Beta

×

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!

cancel ×

260 comments

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

Borrring!! (-1, Offtopic)

Todd Fisher (680265) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263362)

Yawn!!

One sentence... (1, Funny)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263367)

I want one!

Re:One sentence... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263425)

This is slashdot, you want that broad...

No thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263475)

I want 30 inch model minimum. 21" isnt a big deal.

:o) heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263370)

Does she come with the OLED? :D

Re::o) heh (-1, Offtopic)

wheany (460585) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263681)

Heehee, oh you!

Re::o) heh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263684)

no but she doesn't cost as much ;-)

Wow... (-1, Redundant)

digital.prion (808852) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263371)

"Samsung said its 21-inch OLED display features 6.22 million pixels in wide ultra-extended graphics array (WUXGA). The OLED offers brightness of 400 nit, contrast ratio of 5,000:1, color gamut of 75 percent and fast response times, making it ideal for high definition video, Samsung said." Impressive!

Re:Wow... (4, Informative)

hattig (47930) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263408)

That's 6.22m subpixels really. 1920x1080 display, 3 subpixels (RGB) per pixel = 6220800 subpixels, or 2073600 full pixels.

Still, I would like this display, especially if it was cheap and suitable for computer work as well as video work.

Re:Wow... (2, Interesting)

Jaruzel (804522) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263502)

Ahh - Sub Pixels - I was trying to work it out and came up with a display that was about 3,300 x 1,800 - which seemed pretty amazing, OLED or no OLED.

Duh.

I'm too stupid for /.

-Jar.

Re:Wow... (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263768)

It could be 3300x1800, if you like B&W monitors.

Re:Wow... (0)

doob (103898) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263918)

I'm too stupid for /.

Then welcome!

A Note From 2008 (5, Funny)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263380)

Hi,

It's me, Peter. I'm writing from 2008.

I still don't have an OLED display on my desktop.

I'm still the only person I know that uses Linux as his primary desktop.

I do have ATI drivers for Fedora Core 3 though!

-Peter

Re:A Note From 2008 (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263801)

This was a, possibly failed, attempt at humor. It was definately not a troll.

I think this announcement is a bit overly optimistic. I thought the same thing about the prediction yesterday that Linux would be mainstream by '08.

You may not be aware that ATI's Radeon drivers have been incompatible with the current version of X for about a month and a half.

Just 'cause you don't get it doesn't make me a troll.

-Peter

organic (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263382)

do you need to feed this thing?

No... You get a hottie to rub it (0, Offtopic)

Uptown Joe (819388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263474)

like the picture shows.

Re:No... You get a hottie to rub it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263605)

I thought that was spelled orgasmic.

Seriously (2, Insightful)

eMartin (210973) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263629)

Do you?

I've searched and searched, and could never find an explanation for why these are refered to as organic.

One article I found briefly mentioned bioluminescent life forms and how they are very efficient at producing light, but didn't say anything about what that has to do with OLED displays. And a PDF I found about the subject talked about the process of synthesizing the electroluminescent materials used. Sorry, I don't have the links to these.

But if they are synthesized, doesn't that mean that they are NOT organic?

And what does electroluminescence have to do with bioluminescence.

Re:Seriously (5, Informative)

Zemrec (158984) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263672)

AFAIK, they're called "organic" because they're based on organic molecules, i.e. organic chemistry, which is primarily concerned with carbon-based long chain molecules.

IANAChemist, but that's my take on it.

One thing that I wondered about is the article says OLEDs require more power than LCDs at the present time. I thought that one of the main benefits of OLED was that they'd use a lot less power and so would extend laptop battery life, amongst other things.

Can anyone explain that?

Re:Seriously (0)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263802)

Ofcourse you need to feed them!

They are fed the same food as any other monitor, electric power.

Organic does not mean that the monitor is alive just that it is based on organic components. See organic chemistry.

Re:organic (1)

Eric_Cartman_South_P (594330) | more than 9 years ago | (#11264010)

No. It feeds you!

