesn't set me back 5 grand or more. TI's xHD-3 DLP looks to be a possibility on that front come the end of this quarter.
   
2. Something to watch. Where I live, there's exactly one HDTV broadcaster and they're broadcasting hog futures. That means satellite but given James Lilek's experience with Direct TV, that doesn't look like a viable option right now.

So for me, looks like it'll be at least another year before all the pieces are in place.

Now, if someone were to offer a HDTV kit with a 1080p display engine, it wouldn't matter that there's nothing to watch. It'd just be fun to build the thing. Too bad there weren't enough of us to keep Heathkit alive.

also..

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

scaling a normal NTSC picture on the EDTV looks MUCH better than on the HDTV. Don't know if this is due to the manufacturer (panasonic vs sharp) or the technology (LCD vs PLASMA), although I've read that NTSC generally scales better to EDTV due to less interpolation required as compared to HD

If and only if R&D ==

[drjzzz]

Repeat & Duplicate!

And this is NEWs?

[The_Incubator]

Not to point out the obvious or anything, but hasn't Dell been selling plasma "HDTVs" (that is to say, TVs with less than HD res that are marketed as HDTVs) for some time? I've been fantasizing about buying and HDTV for years now, and unless I'm crazy Dell's plasmas are nothing new. I've simply known and accepted that Dell sells plasmas for so long that I can't even remember how long it's been. Or is it just a slow day and Slashdot decided to conjure a story out of nowhere. I swear, this place used to actually have NEWs but these days it seems like if it hits the front page, I've already read it somewhere else or known about it for the past year. Nick

Re:And this is NEWs?

[The_Incubator]

OK, I'm definately not out of line on this.

C-Net's review of this thing goes back to November.

Why is this on the front page again?

Nick

An HDTV that isn't HDTV...

[dpbsmith]

Oh, gimme a break... "The W4200HD has a native pixel resolution of 1024x768, and as such, isn't a true HD device, since it doesn't have enough pixels to draws a 1280x720 (720p) HDTV image."

Look, I know lots of people will buy these things and be ecstatically happy with them, but can't we have just a little bit of truth-in-advertising? If it's not HDTV, don't call it HDTV.

Re:An HDTV that isn't HDTV...

[Unit3]

Good luck with that. Most commercial sets on the market don't even do 720p period, let alone the widescreen 1280x720 mode. Take a look at most "HDTVs", and they list 480p, (sometimes) 540p and 1080i as the only resolutions they support. Plus, within the scope of those two, they make no guarantees about horizontal resolution. At least you know this TV can do 1024x768, which is quite a bit better than most of the sets being marketed as HDTV that are already on the market.

Plus, does it really matter? I don't know of any 720p content that's even available yet! Hell, 540p is even higher res than what you'll get from almost any source claiming HDTV content, so you'll need some nice interpolation to do anything with it anyway.

Bottom line, don't lose sleep over what it does and doesn't support if you don't have any content to display on it at that resolution anyway. ;)

Re:I finally figured it out

[ultramk]

1. Well, that's your opinion.

2. Of course, but your criticisms were aimed at the technology as a whole, not this specific incarnation. Real HDTV plasma sets are readily available, for less than this.

3. I bet it looks like crap, too. Tell me this: do you have any expectation of being able to use ANY current piece of technology in 30 years? Nothing lasts forever.

5. I wasn't referring to this device specifically: I've seen similar TV's for as low as $1100. And when you consider that equiv LCDs of the same size run $8-$12k... well. $1200 every few years isn't that much.

6. So there's some secret source of small CRT HDTVs out there hiding somewhere? for "practically nothing"? Please provide a link. I'll take 3.

It's not an issue of total space, sometimes. My living room is wide, but shallow. Traditional CRTs of anything more than 30" or so end up pushing far out into the room. Not that CRTs of that size are even readily available anymore. ...and again, you're referring to the pricing on this specific product, rather than the technology on the whole. This isn't the best deal out there. And of course, nobody HAS to spend this money. It's by and large disposable entertainment income. So? What's your point?

m-

Re:There is a bigger fish to be had... better n ch

[EvilStein]

Photos! Photos! What does the setup look like? I think that would be kind of interesting to see..

I've noticed that TVs always look like crap in the stores, probably because they're all displaying the same fuzzy cable feed.

What is the point?1080i and 720p not supported.

