Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Displays

Are Nanotube Monitors In Your Future? 191

Posted by CmdrTaco from the science-fiction-science-fact dept.
cmburns69 writes "There is an article over on CNET News about some new nanotube technology which could replace LCD flat panel displays. "These 'field effect displays,' or FEDs, will consume less energy than plasma or liquid crystal display (LCD) TVs, deliver a better picture and even cost less.". The article is mostly focused on the FED technology, but also includes a summary of what other new display technology is coming up such as SEDs and slim CRTs. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are Nanotube Monitors In Your Future? More

Are Nanotube Monitors In Your Future?

Comments Filter:
  • I wonder how much the first models will go for and how long it will take before Joe sixpack can afford one without selling a kidney.
    • It's not a question of "are they in your future", it's "how far are they in your future, and how many kids did you have to sell to get one bigger than your neighbors'".

    • Early adopters (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bennomatic ( 691188 )
      Cost really won't be an issue at first. Not only does the manufacturer need to recoup R&D quickly, but also, they don't necessarily WANT to go mass market immediately with such new technology.

      The early adopter market is great for high tech because they:

      • don't mind paying a premium for cool stuff, and they
      • don't expect things to run perfectly.

      You can imagine that if some company creating these things were to decide to just jump right to mass market, they would have huge problems with the volumes

    • Since they're essentially CRT tubes redesigned, and since CRTs suffer from burn-in, wouldn't the FEDs as well be prone to burn-in?

      I woulnd't buy a burn-in-prone HDTV set at any price. Maybe if i get it for free... ;-) Plasma displays are ridiculous - not only they're the most expensive, but they're most vulnerable to burn-in.
      That's why i'm looking at DLP displays for my next purchase.
      • The only time I have seen CRTs with burn-ins is on ATM screens (the same bank screen for years on end). You cannot burn in your CRT through normal television viewing.

        I used to own a thirty five year old tv that had no burn-in, despite being used daily.
        • Hm...
          What if you view 4:3 shows a lot on a 16:9 CRT? I betcha you didn't do that to your 35 year old CRT.

          That's the problem with HDTV sets - there's still a lot of 4:3 content that will burn itself "nicely" into the phosphor.

          No, stretching the image is not a solution. I will never own such a stupid device. If anyone would try to sell me such a thing, i'll probably get pretty angry.
          I mean, if my current TV would distort the images as badly as a 16:9 stretching a 4:3 image, i would probably throw it away.

          I
  • is developing a similar panel that relies on specially doped diamond dust.

    Do you suppose the author meant dropped? Otherwise, I hope that dust has glaucoma!

    • Re:Drugged up Diamands (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Doping means to apply a chemical treatment. So in this case the diamonds are coated with a chemical to change the diamonds' material properties in some way.

    • Re:Drugged up Diamands (Score:3, Informative)

      by Twanfox ( 185252 )
      No, what they refer to is infusing/treating pure diamond dust with a particular element/chemical.

      See: Dictionary.Com's definition of Doped, entry 4 (Electronics) [reference.com]

      Still is pretty funny, though.

    • Doping a chemical compound means adding specifically chosen impurities to change the proerties and behavior of the compound.
    • is developing a similar panel that relies on specially doped diamond dust.

      Do you suppose the author meant dropped? Otherwise, I hope that dust has glaucoma!

      I suspect the author really meant "doped", as in adding an artificial impurity to create a semiconductor. (It might sell well either way, however...)
    • This would make a great name for a band.

    • Re:Drugged up Diamands (Score:3, Interesting)

      by KlomDark ( 6370 )
      No completely true, and in fact where the drug term came from in the first place. The word "Dope" has changed definitions over the years, as far as to which drug it refers.

      Originally, it referred to "Airplane Dope" which we know these days as "Model Glue". By squirting the glue into a bag and breathing the fumes, you'd get a good high. The original "dopers" (1940ish?) were ones who did this.

      Somewhere along the line (probably 1960s), the definition shifted (mainly because of term-illiterate media people wh

  • Define cost less (Score:4, Insightful)

    by superpulpsicle ( 533373 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @03:11PM (#11279848)
    If it's not in the sub $250 range, most people won't buy it. And just because they say it is cheaper, doesn't mean it'll be affordable until 5 years after it hits the market.

