Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

Panasonic Dual-LCD PC 296

Posted by michael from the now-in-stereo dept.
FreeBSD-RockS writes: "Panasonic released a desktop PC called Panacom LC/W with two 15-inch (1024x768) LCD monitors arranged side by side. The LCD screens can be arranged so that they can be used either in a portrait or a landscape form. The new model will be put on sale on March 8 and the retail price through direct marketing is around $2000 USD."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Panasonic Dual-LCD PC More

Panasonic Dual-LCD PC

Comments Filter:

  • Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BoarderPhreak ( 234086 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @04:18PM (#2938899)
    I'm thinking I'd rather see that available as a separate monitor, than as an integrated, all-in-one PC.

    After all, the PC will eventually (rapidly?) become obsolete... While the LCDs would be a hot piece of hardware for much longer.

    • I tend to agree with that. Although I've never been a big fan of panasonic, this unit just plain looks cool! Too bad it couldn't be merely a 'monitor array' that could be connected to anything... I've been running out of room on my desktop lately anyhow... hmm.. a couple of these puppies tied together and I could get rid of that start bar all together! YAY!

    • Get just the multiple monitors... (Score:4, Informative)

      by UncleRoger ( 9456 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @06:45PM (#2939685) Homepage

      I'm thinking I'd rather see that available as a separate monitor, than as an integrated, all-in-one PC.

      Then simply go to Mass, Inc. [massmultiples.com] and pick a system with up to 4 15- or 18-inch LCD screens. I'll take the C3H18 [massmultiples.com], thank you.

      (This was posted previously [slashdot.org] on Slashdot, but it took me a while to find it.)

      • The C3H18 sells for $3,995. . .Its little brother, the C3H15, goes for $2,265. For comparison, the Apple 22" Studio display everyone's been drooling over for over a year now retails for $2,499.00 [apple.com] (and I believe started out retailing for $500 more). Is it just me, or am I noticing a discrepancy here? 3x15" or 18", or 1x22"?

        Anyone actually used one of these LCD systems? Are they of good quality?
    • I hate to break it to you, but it only has a 766mhz celeron. It's already way outdated by even the most conservative standards.

  • Dual head. (Score:1, Redundant)

    by saintlupus ( 227599 )
    Dual monitors rock - I remember setting up a Power Mac 7100/80 like that back in the day. For the cost of one 17 inch monitor, I had 2 15 inchers doing extended desktop. Amazing how hard it is to go back to a single screen.

    Two thousand dollars does seem a bit steep, though. I wonder what other sorts of features are included? Hell, I could get a freshly discontinued G4 and two Apple 15 inch studio displays for that, and Apple kit is generally a bit higher in price than this sort of thing.

    --saint
    • Two thousand dollars does seem a bit steep, though. I wonder what other sorts of features are included?

      Oh, and before I'm told to RTFA, it's Slashdotted. Badly.

      Though I'm sure the display on the server is right purty.

      --saint
      • Wish they would just start caching the damn sites. The excuses given in the FAQ are unconvincing at best; google caches just about everything, and I haven't heard of people complaining to them over loss of banner ad revenue. Maybe it's because they don't want to take the effort of doing it; these are editors who won't spell/grammar-check a few lines they post maybe once a day.
    • Yeah, I have two monitors at work, one linux one Win2K, I do all my work in Linux, but read email, surf, other extra type things on the windows box with VNC switching the keyboard and mouse between them. It's easier to get things done at work because I can have an html reference up on one monitor while I actually work in terminals on the other. Very convenient. At home I usually have to switch between windows to do this.
    • If you've been to a financial firm you see 2 and 4 monitor getups all day long. I use one from 9-5 every day.

      Consider the total real estate available to me. I have an 18" LCD with a total area of about 168 square inches (usable). Plus a pair of 14" LCDs for nearly 200 square inches. The point being, for a large spreadsheet the 18" is clearly superior. If however, you need to watch two things at once (2 web pages or 2 spreadsheets or 1 and 1 whatever) the two smaller screens are FAR superior. It all depends what you're using the screens for.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/corp/profservice/profes si onal.html

    • Re:Dual head. (Score:4, Informative)

      by LoudMusic ( 199347 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @04:50PM (#2939132)
      I have two 19" flat CRT Trinitrons at home connected to a Matrox G450. I highly suggest this card (or the G550) because it comes with good software for possitioning popup windows correctly instead of splitting it in the middle of two displays. It's nice not wasting an addition PCI slot as well, and both monitors have equal hardware pushing video to them. It also makes the display appear as one monitor to Windows, where as having two video cards actually show up as multiple devices to Windows. This allows the Tasktray to span across both monitors, and my active desktop as well. With multiple video cards, you have a master desktop that is just like a single desktop, then all the rest are just additional space to move windows to. I guess it depends on your personal taste, but I like having the displays appear as one to Windows.

