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!

Intel Cancels LCOS Development

CowboyNeal posted about 10 years ago | from the another-one-bites-the-dust dept.

Intel 138

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

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

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10596826)


What's up with Intel? (4, Insightful)

jmcmunn (307798) | about 10 years ago | (#10596830)

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

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

Re:What's up with Intel? (2, Funny)

CountBrass (590228) | about 10 years ago | (#10596837)

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

Re:What's up with Intel? (1)

sandwiches (801015) | about 10 years ago | (#10597328)

Don't be jealous ;)

Re:What's up with Intel? (4, Funny)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | about 10 years ago | (#10596872)

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

Re:What's up with Intel? (1)

jmcmunn (307798) | about 10 years ago | (#10596882)

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

Re:What's up with Intel? (1)

metlin (258108) | about 10 years ago | (#10596974)

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

Re:What's up with Intel? (1)

geraldkw (534863) | about 10 years ago | (#10597966)

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

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

Re:What's up with Intel? (1)

erick99 (743982) | about 10 years ago | (#10596885)

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

Re:What's up with Intel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10596980)

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

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

Recommendations for flat panels? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10597202)

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

Heck, does anyone have a good review website?

LCOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10597471)

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

read this, yanx ! (0, Troll)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | about 10 years ago | (#10596832)

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

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

Dear friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Bush may have tried his level best at being President of the United States of America and nobody doubts that he will have wanted to give it his best shot and do a good job. However, his background, his speeches and his skills, make it only too apparent that he does not have what it takes. Like the Texas he was born in, he is a Lone Ranger.

George Bush and his government have managed to divorce Washington from the international community. He dare not step off an aircraft in most countries and even in the home of his closest ally, the UK, he was the only visiting Head of State to have to run out of Number 10 Downing Street by the back door, because he was too scared to leave by the front, given the fury of the demonstrators against him.

Is this the image you wish to vote for on November 2nd?

George Bush and his administration spent four long years breaking every fibre of decency and each and every norm in practice in the diplomatic community. If New York is host to the United Nations Organization, how can it be justified to breach the UN Charter by attacking Iraq outside the auspices of this organization? Each and every resolution bears the express condition that any act of war must be the result of a separate resolution of the UN Security Council.

If Washington and London did not believe this to be the case, why did the USA and UK spend so many energies trying to secure the vote, only to deride this organism when they saw they could not win the day by diplomatic means? Hence the phrase, echoing around the international community: US out of UN or UN out of US.

George Bush has turned the USA into a pariah state in the international community and before the eyes of the citizens of the world.

The legacy of George Bush is unfortunately abject failure in everything he has done. Internally, it is up to the citizens of the USA to decide whether he has delivered on jobs, health care, welfare, pensions and so on - for this is nobody else"s business. Externally, however, he has wholly destabilized a delicate region which he was advised not to enter.

Afghanistan is far from pacified, the Taleban are as strong as ever, the difference being now that the heroin trade has restarted. Fantastic for the cities of Russia and Europe, now flooded once more by prime quality smack. We can thank George Bush for that every time an old lady is kicked to death for her pension money by some guy who needs a fix.

Iraq was never a bastion of terrorism, as Rumsfeld now admits. It is now, only after the illegal, incompetent, unfounded invasion launched by George Bush. Cities like Fallujah, more than one year on, are still in the hands of Iraq"s freedom fighters and now, the calls for British troops to help the US forces, who are losing control in Baghdad, are causing a political furore in London, due to the fact that the actions of the US armed forces would be considered war crimes in Europe.

The torture at Abu Ghraib was one symptom of a disease called George Bush and his neo-conservative, extremist, elitist regime, basically a group of super rich kids who thought nothing of spending two hundred thousand million dollars of your hard-earned money, which, you"d better believe it, you will pay a heavy price for in the coming years. Elect Bush again, and there will be more, much more.