[toolshed7]

It took me a couple of seconds to say worthless. If it does not support the HDTV resolution, then it is not HDTV...this is a pointless TV. Unless you are in the market for non-hdtv. I compare this to having the superdupertitaniumMX+9000 graphics card and using it for the 800x600 resolution for your tv....pointless and misleading.

I've been welcoming them for a while now.

[game kid]

My e770s handles 1920*1080@60Hz quite easil--what? 42"?

*checks Dell site hastily for offer*

Re:There is a bigger fish to be had... better n ch

[zioncity]

Here is a smaller picture I found of his set doing a google search. It has the speakers underneath it, but looks very similar to current models, where the speakers are on the side. The PureVision looks like a big silver DVR unit that can lay flat or on its side on the floor. Check this Pioneer link for a comporable image of my friends system

http://pioneerelectronics.com/pna/product/detail /0 ,,2076_4123_136753505,00.html

If curious about the Syntax Olevia I mentioned.. go here for infor and pictures...

http://www.syntaxgroups.com/products/30inch_prod uc td.html

I hope Syntax and that UK vendor where I got the URL for the Pioneer Image do not mind getting Slash-dotted, hehehe

All your bandwidth will me mine LOL

As for both my Syntax and the Pioneer Plasma... we both have good HD Comcast signals going to our boxes and thus is a much better example of what any set can do out of the store atmosphere with one cable signal going thru a 30 way splitter.

Zion

Homebrew XGA Projector: $327

[benow]

• 8" XGA lcd panel - $155
• 5 x lumina 2000 LED lights (500 lumens, 25W) - $100
• Fresnel, diffuser, lense - $62
• box, fan - $15

$327 for wall sized, 1024x768, lower power, longer lasting, and you'll learn something in the process. Build two and attach to dual head nvidia, for opengl-accellerated 2048x768. For the price of one of those plasma monsters, you could build yourself a virtualization cube, or a stereoscopic immersive display.

If lcd panels can be found (with vga/dvi connector) that do SXGA or better in similar form factor, please reply. DVI input for the lcd panel of that form factor would be nice. Comments?

Re:I finally figured it out

[Anita Coney]

I guess I'm in the minority here. To me crappy prime time shows are as crappy on a $4000 as they are on a $99 TV from wal-mart. And the Godfather 2 is great, even on that $99 TV.

And if HDTV is so great, in and of itself, why aren't people enjoying REAL HD?! I.e., sitting outside and watching the world. You can't get higher def than standing in front of the Grand Canyon or walking through Yosemite yourself.

I guess that makes me an old foggy because I just don't get you youngsters and your crazy ways.

Re:This is not NEWS!

[Paradise Pete]

I thought for sure folks would have commented on the detail that Dell's been selling HDTV capable LCD TV's for years now.

If "folks" includes the author of TFA, then yeah, folks have:

[Dell] has had several smallish LCD-based HDTVs on the market, but took its time bringing out larger displays, but now the wait is over.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Are they for real?

[Aeron65432]

Question about this article-

Is Dell actually making these, or are they slapping their label on other company products, like all their monitors and such?

Here is the top 5

[jangobongo]

The top 5 on the "America's Most Admired Companies" list are:

1. Dell

2. General Electric Co.

3. Starbucks Corp.

4. Wal-Mart

5. Southwest Airlines

Flat Panel Displays FPD's

[vigour]

LCD's are still the most common FPD for many reasons including size, power consumption, contrast ration, brightness, and the fact that it's the most mature of the "new" display technologies (back in the 80's Japan became the world leader in LCD development).

The manufacturing process has progressed to a point where manufacturers consider only 3/4 pixels in a 32" display to be defective. The only major drawbacks to LCD's at this stage are response speed (fast moving images can get a little blurred), and their viewing angle.

There's a phenomenal amount of research going on into solving these problems, especially the viewing angle (something I was involved in myself indirectly). Even back in '98 companies like Mitsubishi had prototypes (.pdf) that outperform current commercial displays.

HDTV CRTs still outperform HDTV LCDs, but in for ordinary TVs LCDs have superior quality in terms of things like definition, image clarity, contrast ratio, so at this stage if you're after HDTV you really should stick with CRTs (unless you're prepared to wait another few years

Damn, too sleepy to finish this....... :P

93 pounds

[peter303]

This is kind of heavy for in-flight DVDs.
And it probably uses up batteries quickly too.

Don't lump LCD in with Plasma!