      My only word of caution: Having an odd number of displays is highly recommended as you won't have the border of two displays in the center of your vision. It's very distracting.

      Dell 19" Trinitron [dell.com]

      Matrox G450 [matrox.com] (because it has dual VGA instead of dual DVI like the G550)

      Image of my 3200 x 1200 desktop [stoneward.com] (with GTPlanet active desktop (that I made))

      ~LoudMusic
  • anyone have a copy of the text? i couldnt find the page on google's cache
  • Why not just a normal PC, and a larger LCD? This way you won't have to mess with rotating LCDs screens which are surely more sensitive to wear and tear and increased complexity. Then there's the issue of drivers, etc. for those screens...

    Not to mention that the PC that's at the heart of that system will become obsolete long before the LCDs will.

    • Re:Cute, but... (Score:2, Informative)

      by mberman ( 93546 )
      Because larger LCDs increase cost exponentially. With two 17" displays, you get exactly twice the screen real estate for exactly twice the price. With one 18" or 19", you get a tiny amount more space (less than an inch or two, respectively, along each side), for...about twice the price. Dual-head video cards/drivers are pretty much a solved problem, so there's not really any "issue", and rotating LCDs is pretty damn easy, much easier than rotating CRTs, which have been around for many, many years. So, basically, you're getting a huge amount of display space for no emotional cost, and far less monetary cost than buying one enormous screen.
      • True, cost is a major factor in moving up to larger LCDs. I definately agree.

        I'm thinking of more esotheric problems - unless your video card has dual outputs, you'll need a second video card. I've not seen any motherboards, Mac or PC - that have dual AGP slots. This would affect performance on that second display.

        There's also the fact that two displays do not a large desktop make, necessarily. I know I'd rather have a large, contiguous workspace rather than have two clearly separate and spaced-apart screens.

        Granted, this is splitting hairs I guess and each side has it's pros and cons and depends wholly on your needs and preferences. I'm just stating my opinion on this arrangement... :)

  • WooHoo!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 01, 2002 @04:22PM (#2938921)
    Now when I pull up pr0n on my computer, I can have 1 15" breast in each window!

  • Another good use... (Score:3, Funny)

    by DickPhallus ( 472621 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @04:22PM (#2938924)
    Hey, with one of these, I could read /. at -1 again, and not worry about the page widening posts!

  • Wide posts (Score:2, Informative)

    by jargoone ( 166102 )
    I can think of only about 5 ways Taco could fix those damn page-widening posts.
    He hasn't done a single one yet.
    I love trolls as much as the next guy, but this ruins it and makes me browse at 0.
    Fight back!
    Manual page breaks in all posts, now!

  • Wow (Score:4, Insightful)

    by addaon ( 41825 ) <addaon+slashdot.gmail@com> on Friday February 01, 2002 @04:24PM (#2938939)
    That was a fast slashdotting. Anyway, I've had an idea like this for a while, although I imagine my desired monitor layout is kinda different. Years ago, I used to use a standard two-fold wallet; small, convenient, and good enough. Then, when I started getting too much junk for it, I switched to a trifold; even smaller cross section, though thicker; room for more cards; and just more convenient.

    Basically, what I want is a trifold laptop. Currently, laptop size is limitted by screensize. (See the picturebook or libretto for proof.) With a trifold, you could have a laptop the size of the picturebook (2.2 lbs, 1024x480 screen) with /two/ screens that unfold, one on top of the other, giving you effectively 1024x960. Now, there would be no way to conceal the joint between the screens; this would be two monitors, not one large one that fold. But even so, it seems like a beautiful idea.

    Adam
    • Actually, screen size is not that important. If the resolution is there, you can always just sit closer.

      What bugs me about sub-notebooks is the keyboard size. If that could trifold, but still be rigid enough for me to do my normal pounding on, then you'd have something.
      • "Actually, screen size is not that important. If the resolution is there, you can always just sit closer."

