Who cares about a response time of 6 or 4 ms on a panel that displays only 60 pictures per second, ie every 17 ms? I've seen this (or a similar) argument regarding response times before, and it just doesn't make sense. I get the impression you are saying that, for a panel displaying 60 frames per second, any response time better than 17 ms is overkill?
If a panel has a response time of 17ms (let's call it a hypothetical response time that is the same for any transition), that means that it will have *just* completed the crystal's rotation to the proper color/luminance as the next frame gets displayed! If you have anything fast going on, the display will be nothing but ghost trails and/or inaccurate colors. The pixels would be spending their entire time playing 'catchup'; only beginning to display accurate color/luminance if the next frame to be displayed is identical.
So if you're playing 30fps video on said 17ms/60fps response panel, half of the displayed time for each frame would show the crystals transitioning to their new value.
So, no. Give me a 2-5 ms 24bit (or greater) panel with no artifacts visible to Overdrive (or whatever is needed to get those crystals in their proper place quickly).. please!
-Ty
Parent post reminds me of something that I've been wanting to ask about:
One of the best "hack" repairs that I have ever performed is to permanently repair dead pixels on TFT lcd screens: A strong flick of the finger (focalized impact) has worked for me *every time*!!
I have personally "repaired" about 20 laptops this way, and recommended the procedure to many friends with a 100% success rate.
Is this common knowledge?
I suppose I should say that YMMV, but my experience has shown that TFTs are surprisingly resilient to such shock; I've never made the situation worse.
I love it when you can fix delicate, precise hardware with a sledgehammer! Hmmm... what other ones come to mind: - Repairing old Quantum hard drives w/ frozen bearings by ramming a pen or screwdriver to get it spinning again - I know there were many others, but I haven't had enough coffee yet.... anyone?
One really has to ask whether there's anything really new in The Whyline apart from a pretty interface.
I would agree, and given their initial statement:
In our observations, we have found that a significant proportion of the errors are ultimately caused by a viscious cycle of assumptions: programmers introduced an error, which caused their programs to fail; when debugging the failure, they incorrectly assumed that one aspect of their code was to blame, and made modifications to try to fix it, introducing more errors.
I wonder what level of programmers they are observing; certainly not professional ones? While I can remember getting into traps like this when I was first learning C, as a sucessful embedded systems programmer, one of the most important lessons learned (very early on!) was NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING !(or at least as little as possible) I would call making changes based on assumptions (guesses) "hacking"... not debugging.
So, perhaps this could be a good learning tool, but IMHO, it doesn't offer much in the "real world".
I've heard it proposed (on some Discovery Science program, I believe) that Jupiter, due to it's insane gravitational pull and size, tends to attract quite a lot of the space 'junk' making it's way into the Solar System; absorbing well above it's fair share of impacts.
The point being that we're pretty lucky to have Jupiter out there; protecting us from what could be significantly more hazards making their way into the Earth's orbital path.
The scale of energy released from the previously-mentioned recent collisions with Jupiter just boggles my mind.
Ok, I admit that I didn't pour through all of intel's docs for the complete specs, but it sounds like they're just "packaging":
-The Pentium-M processor (already in most laptops) -The 855 chipset (is that new? My poor memory tells me the 855 is already in use too... ) -And a wireless board (the 'new' part of the equation)Whoopie!!!
Not to troll or anything ( I like intel ), I'm sure there are some minor goodies or better features with this package, but to me it sounds like 99% marketing (for now) and nothing really special....Just wanting to see more true advances, less hype
Slashdot Mirror
Parent post reminds me of something that I've been wanting to ask about:
One of the best "hack" repairs that I have ever performed is to permanently repair dead pixels on TFT lcd screens: A strong flick of the finger (focalized impact) has worked for me *every time*!!
I have personally "repaired" about 20 laptops this way, and recommended the procedure to many friends with a 100% success rate.
Is this common knowledge?
I suppose I should say that YMMV, but my experience has shown that TFTs are surprisingly resilient to such shock; I've never made the situation worse.
I love it when you can fix delicate, precise hardware with a sledgehammer! Hmmm... what other ones come to mind:
- Repairing old Quantum hard drives w/ frozen bearings by ramming a pen or screwdriver to get it spinning again
- I know there were many others, but I haven't had enough coffee yet.... anyone?
I would agree, and given their initial statement:
In our observations, we have found that a significant proportion of the errors are ultimately caused by a viscious cycle of assumptions: programmers introduced an error, which caused their programs to fail; when debugging the failure, they incorrectly assumed that one aspect of their code was to blame, and made modifications to try to fix it, introducing more errors.
I wonder what level of programmers they are observing; certainly not professional ones? While I can remember getting into traps like this when I was first learning C, as a sucessful embedded systems programmer, one of the most important lessons learned (very early on!) was NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING !(or at least as little as possible) I would call making changes based on assumptions (guesses) "hacking"... not debugging.
So, perhaps this could be a good learning tool, but IMHO, it doesn't offer much in the "real world".
I've heard it proposed (on some Discovery Science program, I believe) that Jupiter, due to it's insane gravitational pull and size, tends to attract quite a lot of the space 'junk' making it's way into the Solar System; absorbing well above it's fair share of impacts.
The point being that we're pretty lucky to have Jupiter out there; protecting us from what could be significantly more hazards making their way into the Earth's orbital path.
The scale of energy released from the previously-mentioned recent collisions with Jupiter just boggles my mind.
Thanks, Jupiter!
Ok, I admit that I didn't pour through all of intel's docs for the complete specs, but it sounds like they're just "packaging":
...Just wanting to see more true advances, less hype
-The Pentium-M processor (already in most laptops)
-The 855 chipset (is that new? My poor memory tells me the 855 is already in use too... )
-And a wireless board (the 'new' part of the equation)Whoopie!!!
Not to troll or anything ( I like intel ), I'm sure there are some minor goodies or better features with this package, but to me it sounds like 99% marketing (for now) and nothing really special.