Wooo! (5, Funny)

Remlik (654872) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263388)

Awesome review, without any pictures or screen shots I imagine this to the best monitor ever. Since there is no price mentioned it must be under 100 dollars, and I only have to wait 3-5 years to get one that will last more than a month.

Gosh I just can't wait!

Uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263507)

The submission links to a picture...

I agree about the price thing though.

Re:Wooo! (4, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263573)

so.. you were going to see the ultra high resolution and brightness on your screen?

I always get a kick out of tv adverts advertising tv's, and showing off their awesome brightness, contrast or whatever..

They left out critical info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263591)

They said only 75% of the color gamut is possible. I heard OLED had problems with blue fading out much faster than the other colors. Also, the life of the monitor is only 10,000 hours. Which 416 days. That's pathetic. It's gotta be at least 25,000 to 50,000. Because lifetime actually refers to a decline of 75% of brightness.

Re:Wooo! (2, Insightful)

anum (799950) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263795)

This is why the book is always better than the movie!

I'm not quite sure this counts as a review however since this is a one off prototype. How's this for an understatement:
"Making one is one thing, making many is another and then making them competitive with established screen technologies is a totally other ball game," Semenza said.

The real point of this article (which didn't make the summary for some reason, I wonder why?):
"However, the Samsung announcement is noteworthy because its 21-inch prototype OLED relies on amorphous silicon technology, a mature technology used in most LCDs on the market today"

So they can use the same fabs and substrates as the old LCDs. Cheaper and faster to market.

One more quote and then I'll stop I promise:
"However, Young also said today's OLED technology -- which averages 10,000 hours until it becomes half as bright -- still lags behind the 30,000- to 50,000-hour lifespans of today's large televisions."
By large televisions he must be talking about plasma or something because my CRT based monster will probably be able to throw electrons for the rest of my life (granted, some electronic component will wear out first but still). I'm always amazed at the inconveniences of CRTs. They just don't make them like they used to. All these modern inconveniances, why back in my day...

Re:Wooo! (1)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263997)

Although electron guns have improved slowly over the years, they still degrade slowly and they still have a failure rate (filament open-circuits). Also, the phosphors become less efficient and the glass darkens due to xrays.

Re:Wooo! (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263948)

Since there is no price mentioned it must be under 100 dollars

Or over 10.000. When i saw no price, my though was "better dont ask"... maybe when they produce it by thousands things will be more clear.

Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263398)

Are all the colors (blue in particular) working yet?

LED Life shorter (3, Interesting)

swilly2006 (845163) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263400)

It says in the article that the life will be shorter than that of an LCD. I thought LED's pretty much lasted forever (~20 years).

Re:LED Life shorter (3, Insightful)

hattig (47930) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263440)

OLEDs have a lifespan of between 10000 and 50000 hours at the moment, I think it is the blue that has the lowest lifespan. Of course, the lifespans are a lot better than they were a couple of years ago!

Hopefully the shorter lives will be offset by the display being so much cheaper. Anyway, for computer displays most people would want to update the display after 5-7 years anyway, regardless of actual lifespan! 10000 hours is 3 years at 10 hours a day, or 6 years at 5 hours a day.

Re:LED Life shorter (1)

alexandre (53) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263552)

yé, more polution by throw away hardware companies... :(

Re:LED Life shorter (1)

jnaujok (804613) | more than 9 years ago | (#11264069)

But, OLEDs will eventually simply be printed on thin films (they require no solid backing or precise positioning like LCD panels do) and you will just buy a new "film" to drop in. The old one, with about the same thickness and texture as cellophane will be returned to the store where it can be dropped into a bucket of solvent and turned back into base polymers for re-use. Unlike LCDs (which use incredibly poisonous liquid crystal material) everything in an OLED film will be organic (other than the transparent power traces, which will be gallium arsenides or something similar) that can be broken down.