        I said that myself, when buying a picturebook. Admittedly, it's a great short-term solution. But the simple fact is that sitting too close to a monitor wears your eyes out faster; you get more tired reading characters .2" high than ones .4" high. High resolution small screens are great... but only for stuff like OSX, with resolution-independent graphics. And even then, they're still small screens.

        • IBM has some 200dpi LCDs. If those puppies were ever brought to an affordable price, and if ClearType were used, I think you'd find it nearly as readable as old-style (300dpi) laser printouts. IOW, just fine.
      • You mean like the old IBM ThinkPad keyboard, which had this nifty expanding mechanism. Folded, the keyboard "broke" in half along the 5TGB/6YHN keys, with the right-hand section sliding up and to the left (so that, were you to rip the LCD off, it'd look like a QWERTH or QWERTN keyboard.)

        Opened, the moveable halves slide outward and together, creating a full-width keyboard, in a laptop that was less than a full keyboard width wide when folded. Very cool!
    • With the sheer weight of a laptop like that, you wouldn't be able to use it as a carry-on on an airplane ;P nevermind when the joints get loose and one screen collapses and smashes into the screen below it lol =)

    • Re:Wow (Score:2)

      by Spyky ( 58290 )
      Unfortunately you are adding two more layers of "case" material by making a tri-fold laptop. It will add another several mm to the thickness of the folded laptop. In addition to that you are adding another hinge, which are prone to breaking on current laptops.

      Its a nice idea, but I'm going to keep waiting for the PC on a single sheet of plastic that I can just roll-up and go :-)

      -Spyky
  • What if you're in the graphic arts, say, retouching photos? LCDs are getting close, but still don't really have the wide gamut that CRTs do. As such, LCD-based systems aren't really appropriate for these kinds of users.

    Of course, there are higher-end LCDs out these days like the Apple Cinema Display that come ever closer to surpassing CRTs on this front. The other features certainly are no comparison!

    • Re:LCDs aren't there yet (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Matey-O ( 518004 ) <michaeljohnmiller@mSPAMsSPAMnSPAM.com> on Friday February 01, 2002 @04:33PM (#2939011) Homepage Journal
      Tell that to the Mac community, which I'm pretty sure is the largest group of 'Photo Retouchers'.

      • Re:LCDs aren't there yet (Score:4, Informative)

        by BoarderPhreak ( 234086 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @04:44PM (#2939091)
        I'm one of the Mac community!

        Apple's LCDs are among the best available, but for critical work, even they are not always good enough.

        While the gap is closing, LCDs simply lack the wide color gamut of CRTs. Of course, all the other benefits of LCDs vs. CRTs apply.

        Digital photographers are a very picky bunch, and most still prefer CRTs. I use my Mac for exactly this, and I'm using a CRT myself. I'll more than likely get an LCD soon enough, but I won't be tossing my CRT out just yet, either.

        • I'm glad there are people like you still around.

          A) I don't think that guy even read your first comment ... heh heh.

          B) What kind of CRT are you using on your Mac? I purchased a whole slew of Sony G500s for my Agency's G4 workstations. They eat up a bunch of desk space, but the color, resolution, refreshrate, and expense are far and away better than any pannel I've ever seen.

          ~LoudMusic
          • I'm not using an ideal monitor at the moment, but it's the best I have. I'm looking for a replacement, actually. It's a Sun Microsystems 21" (current model) monitor, which uses a Sony Trinitron tube as it basically IS a Sony monitor, re-badged.

            The problem is that as a secondary input, the Mac signal is really hosed somewhere - there's ghosting on the monitor. I've tried multiple cables, including gold-plated and shielded and nothing helps. Careful tuning of the monitor doesn't help much either. The only thing that I've noticed is that the lower the resolution and refresh, the better the image is. I'm thinking that this Sun monitor might not quite be the same as it's Sony counterpart (which is definately Mac friendly) as far as specifications and signal handling might go.

            As it is, I'm limited to 1280x1024 as at 1600x1200 I'd go blind. The Sun works great on the same monitor ar 1600x1280. Notice the not-so-same resolution ratios... Therein, somewhere, I think - lies the problem.

            • You know, the monitor might just be bad. Have you tried it on other computers? I've seen this before and it turned out there was a problem with the power system in the monitor.

              If your monitor is the flat CRT Trinitron, then it's the one a bunch of people are using. Dell, HP, Compaq, Sun, SGI ... everyone uses it because it's so amazing. I've got two of the 19" version (Dell branded) of the same thing. I didn't have the desk space nore the funding for such a beast, but they sure are nice (:

              ~LoudMusic
              • I haven't tried another machine on the secondary input yet (such as a PC or laptop) and the primary input which is on the Sun works perfectly?

