Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ViewSonic shows 200 dpi display

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the vision-of-beauty dept.

Technology 254

prostoalex writes "On Intel Developer Forum ViewSonic introduced its 200 dpi display. The 22.2 inch 3840x2400 monitor will sell for around $8,000." Maybe there's hope for all those obsessive folks trying to run Quake 3 at insane resolutions. Provided they'd rather have a monitor than eight grand!

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

and in related news (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4237916)

e e cummings takes over slashdot headlines.

For me ? (-1, Offtopic)

ColdAngel (569576) | more than 12 years ago | (#4237923)

Want one at home

Jokes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4237924)

What does WTC stand for? - "What Trade Center?"
Q: Who are the fastest readers in the world? A: New Yorkers. Some of them go through 110 stories in 5 seconds
Q: Why do tourists flock to New York? A: It's a blast
The FBI has just identified the man who trained the hijackers: Dale Earnhardt.
At the World Trade Center restaurant, they offere three seating areas: smoking, non-smoking and burned beyond recognition.
They dont need any more volunteers to help at the WTC: they have found 5000 extra pairs of hands...
New York, New York, so good they hit it twice
American Airlines is now offering sight seeing tours of Manhattan!

Q: What is world most efficient airline? A: American Airlines, leave Boston in your office in New York 8:48!
What was the last thing going through Mr. Jones head sitting in 90th floor of the WTC ? - The 91st floor.....
What was the last thing going through Mr. Smiths head sitting in 110th floor of the WTC ? - The radio mast...
America's new math: Q: Now how many sides to a Pentagon? A: 4
If one side of the Pentagon has collapsed, will it now be renamed "The Square"?
It should be renamed "The Penta-gone"/It should be renamed "Manflatten"

Famous last words: "Amal, was this tower here yesterday?"

American Airline's pilot announcement:
"Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be landing on New York in about 10 minutes....."

Well, this proves one thing.... New Yorkers really come together in a crunch

Today FBI concluded that New York had been hit by a U.F.M (unidentified flying muslim)

Q: What did one terrorist say to the other terrorist before boarding their respective airplanes? A: I slam, you slam, we all slam for Islam!

NEWSFLASH.... The WTC has been destroyed.... thousands of New York executives feared dead.... Hookers all across the city are in mourning.....

"25,000 sq. ft. Office space for rent. Recently renovated. New Air Conditioning unit. Needs TLC. Contact me at One World Trade Centre. 85th Floor, Room 18."

"It's a bird!" "It's a plane!" "It's.... Oh fuck, it IS a plane!"

Q: Why didn't Superman stop the planes from hitting the Trade Towers? A: Because he's a quadriplegic!

Q: What's the area code of the World Trade Center? A: 220 (two to zero).

Q: What should have tipped off the ticket sellers? A: When the terrorists asked if there was anything cheaper than one-way.

Q: What was the quickest escape time from the World Trade Center? A: Ten seconds flat.

Q: How long does it take to reach the ground from 107 stories up? A: The rest of your life

Q: Why are police and firemen New York's finest?
A: Because now you can run them through a sieve.

Optimism, as you fall past the 20th floor you shout "I'm not hurt yet"

How many New Yorkers does it take to change a light bulb? God knows, they keep jumping out the window when it gets too hot

What's the number one drink served on United Airlines? Flaming Manhattan

What music do they play in the elevator in the WTC? Jump and It's Raining Men

Floor 106...... you ARE the weakest link.... goodbye....

What color were the pilots eyes? Blue. One blew this way the other blew that way

What team does Bin Laden support? The New York Jets

Where do Americans go on vacation? All over Manhattan

How many Americans died in the WTC 1 year ago? who gives a fuck

What's the difference between Wembley and New York? Wembley's still got their twin towers.

What's the difference between the attack on New York and the Oklahoma City Bombing? - Again foreigners prove they can do it better and more efficiently......

Then there's the retarded terrorist who tried to crash the A-Train into the World Trade Center..........

Yassar Arraffat and many other PLO members together with people from other Muslim nations are *Volunteering* to give blood for the victims of the tragedy... I guess they'll have some *Volunteers* to Fly the blood in too!

Last words from Airline pilot "Right a bit, hey the trade centre, my brother works there...lets look just a bit closer...."

The FBI have arrested the head of advertising at the Empire State Building for involvement in the WTC disaster. A spokesman said he was caught with 'Empire State: We're Back!!!' T-shirts in his office...

Top 10 Good Things About The WTC Attack
10. There are now 18 fewer Arab taxi drivers terrorizing the streets. 9. Flight training schools proved that they are expensive but worth it. 8. People are learning how to spell "Afghanistan" correctly. 7. Plenty of parking available at airports now. 6. Jerry Springer Show was off the air for a whole week. 5. Sales for U.S. flags are way up. 4. Several new job openings now at NYPD and NYFD. 3. Much lower electric bills for Manhattan. 2. Home videos of the WTC attack more spectacular than Arnold Schwarzenegger's last 5 movies.
And the number one ... 1. Some great new unobstructed views of Manhattan now.

Re:Jokes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4237954)

There's a special place in hell for comedians.

Re:Jokes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4238438)

It's called the Poconos.

ebooks? (1)

mmoncur (229199) | more than 12 years ago | (#4237960)

Give them 20 more years to get these down to $100 each, and ebooks might actually start selling.

How high? (1)

I_am_Rambi (536614) | more than 12 years ago | (#4237973)

The resolution can go as high as 3840x2400. That is insane. I think the question is no longer how high can the resolution go. But on the otherhand, how high can I set the resolution with having to be able to squint to see the letters that I am typing. I can barely see the letters that I type at 1600x1200. I can imagine what 3840x2400 would look like.

Re:How high? (2, Funny)

undeg chwech (589211) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238023)

What we could do is invent some sort of font scaling mechanism so your letters could be displayed larger.

What's the phone number of the patent office?