    • Re:Define cost less (Score:4, Insightful)

      by stupidfoo ( 836212 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @03:15PM (#11279918)
      This is the same nonsense that's posted about every new technology out there. How many times have we read about a new display technology that's going to be better/faster/higher quality/cheaper/stronger/smarter/prettier/jumps higher/etc than LCDs and Plasma.

      Every single one of them. And in reality that's all just a bunch of marketing BS. Maybe it might be true when they massaged their 20 year sales projection numbers the right way, or if they stretch the truth on performance to the very edge.

      Unfortunately, Slashdot, like every other site, gets sucked into the better/faster/cheaper nonsense everytime it comes up.

      • Re:Define cost less (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ZeroGee ( 796304 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @03:18PM (#11279971)
        So are you saying that LCDs and Plasma TVs are the end-all for TV development? These new devices are betterfastercheaper, but that doesn't mean today! It means that after the initial development period, this technology will replace the older version. It's an evolution of technology.
        • I wasn't saying that the current techs are the end all, just that all we ever hear about are all these amazing magical technologies that will blow the existing techs away.

          It's like they issue these marketing FUD filled press releases the second after the scientists make a discovery that could, possibly, in 10-15 years, enable them to develop a new display technology.
          • I wasn't saying that the current techs are the end all, just that all we ever hear about are all these amazing magical technologies that will blow the existing techs away.

            Understood. And to a certain extent, you're right -- there is a whole lot of marketing crap that is put out there for public consumption in the hopes of attracting investors or what have you. But the alternative to hearing about all these new developments is to not hear about anything until it is actually usuable by the public -- and

          • Re:Define cost less (Score:4, Insightful)

            by David Gould ( 4938 ) <david@dgould.org> on Thursday January 06, 2005 @07:39PM (#11283080) Homepage

            just that all we ever hear about are all these amazing magical technologies that will blow the existing techs away.

            You mean like plasma screens? You know, it wasn't that many years ago that we were discussing, right here on Slahsdot[*1], an article that sounded just like this one, but was introducing a hot new display technology called <fingerquote style="Dr. Evil">"plasma"</fingerquote> that was going to enable flat displays to be made bigger/better/cheaper than was possible with LCDs.

            Then too, the article was overly enthusiastic; then too, some of us got prematurely excited about it; then too, others soberly advised waiting for actual products, etc. In short, it was exactly the same as this. And yet, the technology really did arrive eventually.

            You're right that it's stupid to get all excited about an R&D concept demo (or even an actual prototype) as if it were an actual product (and by the way, it's called vaporware [catb.org], not FUD [catb.org] -- similar concepts but an important distinction). But it would be just as dumb to completely scoff off all new-tech press releases. We should take an article like this for what it is, no more, no less: a preview of one of the (several, competing) possibilities for what might become the next generation of display technology.

            We know there's going to be a next generation, and between SED, FED, OLED, Thin-CRT, and WIMF, there's an exciting amount of potential for displays to get dramatically bigger, better, and cheaper sometime in the not-too-distant future. I for one am content to leave it at that, and interested to keep an eye on developments on all those avenues.

            --
            [1] At least, some of us, who were around back then. I think I'm supposed to make a comment about /. UIDs at this point, but I can't stand those people who get all cocky about their "old-timer" status.
      • You could say the same about LCDS. I would bet most TVs and monitors are CRTs still.
      • It doesn't take much to be better than LCD or plasma screens. Good old CRTs can do it, and they've been around for over 50 years.
      • How many times have we read about a new display technology that's going to be better/faster/higher quality/cheaper/stronger/smarter/prettier/jumps higher/etc than LCDs and Plasma.

        Yeah, but Plasma,LCD and OLED's were revolutionary in the way they produce the light in the displays. FED's only use the existing phosphore pixels technology that we have been using in our CRT's for decades.

        The revolutionary (and therefore expensive) part of Field Emission Displays are the nanotube arrays replacing the bulky vac
    • If it's not in the sub $250 range, most people won't buy it

      These days, most people seem to be buying televisions with screens larger than 35". And they cost a bit more than $250.

      If you build it, somebody with a small penis will buy it.