                I suppose the second input might be hosed somehow, though. This monitor really *should* be able to handle the Mac signals quite readily.

                • Well, I'm a bit nit-picky on wording, and I assume things I probably shouldn't - so don't hessitate to call me arogant. I think you might have bad information regarding the video signal.

                  There is no such thing as a "Mac signal". VGA is VGA is VGA ... it doesn't matter what computer the signal is coming from, as long as the signal is standard, non-interupted, and the hardware isn't malfunctioning. If it's a newer Mac (good ole clear plastic model), it will conform to the standard with no problems. I highly suggest checking the monitor first, then getting a different monitor to test the output of the Mac. One of them is malfunctioning because your setup is 'ideal' ... by my standards (:

                  ~LoudMusic
                  • Yeah, my bad on the wording. :-D

                    You're right, the "signal" is universal in that it's either VGA or some other VESA standard, etc.

                    I'm talking more about the Mac's output matching the monitor's capabilities. For example, on the Sun at 1600x1280 the monitor is fine, but on the Mac at 1600x1200 it is not. I'm thinking the aspect ratio or resolution here is the issue...

                    But on either machine at 1280x1024, the problem is still there, so that can't be the problem. I'm beginning to think you're right that the monitor or the Mac is b0rked, and I'll have to attach another monitor to test this. Of course, the other monitor I have tops out at 1280x1024 and that does NOT ghost, lending to the flaky monitor theory.

            • interesting problem. I use a Sony G400, which is a 19" FD trinitron, which I run at 1280x960x75 from the Radeon in my G4. When I first installed this monitor, I was required by the manual to fit a tiny "Mac Adaptor" (looks like a slim gender bender, but isn't) that came with the monitor, despite never having to do that before for any other VGA / Mac combination and with no explanation from Sony. Incidentally, the "recommended" setting for my monitor is 1280x1024x85 which doesn't fit the 4:3 aspect screen at all. Anyone able to explain this? I just don't get it at all. I use a Sony F500R on my G4 at work which runs at a breathtaking 1600x1200x100. And it was HALF the price of an 18" LCD when I bought it. Nice.
    • Anyone who color-corrects using the screen isn't worth their salaries.

      A good scanner operator (I'm talking drum scanners) or good touch-up artists ('coz that's what they are: artists) never uses the screen, be it CRT or LCD or even those 20k$ Barco screens, to judge their colors.

      There are simply too many factors that will affect the perceived colors (all the way through caffeine intake).

      Descent color correction relies on color densities, and white point adjustment (*never* have less than 5% black on a white point, or run the risks of quarter-tone blank-outs).
      • For this reason the Mac uses, for example, "ColorSync" to match input to display to output... Also why you use color calibration hardware - to ensure that on any given medium, your colors are identical.
        • Nope.

          ColorSync is there for home users.

          Talk about ColorSync to any pro (and I do mean pro, not corner shop) printer and you'll get laughed at.

          Color matching is best done using Pantone (PMS) tables, and PMS books are useless after 9-12 months, because of paper degradation.

          You can't win this one. I've worked 10 years in the pre-press industry, writing tools for this highly demanding field. I know first hand how things work, and they don't work with ColorSync.
          • Color matching is best done using Pantone (PMS) tables, and PMS books are useless after 9-12 months, because of paper degradation.

            I should have pointed out that PMS color matching is for matching generic colors (like in drawings and page layout flat items, either for spot-color printing or process or hexachrome color seperations).

            For photo touch-ups, they generally use color densities (CMYK).
          • "ColorSync is there for home users.

            Talk about ColorSync to any pro (and I do mean pro, not corner shop) printer and you'll get laughed at.
            "

            Pros like Joseph Holmes, Richard Seiling, Galen Rowell and shops like Pictopia?

            Granted, I'm talking about RGB->RGB workflow, but ColorSync works just as well going to CMYK. What would you rather do - waste time tweaking stuff ny hand (Eye)? Have fun, but I'll make sure to avoid your shop - I tend to like repeatable results from my printer.
            • some of Colorsync's profile conversion tools CAN be useful, but software colur calibration is a complete no-go I'm afraid. In TV/film work, we always make sure that it's turned off. If you're gonna calibrate your screen, it better be done properly by feeding a known signal from a TPG in and sampling the faceplate IN THE CORRECT AMBIENT LIGHT CONDITIONS ONLY. Grade 1 video monitors are adjusted like this, and on a weekly basis in our facility. They are also never allowed to be turned off and always correctly illuminated.
      • I've done some fairly high-end prepress, and have run into my share of color matching issues.

