That sounds sensible, but these stores are lit like operating rooms with rows of little spotlights above the TV racks. Atleast the ones where I live. After all, a lot of people need their women's blessing to invest in something like this, and they like their merch brightly lit, like jewelry. Most of the time, people will be using their sets in darker conditions than that, even when there is daylight outside. And it's not like plasmas are unusable in bright conditions to the degree that LCDs are unusable in dark conditions either.
You can say it doesn't matter though, a lot of people didn't realise that direct lighting ruined the image on their CRTs either. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. A lot of people don't care about quality at all, but one shouldn't state the case that LCDs are outselling Plasmas due to image quality. LCD contrast is far from real-world.
They warn you about watching 4:3-aspect images with black borders on the sides, or 2.35:1-movies with black borders on top and bottom for too long, right there in the manual. First thing you see when you open it up.
The reason LCDs are outselling plasma displays is mainly that they are sold in brightly lit stores, where you won't easily see the enormous difference in contrast ratio. On the contrary, LCDs are fabricated to look black in direct lighting, while plasmas sometimes tend to look greyish.
Good stores should have dampened lighting in the TV dept. Plasmas are like projectors, you don't really see what they are capable of in bright light. Turn the lights down on an LCD, and you will see the disastrously poor contrast of LCD technology manifesting itself as glaring, grey areas that are supposed to represent black.
The other reason is that LCD are preadjusted to do a lot of clipping in white and black areas (which people don't always easily react to) to make the picture look less washed-out. If you correctly calibrate an LCD you will see this limitation quickly.
To further fool the customers, LCD vendors have a fantast-number called "dynamic contrast", which represents total contrast after frame-by-frame contrast distribution. It would be OK giving ut this specification, had they not omitted the real number. After all, "dynamic contrast 8000:1!" doesn't sound less cool than "contrast 5000:1". It's dynamic, like Batman & Robin. Too bad the real contrast is 1200:1.
So sure, LCDs may be better for use with a computer, but that is not the reason why they are winning the battles in the elecronics stores.
It is rather easy actually: OS X has been based on BSD for 15 years. It was previously calles Rhapsody, Openstep and Nextstep. Apple acquired the OS through the acquisition of Next Inc. in the 90's. Wikipedia has good articles on this.
People are responding to this with examples of IBM's own patentorial misdemeanors, pointing to the fact that they themselves hold numerous trivial patents.
I feel that even though this may be the case, it doesn't necessarily invalidate their position on software patents as proclaimed here. To survive under the current patent system IBM has ofcourse seen it necessary to play dirty themselves, and there is a possibility that they do not like it, even though they are a part of it. Yielding the market to companies of possibly lower moral fiber would i no circumstances help on the matter.
Cax
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds sensible, but these stores are lit like operating rooms with rows of little spotlights above the TV racks. Atleast the ones where I live. After all, a lot of people need their women's blessing to invest in something like this, and they like their merch brightly lit, like jewelry. Most of the time, people will be using their sets in darker conditions than that, even when there is daylight outside. And it's not like plasmas are unusable in bright conditions to the degree that LCDs are unusable in dark conditions either.
You can say it doesn't matter though, a lot of people didn't realise that direct lighting ruined the image on their CRTs either. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. A lot of people don't care about quality at all, but one shouldn't state the case that LCDs are outselling Plasmas due to image quality. LCD contrast is far from real-world.
They warn you about watching 4:3-aspect images with black borders on the sides, or 2.35:1-movies with black borders on top and bottom for too long, right there in the manual. First thing you see when you open it up.
The reason LCDs are outselling plasma displays is mainly that they are sold in brightly lit stores, where you won't easily see the enormous difference in contrast ratio. On the contrary, LCDs are fabricated to look black in direct lighting, while plasmas sometimes tend to look greyish.
Good stores should have dampened lighting in the TV dept. Plasmas are like projectors, you don't really see what they are capable of in bright light. Turn the lights down on an LCD, and you will see the disastrously poor contrast of LCD technology manifesting itself as glaring, grey areas that are supposed to represent black.
The other reason is that LCD are preadjusted to do a lot of clipping in white and black areas (which people don't always easily react to) to make the picture look less washed-out. If you correctly calibrate an LCD you will see this limitation quickly.
To further fool the customers, LCD vendors have a fantast-number called "dynamic contrast", which represents total contrast after frame-by-frame contrast distribution. It would be OK giving ut this specification, had they not omitted the real number. After all, "dynamic contrast 8000:1!" doesn't sound less cool than "contrast 5000:1". It's dynamic, like Batman & Robin. Too bad the real contrast is 1200:1.
So sure, LCDs may be better for use with a computer, but that is not the reason why they are winning the battles in the elecronics stores.
How on earth do I change my login data once it has been compromised? How do I randomly regrow a new fingerprint? Or retina?
It is rather easy actually: OS X has been based on BSD for 15 years. It was previously calles Rhapsody, Openstep and Nextstep. Apple acquired the OS through the acquisition of Next Inc. in the 90's. Wikipedia has good articles on this.
Try top -ocpu -R -F -s 2 -n30
For some reason the default top i OS X eats cycles. Linux on a mac uses virtually no cycles.
I have alias ttop='top -ocpu -R -F -s 2 -n30' set, nice.
People are responding to this with examples of IBM's own patentorial misdemeanors, pointing to the fact that they themselves hold numerous trivial patents. I feel that even though this may be the case, it doesn't necessarily invalidate their position on software patents as proclaimed here. To survive under the current patent system IBM has ofcourse seen it necessary to play dirty themselves, and there is a possibility that they do not like it, even though they are a part of it. Yielding the market to companies of possibly lower moral fiber would i no circumstances help on the matter. Cax