Re:How high? Depends on the OS (5, Informative)

Gryffin (86893) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238126)

how high can I set the resolution with having to be able to squint to see the letters that I am typing. I can barely see the letters that I type at 1600x1200. I can imagine what 3840x2400 would look like.

How high? That depends on whether or not OS developers get their sh*t together.

Current, mainstream operating systems, or more properly, windowing systems (Windows, Mac OS X, X11) all tend to assume a screen resolution, or offer limited capability to change the resolution.

  • X Window System: for font scaling, allows you to choose from 75dpi or 100dpi. Woo whee.
  • Mac OS X: no capability to scale the display resolution at all, despite the fact that their Quartz rendering engine, with it's PostScript base, should be able to handle the chore in it's sleep.
  • Windows: While it allows the user to choose the DPI of her monitor, this seems to be applied to application fonts only; the fonts used in many user interface elements are not scaled, making it difficult to use many UI elements at high resolutions.

None of these systems have truly separated the "internal" measurement of graphic objects with their display size; all rely on an assumed point-to-pixel ratio. The cost, of course, for this level of abstraction would be performance, i.e. display speed.

But it seems to me that modern display adapters shold be more than capable of doing this. What are lacking are the APIs to make the graphics hardware do the math, and the OS support to enable this feature. I think Mac OS X already has most of the capability already; lets see if they actually take the next step.

Amen. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4238197)

The cost, of course, for this level of abstraction would be performance, i.e. display speed. But it seems to me that modern display adapters shold be more than capable of doing this. What are lacking are the APIs to make the graphics hardware do the math, and the OS support to enable this feature.

Amen to this. [And please mod up the parent.] It's absolutely ridiculous that we're well into the 21st century, and about 30 years removed from the original GUIs developed at Xerox-PARC, and WE STILL DON'T HAVE A FSCKING LAYER OF ABSTRACTION BETWEEN A FONT AND ITS ON-SCREEN DISPLAY!!!

CS-Majors, CS-Faculties, and software engineers the world over: Hang your heads in shame.

Re:Amen. (2)

Gryffin (86893) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238580)

It's absolutely ridiculous that we're well into the 21st century, and about 30 years removed from the original GUIs developed at Xerox-PARC, and WE STILL DON'T HAVE A FSCKING LAYER OF ABSTRACTION BETWEEN A FONT AND ITS ON-SCREEN DISPLAY!!!

Oh, I agree. And how.

Ideally, you'd have apps specify all graphics (including font glyphs) in real-world units (points, inches, mm, furlongs, parsecs, whatever), and the window manager / display manager would do the translation to screen pixels. Problem there is, with current OSs, you'd need to toss out all your graphics, type, and UI APIs and start from scratch. And get all your developers to do the same. Not bloody likely.

The alternative is to internally translate the idealized "pixel" of the current graphics APIs to actual screne pixels. That way, the application never notices the difference; everything it draws to the screen is adjusted to the display resolution. Problemt here is, for most displays where the actual resolution is fairly close to the idealized resolution, scaling tends to introduce lots of very ugly artifacts: jagged edges, awkward kerning and letterspacing, "one pixel off" errors, etc.

Again, though, Mac OS X's Quartz rendering engine does a pretty remarkable job with this sort of scaling; try their Screen Zoom utility (System Prefs, under Universal Access) and see what I mean. That's one reason why I think Apple might be the first to make this sort of thing work. (Ironically, the same OS won't let you choose your UI fonts or sizes. Go figger.)

Re:How high? Depends on the OS (1)

sir99 (517110) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238416)

You can tell X to use any resolution you want, on the command line. I calculated my monitor at 114 dpi, for example. However, not many programs use this information, AFAICT. Ghostview (postscript/PDF viewer), mozilla, and The GIMP use it, and not much else that I can see. Unfortunately, I don't think X is smart enough to use a different DPI setting for each screen resolution.

Re:How high? Depends on the OS (2)

Gryffin (86893) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238498)

Unfortunately, I don't think X is smart enough to use a different DPI setting for each screen resolution.

I think the biggest problem on X11 is the font manager. It only seems to understand 75ppi or 100ppi; for any other resolution, I assume it either chooses the nearest, or tries to scale from the nearest.

I have little experience with the "official" X11, but IMHO, XFree86 font handling is still playing catch-up with Windows and Mac. It only recently gained decent scalable fonts (TrueType), and they're still problematic; the concept of scaling these arbitrarily to match screen resolution seems a long way off.

Re:How high? (2, Informative)

guacamolefoo (577448) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238128)

> The resolution can go as high as 3840x2400.
> That is insane. I think the question is no

On one hand, there's the (apochryphal?) saying floating around regarding memory: "640k is more than enough memory for anyone" or something to that effect.

On the other hand, I think you have a legitimate point. To some extent, I think the CPU battle is basically over for most people. For an office environment, who the hell needs more than 500 mhz? My secretary (does word processing, some light spreadsheet stuff) doesn't need to have her 300 mhz machine upgraded ever, probably.

> longer how high can the resolution go. But on
> the otherhand, how high can I set the
> resolution with having to be able to squint to
> see the letters that I am typing.

I think another legitimate issue is whether a monitor should be replaced if it absolutely does not need to. One issue of technology is "can X be done?" An often overlooked issue is "Should we bother implementing X?"

I suspect that on newer machines fancier-pants monitors will be de rigeur as manufacturing techniques improve and prices ultimately make these consumer-priced models, but should you consider dumping an old monitor (and the many pounds of lead) into a landfill or send it to China for "recycling" when the marginal benefits of new technology are minimal?

By all means, lets keep doing research and development. Let's let the market consider what to do with the technology that companies develop. Let's not forget that technology should serve us and not the other way around. At least until the machines start to think, and then all bets are off.


It's never enough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4238258)

> My secretary doesn't need to have her 300 mhz machine upgraded ever, probably.