        While what you say is correct, as an on-screen artist, I sure as heck need faithful color on my screen. And that's why I'll put effort onto screen-based color matching.
  • It'll be tough, if not impossible, to use this on an airplane but, damn I like it.

    I'mm still eagerly waiting for my mylar film LCD (ePaper), where I can roll up a 20"+ touch screen and put it in my briefcase or where ever.
  • Dual screens are good, but I would much rather have a single 22" or greater LCD than multi-ple smaller ones. I find the seperate screen borders distracting. As a matter of fact, I am still awaiting a 54" LCD true desktop that I can write on and use as a true visible workspace.

    But the Panasonic is a step in the right direction. The more screen space the better!
    • I have two 17" monitors hooked up to my pc. One is running of the built in video and the other off a graphics card. It's a great setup, especially if you're doing work in one and in the other you have your chat, email, winamp.

      I prefer a bunch of smaller screens, because then I can arrange them to all face me. A 54" screen would be difficult to use- the left and right edges would be a good foot or more away from your eyes than the center of the screen. Your eyes would have to refocus when you moved around the screen.

      Now, a flexible 54" screen might work, one that is slightly curved so all points are equidistance from your eyes.

  • Now there will be more screen area to show the blue screen of death...
  • I once shared an office with Jim Gettys who declared that he had to have dual monitors on his desk because he was the guy 'who wrote the silly code to do it' [in X-Windows].

    Since then I have been looking for an excuse for a second display. Until recently however the thought of paying for dual 18" LCD displays was just too much and now the model I have is no longer made so if I bought a second one it would not match. Like what is the point in having kewl stuff if it looks crappie? Also the demise of 3DFX means that I would also have to get a new PCI monitor card to drive the thing.

    I agree with the other posters about not really wanting my PC built into my display. My computer system lives out of sight about 5 ft from my desk and is connected to the desk by 2 cables, the monitor cable and the USB cable. I have a USB keyboard, mouse and CDROM drive on the desk

    Idealy I would move the computer into another room altogether 'cos the fan is pretty loud.

    I think that before I start spending more money on decorating the office that the NASDAQ needs to go up above 3000 or so.

  • I don't get it... What's new about this? Dual-monitor stuff has been around for a while.

    I don't think the fact that it's 2 LCDs is anything special. What did I miss?
  • LCD manufacturing quality is "bad" enough with people treating pixel-perfect LCDs as holy idols.

    It seems like a risky undertaking to release a model such as this when probabilities say that you double the # of exchanges per customer if you double the number of LCDs a customer buys.

    I'd be interested in finding out what their "modified" standards are for a faulty LCD with this new model.
  • I don't see the big push MS has for multiple monitors. No home user would want the expense in dollars or desk space, electricity of having two monitors.
    Multiple desktops, or oversized desktops ala ATI's old video drivers (before MS WHQL removed the ability) is a much, much better solution.
    • Well, I think that they might, if even a tiny fraction of home users were even aware that they could use two monitors!

      Multiple desktops are nice, but they simply are not a substitute for seeing two seperate apps simultaneously. Rather than switching desktops to look at your "other" app, then switch back to the first, you just look at the other monitor, then back. It's a terrific thing.

      The one area that they don't make a lot of sense in (yet) is gaming. Those who are in it for the gaming should just save for the 21" monitor.

      (I have a 21" at home, and 2x17" at work. Each has it's benefits and drawbacks. The only way for me to choose the "best" of the two would be to buy 2x21".)

      steve
  • Although I can't see this link (thanks /.), I have to say "bravo!" More people should be exposed to the wonders of multi-monitor setups. As a developer/author, I have found the added real estate of multiple monitors more than outweighs the benefits of huge monitors. Thus, I buy cheaper 19 and 17 inch CRTs and have WAY more space to work and play. Good for Panasonic!
    • Agree 100%. I've got a 15" LCD and 17" CRT at home, both at 1024x768. At work I have my TiBook driving its LCD (1152x768) and a 19" CRT at 1152x870. I've become sufficiently spoiled that any single display system feels confining, no matter how big it is.