The OLED will make the screen replacable and the power supply and supporting hardware can be re-used. This could very well cut down on pollution.

Re:LED Life shorter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263479)

OLEDs are Organic LEDs. Since they are organic, they tend to oxidize, which significantly shorten their life span. I believe standard silicon or germanium LEDs only have to worry about electron migration which, as you point out, can take decades.

aQazaQa

Re:LED Life shorter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263659)

Those wacky Germaniums. I knew I should have bought a VW.

Re:LED Life shorter (0)

rs79 (71822) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263501)

"I thought LED's pretty much lasted forever (~20 years)"

How old are you? I have monitors in use that are (well) over 20 years old.

20 years is only "forever" if you're under 30.

Re:LED Life shorter (2, Interesting)

JFitzsimmons (764599) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263593)

Yeah, but how many times have you taken them in for various repairs? And why are you still using them? I would think that monochrome, burnt in images, and huge power consumption would be reason enough to replace them - but make sure you take them to your town's hazardous waste disposal, since they is probably full of all sorts of nasty heavy metals.

Nice picture, but (4, Insightful)

alhaz (11039) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263403)

Why do i get the impression that it's bad at showing shades of blue?

Re:Nice picture, but (1)

savagedome (742194) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263443)

You need to upgrade your Black and White monitor.

Re:Nice picture, but (0, Offtopic)

Gzip Christ (683175) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263548)

Why do i get the impression that it's bad at showing shades of blue?
Perhaps it is only available to those inside The Matrix.

Re:Nice picture, but (5, Interesting)

lmaali (204965) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263765)

Why do i get the impression that it's bad at showing shades of blue?

Traditionally the blue OLEDs have been the ones with shorter lifetimes not with poor color purity. I started doing resesarch on OLEDs in 1995 before most people had ven heard about them. But *much* research has been focused on better blue materials and they've made great strides in lifetime.

However, that the Samsung demo image contains no discernable blue is very strange indeed. I have my doubts that it was left out unintentionally.

Korean Technology` (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263405)

I am very impressed with the progress Korean electronic manufacturers have made in the past 5 years. Is there any doubt that they are the equal of their Japanese counterparts? Especially Samsung.

In Korea (-1)

detrino (444362) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263606)

The technology sector has made great strides! ... What did you expect me to say?

Re:Korean Technology` (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263726)

Yes, it has been a veritable "Zerg Rush" if you will.

Nonsense in Chosun article? (5, Interesting)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263416)

Can anyone make sense of this?

OLED display responses are 1,000 times faster than liquid crystal displays (LCDs), thus enabling greater resolution.


How does pixel response time have anything to do with resolution? That should strictly be a function of pixel size, shouldn't it? I have a feeling that someone didn't translate something right, or else flat out doesn't know what they're talking about.

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263446)

it's well known that smaller things move faster, look at the mini cooper vs the cadillac

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (2, Interesting)

hattig (47930) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263462)

Well, resolution doesn't have to be related to space, it can be related to time. If this display has a response time of 25us instead of 25ms, you can use the display for high frame rate video, or to reduce flicker, or simply to have a very crisp display with no fading - good for games!

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (2, Insightful)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 9 years ago | (#11264068)

Well, resolution doesn't have to be related to space, it can be related to time.
I call bullshit. In ~30 years of using computers I've never heard screen resolution mean anything other than the number of pixels.
If this display has a response time of 25us instead of 25ms, you can use the display for high frame rate video, or to reduce flicker
That's called refresh rate.

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263483)

If you have a lot of pixels and you have the same refresh rate then the pixel will only be activated for a smaller amount of time. To have a full transition from say, balack to white would require a quicker response time

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (1)

crazy_pikachu (838912) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263574)

and if this is preaty much just a bunch of LED's then how are you going to change the screen resolution. by the way i was reading about this it will be the perfect flat display exept I dont know if you will be able to change the resolution

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (1)

JFitzsimmons (764599) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263656)

LCDs have the same problem. They have a single "maximum" resolution that they always run at no matter what, but when they recive a signal at a lower resolution they scale it up to the higher resolution (so lower resolutions can often appear fuzzy or have artifacts). For the most part, the image is not distorted enough for people to stop using an LCD - especially since the only times that they aren't using the optimal resolution is before their OS boots.