Remember IBM? Some old company, used to make computers. They thought the same thing about the 386. Compaq ate their lunch.

How soon they forget (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4238478)

"Compaq ate their (IBM's) lunch."

Compaq reversed the IBM PC BIOS, which would be ILLEGAL these days. Then the resulting industry ate IBM's lunch.

Stupid Congressidiots should think more about what's best for society as a whole rather than protecting the bottom line of whatever individual company that buys their influence.

Re:How soon they forget (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4238495)

Should read "reverse engineered". DAMN.

The point being that things like PC clones and VCRs were seen as a dire threats to certain little two-bit corps. They went on to produce markets orders of magnitude bigger than those they "threatened".

Re:How high? (1)

rtstyk (545241) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238494)

Interesting that you should sarcastically mention the old and tired 640K limit as being enough while only 4 lines later saying that your secretary's PC would probably never need upgrading.

But back on topic. Can you imagine two of these in dual head setup? OMG...

Screen real estate is very, very important but I have to agree that 1600x1200 on 21' screen is the end of what's practical to work with comfortably. I think that the future lies in affordable LCDs with multi video output cards. What woudln't I give to have 3 21' LCDs...

Re:How high? (4, Insightful)

marmoset (3738) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238140)

You're approaching it the wrong way. On a 72-dpi screen, a 12-point character can be represented by 144 pixels (I know, I'm deliberately omitting the effects of subpixel aliasing / anti-aliasing, hinting, and all those other tricks that modern display technologies use to boost perceived resolution in order to make this easier to follow) On a 200 dpi screen, over 1100 pixels can be brought to bear on that very same character. This means that the character can be rendered with much greater fidelity, so that if it's rendered at the same height as on the 72DPI screen it should be far more readable. Of course, your OS has to be smart enough to compensate for the much smaller pixels, but modern GUIs have this one figured out, for the most part.

Re:How high? (3, Insightful)

Ramjet350 (582868) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238261)

Unfortunately the misconception needs to be broken that higher resolution = smaller fonts. If OSs handled it properly, higher resolution would = nicer looking fonts.

Re:How high? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4238149)

Don't forget that this is a 22.2" screen so higher resolutions make sense and are actualy needed so the display doesn't look bad. try running a 22" monitor at 800x600 it's to damn big. The other point is that it's wide screen 16:9 formatted so the extra pixels just make up for the extra space.

I think that we need to see more 16:9 formatted displays and adpot them as a standard... this 4:3 ratio is from way back in the day and untill now no one's really questioned it.

it's sane, 1600x1200 w/ current tech may not be (4, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238195)

The resolution can go as high as 3840x2400. That is insane. I think the question is no longer how high can the resolution go. But on the otherhand, how high can I set the resolution with having to be able to squint to see the letters that I am typing. I can barely see the letters that I type at 1600x1200. I can imagine what 3840x2400 would look like.

This isn't insane, although running a display at a resolution you claim to hardly be able to read might be. The extra resolution gives more dots, so you end up with easier to view type. It's easy to demonstrate how this affects things: Hold a piece of printed text with small but clearly readable text next to text o your monitor. You'll likely find (if you can read the text on your monitor) that the printed text is both smaller and more readable. The reason for this is that there is a greater dot density to the printed text, helping you to read it despite it's apparent small size. Most current monitors just don't have the dot density to match this, so once text shrinks beyond a certain point it's the compromise in pixel selection, not the actual small text, that makes it hard to read the type. A higher density monitor does help in this area. Of course, if you try to make characters the same number of pixels on he new screen then your problem only gets worse, but you can have both more pixels and smaller text, which can result in a very readable display.

Then again, maybe you just need reading glasses.

Re:How high? (1)

Unknown Relic (544714) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238323)

I recently made the transition from a desktop machine to a laptop with a high-resolution LCD monitor. Before seeing it with my own eyes I never would have believed how clear, crisp and easy to read 1600x1200 would be on a 15" monitor. It's actually far easier to read than my old 19" monitor running the same resolution. And this is at the default, small, font sizes.

A lot of consumer level monitors suffer from being able to display a high resolution, but not being able to do so clearly. LCDs on the other hand have one physical element per pixel, which means that they are always sharp with no blurring between pixels.

The reason it's so much easier to read small text on paper than on a screen is because of the sharpness of the individual dots which make up that text. Reading text on a sharp, high quality LCD is amazingly similar. In fact, with some rough calculations 1600x1200 on a 15" diag screen is approximately the 200 dots per inch that this viewsonic monitor has. I've often wondered why they didn't make standalone versions of laptop quality LCDs, but now finally someone has started. I would LOVE a 22 inch version of this screen, though $8000 is a little steep for my pocket book

Re:How high? (1)

SecGreen (577669) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238591)

Your calculations might have been a little too rough. 1600x1200 is a 3/4/5 ratio, so your horizontal measure is actually 12", and the vertical 9". This comes out to be a 133 dpi density. Not too shabby, but not close enough to 200 that I'd consider it to be in the same ballpark. --sg

Still not enough (2)

TrumpetPower! (190615) | more than 12 years ago | (#4237974)

Seriously. 200 DPI is still not enough.

Let's take a quick survey. All those of you who'd be happy with a 200 DPI priner, please raise your hand. Right--I thought so.

I'll say that displays have matured when they're at least 1,000 DPI--though most people can still tell the difference between 1,000 DPI and 2,000 DPI.

Yes, you can play games with AA. Yes, we need resolution-independent display mechanisms lest bitmapped graphics vanish. Folks, this has all been done before--with printers. When the display engineers catch up to the printer engineers (and, granted, their problems are much harder), those problems will also be solved.



Re:Still not enough (3, Informative)

sh4de (93527) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238052)

You forget that printers and imagesetters don't render colour gradations the way monitors can. Any video card can feed the 200 DPI display with at least 8 bits per channel, effectively hiding the "low" resolution from your prying eyes.