      Once again, the rest of the industry is figuring out that Apple had the right idea over 10 years ago...

  • Video games? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TheFlyingGoat ( 161967 )
    Unfortunately the server is already /.'d for me, so I don't know if my question would be answered in the press release.

    One of the most interesting reasons for setting up dual displays for me would be for gaming... more FOV. With most systems, however, only one 3d card is used to display the game, while the other stays on the desktop. Would it be up to game designers to add a feature that would allow both screens to be used for displaying the game, or is that at the window manager level?

    Furthermore, what would be the best way to handle this for FPS (and most non-FPS games actually) where the main action is in the center of the screen? Your crosshair would fall on the break between the LCDs. :/ Maybe use one display for FOV stuff and the other for displaying weapon, health, ammo, map, etc?

    Any insight would be appreciated. :)

  • For sale by owner (Score:4, Offtopic)

    by nsample ( 261457 ) <nsample@sta n f o r d.edu> on Friday February 01, 2002 @04:34PM (#2939023) Homepage
    I currently run two monitors, side by side, in a similar configuatrion. I bought a PCI Voodoo3 at a local Fry's for abour $25, and a second monitor. Beats the heck out of spending $2k for a new box with features I don't want. But, I'll gladly sell it to you for $2k.

    So, seriously, tell me again why a computer with two monitors is worthy of being a /. story?
  • Well, thanks to the hoards of slashdotters, the english site is down and out.

    http://www.sense.panasonic.co.jp/shop/ncpo/catlo g/ pc/cf-81/cf-81.jsp

    Anyone read Japanese?

    ~LoudMusic

  • Pics available on Panasonic.co.jp (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cy Guy ( 56083 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @04:40PM (#2939064) Homepage Journal
    The link in the story was already slashdotted so I found some pics on Panasonic's Japanese homepage [panasonic.co.jp]

    I like the pic at the bottom of the page showing how you can flip one screen around facing away from you so that two people sitting at a table facing each other both get a screen.

    With a multi-tasking OS, one user could use the mouse and the other the keyboard and work on seperate tasks.
    • Is when you have some sort of a help-desk type environment, where the client comes in to talk, and you need to show them something. There was an IBM LCD that would do a sort of a backflip for that purpose:
      As anyone who's attempted to use VNC to fix a server while someone's sitting on the system, wrestling for mouse control is a pain in the ass.

      I have however, had luck with a two keyboard system [Macintosh], when some friends from Galudet would come by, we'd set two folks up on a system with two keyboards, so they could communicate without having to write everything down, and keep passing paper back and forth.
  • Aside from the usual @dose it run Linux?) I also want to know more detailed specs. Too bad the site is slashdoted beyond recovery. Anyone care to post info?

    Sure you can go out and build a system with 2 19@ monitors for less but alas if you make a compatibility blunder it's all on you head. In other words if you are an artist or programer with limited hardware experience you should buy this rather than building your own.
  • If you can't read someting Asian, at least you can look at the pretty pictures here: http://k-tai.impress.co.jp/cda/article/stapa/0,161 6,4140,00.html

    What's ALSO interesting is the 'Private Key' Hardware shown partway down the apge.

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gUmbi ( 95629 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @04:45PM (#2939102)
    Ford decided to add a spoiler to this years Escort.

    Dell released a PC today with 4 USB ports! (Now you surf the information superhighway twice as fast! - Dude, you're getting a Dell!)

    Pleez,

    Jason.

  • PCI Bandwidth? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Usquebaugh ( 230216 )
    I used to have a three monitor set up at work, pretty neat although the window manager needed some work to make it perfect.

    I've been thinking about doing this at home. But I want accelerated digital 3D $$$

    So do we have multi AGP ports on any mother boards?

    Is the PCI bus ever going to get increased bandwidth?

    To me the bandwidth limitations of the pci bus would seem to be a limit on futre expansion.
    • I believe there are some difficulties with multiple-AGP motherboards. I think that memory access is currently one of them (although I might be wrong).

      As far as PCI goes, there have been some developments. You are starting to see more 66mHz and/or 64 bit PCI slots (most of the older PCI slots are 33mHz/32-bit).

      I run dual CRTs now and plan on running dual LCDs on my next computer. While good 3D is important to me, I realize that it is *most* important on one screen.

      So my second screen is not quite as fast as my primary screen. I can live with that.