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (1)

Riddlefox (798679) | more than 9 years ago | (#11264067)

Not always true. My Toshiba laptop, for one, simply parks the lower resolution image in the center of the larger screen.

For instance, if I was trying to display a 640x480 image on my 1024x768 monitor, there'd be 192 dark pixels on either side of the image, and 144 dark pixels on the top and bottom of the image. The image itself is not stretched or disorted.. just small. Sort of like watching a widescreen DVD on a 4:3 aspect TV.

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (1)

mothlos (832302) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263677)

Probably the same way you change the resolution on your monitor now. There is no reason it would change just because you are using LEDs.

Most displays that people use have pre-determined pixels, using all of them independantly gives you maximum resolution, using them in blocks gives you lower resolution. If you were to reduce your screen resolution down to 2x2 you would get giant rectangles made up of thousands of pixles. Same would be true for OLED.

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (4, Interesting)

Sawbones (176430) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263578)

While odds are it's just horrible writing there is one thing I can think of; it may be similar to the "wobulation" used on DLP displays.

Pop Sci link on wobulation [popsci.com]

Basically since DLP displays can't be made to have a physical resolution high enough for HDTV but they can change pixels awfully fast they have each DLP element alternate display of two different colors very fast which tricks the eye into thinking it sees 4 pixels worth of information. The article does a much better job explaining it.

But yeah, odds are just crappy journalism.

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (1)

Big_Breaker (190457) | more than 9 years ago | (#11264071)

It is also the reason why a lot of people see rainbows, get headaches and notice motion artifacts watching DLP based sets.

A better solution (and what they use for high-end products) is to use a DLP chip for each color and combine the result optically rather than the use of a color wheel.

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (2, Informative)

syle (638903) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263611)

My guess would be that it's not a resolution/speed issue, but a resolution/framerate thing. Having faster pixels doesn't mean you can have a higher res, but it does mean you can have a higher res at the same framerate as a lower one.

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263643)

hot dog, we have a weiner!

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263689)

Do you remember the journalism students in college? Not all of them could get married, and they actually became journalists. Now the state of journalism today should make a lot more sense.

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (1)

popcultureicon (556737) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263701)

My impression is they are trying to say that OLED screens will be able to be much larger than LCD screens, but with the same or better frame rate.

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (1)

Overbyte (226279) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263715)

I'm certainly no monitor expert, but if you could somehow jam an 8000x6000 resolution into 15" LCD display, wouldn't the refresh rate be extremely low? It sounds like OLED could offer a much higher rate, thus making that sort of resolution useable.

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 9 years ago | (#11264049)

Refresh rate would be constrained by the speed of the video card in that case, not by the response time of the individual pixels.

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263776)

More nonsense:

"Reynolds said OLEDS demand far more power and can deteriorate faster than today's LCDs and plasma
screens."

I thought that OLEDs consumed LESS power than other technologies because they don't require a backlight! And that is one of the main reasons why they are already being used in many portable devices.

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (1)

rudi_v (39051) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263833)

The pixel response time indeed has nothing to do with the resolution, but with the LCD technology - OLED should have (amongst other benefits) better response times than TFTs and other LCD technologies.

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263861)

I work in the TV industry and with all the HD information being released there's a lot of talk about resolution (as there are tons of different standards for HD).

In the industry we talk about screen resolution, and temporal resolution, as in how many pixels are seen in a second. For instance you can have a higher frame rate, but refresh only half the picture at a time, and your eye will see a more responsive picture. So if you're watching video, a faster response time can amount to a higher resolution. I don't like talking about temporal resolution though. It seems like a lot of hand waving to me.