Inkjet printers do mix the primaries (CMYK) to produce different colours, but I'd be surprised if the number of gradient steps were nowhere near the 256 per primary that monitors enjoy.

Imagesetters don't produce contone images at all. Each dot is either on or off. That's why you need 2400 DPI or more resolution to render a fine screen for high quality offset printing.

Re:Still not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4238103)

How am I supposed to read stuff in 8 point fonts when they'll be only 200 microns high?


Re:Still not enough (1)

sir99 (517110) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238558)

An 8 point font should be the same size on every display. A point is 1/72 inch, so an 8 point font should always be about 2800 microns high, not 200.

Re:Still not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4238178)

200 dpi black and white is not high enough, but for color it's more than most people need! Using color to antialias b&w nearly doubles the precieved resolution.

My LCD monitor with text filtering turned on looks like a printer when I sit back a little distance.

Re:Still not enough (2)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238320)

I'll say that displays have matured when they're at least 1,000 DPI--though most people can still tell the difference between 1,000 DPI and 2,000 DPI.

Suggesting we need 1000 dpi monitors just doesn't make sense. Even 300 dpi would be better than common laser printer output. (yes, some now print at higher resolutions, but even these are usually run at the basic 300 dpi settings because of the quality vs. speed tradeoff.) 200 Dpi with all the possible gray levels for AA and sub-pixel font enhancing technology could give results that would contrast nicely to 300 dpi laser print output.

Of course, you can complain that even 1000 dpi is not good enough for you. And then if you ever get 2000 dpi you can complain about how slow the screen updates are. I'm more concerned with seeing that $8000 price come down.

Re:Still not enough (2)

Oliver Wendell Jones (158103) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238341)

Just for the heck of it, get a stopwatch and time how long it takes to print a 600 dpi graphic to your printer.

Now to try to imagine what it would be like to wait that long for your screen to update.

Now, I know that the bus between your video and monitor is faster than the bus to the printer, but the point is that as you increase resolution you significantly increase the amount of data which significantly decreases your frame rates.

Extremely rough calculations:
200 dpi is 40,000 pixels per square inch

My 20" monitor has a 15.5" by 11.75" viewable space, or 182.125 square inches

If my system were 200 dpi it would be displaying a total of 7,285,000 pixels instead of the 1,310,720 I have it displaying now, or a factor 5.55 times as much data.

Jumping to 1000 dpi as you suggest takes us 1,000,000 pixels per square inch, which on a screen the size of my monitor would equal 182,112,500 pixels, or a factor of 138.94 times as much data.

That's a heck of a lot of pixels to be calculating and transmitting and still maintaining a non-headache inducing flicker.

Re:Still not enough (2)

shepd (155729) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238643)

DVI (or whatever the pop digital interface is today) might have that problem...

VGA (arguably the most popular monitor connection standard), however, doesn't. The wonders of analog media continue. :)

DPI is NOT ppi (3, Informative)

MadCow42 (243108) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238489)

There's a difference... 200 pixels per inch is just that... a pixel can be any shade of any color.

200 dots per inch can only really render about 25 pixels per inch (with full 24-bit color) because it takes an array of 8x8 "dots" OF EACH COLOR INK (on a printer) to be able to represent 256 shades of each color.

So, to equal 200ppi resolution on an inkjet printer, you need somewhere around 1600dpi resolution (ok, there's some "tricks" that newer inkjets do to make it look higher with fewer dots, but that's besides the point).

So, to answer your own question, a 200ppi monitor is much HIGHER resolution than a 1000dpi printer.


Re:Still not enough (2)

jovlinger (55075) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238626)

A 300 dpi printer cannot make a like 1/300th of an inch wide. However, it _can_ position this too-wide line with 1/300th inch precision.

However, a monitor can do both.

Not that this matters much: you seldomly need feature sizes that small.

Reviewer. (5, Funny)

undeg chwech (589211) | more than 12 years ago | (#4237975)

Dear ViewSonic

I have decided, today, to become a professional monitor reviewer. Please send me one of theses ASAP so I can get my new career started,

Thank you very much,


Re:Reviewer. (3, Interesting)

unicron (20286) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238200)

We used to try that shit on beer companies in college. We rarely got a reply but every now and again we'd find a case or 2 of beer waiting for us at the P.O. Box, completely wrapped up and inconspicuous. Hell, we even got bottles because they weighed less.

I've heard cigarette manufacturers are a lot more giving than the beer companies, but I never tried it.

Re:Reviewer. (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238470)

In a lot of the new 2/3/5 packs of cigarettes, they have customer surveys. Fill out the survey and say that you regularly smoke thier biggest competitor's brand. They will send you a handfull of coupons to try and get your business. If you respond that you smoke their brand already, they don't need to send you anything. Smokers are the number 1 brand consious consumers. Use that to your advantage.


You, sir, are worse than HITLER! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4238610)

I guess that little tidbit of information could be very useful. If you were in PRISON !

who in their right mind would buy this (1)

mazg (449753) | more than 12 years ago | (#4237981)

Not only does this cost $8000 bucks! But it must be rather taxing on the CPU to have such a resolution

Re:who in their right mind would buy this (1)

Kakarat (595386) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238519)

Professional graphic artists would buy it. Most of their work is done in very high dpi (600+) since you want it to scale and look nice when sending to the printer. Not to mention it would be nice to get a higher resolution rather than having to only see part of the image on your screen. It's definitely not designed for gaming in mind, however I'm sure there are a few people with money to burn and nothing else to do than try to run their games in 3840x2400.

Not for PR0n (0, Offtopic)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 12 years ago | (#4237982)

The last thing anyone needs to see is an acne-ridden cock-whore at 200 dpi.

'Cmon - you'd laugh if Norm MacDonald had said it.

Re:Not for PR0n (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4238057)

No, I'd laugh if *Old* MacDonald said it.