You, the electors, will be the ones who pay, not Bush or Cheney or Rice or Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz. They"ve already filled their coffers, they only care about you before November 2nd. After that, all you can do is to sit back and watch as the horror unfolds before your eyes..

The final twist to this sordid and horrible tale is that the war crimes committed by the Pentagon have created a sullen hatred in the hearts and minds of the international community. The shock and awe we feel at learning how cluster bombs were dropped in civilian areas, for children to pick up thinking they were sweets, only to have their eyes and faces and futures and lives blown away, makes us stand together making a solemn and heartfelt request to our friends, or those we wish to count as friends, over the other side of the Atlantic.

Please, consider very carefully what you are doing on November 2nd. We want to have the USA back among us as part of the international community of nations. A vote for Bush is a vote for more wars, more terrorism, more violence, a shift further away from the welcoming arms of the community of nations, which wants to live together as brothers, not in hatred.

Killing tens of thousands of civilians is not Christian, it is evil and the callousness with which this issue is faced by the Bush regime is witness to the coldness in their hearts and minds, a coldness which creates shock and revulsion in the community of nations. In Europe, in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America, in Canada

If you cannot bring yourselves to vote for any of the other contestants, then at least, please, consider not voting for Bush. In a nutshell, there are no two ways about it. Killing tens of thousands of civilians by strafing their homes, mutilating tens of thousands more, commiting rape and torture on a scale unseen outside the concentration camps of Hitler, amounts to war crimes, murder.

Voting for Bush is voting for a war criminal and a mass murderer.

In the name of the world community,
For the Love of God,

Respectfully and in friendship

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Re:read this, yanx ! (-1, Offtopic)

vandan (151516) | about 10 years ago | (#10597169)

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

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

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

Re:read this, yanx ! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10597259)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even a cursory examination of the evolution of the Bill of Rights reveals two such weaknesses: First, the Bill of Rights only dictates what the government CANNOT do. (For example, it cannot interfere with an individual"s right to freedom of speech or religion, and it cannot deprive a person of the right to vote because of race or gender). It does not (with limited exceptions regarding the rights of criminal defendants) place any affirmative duties upon the government; Second, the Bill of Rights (again with limited exceptions) does not apply to the private economic sector. Just because somebody composes a song does not mean any radio station is obligated to play it; Just because somebody writes a Letter to the Editor does not mean any newspaper is obligated to print it; Just because somebody authors a book does not mean any company is obligated to publish it; And just because somebody produces a motion picture does not mean any movie theater or television
station is obligated to show it.

The first problem these weaknesses create is fear of economic retaliation, also known as a "chilling effect," which can detrimentally affect one"s willingness or ability to exercise Constitutional rights. Most Americans depend upon the private sector for their incomes and material needs and desires. As the late playwright Rod Serling once wrote: "They pay you a certain amount each year until you need that amount to live on. Then you spend the rest of your life afraid they"ll take it away from you." Therefore, if the exercise of a Constitutional right, such as freedom of speech, could result in the loss of employment and the inability to provide food, clothing, health care, education and shelter for one's loved ones, all but the most intrepid will remain silent.

This consistently confines the ability to exercise basic Constitutional rights to those individuals or groups wealthy enough to weather any economic reprisals. That reality was dramatically accentuated during the "Red Scare" of the 1950s, when Joseph McCarthy"s Senate Committee, in conjunction with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), employed a tactic known as "prescriptive publicity." People summoned before these committees who were perceived as hostile or uncooperative were routinely fired from their jobs and "blacklisted" from future employment. The late Mark Goodson, a television game show producer during the McCarthy era, stated in a 1991 New York Times article "If I"d Stood Up Earlier . . ." that he had even been asked to fire
an employee simply because she had the same name as a suspected communist.

Although occasional concerns were raised about the devastating impact McCarthyism was having on the Bill of Rights, critics were hastily silenced by the fear of being labeled "communist sympathizers, fellow-travelers, or un-American." Tragically, as McCarthy informant Harvey Matusow detailed in his book FALSE WITNESS, informants who had been encouraged and/or paid to lie were the primary accusers of many of the people whose lives were destroyed during this period.

