Paul's laptop?

Hi Paul,

Just one final note on the computer thread. LCD displays.
Standard on laptops, becoming the standard on desktops.

Advantages:

() Substantially smaller.

() Can be controlled digitally. No noisy analog
conversion (all laptops, or desktop systems employing
a "DVI" connector).

() Don't scan. Florescent backlights still strobe,
but I think this is better than sitting for hours on
end with an electron gun pointed at your face. At
least I find them much easier on the eyes.

Disadvantages:

() Much more expensive. A 19" CRT (tube) running
1600x1200 can be had for like $150 (just a guess). A
good LCD display that does the same thing might run
$1200 (again, I'm a little out of touch on prices,
but you get the idea).

() Colors aren't accurate. Only really an issue if
you're doing digital photography.

Now, the point. LCDs cost per pixel. I believe they're
made on a lithography process, and higher transistor
densities are harder to do. Part of the reason for the
high expense is the rejection rate. I read that Apple's
original 23" cinema display, they only got 1 for every 2
that came off the line.

LCDs don't cost per inch. However, Joe Public, rather
naturally, thinks bigger in inches is better. Not so!
Image quality is a function of dpi, and the amount of
"space" you have to work with is just the absolute number
of pixels.

Laptop makers, especially, take advantage of this, and
sell based on inches. On ebay, some sellers don't even
list the res. (for example, the Thinkpad T23 came with
either an XGA (1024x768) or SXGA+ (1400x1050) display,
but they often don't say which!).

Apple is the worst at this, shamelessly selling
Powerbooks with 17" screens that are only, what is it,
900 pixels high... but of course, they charge you the
same as a Thinkpad with a much better display. The
pixels on those things are the size of fingernails,
if you've ever seen them.

Absolute resolution is especially important when laying
out scores. Also when working with audio.

Here's a handy guide to the resolution acronyms...

http://tinyurl.com/2xk6j

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

>Disadvantages:
>
>() Much more expensive. A 19" CRT (tube) running
>1600x1200 can be had for like $150 (just a guess). A
>good LCD display that does the same thing might run
>$1200 (again, I'm a little out of touch on prices,
>but you get the idea).
>
19" LCD - maybe $750
17" LCD - $450

You don't need shielded speakers with LCDs, they're quiet.

http://jandr.com

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

>>Disadvantages:
>>
>>() Much more expensive. A 19" CRT (tube) running
>>1600x1200 can be had for like $150 (just a guess). A
>>good LCD display that does the same thing might run
>>$1200 (again, I'm a little out of touch on prices,
>>but you get the idea).
>>
>19" LCD - maybe $750

1600x1200?

>17" LCD - $450

1600x1200?

Also I said "good". There's a *lot* of difference
between LCDS... brightness, pixel update time (or
whatever they call it), viewing angle, etc.

>You don't need shielded speakers with LCDs,

Good point.

>they're quiet.

Are you referring to the ultrasonics of tubes? That
always bothered me, even with TVs. I can hear it
clear across the house. Not doing anything any good.

-Carl