Re:Not for PR0n (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4238094)

Surely you mean Ronald McDonald? He says that shit all the time.

I wonder (5, Funny)

cr@ckwhore (165454) | more than 12 years ago | (#4237983)

I wonder how many folks will look at the picture of that monitor, and honestly think to themselves, "Wow, that looks like a really clear picture."

Re:I wonder (2)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238312)

They've done it with advertising TV's on TV comercials for years.

They do it to advertise stereo systems on the radio.

Evidently it actually works.

Re:I wonder (1)

arestivo (459117) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238325)

Wow, that looks like a really clear picture.

Where can i get the camera used to take it ;-)

Re:I wonder (2)

CaffeineAddict2001 (518485) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238474)

I wonder how they actually make it look clearer. Is it because they make the surroundings blurry, or put more colors, or is it simply the power of suggestion...

It has to be said... (2)

gatesh8r (182908) | more than 12 years ago | (#4237986)

This with the 320 GB drives means more better looking pr0n than ever!

Re:It has to be said... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4238335)

Gay porn doesn't count around here, loser.

For eight grand (0)

rczyzewski (585306) | more than 12 years ago | (#4237994)

You can start shooting at me.

This goes back to the battle of "don't you have anything better to spend your money on?" I can't understand why some people pay thousands for stuff like this but don't give a penny to charity, Church, or other organizations. If I had eight grand available, I would find a few better things to spend my money on.

Any I'm not saying the monitor isn't cool. Think of the porn people could watch.

Re:For eight grand (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238452)

It's all a matter or perspective now isn't it. If you were worth $40 Billion and already donated a $100 million each year to charities maybe this wouldn't seem so expensive. I mean the money you spent on your computer could feed a who village in some third-world country. Or maybe that money that your company spends on giving you free coffee would be better served finding a cure for cancer? Matthew 7:1 comes to mind - "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

Re:For eight grand (1)

MalleusEBHC (597600) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238600)

Because there are so many people out there who are worth $40 billion dollars, let alone giving away $100 million to charity...

reinvention (2, Interesting)

sloth jr (88200) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238000)

years and years ago ('88/'89), some companies
were trying to sell 300dpi monitors to the
desktop publishing set. No one bought them,
and they died. There's not much point in them
now, given the wide-spread use of anti-aliasing.

I wonder how useful this will be for CAD - won't
the thin lines be too difficult to see?

9.2 million pixel monitor loan (3, Funny)

u8nogard (546370) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238018)

That's still pretty pricey -- what makes this panel so special?

Try 9.2 million pixels, for one thing.

To Loan Officer: Ah, yes, I would like to take out a loan?
Loan Officer: Good, what type of loan are you interested in?
To Loan Officer: A Monitor Loan.
Loan Officer: ...
To Loan Officer: It has 9.2 million pixels ...
Loan Officer: Ahh, I' right back...

IBM T221 is $8400 (4, Interesting)

jlund (73067) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238019)

The article makes it sound as if the IBM is still 20k, this is not the case. od uctDisplay?cntrfnbr=1&prmenbr=1&prnbr=9503DG3&cntr y=840&lang=en_US

404 (1)

simpl3x (238301) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238161)

here is the real link ( ductDisplay?cntrfnbr=1&prmenbr=1&prnbr=9503DG1&cnt ry=840&lang=en_US). and with the matrox card it is $9399.00! drool! maybe half of that, but not $9k ouch. the apple cinema hd display with half of the resolution is $3.5k, and is the software really in place to be able to deal with this outside of special applications?

Flamebait (1)

hendridm (302246) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238317)

Ok, you were stupid enough not to 1) notice that Slashcode puts spaces in long strings and simply remove them and 2) post a similar link in the same gay fashion as to not make it a hyperlink, thus allowing the spaces to be added again.

My hat's off to both of you. It's called a Preview button.

Sorry, but it had to be said.

Apparently, IBM has even higher resolutions (2)

trentfoley (226635) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238369)

Go here [] on IBM's product page, scroll down to the "Display Size:" link and click on it. This will open up a popup showing IBM's description of their Thinkpad displays.

Its pretty obvious what they meant, but what they meant is not what they said. I emailed them a few months back, but it remains unchanged to this day. Here's the text:

Display size is determined by the diagonal measurement of the TFT display (i.e. 14.1"), while resolution is the degree of sharpness of a displayed image. Resolution is also expressed in a matrix of dots such as 1024 X 768 representing the number of pixels per square inch.

* ThinkPad X Series 12.1" TFT display with resolution up to 1024x768 dpi (dots per inch)
* ThinkPad T Series up to 14.1" with resolution up to 1400x1050 dpi
* ThinkPad R Series up to 14.1" with resolution up to 1024x768 dpi
* ThinkPad A Series up to 15" with resolution up to 1600x1400 dpi

Video Card (3, Insightful)

phorm (591458) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238020)

It might be difficult to find a 3d card that renders 3D properly at the max resolution. Actually, it might be hard to find something that renders 2D at resolution.

I'd rather go for a size 22" with a really good projector or something, instead of paying $8000 for a super-resolution display. As mentioned in the article, this would be pretty good for 3d design stuff... although the mini-pixels would probably hurt they eyes when you're trying to click on 1 little line or dot.

Then again, I only have a 15" monitor that I run at 1024x768, maybe I'm just outdated.

One of these days, my video card will have more RAM than my computer, I just know it - phorm

Re:Video Card (1)

SWPadnos (191329) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238180)

Matrox Parhelia, Baby.

Supports 3 outputs (though I think only 2 can be used at a time in DVI mode).


Incredible Waste of Cash (2)

cioxx (456323) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238032)

Instead buy a 50" HDTV and use it for a monitor.

Problem solved.

Re:Incredible Waste of Cash (3, Informative)

13Echo (209846) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238412)

That's nice, but from my own experience with 50+ inch HDTV units (we have one), they are cool for gaming, but are totally unsuitable for text. I am talking about using a real db-15 hooked up to the television with some proper discrete timing tweaks. It is still very rough on the eyes.