      • The real advantage to me of owning an 84" television is that is makes the size of my penis seem more reasonable and less intimidating by comparison.
        • Shove a video camera down your pants and display your tiny penis on the 84" TV... problem solved.

          Remember to close your blinds first so Godzillapenis doesn't scare the hell out of your neighbours.

  • Newsflash! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There is a new technology that researches believe is promising as a potential replacement for existing technology!
  • Everyone knows that feds consume massive amounts of resources. And i sure as hell don't want one attached to my computer!
  • Uh oh... here come the FEDs!
    • Uh oh... here come the FEDs!

      It's their new plan to monitor and prosecute copyright violations.

      "This is the FED9000. Cancel that illegal music download and step away from the computer"
  • Is this a Monitor that Mork and Mindy would like? Nano Nano

  • Same Line (Score:5, Insightful)

    by teiresias ( 101481 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @03:13PM (#11279884)
    "These , will consume less energy than plasma or liquid crystal display (LCD) TVs, deliver a better picture and even cost less.".

    This seems to be the spin for any new display technology that's being hawked, regardless of development, deployment or truth.
    • It seems like only a few weeks ago we were reading about plastic prisms that will bring us cheaper, better flat screen displays. Are there any new screen technologies that may be making a debut in the stores in the next couple of years?
      • The slim CRTs mentioned should be out by the end of this year. Time will tell in what quantity, and what market (TV, computer display, etc.).

        I'm using a 6 year old, deep, non-flat 21" CRT behemoth at home, and I'm still waiting for some type of shallow-depth flat display to come along that doesn't have colour issues or slow response time. Oh, and that's affordable!

        I'd _really_ love to reclaim all that deskspace. I'm thinking two 19" flat panel displays, mounted from above (I have a 'Jerker' desk from I
        • Seconded. I'm using a five year old 19" here mostly because I don't want to sell a lung to get a good LCD that I can still use for gaming. For the cost of a good 1280x1024 LCD (good meaning low refresh rate, high contrast) you can pick up 2-3 good 19" CRTs.
  • RD-D2 Droids to come out, so I can play Doom III in 3d Holographic Projection mode!

    Now to just program the R2 unit to fetch me "Cold Ones"...
  • Yes, this does sound truly excellent. And maybe in 20 or so years, I can afford to buy one. By which time, a new, more excellent technology will be developed which I won't be able to afford.

    I'm still using CRTs. Bleh.

  • for the lazy: the ghosting question (Score:3, Informative)

    by dAzED1 ( 33635 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @03:16PM (#11279943) Journal
    From the article, the answer to what these look like from the side: The images produced by CRT tubes are crisper and aren't subject to the shifting and ghosting of LCD screens. However, the electron gun in CRTs requires a large vacuum: the tube in a 30-inch diagonal television is 23-inches deep, though slim CRTs coming next year will only need 16-inch deep tubes.



    Like an LCD, an FED is made up of layers. A layer of glass is coated with a cathode and a layer of diamond dust coated with lithium or carbon nanotubes. The negatively charged cathode, organized in a grid, then emits electrons through the diamonds or nanotubes, which focus that energy like a tiny lightening rod.



    But then, like a CRT, the electrons shoot through a vacuum at a layer of phosphorescent glass covered with pixels. The big difference is that the source of electrons, the carbon, is located only 1 millimeter to 2 millimeters rather than nearly 2 feet from the target glass, and instead of one electron source--the electron gun--there are thousands. The electrons are attracted to the pixilated glass because this layer contains a positively charged anode.



    "This generates light the same way a CRT tube does," said Pitstick, leading to similar picture quality. At the same time, a FED is only slightly thicker than an LCD panel.

    • So the FED is in some sense just ~a million tiny single-pixel CRTs? Interesting!
    • I'm not sure what 'ghosting' they are talking about. If they mean a slightly dimmer image shifted horizontally from the primary image, then it really doesn't matter what kind of DISPLAY you use, you're still going to get it.