Times have not changed very much. In recent months actors like Whoopi Goldberg and Danny Glover lost corporate sponsorships because of their political activities and the Dixie Chicks were blacklisted from radio stations owned by Cumulus Media and Clear Channel. Those who recognizedthe lies of George W. Bush and/or opposed the Iraqi war were easily
muzzled by accusations of being "unpatriotic, un-American" or "failing to support the troops." And, just a few days ago, Sinclair Broadcasting Group, owner of sixty-two television stations throughout the United States, fired its Washington Bureau Chief Jon Leiberman after Leiberman criticized Sinclair"s plans to broadcast over public airwaves, roughly two weeks before the election, a documentary hostile to presidential candidate John Kerry. (In a case of ironic justice, Sinclair itself, after suffering economic retaliation from its shareholders, chose not to air the anti-Kerry documentary in its entirety).

Sadly, even if poor or middle-class people suffer no economic retaliation from an employer for the exercise of a Constitutional right, they still face the specter of "civil law." Although speech is usually not punishable in a criminal sense, if it is found to be libelous or slanderous monetary penalties are often imposed upon the speaker.

The positive aspect of civil law, as demonstrated by the work of organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, is that organizations or individuals who incite others to violence are often compelled to financially compensate those victimized by this violence. The negative aspect is the proclivity of wealthy individuals or organizations to file SLAPP suits--an acronym meaning "Strategic Lawsuits (or Litigation) Against Public Participation"--against members of the poor or middle-class who have engaged in speech activities as mundane as writing a letter to their local newspaper. Although those filing SLAPP suits know they have little chance of winning, their strategy is to inflict emotional distress and financial hardship
upon those engaged in speech activities, thereby discouraging others from engaging in similar speech.

Although statements presented as factual are libelous and/or slanderous if found to be false and injurious to one"s reputation, opinions are protected by the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately the line of demarcation between what constitutes a statement of fact and an opinion is often
blurred. By forcing a court to determine whether something is fact or opinion, those filing SLAPP suits can delay the timely publication or dissemination of speech materials. For example, the release of Peter Matthiessen's book IN THE SPIRIT OF CRAZY HORSE, about imprisoned Native-American activist Leonard Peltier and the American Indian Movement (AIM),
was delayed for several years because of allegations it libeled some of the people mentioned therein.

This leads to the second problem: While the wealthy and powerful are often the ones most capable of exercising their constitutional rights, they are also the ones most capable of denying those rights to others through the use of censorship.

Besides the previously mentioned example of this tactic being employed by Cumulus Media and Clear Channel, there has also been censorship through intimidation, as evidenced by CBS Television"s refusal to air THE REAGANS, a mini-series that right-wing critics claimed did not display the former president of the United States, or his family, in a favorable manner. When Showtime, a cable-based movie channel, decided to air THE REAGANS instead, Republican (GOP) National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, who apparently (to paraphrase the late comedian Will Rogers) never met a hypocrisy he didn't like, said "Misleading a smaller audience of viewers is not a noble response to the legitimate concerns raised about this program."

True to this right-wing tradition, the previously mentioned Sinclair Broadcasting Group refused to let its ABC affiliates air a "NIGHTLINE" news segment where the names of Americans killed in Iraq were read, claiming the segment was making "a political statement." Also some theater chains, primarily in the Midwest, refused to air Michael Moore's documentary FAHRENHEIT 9/11, allegedly for the same reason.

Several radio stations owned by Clear Channel, however, had no hesitation about sponsoring pro-war rallies, and neither the GOP nor Michael Powell, Republican head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and son of Bush lapdog Colin Powell, found anything ignoble, illegitimate, illegal or hypocritical about Sinclair Broadcasting"s original plan to televise the anti-Kerry documentary.