The fact is, HDTV units (all of them) are still not "HD" enough for use as a monitor. They work, but my parent's mid-90's Packard Bell monitor had a much more crisp image than any projection HDTV that I have seen.

A high quality projector will still get you a better image than any consumer grade HDTV.

Clarify - should be PPI (5, Informative)

ip_vjl (410654) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238036)

Not that anyone cares, but it should be 200ppi (pixels per inch)

DPI (dots per inch) more accurately describes print devices where a number of print dots are needed to accurately describe a single pixel.

For example, to show a single 50% black square pixel - you'd need a 2x2 array of black dots (BWBW) - so if your image is 100PPI - you need a print device at least 200PPI to show the same resolution. For a monitor this doesn't really apply - as each pixel corresponds to a single pixel of image data. (Unless of course they were talking about the individual R G B elements - but the article seemed to indicate the contrary)


Just a pet peeve, as its often hard to get people to understand that there ARE differences between DPI, PPI, and LPI in the print world.

- vin

Re:Clarify - should be PPI (2)

Suppafly (179830) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238520)

Just a pet peeve, as its often hard to get people to understand that there ARE differences between DPI, PPI, and LPI in the print world.

That may be true, but the standard way to describe monitors is dpi. Look out at the box of any monitor at your favorite computer store and they tell you the dpi.

Hmmmm (1)

batboy78 (255178) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238044)

Lets see 73in HDTV or 22 inch monitor....... Hang on i'm thinking.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

martyn s (444964) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238402)

You're retarded. Do you know what the resolution is on an HDTV? Maximum of 1920x1080 interlaced, which is really more like 1920x540, but with the proper aspect ratio.

Keep it comin (1)

PygmyTrojan (605138) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238048)

I'm glad to see technology is focusing its efforts toward the pr0n industry: 300 GB hard drives, higher resolution monitors. What's next, holograms?

That must be one hella Video Card! (1)

St. Intrope (238258) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238059)

3840x2400? Huzzah! But who makes a video card that pumps out that many pixels, anyway? I tried to look, but none of the cards I could find could even approach that (most were doing good to hit 1920x1200, or just 1/4 that much!)

Does anyone know of any cards that put out 3840x2400 on DVI?

Re:That must be one hella Video Card! (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238184)

Actually I think it said it uses *2* DVI ports. My guess is that it's a special video card.

Twin TDMS, not two DVI ports (1)

St. Intrope (238258) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238263)

IIRC, any one DVI connector can actually transmit two TDMS signals (which is necessary for this many pixels). So the reference in the article doesn't mean that it has two DVI connectors.

Of course, you're probably right about it being a special video card--I don't know of any that output dual TDMS signals.

Need a 128mb card (1)

Ironpoint (463916) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238093)

Thats a ~37 MB framebuffer and add on another ~37 MB for stencil and depth.

Really just a couple full screen passes in a 3d game would put the hurt on your VRAM.

Really a lower res would be fine by me. 2560x2048 would be great at 22 inch.

IBM has had for over a year (2)

peter303 (12292) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238124)

IBM has been selling 9 MP displays for over a year. I saw one at last years supercomputer convention. Its hard to read standard XWindows fonts because they are so small. High end photos (5 MP and up) are fabulous and look like prints.

This is great news... (1)

bradlauster (118086) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238125)

This is great news...

I feel very strongly that lack of innovation in display technology is really holding back improvements (getting away from WIMP) in human-computer interaction.

While this doesn't change for form-factor of the display - it's still a rigid thing that you set up on a hard flat surface, the problem of resolution is an issue that's needed a solution for a long time. if it was only $800 and not $8000.

Too small (3, Interesting)

bobdehnhardt (18286) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238148)

I'm currently running my 21-inch monitor at 1280x1024, and the icons and text are starting to get a little difficult to see (yeah, go ahead and laugh now - you'll break 40 someday, too). At 3840x2400 on a display marginally bigger than this one, the icons will be about 1cm square.

This thing may find a place in CAD work, but the raw resolution will be utterly useless in normal day-to-day applications.

Re:Too small (0)

chez69 (135760) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238207)

I have a 22" monitor that runs 1600x1200 and I run out of desktop space all the time. For me, more space is always better!

Re:Too small (2, Informative)

tomkarlo (15606) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238377)

You're confusing the problem of raster icons with problems associated with higher screen resolutions.

Many operating systems are already using some form of vector icon or considering moving to it (KDE,Mac OSX)... it takes more compute time but not a lot (you only have to compute the raster equiv once given the screen size.)

Once that happens, you'll be happy using the high res screen and setting the icon size to say, 1 inch, while others might choose a 0.5 inch icon.

Re:Too small (5, Insightful)

Phork (74706) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238407)

here's a thought, maybe you need bigger icons. There is nothing that says icons MUST be 64 pixels tall(well, maybe windows ui guidlines, but they dont count). The idea behind these new displays is that you will use gui elements designed to be rendered on 200dpi displays, not on 72 or 100 dpi displays. So if things were done properly an incon on this monitor would be the same size or larger than one on your current monitor, it would just ne higher quality.

Re:Too small (2)

BigJimSlade (139096) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238548)

That's assuming that you'll be using pixel-for-pixel copies of your icons. I imagine that, by the time this is actually affordable, maybe OpenGL accelerated desktops [] will be a norm. Then all your icons reside as textures on polygons and stretch to the desired size.

Why Viewsonic Sucks G0at Ass (3, Insightful)

DnemoniX (31461) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238177)

I used to love Viewsonic monitors, until the day one of them failed and I called customer service. Upon initial review of the warranty I notice that a CRT is covered for 3 years parts and labor. Great I thought! I called the tecnician. I had already troubleshot the monitor. I changed power cords, I changed outlets, I changed machines that I plugged into it. It was done. He still made me jump through hoops for the better part of a day before they told me I would need all of the following (cut and pasted from their website).