[Valdrax]

Sheesh! LCD doesn't have burn-in and makes an excellent PC monitor. I've getting a Sharp 45" AQUOS primary for use with my HTPC.

Sure, it's pricey, but everything with better than 720p resolution is pricey, especially the coming 1080p DLP sets. Then again, if 1280 X 720 is good enough for you, then price becomes a compelling factor as you say.

Re:There is a bigger fish to be had... better n ch

[Rew190]

Or, you can buy a rear-projection TV and spend half as much money and still get a superior picture, only roughly a foot deeper, and you don't have to pay to have it professionally mounted (which needs to be done with most plasmas, as they still weigh a good 60ish pounds).

Dell selling HDTVs

[ulfhednar]

Dell is so mindless.

Re:There is a bigger fish to be had... better n ch

[EvilStein]

That's pretty cool. Pioneer makes nice stuff these days.

Thanks! :D

Rebranding

[Zorilla]

But what does a company built around making inexpensive PCs know about HDTVs?

Here's a simple answer: they don't know shit about it. That's why they're just going to do what they do with their monitors; rebrand someone else's display. Isn't that pretty much what Gateway did?

Re:RIP Heathkit.

[Rew190]

Assuming you're not enamoured with flat panel, investigate the Toshiba Cinema Series sets. You can get a 60" for under 5 grand easily. Its picture will easily beat out any plasma or LCD. It's a rear projection CRT, but you can view it at any sane angle and they're only about 2 feet deep.

As far as HD content... I'm in the same boat. Blu-Ray is gonna do it for me.

All well and good

[Quiet_Desperation]

But can Dell do something about the quality of the content?

Re:I would like to enter Michael Dell

[Dogtanian]

Haha based on your username and posts its obvious you are outcast, pissed off at society and bitter. Meanwhile all of us "consumer drones" are enjoying a high quality of life, learning, having fun, and socializing.

Is that so? Then why are you posting as an AC on Slashdot when you could be doing all that great stuff? :-P

Re:I finally figured it out

[Dogtanian]

And if HDTV is so great, in and of itself, why aren't people enjoying REAL HD?! I.e., sitting outside and watching the world.

Uh, because most people, even living in the US, don't have Yosemite and/or the Grand Canyon at their front door; vacations cost money and you need time off work to get there.

Not that I don't agree with you about watching crappy TV shows on a $4000 screen. There's nothing on TV or DVD that would make me want to spend $1000 (or equivalent) on a TV, let alone $4000.

OT...

[cr0sh]

At one time, you could get SLA cells in 'D' and 'C' size form factors...

HDTV Market with Plasma Display

[Siggy200]

What ever dispaly the HDTV market comes out with, I won't be buying one. The CRAP on TV now is not worth spending on any HDTV sets. I'll play on the computer instead of watching the BOOB TUBE!

Re:I finally figured it out

[Anita Coney]

I was just using Yosemite and the Grand Canyon as examples. There are PLENTY of beautiful places in the world which are in much higher def than anything on the HD Discovery channel.

I think every state has at least one beautiful place, except for maybe Ohio.

Why aren't presentation projectors cheaper?

[zippthorne]

I'm pretty sure i've seen a couple advertised with enough resolution for 1080i, but rediculously expensive. 1024x768 are pretty cheap, compared to the same size screen you'd get with other technologies AND have a much smaller form factor (tiny box, just have to paint the wall white) why aren't more people doing this?

Re:Why aren't presentation projectors cheaper?

[jfisherwa]

They are, and it is getting more affordable. I just picked up a 720p native LCD projector for $1000. I can also take advantage of the resolution with a 120" screen (zoom) if wanted. Perfect for a HTPC.

Re:(I-Z)DTV and floppy drives.

[Dahamma]

So I guess my point is that the 'killer app' that starts widespread adaptation of HDTV may have nothing to do with television at all, but rather with the PS2, Xbox, Gamecube, and PC.

You mean PS3, Xbox2, and Gamecube Revolution (or whatever they will call it).

Gotta say playing PC games on an HDTV is most definitely NOT a killer app. I admit it could be very cool for the geek FPS crowd (possibly me included... :), but it's NOT going to be one of the markets that significantly adds to the bottom line...

Re:There is a bigger fish to be had... better n ch

[demon]

Agreed. I've been quite happy with my 46" Toshiba CRT projection TV - HD network series look awesome, as well as sports and Discovery HD. The only thing I've had to do is periodically hand-calibrate color convergence, but that's not abnormal from what I understand.