  • What's new about this? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DohDamit ( 549317 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @04:50PM (#2939131) Homepage Journal
    A year and a half ago, I walked into a place(trading shop) and the tech's there had three or four monitors they switched between by moving their mouse. How is this any big deal? Not only did they have several monitors, they could choose which computer under their desk actually displayed on each monitor...so each computer spewed onto one or many monitors, depending on what they wanted. How is this better?
    • The fascinating this about this is that it comes set up like that. How many home users have the technical know-how to set something up like that? This comes all set up with the bells and whistles, plus it's very light and easy to setup and maneuver.

      Granted, I've got my two 19" monitors side by side, and I love it to death! But it wasn't something that normal people could do (of course, it didn't help that one was an old fixed frequency 1962b Sun monitor with a special adapter ... if you want something similar and need the modelines, let me know and I'll send them to you).

      Anyway, this just brings dual headed displays to the masses and that's what rocks.

  • Japanese product page (Score:3, Informative)

    by murphj ( 321112 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @04:55PM (#2939156) Homepage
    For those unable to follow the article's link:
    Try Here [panasonic.co.jp]
  • One word:

    Bloomberg
  • Does anyone out there know about the future of LCD display technology? I've been curious about this. With CRT's, it seems intuitive to me that a small increase in screen size (say, going from 19" to 21") would result in a large cost increase. The technology doesn't scale well, so a linear increase in screen area doesn't translate to a linear increase in cost.

    But is this necessarily true with LCD screens? It seems to be based on the way they are priced. But technologically speaking, why can't I have an LCD screen with 4 times the area of a 17" screen, for 4 times the cost?

    I'm curious because I'd love to be able to buy a nice 50" widescreen LCD monitor for my home computer in ten years or so, for maybe $400 or so. Will it happen?

    • Re:Here's a question (Score:2, Interesting)

      by rlarner ( 28002 )
      It's because current LCD production technology is worse than CRT - they throw away a lot of monitors. Here's the process:
      1. manufacture the complete LCD screen
      2. Test to see how many 'defective' dots there are
      3. If too many defects are seen in the screen (either total number, or too many next to eachother, or...), throw it away.
      4. Use what's left.
      That's why large LCD screens have not been made - the larger the screen, the more defective dots you get.

      • Why throw them away? granted no buisness or serious gamer would buy a LCD with bad pixels, but it would seem to me there is a market for LCDs with a small number of non-intrusive bad pixels. The menu bar on the bottom of my desktop for instance doens't need all the pixes to work. And if there are one or two in the middle of a large display I can live with that.

        Mind you I expect to pay a large discount for the displays with bad pixels, but I would buy a 15 inch LCD with 5 bad pixels for $49.95, and it would seem to me there is a market there. And since they would throw them away before they make money.

        Of course maybe they recycle the bad LCDs, in which case they do need to make more profit over the cost to recycle a bad display. Still I would think this could be done. Anyone know the costs?

      • After I posted my question, I remembered the How Stuff Works website, and I found this same answer there:

        http://www.howstuffworks.com/lcd5.htm

        So, I guess the limiting factor is how much they can improve the manufacturing quality. Hmmm, it would be cool if they could develop a modular process, where they could produce 4" mini-panels, test them, and then fuse the good ones together seamlessly. But maybe I'm dreaming.

        Or maybe someone will produce my 50" LCD screen and just allow for a certain small percentage of defects. How bad could that be?

  • pics (Score:3)

    by SubtleNuance ( 184325 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @05:17PM (#2939263) Journal
    http://k-tai.impress.co.jp/cda/article/stapa/0,161 6,4140,00.html [impress.co.jp]

    Everyone thank our friends at google for this link. Not a mirror, but a start.

  • One of the other posters commented that it was stupid to create a PC with dual LCD panels because the system will depreciate before the LCD panels.

    For laptops this is not the case. Some vendor should create a laptop with dual LCDs.

    Specifically this image [panasonic.co.jp]

    Imagine if this was a laptop. Would be REALLY slick and I would pay the extra $1000 for this.

    They would need the ability to operate conventionally so that you could still use it with one LCD panel because you wouldn't be able to use it on an airplane.

    I am sitting in a coffee shop in San Francisco right now on 802.11 and it would be nice to have dual LCD panels. One for Emacs and one for Mozilla :)

  • dual monitor iMac (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by pneuma_66 ( 1830 )
    this picture [panasonic.co.jp] looks suspiciously like the dual monitor iMac [cloud13.com] i made as a joke.
  • ...with two 15-inch (1024x768) LCD monitors...