To obtain warranty service, you will be required to provide
The original dated sales slip
Your name
Your address
The serial number of the product
A description of the problem.

A dated sales slip? Even after 3 years? Come on! Ok well fine I can dig out an invoice. But they also want you to ship it back in the ORIGINAL box! Who has that after three years? This is rediculous. They wouldn't take it since I didn't have the original box! My yearly IT budget is only around $150,000 but rest assured they won't see a dime. After that I started buying HP monitors only, one goes bad, I call, no run around, they next day ship a replacement, and pay for the return shipping. Class act right there.

Re:Why Viewsonic Sucks G0at Ass (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238568)

NEC is good about replacements too, I had a 17 incher blow up 4 times in a row, and they replaced it every time.

I eventually realized it was blowing up because there wasn't adequate space above it for it to ventilate properly. Lesson: Closed hutch-style "computer" furniture is bad, bad stuff.

But they never said boo, even though it was probably easy to realize it was my fault each time.

How about decent, smaller LCDs today? (1)

X_Caffeine (451624) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238183)

Why is it that I can get a Dell laptop with a 15", 1600x1200 LCD for $1500, but I can't get a 15" LCD with better than 1024x768, or a 17" with better than 1200x960? LCD manufacturers really need a good smack upside the head...

Video cards that can drive this? (2)

Raleel (30913) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238186)

Anyone have a url for a video card that can drive this? We got some end of the year money....

Re:Video cards that can drive this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4238278)

An ATI FireGL 4 can, we ave an IBM 3840x2400 monitor at work. Even though it has 3 dead pixels, it looks quite nice. Until you try and use the mouse! The monitor refreshes at 20 Hz, yes 20 Hz. Static images are great, movement sucks! Consider that before buying. I don't think it will be any good for gaming.


Sweet! (2)

tswinzig (210999) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238210)

Now I only need to set windows to use 300x300 icons and 50pt print in order to be able to use regular software on this thing!

Limitations of the Eye (2)

RailGunner (554645) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238211)

Something to think about - at 24 bit color depth, which is 16,777,216 colors for the math challenged, we've already vastly surpassed the amount of colors that the human eye can distinguish between.

So at what PPI do we surpass the ability of the human eye to distinguish the individual pixels? I run my desktop at 1600 x 1200 and it's *very* tough to see the individual pixels. At what point does it become impossible?

Re:Limitations of the Eye (1)

Ann O'Nymous-Coward (460094) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238387)

Professional phototypesetters work at 1200x1200 dpi. I think visual acuity would pretty much bottom out at about 2000x2000 dpi.

Re:Limitations of the Eye (1)

dlkinney (133782) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238473)

>So at what PPI do we surpass the ability of the
>human eye to distinguish the individual pixels? I
>run my desktop at 1600 x 1200 and it's *very*
>tough to see the individual pixels. At what point
>does it become impossible?

Depends on the size of the screen, doesn't it? On a monitor with a 100 meter diagonal size a single pixel would be over 2cm square. That's certainly visible to the naked eye.

How close are you to the screen? (1)

Xeriar (456730) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238475)

Your eye has about 4 million or so cones, which are concentrated in the exact center, and taper off the further from the center (rods spread about the rest of your eye).

So, you need a bare minimum of 4 million pixels to challenge the complexity of the human eye, but because it's so concentrated on where we focus, resolution needs to be considerably higher before it becomes truly unnoticeable. No doubt some videophile of the future is going to whine about missing his 1600 dpi monitor, or something...

Re:Limitations of the Eye (3)

TheAwfulTruth (325623) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238510)

How many times does it need to be proven that this is COMPLETELY UNTRUE before people get it???? The human eye can EASILY tell the difference between a large majority of any two colors in a 24 bit spectrum seperated by only one bit. Place two colors on screen, each taking up 1/2 the screen and you will see the interface where they join through a process that is referred to as "Mach Banding".

If they are NOT touching, then you are right. But since most images are made up of colors that touch each other, it a very important phenomenon.

Also find something that draws a black like diagonally at 10 degrees across a white background and tell me that 1600 x 1200 is enough. The entire reason that there is so much attention paid to antialiasing in games, fonts and graphics programs is precisely because there is no where near enough resolution on a montior. 200 dpi is a step in the right direction but it'll be at least 300 dpi before computer displays start approaching the confort level of looking at a printed page.

Re:Limitations of the Eye (1)

Marx_Mrvelous (532372) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238553)

You're right and wrong... 24-bit color is actually insufficient for all the colors we can see, when you throw in transculence, shading, shadows etc. But we can definitely use over 200PPI to improve image quality.

Re:Limitations of the Eye (1)

davidm25 (606820) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238581)

This is right up there with the 24fps is enough myth. Human eyes can see well beyond 256 shades per color. You can write a demo app in 3 mins to demonstrate this. Matrox has a demo where they use 10 bits per channel instead of 8 using there new board. If you see it running you will not have any problem seeing the difference. There was some Nasa research about this years ago but they looked at print and not monitors. It also verys among people and the shade ( see green better) of color.

Great for no-glasses-required 3-D (lenticular) (2)

MadCow42 (243108) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238356)

At 200 pixels/inch, you could very nicely use this with a "lenticular lens screen" to display 3-D images without the need for special glasses or other accessories.

Remember those cool little "flip cards" you got in Cracker-Jacks, where the image changed when you rotated the card? Well, that's lenticular imaging. This technology is also used for 3-d imagery because the image that you see depends on the angle at which you view the image. Because your eyes each see the same point on the screen from a slightly different angle, the screen shows each eye a different image (allowing proper 3-D).

Using this screen (200ppi) and a 40-line-per-inch lenticular screen, you could see 5 different images depending on the angle you are viewing from... not bad at all.