      That type of ghosting is due to poor signal quality (analog) and often times the primary signal is reflected, and shifed in time (and therefore horizontally). You can prove it is not the DISPLAY easily enough with a VCR. Tape the ghosted program, and play it back on a plasma or LCD TV.
  • At a nanotube workshop in 1999 Samsung demoed an early prototype. It was only about 8-inch diagonal and displayed a fixed image, but was still impressive. The basic idea is to have an electron gun for each pixel as nanotubes make nice electron guns. In fact, each pixel had hundreds or thousands (I forget) of nanotubes, probably for ease of manufacture and redundancy.
  • You know what I have heard for a long time that LCDs will become cheap and affordable for guys like...me. but that hassent happend in a long time. Plasma is looking good but not $4999 good so I will belive it when I see it. I am going to stick with my CRT until I see that they have come down in price.
  • All of which promise cheaper, higher definition pictures, using less energy, and do 0-500 mph in a quarter second.

    Whatever. Go to fucking circuit city and notice that anything other than a "plain ole tv set" costs an order of magnitude more, and doesn't even boast a better image.

    LCoS SED Plasma OLED LCD DLP SHOMORK

    So lets take the buzzword of the day and rebadge it as "TV tech of teh futore".

    Nanotubes.

    WiFi Nanotubes, with iTunes.

  • Just like plasmas... (Score:4, Funny)

    by gUmbi ( 95629 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @03:19PM (#11279985)
    yet another new reason for Americans to take out a home equity loan.
    • yet another new reason for Americans to take out a home equity loan.

      You Communist. We don't use home equity, we use Credit Cards. Go back to Havana, Fidel.

    • these days americans don't have equity. they buy their houses with interest only ARMs, and hope they can make money on appreciation. many people don't even make down payments any more.
  • I thought OLED [slashdot.org] would be where we were heading.
    • Or LCOS.

      Or DLP a la the new slim light engine sets.

      Or LCD

      Or SED

      Whatever, the CRT is going to be the dominant player in everything but the "high end" for a long, long time. A whole bunch of pie-in-the-sky type ideas, none of which have lead to cheap, high-def sets for the masses, but all have fizzled.

      Only CRT's have delivered high-def sets that are anywhere close to the price range of the old, regular sets.

      So much for next years big switch to all digital television.

  • Are nanotube monitors in my future (Score:3, Funny)

    by Smallpond ( 221300 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @03:20PM (#11279998) Homepage Journal
    Yes. Right after stem cells cure all diseases, and Longhorn fixes all security holes in my PC.
  • Jesus, I've been reading about FEDs for like 8 years now. I keep going to Wal-Mart every week to check, but they still don't carry them.

  • No (Score:1)

    by demon411 ( 827680 )
    no they are not. i already have a projector.

  • I read about new tech all the time, but the only thing I ever see sold are incremental improvements to existing technologies. Maybe I should move to Japan or something. Where are my consumer priced video-phones, laser guns, flying cars, transporters, cloaking devices, etc.????

  • But Do they Beat OLEDS? (Score:5, Informative)

    by ghutchis ( 7810 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @03:23PM (#11280051) Homepage

    The article is interesting and IMHO, new display technologies will always find their niche. But I've always thought the "next-gen" technology to beat LCD flat-screen or plasma displays was going to be OLEDs [wikipedia.org].

    On the one hand, OLEDs still have some problems with lifetimes--even research devices that I saw in grad school might degrade quickly. And of course I haven't seen anyone really give proof that single-walled nanotubes (SWNT) used in these FEDs can be produced cost-effectively.

    However, unlike these technologies, OLEDs have already been produced as prototypes in sizes as large as 40" [slashdot.org] (by Seiko Epson) and being used in products like Digital Cameras [slashdot.org] and MP3/Ogg players [slashdot.org] and being mass-produced by companies like Sony [slashdot.org].

    Previous Slashdot stories on OLEDs:
    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/15/201723 7 [slashdot.org]
    http://slashdot.org/articles/03/03/04/0127213.shtm l?tid=137 [slashdot.org]
    http://science.slashdot.org/science/04/03/09/01122 34.shtml [slashdot.org]
    http://slashdot.org/articles/04/05/05/004227.shtml ?tid=137&tid=141&tid=159&tid=184&tid=186&tid=188 [slashdot.org]

    • Re:But Do they Beat OLEDS? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Elledan ( 582730 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @03:53PM (#11280456) Homepage

      The problem with OLED is that it's a technology which is basically being developed from scratch. Variants on OLED are even being developed, to circumvent (among other things) the longevity issues with especially the blue component of OLED (10,000 to 20,000 hours so far).