    Are you sure they're 1024x768? The Panasonic Japan website lists SXGA resolution (15.7", instead of the 15.0 we're used to seeing).

    IIRC:

    VGA=640x480
    SVGA=800x600
    XGA=1024x768
    SXGA=1280x1024

    I'm pretty sure from look at the mirror site, these are actually 1280x1024 resolution. Which I would like even better than my current 1024x768 LCD I have at home!

    (WalMart sells them for $369.00 US now. With free mouse! ;)
  • I've got dual 17" LCD monitors and, frankly, it's been a rough ride.

    I started with an ATI Radeon All-in-Wonder and Rage something-or-other as the secondary card. This worked fairly well, except the TV on the AIW wouldn't work unless I rebooted Win2K with just one video card. To play games I at least had to disable the second display (didn't have to reboot, though). But for regular Windows apps, this worked great; apps maximize to just one monitor, popups don't cross monitor boundaries, most things just worked better.

    Not happy with the performance on the second display (PCI instead of AGP) I splurged and got a Radeon 8500 with built-in dual-head. And yeah, the performance is great... but the dual-head support is utter crap. The DVD playback can't full-screen properly, apps get confused about which monitor (or both) they should maximize to, the mouse pointer behaves erratically near the monitor break, and you can't set the two monitors to different resolutions. Oh, and the software gets confused about how to use both monitors across reboots; sometimes forgetting the bit depth, always forgetting that a 2560x1024 display should span two monitors, not be constrained to one. ATI has yet to patch any of these problems.

    The LCDs themselves... well I use flat CRTs at work, and I prefer the LCDs, even for graphics work. The sharpness of LCDs is extraordinary; it's especially unforgiving of JPEGs, as I can see a lot more distortion on these than I can on a CRT. It did take me a while to get the color balance decent, though--and even longer to get both monitors to match each other. But I can fit two of these on my desk without having to use industrial-strength support. The two together weigh less than a single 21" monitor.

    The Panasonic unit looks interesting but it's probably going to be a very niche item. Most people can't justify two monitors in their minds, even though once you use one seriously for work, you end up liking it quite a bit. (You can pry my second monitor from my cold, dead fingers.)

  • ...there had better be a lot more to it for me to give up my 2x1600x1200 + 1x1280x1024 displays.

  • More monitors -vs- bigger monitors. (Score:3, Informative)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @07:17PM (#2939843)
    This is something people seem to disagree on.

    A large monitor is great. A bigger monitor is better.

    But for somethings.. 2,3, or 4 displays can be handy... especially when you really aren't after one big desktop (like, for widescreen movies, spreadsheets, etc). or graphics (because you end up with color variances between displays, etc).
    Multiple monitors can be very handy... like, one web page open in one to read documentation... and my editor on the bigmonitor....

    Every multi-head setup I've had involved a central, main screen (19" or 21") and smaller, 17 or 15 inchers on the sides.. these were usually used to just stick monitoring windows, slashdot.. whatever on . The central big one is for the work.

    This side by side setup looks great for office work.. not great for games.

  • multiple montiors with VNC (Score:4, Informative)

    by cosyne ( 324176 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @08:01PM (#2939991) Homepage
    I've been using some manner of dual head system for a few years. Once you get used to having the real estate, it's hard to go back. I now have a pc with one big AGP-connected monitor and a secondary 17in runnig on a pci card, which is great for non-graphics intensive stuff like a terminal window, mp3 player, contact manager/schedule, but mainly for displaying documentation or assignments or other useful info while i'm coding on the bigger monitor.

    Anyways, my point was that i end up using my extra monitors for simple stuff like showing a text document, which could easily be done by an old laptop or obsolete pentium desktop you have lying around. So, you can use x2vnc [hubbe.net]or win2vnc [hubbe.net] to link the computers together. I use this to set my laptop next to some other display, and i can mouse over, even copy and paste, like both displays were on the same system.
  • ...it weren't for Panasonics crappy support. They are absolutely the worst of any company I have ever dealt with. I finally discovered their secret, though. After many hours on the phone with their Tech Support (actually, many hours on hold with sporadic contact with alleged Support Techs) I finally got ahold of someone who knew something, and was informed that Panasonic only supports Canadians.

    OK, he didn't actually say that, but if you're looking for Panasonic drivers that actually work you have to go to their Canadian site [panasonic.ca].

Slashdot Top Deals

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov

Close