(BTW, I write "shareware" to produce lenticular images...


4.7Ghz - wow (2)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238366)

The other part of the article mentioned the PIV running at 4.7Ghz. They need to get a PIV at 4.77Ghz and an 8088 at 4.77Mhz side by side.

It'd make a neat statement.

Viewsonic monitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4238423)

The worst terrorist attack in recorded history occurred nearly almost a year ago to the day, followed by a Holy War against Islam, and now Israel and the Palestinians as well as India and Pakistan are teetering on the brink of their own war, Argentina is in the midst of a financial crisis, America is considering launching attacks against Somalia and Iraq, and you people have the gall to be discussing $8000 monitors???? My *god*, people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!

The bodies of the thousands of innocent civilians who died (and will die) in these unprecedented events could give a good god damn about $8000 monitors, your childish Lego models, your nerf toy guns and whining about the lack of a "fun" workplace, your Everquest/Diablo/D&D fixation, the latest Cowboy Bebop rerun, or any of the other ways you are "getting on with your life" (here's a hint: watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating a bowl of Shreddies is *not* "getting on with your life"). The souls of the victims are watching in horror as you people squander your finite, precious time on this earth playing video games!

You people disgust me!

Size, not resolution (2)

fm6 (162816) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238437)

Well, I'm not a gamer, or a doctor, or anybody else who needs that kind of resolution. But I'd kill to have a 19" by 11" LCD monitor (that's almost enough room for three full-page windows!) at an ordinary resolution. But nobody seems to be selling that. Oh well, couldn't afford it anyway.

I just want an affordable 1600x1200 LCD! (1)

Chris Carollo (251937) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238441)

All I want is a decent 19" 1600x1200 LCD. Why I can get a 1600x1200 screen on my 15" laptop but not in a 17" or 19" desktop model is beyond me.

If anyone's got any links to 16x12 LCD desktop monitors, I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong. :-)

This is a Test. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4238442)

This is a test. Red sky in morning, sailor take warning; red sky at night is a sailor's delight. A stitch in time saves nine. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Well done is better than well said. April showers bring May flowers. No one can be caught in places they don't visit. The mighty oak from a tiny acorn grows. Who walks in another's tracks leaves no footprints. Even a lion must tolerate flies. A rolling stone gathers no moss. The apple does not fall far from the tree. Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. Honesty is the best policy. Two wrongs don't make a right. Who empties their purse into their head cannot have it stolen. If you row the boat, there's no time to rock it. On ne saurait faire une omelette sans casser des oeufs. Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. A new broom sweeps clean. Every fighter has a plan until they get hit. Rome was not built in a day. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree. Who has four and spends five needs no wallet. Only a fool fights in a burning house. One experiment is worth a thousand opinions. When the game is over, both the king and the pawn go back in the same box. Any landing you can walk away from is a good one. Tomorrow comes whether we wait for it or not. It is easier to believe in someone who seeks the truth than someone who says they have found it. A mind that is all logic is a sword that is all blade. When urged to fight fire with fire, try water first. Fall down seven times; stand up eight. Discovery is seeing what everybody has already seen, then thinking what nobody has yet thought. Who pushes the envelope should expect paper cuts. "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote." If everyone were nobility, who would milk the cows? Que sera, sera. A sack of flour makes one big biscuit. Whoever can make you ask the wrong questions need not worry about their answers. Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. Not all change is progress. Two heads are better than one. De gustibus non disputandum est. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Money is a terrible master and an excellent servant. Talking about music is like dancing about architecture. You can observe a lot just by watching. Nature, to be commanded, must first be obeyed. When a rat makes voodoo, he does not pray on cat skin. No problem is so complex that someone cannot invent a simple answer that is wrong. Imitates life imitates art imitates. Starve with a tiger and the tiger starves last. In the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is king. Good, fast or cheap: choose any two. No nation was ever ruined by trade. Look before you leap. No matter where you go, there you are. Little pitchers have big ears. To someone who has only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There is nothing about the inside of a pumpkin that a knife cannot know. Good fences make good neighbors. Not all that wander are lost. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Fede e innocenza son reperte solo ne' parvoletti. The earth has words for those who listen. Si l'on ne sait pas ce que l'on cherche, l'on ne comprends pas ce que l'on trouve. You can't have everything - there's no place to put it. An unexamined life is not worth living. More things grow in a garden than are sown there. Heaven is high and the Emperor is far away. The bigger they come, the harder they fall. Excuses are bridges to nowhere. Who lives without principle dies without honor. Give someone a fish and you have fed them for a day, but teach them to fish and you have fed them forever. Any kind of crying will do for a funeral. Think twice before hesitating. A penny saved is a penny earned. Early to bed and early to rise makes one healthy, wealthy and wise. Mene, mene, tekel upsarin. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. The flak is always heaviest close to your target. Tippacanoe and Tyler, too. Fifty-four forty or fight. Remember the Maine. Remember the Alamo. Remember, remember, the Fifth of November. End test.

Great, Another Model I Can RMA To Hell (2)

The Dobber (576407) | more than 12 years ago | (#4238601)

I have little faith left in Viewsonic monitors. I suffered through eight RMA's on an 817 series monitor in the course of two years. All, except one, failed for the same reason, just went "poof". One monitor died with 8 hrs of recieving it. The final straw was when they shipped a monitor that looked like something had broken loose inside the tube and bounced around, scarring up the back of the panel.

Each and every time I called, they professed ignorance and told me that thier was no quailty control problem with the 817. But they had an abundent supply of refurbished 817's. And I had to pay freight for each and every return. At 71 lbs, those babies weren't cheap to ship.

After about the third return, I tried to convince them to ship me a different model. They wouldn't.

Funny though, my 815, which sits on the same table, has been lite for going on 5 years now, with not a problem.

Something silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4238634)

About posting a picture of a 200 dpi monitor to be viewed and evaluated on a 72 dpi monitor
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?