On Monday 22 October 2007 01:03:18 Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > Dexter Filmore wrote: > > Yes, but TFTs didn't start at only 8" meant as a computer display. > > Um, are you a young'un? ;) > > Your statement is factually incorrect. See: Mac Powerbook 170 9.8" > 640x400 and and Powerbook 180c 8.4" 640x480. Egregiously expensive, > power hungry, and notorious for pixel failures.
Whowowow, I'm talking desktop computer. TFTs as a CRT replacement. > > This was at the start of TFT's. At the time, nobody dreamed that they > would eventually replace CRT's. Yes, and noone came up with the idea to replace desktop CRT unless 14" were available at a reasonable price. > > Has to do with how OLEDs are produced. Producing a *small* OLED panel is > > easy, and those go at below 60 bucks in RGB. But as soon as you increase > > panel size, you have to make bigger light emitting cells. > > You can also make more of the same size. Just like TFT's. A single > pixel error on a TFT TV doesn't drop an area a quarter inch square. It > only wipes a single element of the cluster. Yes... has to do with my point.. what? > > > You don't have that > > problem with TFT since you only have to make a larger backlight area and > > cover that with larger LC fields. Not too hard. > > Yeah, tell that to the poor engineers who had to slog through this "not > too hard" problem and the companies who have to invest in completely new > fabs at each new generation. There is a reason that TFT prices are > exponential with number of pixels. Still OLED is a great deal different from TFT tech. Light emitting, say generating while polarized light shading from a background. Hard to compare. You increase the size of the panel you increase the area that has to emit light. On TFTs you have a larger area of crystals but they behave the same when applying current. Whoch molcules emit how much light when you "just" increase the cell area, now... > > > Cell display != desktop computer display. I had LCDs in pocket calcs 20 > > years ago, that would be saying like TFTs weren't vaporware 20 years ago > > because the calc LCDs existed. > > 20 years ago was only 1987. TFTs weren't vaporware. They were just > egregiously expensive. 4 years later they were in a portable computer > and merely expensive. See above. > > In addition, not all of the expense in TFTs was TFT technology. TFTs > needed digital semiconductors working at quite a lot faster speeds that > a CRT system. Graphics chips were a hard problem in 1991. OLED does > not have this problem since TFT has already paved that path. Given. > > Uh.. your fav bunch of IT newsticker, tech newspapers..? > > Uh ... do you really think I would have asked if the rags I read said > anything concrete? All of my engineering rags indicate that the > emission stuff is still stuck in the lab. Happen to speak german? I can dig something up then tho if something seriously sucks about heise then it's their search function. Dex -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a- C++++ UL++ P+>++ L+++>++++ E-- W++ N o? K- w--(---) !O M+ V- PS+ PE Y++ PGP t++(---)@ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--(+)@ b++(+++) DI+++ D- G++ e* h>++ r* y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ http://www.stop1984.com http://www.againsttcpa.com -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