Although Sinclair Broadcasting endeavored to camouflage as "news" this propaganda piece attacking Kerry"s military record in Vietnam and/or his anti-war efforts at home, many commentators have pointed out that Sinclair is, in actuality, cynically attempting to enhance its own profits at the expense of the public interest. Powell"s FCC, under the pretext of creating "greater diversity," has consistently sought to generate more profits for right-wing, pro-Bush media outlets by permitting even greater concentration of media ownership. If John Kerry is elected president, Powell will no longer have his coveted, nepotism-obtained position, and the push for more concentrated media ownership will have ended.

In response to Powell"s disingenuous efforts and Sinclair"s profit-motivated impetus, FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps proclaimed: "This is an abuse of the public trust. And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology--whether liberal or conservative. . . . This is the same corporation that refused to air Nightline"s reading of our war dead in Iraq. . . . Sinclair and the FCC, are taking us down a dangerous road."

Naturally what Sinclair, Powell, the GOP, the FCC and their right-wing media sycophants hope the public will overlook is the fact that neither George W. Bush nor Dick Cheney even served in Vietnam. Bush avoided the war by using his family's influence to get into the National Guard, and Cheney obtained five deferments.

Yet, while many may have disagreed (and still disagree) with Kerry's words and actions, he at least spoke with the courage of his convictions. Contrast this with Bush and Cheney, whose only excuse for avoiding the war was that he had "other priorities."

It is one thing to be courageous enough to speak out with the knowledge that one day this speech could be used against you. It is quite another to be too cowardly to speak at all. Kerry"s statements against the war in Vietnam were made with the belief that no more young people should die. Bush and Cheney, as implied by their silence, simply did not care how many died in Vietnam as long as they were not among them.

Just as things have not changed much since the McCarthy era, things also have not changed much since the Vietnam era. The corporate-controlled media's coverage leading up to and during the early days of the Iraqi war was not motivated by any altruistic devotion to the public trust. It was motivated by the selfish lust for the ratings and profits that war engenders, with its "embedded reporters," "twenty-four hour coverage," and plethora of military "experts" droning on about military

The profit-driven impulses of the corporate-controlled media invariably lead to the third problem: "Bandwagon" speech, where opportunistic individuals speak and act less from the sincerity of their convictions than from the career-enhancing prospects of exploiting popular sentiments or ideas.

For example, while Cumulus and Clear Channel were censoring the songs of the Dixie Chicks, Country singer Toby Keith was getting rich(er) singing about kicking Iraqi "a**." Yet these media outlets seemed blissfully unconcerned about the fact that Keith had (and has) made absolutely no effort to personally participate in the war he so vocally supports.

The same holds true for Bill O"Reilly of the Fox Propaganda Network. When Michael Moore asked O"Reilly whether he would be willing to sacrifice his children in the Iraqi war, O"Reilly repeatedly remarked, "I"d sacrifice myself." Yet while people like Jon Leiberman are fired for their honesty, O"Reilly remains safely ensconced in the Fox studios, and the only war he is currently fighting is a sexual harassment lawsuit recently filed against him.

As long as people keep enriching and politically empowering hypocrites like Toby Keith, Bill O"Reilly, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and others of their ilk, there will continue to be a surfeit of celebrities, journalists and politicians willing to shed everyone"s blood, except their own.

Bandwagon speech has been primarily responsible for the "dumbing down of America," as the focus of the corporate-controlled media has shifted from substance to superficiality. Many media conglomerates also own movie studios, and thus use their television stations, newspapers and magazines to promote celebrity "culture." As a result, America has become a society where people are cognizant of minor trivialities regarding the lives of elebrities, yet are unaware of laws, like the Patriot Act, that decimate their Constitutional rights. Materialistic vamps like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears inundate the airwaves, yet many Americans cannot recite the name of a single person killed in Iraq.