Re:Nonsense in Chosun article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263900)

Yes, but anyways, 1,000 times faster response times?
That's extremely good news.
Finally flat panel displays will be suitable for gaming.

I imagine it has the potential for higher contrast ratio aswell? Then the only negative thing about OLED technology is the life span.

Mod Article Offtopic (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263429)

This hardly classifies as Science.

Your dog wants steak.. (-1, Offtopic)

Renraku (518261) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263468)

"Your OLED monitor wants a1 broth."

Re:Your dog wants steak.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263892)

if fark is the trailer park of the internet, surely /. is the someone's mom's basement of the internet....

3110*2000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263472)

6.22 millions pixels for a 21 inch that impressive !

Incorrect. - 1920 x 1080 (4, Informative)

EnglishTim (9662) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263530)

It's 1920x1080 - the quoted pixel count is for each red, green and blue element.

In Korea.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263481)

..only old people require 21 inches of goodness.

Resolution (4, Insightful)

EnglishTim (9662) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263515)

The resolution is quoted as being about 6.22 million pixels, which makes the resolution 1920x1080.

I assume the screen is 16x9, and that the quoted pixel count is counteing each red, green and blue element as seperate.

maybe I don't get Monitor Math (1)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263663)

but 1920x1280 comes out to a little over 2.4 million pixels, does it not?

Whoops sorry, I didnt see 1/3 for each color (1)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263678)

Whoops sorry, I didnt see 1/3 for each color. I guess I really don't get monitor math!

Re:Resolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11264063)

I assume the screen is 16x9... You don't have to assume that in order to compute the resolution. ...green and blue element as seperate... Not sure if they are seperate but probably they are separate...

I wonder... (-1)

catdevnull (531283) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263522)

I wonder what Playboy's new iBods [cnn.com] will look like on OLED...

...will OLED make the silicon look organic?

Re:I wonder... (1)

JaffaKREE (766802) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263572)

The monitor is hot. The asian woman holding it is hot. A win-win article.

technology press run amok ... again (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263525)

From the picture link:

OLED display responses are 1,000 times faster than liquid crystal displays (LCDs), thus enabling greater resolution.

geez, they wrote that with a straight face?

Don't get your hopes up (1)

detrino (444362) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263538)

Rocketman768 has alerted me that samsung is busy investigating TV counterfieting in China and won't have time to continue development until it is resolved.

That's an achievement. (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263549)

I think Samsung and Korea or Asia in general should be congratulated on this, given that just 4 decades ago, their GNP/GDP was equivalent to some of the sub Saharan countries. At this pace, these Asians will surpass the [mighty] US in another three decades.

Re:That's an achievement. (1)

Cobalt Jacket (611660) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263560)

Why would you say a silly thing like that? OLED is a Kodak innovation. Your intransigence is showing.

Re:That's an achievement. (1)

lenski (96498) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263811)

Whoever invented it, we seem to be unwilling or unable to mass-produce *our own* inventions. I am old enough to remember when Japan and the other asian economies were thought of as being merely "low-tech knock-off manufacturers". They are creative and hardworking people, willing to put their time and money into getting the work done efficiently and with high qualit.

And I admit that my intransigence is slipping out today. I *so wish* we would engage in the effort of actually manufacturing more consumer goods in this country.

Re:That's an achievement. (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263874)

You got it right from my mouth! Pretty soon these economies will be in a position to gang up and impose sanctions on US the Americans.

Re:That's an achievement. (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263835)

OLED is a Kodak innovation.

Agreed 100%. Just like the Americans invented the transistor but it was useless [to them] till the Japanese showed them what to do with it. Guess what...! Most good electronics and cameras are Japanese. Where was your monitor manufactured?

Another bit for you. Yes, Henry Ford invented the line assembly in the USA, but the Japanese came from behind and now have their Toyota as one of the best built vehicles on any continent. If you ever visted Australia, you see what I mean. In fact, Toyota dsplaced one of the big three in the US to become the 2nd biggest auto manufacturer and seller in the US

The same applies to Kodak. Kodak is now second pace in digital photography, a helm (photography) it held for decades.