      The thing is that SED and FED are pretty much evolved versions of the venerable CRT: they've got 'electron guns', a vacuum, and a layer build up out of phosphors. Only big differences are the number of electron guns (tens of thousands instead of three) and the distance between the electron guns and the phosphor layer (millimeters instead of tens of centimeters).

      SED in particular stands a good chance, as it uses existing manufacturing techniques for the electron gun-layer and further basically replicates a CRT. FED tries to do things a bit fancier, which requires more R&D, and thus more time to bring it to the market.

      So in summary, OLED and FED are still (partially) in a research stadium, while SED is ready to be marketed: the first SED displays (TVs) will apppear in 2005, with computer displays appearing in 2006. That's according to Toshiba's PR-department, at least :p

      Link to general information on SED: SED [canon.com]

      • Right, I agree with you that OLEDs are quite different from other display technologies. And I'm interested to hear that SED are so close to the market -- last time I heard any noise suggested they were still some time off. (PR department or not.)

        But I still think in the long run, that OLED or similar technology wins. For one, each individual element is light-emitting, meaning you can easily have pixels composed of hundreds or thousands of individual OLEDs -- to prevent "dead pixel" problems. Maybe, just ma

        • I quote from this page [arstechnica.com]:

          "Current large screen OLED devices consume far more power than LCDs [..]"

          So it appears that OLED seems to have a problem with power efficiency in addition to the longevity of its pixels. Definitely not a good sign. The article I quoted from also specifies 2008 as the date when OLED might enter mass-production. Still a long way off, in other words.

          As for SED, take a look at this article: Toshiba's SED TV at CES [engadget.com]. First (big) TVs released this year, with production ramping up next

          • I've been waiting for these sets to come online for over 5 years now. It looks like they may finally be close to market. If these sets work out as well as we've been made to believe over the years - CRT image quality, LCD power consumption at rear projection prices per square inch - they're going to blow plasma and LCD direct view screens right out of the marketplace.

            Here's hoping all of those LCD plants the Koreans have built can be converted to SED or FED factories . . .

            I think OLED is dead for anythi
    • And of course I haven't seen anyone really give proof that single-walled nanotubes (SWNT) used in these FEDs can be produced cost-effectively.

      I guess you should search it by yourself [google.com] (I found it on the First link [betterhumans.com]). The article title reads: "For cheap nanotubes, just add water". Oh, the Irony ;-)

  • Cost of carbon nanotubes problematic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by teneighty ( 671401 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @03:26PM (#11280092)

    I RTFA, and those FED monitors sound pretty nice. The only problem is they require diamonds or carbon nanotubes to manufacture. Last I heard, carbon nanotubes are quite expensive to manufacture in any quantity (wikipedia seems to confirm this [wikipedia.org]). I'm not sure about the cost of the small syntehtic diamond that FEDs require, but I imagine they aren't cheap to make either (does anyone know?).

    Hopefully a breakthrough will come along and make these things cheap to manufacture though, because FEDs sound like very cool technology.

    • Re:Cost of carbon nanotubes problematic (Score:4, Funny)

      by Slime-dogg ( 120473 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @04:21PM (#11280823) Journal

      I'm not sure about the cost of the small syntehtic diamond that FEDs require, but I imagine they aren't cheap to make either (does anyone know?).

      Wired has a love fest with synthetic diamonds [wired.com]

      I recall a /. article from a year or two ago that spoke of a small company in the Massachusette's area that produced flawless white diamonds. They used some technique of using a diamond point of action, and layering carbon onto it, like a chip fab does. It seemed like they could produce fairly large quantities at minimal cost. I'm not sure if they have been shot by deBeers yet, tho.

  • SED stands for surface-conduction electron emitter display? Shouldn't that be SCEED? Or at least SEED?
  • which was last years FED, everything will be fine.