Some may claim it is hypocritical to write an article supporting the Bill of Rights while complaining about the abuses of the corporate-controlled media or applauding the protests that altered Sinclair"s plan to air the anti-Kerry documentary. These media, after all, will claim they are only providing what the public wants to see, read and hear. But a child may want to eat ice cream and cake everyday for breakfast, lunch and dinner. For good health, however, a child needs to eat a balanced diet. Corporate-controlled media also need to, without regard for ratings or profits, feed the people the
information they need.

These media further claim they are also entitled to the right to "freedom of speech." But American courts have held that communications driven by the quest for profits and/or other economic considerations-also known as "commercial speech"--does not enjoy the same level of protection under the Bill of Rights as other forms of speech. Yet this is (as evidenced by the charade attempted by Sinclair Broadcasting) the speech the corporate-controlled media are consistently disseminating. Unless the courts, the legislators and the public acknowledge this reality and rebel against it, the corporate-controlled media will never again serve the public interest.

With the increased concentration of media ownership, Americans and perhaps the most ill informed people on earth, and, as the rush to invade Iraq illustrates, much more susceptible to government or media lies. Although there are alternative media sources, Americans are often too harried, too tired, or too apathetic to pursue them unless they are available at the touch of a remote control or delivered to one"s mailbox or doorstep.

James Madison said two centuries ago, "We are free today substantially, but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. A Republic cannot stand upon bayonets, and when the day comes, when the wealth of the nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation to the changed conditions."

Perhaps that day has arrived.

David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of PRAVDA.Ru

Re:read this, yanx ! (-1, Offtopic)

mixmasta (36673) | about 10 years ago | (#10597605)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:read this, yanx ! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10597939)

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

Reality Meet Intel. (4, Interesting)

tomstdenis (446163) | about 10 years ago | (#10596834)

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

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

So take your Pentium-M and advance it already!


Re:Reality Meet Intel. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10596854)

Athlon 64 shits on an Intel P4 for gaming.

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

Re:Reality Meet Intel. (-1, Offtopic)

tomstdenis (446163) | about 10 years ago | (#10596977)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Re:Reality Meet Intel. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10597453)

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

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

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

Re:Reality Meet Intel. (1)

renoX (11677) | about 10 years ago | (#10598560)

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

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

Games need serious FP power usually..

Bad year for Intel, technology wise? (3, Interesting)

hattig (47930) | about 10 years ago | (#10596836)

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

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

Display technologies review? (1)

anandrajan (86137) | about 10 years ago | (#10597092)

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

Re:Display technologies review? (1)

anandrajan (86137) | about 10 years ago | (#10597500)

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

Re:Bad year for Intel, technology wise? (2, Interesting)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | about 10 years ago | (#10597139)

It's called the mud on the wall principle. There was no clear-cut path the Industry has been going in for some time. They simply dumped money into a pile of projects in hopes that one would pay off.

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

This is more important (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10596838)

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

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

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

What does this have to do with cheap flat panels? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10596839)

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

PDP11? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10596870)

Mmmm, cheap retro 'supercomputer' :p

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

Re:What does this have to do with cheap flat panel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10596999)

I can quite PDPs will drop dramatically in price. Just before graduating from university last summer, the Professor lecturing us did a quick "what can you expect to see in the next couple of years" talk. Apparently he along with Sharp [] have been working on a nano optical technology (something to do with prinitng LEDs on to a sheet with a resolution greater than the wavelength of light) which allows them to make virtually any size screen for a fraction of the cost of current plasmas and with an energy to light converion more efficient than any other (display or lighting) technology currently available.

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

Re:What does this have to do with cheap flat panel (2, Informative)

drfireman (101623) | about 10 years ago | (#10597192)

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

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

Re:What does this have to do with cheap flat panel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10597339)

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

Re:What does this have to do with cheap flat panel (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10597722)

DLP = Digital light projector
PDP = Plasma display panel

Samsung was talking about plasma displays instead of DLPs.