Inventing and later having no use for a technology is in itself of no use. Question is: Where will America be in 5 decades?

Re:That's an achievement. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263618)

Not to be too OT but linear extrapolations are rarely consistent with real-life events. At any rate, I hope they keep it up.

Re:That's an achievement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263639)

Litrex, an US formed company recently bought by an overseas conglomerate, was at the forefront of developing this technology. Specifically, how to create these displays using printer technology.

Re:That's an achievement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263669)

Whether "this pace" is sustainable is somewhat dubius. People were saying exactly the same thing about Japan 20 years ago, and they seem to have stagnated. I imagine China will eventually surpass the US because of thier size if nothing else (and probably in 20 years), but it's bit of a stretch for Korea.

Re:That's an achievement. (1)

spleck (312109) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263934)

These heavy manufacturing countries have economies that are very dependent on western economies. It is easy for them to manufacture goods cheaply and raise their economic level to approach the west, but it gets increasingly difficult the better their economy gets. It may not be possible for them to surpass the west until they switch to another economic model which would mean we can't get cheap products until another nation goes through this process...

While the Living Jokes are Funny... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263568)

It might be useful to remind people that organic does not imply life. Organic, in a chemical sense (I am fairly certain - though I am studying physics, not chemistry), implies molecules with carbon (and maybe hydrogen or oxygen?), nothing more. Similarly, organic molecules are hypothesized to be widely distributed through space (such as on Titan, where they may rain from the sky). While organic molecules might be necessary to have life, alone they may not be sufficient for it.

I am confused (1)

ocularDeathRay (760450) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263586)

are OLEDs anything like an OFACE?

Fuck the Monitor (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263617)

How do I get the Korean chick to participate in some simulated tentacle sex with me in my live action hentai videos? So far I have convinced 24 women to make live action hentai with me. I've also designed fucking apparatus that allows me to augment my body and provides me with multiple tentacles to stimulate with. However, the sad part is that none of these chicks has been asian. I need a good asian that looks a lot like the chick in this picture. Any takers here one Slashdot? Gotta looooove asian! They love you long time!

Well (2, Interesting)

WaZiX (766733) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263649)

i doubt anyone will be able to buy OLED tv's before quite some time... Just seeing how much money LCD and TFT are generating, how much investements they have in those technologies, and since OLED should be much cheaper generating less profit large manufacturers will wait as much as possible before introducing these. Fortunately Nashs theory will eventually kick in and as soon as one of them comercialises one, they all will. So basically expect a lot of nothing then a boom with everything.

me rikey (1)

trollercoaster (250101) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263707)

Me so organic.

I think I'm going to show her my "O" LED (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263779)

Oh Oh Oh OH

WUXGA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263812)

now thats more like it !

"With the development of the world's largest OLED at WUXGA resolution, Samsung has achieved a technological advantage and is positioned well to be a leader in the large-sized OLED for the TV market," said Jun-Hyung Souk, senior vice president of the LCD R&D Center.


bring on the good resolution because 1280x1024 just isnt enough on a 19" flatscreen (unless i spend double)

amazing that 15" laptops can do 1600x1200 cheaply yet 17-19" standalone lcd's have trouble

power consumption? (2, Interesting)

Guano_Jim (157555) | more than 9 years ago | (#11263910)

What's the power consumption of a unit like this? How does it compare to an LCD screen?

Eye Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11263952)

How good are these 21" monitors for eyes?


I know lcd is less harmful than CRT,but still 21" is quite a lot of screen.

And thinking of 21" CRT is not real bad to eyes?

Picture (3, Interesting)

Mahler (171064) | more than 9 years ago | (#11264008)


Chosun.com has a picture

I strongly doubt that this picture is actual footage from the display picture-quality. Seems to me that they've inserted a nice image with some photo-editing software. It is just to show the outer case.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>