    (TV technology as vaporware... we've come a long way baby!)
  • You guys are thinking of the wrong doped. "Doped" in electronics means treated with a special dopant, which does NOT get you high. Instead, the dopant alters its conductive properties.
  • Nanotubes are becoming increasingly more popular as they become mass-producable. A few weeks ago they invented a new process that creates nanotubes with 99.9% purity. Nanotubes are 100 times stronger than steel at 1/10 the weight. Hopefully we will be seeing more nanotube projects in the future.
  • After all, if I tell some of my 1337 friends that I have some FEDs at my house, they won't want to come over or talk to me anymore!
  • Wasn't there an article on /. a while back in which a company claimed they would have these monitors out by the end of '04? Guess they were lying.

  • Femtotube displays! (Score:4, Funny)

    by VirtualUK ( 121855 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @03:36PM (#11280221) Homepage
    Yup...they're thinner than the hair of a unicorn, have negative weight due to their anti-gravity properties, they actually generate money instead of cost money and because they can be produced on such a massive scale the UN is contemplating replacing the sky with a Large Array Unified Graphics Heaven ;)
  • once the carbon nanotube based space elevator falls, we can all make tvs out of pieces of it yay

  • aw shit (Score:2, Funny)

    by neilyos ( 671220 )
    and I just bought a brand new Dell UltraSharp 2001FP 20 inch LCD monitor about 20 minutes ago... http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.a spx?sku=320-1578&c=us&l=en&cs=19&category_id=2999& page=external [dell.com]
    • dont worry, they tinkered with field emission displays before tfts were available and they STILL dont have good results, so just wait and be happy, the dell aint bad...

  • First time I've heard of this technology it was 15 years ago. This has been originally developped at the LETI [www-leti.cea.fr] (a french research institute). PixTech [216.122.210.132] (also french) seems to be an emanation from this lab.

    FED displays are based on the so-called 'tip effect' (not sure about the english term, in french it's 'effet de pointe'). This electromagnetic effect is what makes lightning rods work. To simplify, each pixel is thus basically filled with micro-lightning rods that throw particles towards the phosphore.

  • Bad choice of acronyms (Score:5, Informative)

    by awtbfb ( 586638 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @04:05PM (#11280608)
    FED has already been used for flat panel screens. Specifically: field emission displays [archive.org]. Worth noting is that these, while very neat, turned out to be fiscally problematic (hence the need for the Wayback Machine [archive.org]). Not a good omen for this incarnation...
    • Actually, if you read the article and check out the neat and rather useless diagram included, they refer to the technology as both "effect" and "emission". The principles between the FEDs you reference and the FEDs in this article are similar, but since it's based on a new approach -- nanotubes -- perhaps this solution will be workable?

  • consume less energy than plasma or liquid crystal display (LCD) TVs, deliver a better picture and even cost less

    Isn't it always: Chose any two.

  • For the love of pete! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheAwfulTruth ( 325623 ) on Thursday January 06, 2005 @04:28PM (#11280921) Homepage
    Stop with the nano-tube announcements!

    We've been hearing for years about how nano-tubes are going to save mankind, make everything 100 times faster, 100x more energy efficient and taste 100% better.

    So far not one commercial product has been produced that actually uses them for anything other than marketing hype. It's getting beyond tired.

    "Nano-tube" is the call of the entrepreneur trying to get funding. All it takes is writing a paper or press release with the word "nano-tube" in it and people all jump to attention and thorw money. This is the 50th time we've heard it.

    Keep researching but stop with the "This could be the greatest thing ever, why in two years blah blah blah" annoucements already. Just tell us when it's done and for sale.

  • It seems like they have been talking about all the great things nano tubes can do for years now and I thought the first products were suppose to be on the market by now. It was nano tube batties for cell phones.

    Where are they, hanging out with Duke Nukem??
  • Oh shit, it's the FEDs!

    Sorry, I couldn't resist...
  • FED? Meet FUD.
    Discuss

  • Something better/faster/cheaper than LCDs??
    Damnit! And I was just contemplating dumping my 1993 Nec Multisync CRT (seriously!) for an LCD screen.. But if these are gonna be so much better I wouldn't want to waste my money now.... :)

    Goddamn technology *mumble mumble*

  • From the article:

    ...phosphorescent glass covered with pixels.

    So now the pixles are attached to the glass? WHAT?! Are the pixels little stickers or something??

    I love articles written by people who have no idea what the hell they are saying.

Slashdot Top Deals

The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam

Close