Re:What does this have to do with cheap flat panel (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | about 10 years ago | (#10597952)

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

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

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

Re:What does this have to do with cheap flat panel (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 10 years ago | (#10597671)

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

In other words .... (5, Insightful)

binaryDigit (557647) | about 10 years ago | (#10596855)

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

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

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

Re:In other words .... (2, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 10 years ago | (#10598566)

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

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

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

Back to back product cancelations? (4, Interesting)

peterdaly (123554) | about 10 years ago | (#10596856)

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

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

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


It's not just Intel (1)

jmichaelg (148257) | about 10 years ago | (#10597108)

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

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

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

Re:Back to back product cancelations? (4, Funny)

dj245 (732906) | about 10 years ago | (#10597469)

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

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

Re:Back to back product cancelations? (1)

cerberusss (660701) | about 10 years ago | (#10597774)

Intel's R&D/Engineering leader image

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

I am curious as to what exactly the trouble is. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10596869)

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

Re:I am curious as to what exactly the trouble is. (3, Interesting)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | about 10 years ago | (#10597190)

TV's may be a huge market, but with the advent of Best-Buy, Walmart, and cheap imports from China, there are almost no margins left in it. You could charge $5000 for a 48" Tv 5 years ago. Today, price it more than $1000 and it will collect dust on the shelf.

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

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

Re:I am curious as to what exactly the trouble is. (3, Interesting)

imsabbel (611519) | about 10 years ago | (#10597212)

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

Re:I am curious as to what exactly the trouble is. (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | about 10 years ago | (#10597984)

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

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

Couldn't make it work well (3, Informative)

Namarrgon (105036) | about 10 years ago | (#10597425)


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

Hey ass-clown, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10597487)

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

Replying to my own AC post. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10597507)

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

Re:I am curious as to what exactly the trouble is. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10597501)

Yep, this is where technology is headed.

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

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

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

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

Fucking Intel (2, Funny)

rosewood (99925) | about 10 years ago | (#10596878)

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

I bought into Intel hype like a stupid kid.

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

Score for user Intel: -1, sucking

Why not just (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10596895)

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

Re:Fucking Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10596956)

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

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

Re:Fucking Intel (1)

phoenix321 (734987) | about 10 years ago | (#10597436)

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

Ever hear of DLP Front Projection? (1)

Timtimes (730036) | about 10 years ago | (#10597311)

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

Re:Ever hear of DLP Front Projection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10597937)

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

Re:Fucking Intel (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 10 years ago | (#10597408)

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

Time to clean house... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10596911)

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

I'm surprised people are not talking about it.

Re:Time to clean house... (1)

devaldez (310051) | about 10 years ago | (#10597566)

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

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

Why a TV? (2, Informative)

naitro (680425) | about 10 years ago | (#10596919)

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

Re:Why a TV? (2, Insightful)

IvanD (719006) | about 10 years ago | (#10596958)

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

Re:Why a TV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10597008)

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

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

Re:Why a TV? (1)

cve (181337) | about 10 years ago | (#10598276)

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

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

I went with a LCOS Wega.

Re:Why a TV? (1)

ColdGrits (204506) | about 10 years ago | (#10597167)

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

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

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

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

Re:Why a TV? (1)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | about 10 years ago | (#10597207)

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

Re:Why a TV? (4, Informative)

colins (432) | about 10 years ago | (#10597410)

I call Bullshit.

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

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

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

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

See the forums at [] for all the info your could ever want on this topic.

Re:Why a TV? (1)

swb (14022) | about 10 years ago | (#10597911)

I call further bullshit, with some exceptions.

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

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

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

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

Re:Why a TV? (1)

Fnkmaster (89084) | about 10 years ago | (#10598362)

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

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

Oops (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10596941)

Looks like the technology isn't living up to the hype. Oh, wait, they have at least a decade of that.

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

Oh puleeezzze (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10597041)

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

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

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

Rear Projection (1)

cHALiTO (101461) | about 10 years ago | (#10596949)

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

Re:Rear Projection (1)

jacksonj04 (800021) | about 10 years ago | (#10597062)

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

Attention Mr. Slashdot reader (5, Funny)

carnivore302 (708545) | about 10 years ago | (#10597027)

Dear Mr. Slashdot reader,

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

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

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

With most sincere regards,

Mrs. Youko Grant Youka

Fuc*ing spammer.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10598427)

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

I smell... smart decision making... (1)

AndyBassTbn (789174) | about 10 years ago | (#10597040)

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

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

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

Intel Falling Apart (1, Insightful)

Bruha (412869) | about 10 years ago | (#10597053)

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

Cancelation may be Redirection (2, Insightful)

hcob$ (766699) | about 10 years ago | (#10597087)

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

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

Re:Cancelation may be Redirection (1)

Naffer (720686) | about 10 years ago | (#10597379)

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

Re:Cancelation may be Redirection (1)

hattig (47930) | about 10 years ago | (#10597611)

Plasma screens burn in very quickly, but OLEDs lose brightness accuracy within a few thousands hours. They need to fix that first.

Large strides have been made in this arena recently.

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

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

Someone smart at Intel (4, Insightful)

samael (12612) | about 10 years ago | (#10597105)

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

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

Sub-$2000 flat-panel TV right here (2, Informative)

The Wicked Priest (632846) | about 10 years ago | (#10597115)

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

How about sub-$1000?

Maxent?? (1)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | about 10 years ago | (#10597178)

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

Re:Maxent?? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10597338)

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

Re:Sub-$2000 flat-panel TV right here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10597416)

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

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

LCOS tech outline (1)

jilbert (520628) | about 10 years ago | (#10597201)

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

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

Intel can only be doing this because of AMD (2, Interesting)

twfry (266215) | about 10 years ago | (#10597281)

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

So now they have a crappy processor core and to save themselves they are throwing every resource available at making dual core chips because AMD is ahead of them on that by 6-12 months and it is going to kill their cash cow business.

What??? You're a troll. (2, Interesting)

megalomang (217790) | about 10 years ago | (#10598376)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LCOS and DRM (2, Interesting)

phage434 (824439) | about 10 years ago | (#10597361)

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

Plenty of options. LCOS not missed. (2, Insightful)

LeiGong (621856) | about 10 years ago | (#10597383)

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

Re:Plenty of options. LCOS not missed. (3, Informative)

smartalix (84502) | about 10 years ago | (#10597720)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Plenty of options. LCOS not missed. (1)

nsxdavid (254126) | about 10 years ago | (#10598325)

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

-- David


kraemer (637938) | about 10 years ago | (#10597580)

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

Sony "black's out" the competition. (2, Interesting)

holland_g (651151) | about 10 years ago | (#10597593)

IMHO, the Wavelength Selectable black front projector screen demonstrated by Sony at the 2004 Society for Information Display conference in Seattle will make anyone reconsider a LCOS, LCD, or PDP purchase. The InFocus DLP based projectors would do quite well matched with the Sony screen.

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

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

Reference Links: diaAnnouncesBestBuzzAwards.htm [],2393 ,l=&s=1005&a=128243&po=10,00.asp [],,SB108742977 261939595-IRjg4Nllal3nZyva3qHbqyCm4,00.html []

fu3k. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10597872)

has significantly VITALITY. LIKE AN develo4ment models gone Romeo and

LCOS displays are not flat panels. (1)

bryan_chow (589605) | about 10 years ago | (#10597905)

They are for projectors or projection TVs.

Re:LCOS displays are not flat panels. (1)

Zed2K (313037) | about 10 years ago | (#10598197)

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

Didn't they just release that the press release? (1)

Mustang Matt (133426) | about 10 years ago | (#10598245)

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

Uh...LCOS is *not* for "flat panel" displays... (1)

Splendid Turd (416071) | about 10 years ago | (#10598300)

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

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

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

semantics (1)

galt2112 (648234) | about 10 years ago | (#10598441)

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

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

Sub $2K, 42 Inch At Walmart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10598567)

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

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?