Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #72753 > unrolled thread

Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-07 13:34 +1200
    Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-07 19:10 +1200
    Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? heron stone <heron@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-07 23:05 -0700
      Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? heron stone <heron@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-07 23:13 -0700
      Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-08 18:17 +1200
        Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-08 03:59 -0400
          Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 09:59 -0400
            Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-08 07:15 -0700
              Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-08 10:49 -0400
                Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-08 08:38 -0700
              Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-08 19:00 +0000
                Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 16:51 -0400
                  Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-08 21:43 -0700
                    Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-09 18:12 +1200
                    Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-09 10:32 +0000
                      Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Joe <joe@nospam.com> - 2015-04-09 21:27 -0500
            Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-09 09:11 +1200
              Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Joe <joe@nospam.com> - 2015-04-09 21:32 -0500
                Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-09 22:54 -0400
                  Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Joe <joe@nospam.com> - 2015-04-10 07:04 -0500
                Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-10 18:13 +1200
                  Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-04-10 14:07 +0000
                    Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-10 19:56 -0700
                      Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-11 16:11 +1200
                        Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-11 07:48 -0700
                          Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 11:14 -0400
                            Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-11 15:33 +0000
                          Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-11 15:28 +0000
                            Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-11 16:08 -0700
                              Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-04-12 01:02 +0000
                                Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-11 18:26 -0700
                              Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-12 14:01 +1200
                          Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-04-11 19:30 +0000
                      Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-04-11 19:27 +0000
                Re: Rumour: 8K iMac coming?!? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-10 11:46 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#72979

In article <55273648$0$20134$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, Joe
<joe@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/2015 4:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > 
> > These days it's all become a massive gimmick fest by TV makers to try
> > and con the public into throwing away their current equipment every
> > year or two and buying a new over-priced TV set, set-top boxes, and /
> > or services they don't really need.
> >
> >   - LCD / Plasma / LED
> >   - DVD / Blu-ray / 4K Blu-ray
> >   - DVD recorder / Blu-ray recorder / Digital recorder
> >   - TV / HDTV / UHDTV / SUHDTV / 4K / 8K
> >   - Widescreen / Extra-widescreen / 3D / Curved / Smart
> >   - Freeview / Freeview Plus / Sky / Streaming
> >   - etc.
> 
> Hopefully you realize there is no such thing as an "LED" TV; it's just 
> another marketing gimmick.  The screen is still LCD, but the 
> *backlighting* is LED instead of a CCFL.

Yep, but marketing departments needed a new name in their attempts to
con people into throwing away their recently-new and still working LCD
and buy a new "better" LED.



> If the backlighting in an LCD TV were candles, I suppose marketing 
> departments would call it a "Candle TV."  :)

And it would probably cost five times more than a LED TV.  ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72995

On 2015-04-10, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> In article <55273648$0$20134$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, Joe
><joe@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On 4/8/2015 4:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> > 
>> > These days it's all become a massive gimmick fest by TV makers to try
>> > and con the public into throwing away their current equipment every
>> > year or two and buying a new over-priced TV set, set-top boxes, and /
>> > or services they don't really need.
>> >
>> >   - LCD / Plasma / LED
>> >   - DVD / Blu-ray / 4K Blu-ray
>> >   - DVD recorder / Blu-ray recorder / Digital recorder
>> >   - TV / HDTV / UHDTV / SUHDTV / 4K / 8K
>> >   - Widescreen / Extra-widescreen / 3D / Curved / Smart
>> >   - Freeview / Freeview Plus / Sky / Streaming
>> >   - etc.
>> 
>> Hopefully you realize there is no such thing as an "LED" TV; it's just 
>> another marketing gimmick.  The screen is still LCD, but the 
>> *backlighting* is LED instead of a CCFL.
>
> Yep, but marketing departments needed a new name in their attempts to
> con people into throwing away their recently-new and still working LCD
> and buy a new "better" LED.

Despite your apparent love of hyperbole, there's nothing insidious going
on here. The terms "LED display" and "CCFL display" are simply natural
ways for us to distinguish between displays with different technologies
used to light the panels. While nobody should throw away a working CCFL
display just for the hell of it, LED back lights are actually better
than florescent back lights in a few different ways. They have a much
longer lifespan, consume less energy, and emit a more uniform brightness
across the display, for instance. So if given the choice, I'll generally
take an LED display over a CCFL display.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73046

On 4/10/15   PDT 7:07 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-04-10, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> In article <55273648$0$20134$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, Joe
>> <joe@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/8/2015 4:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>>
>>>> These days it's all become a massive gimmick fest by TV makers to try
>>>> and con the public into throwing away their current equipment every
>>>> year or two and buying a new over-priced TV set, set-top boxes, and /
>>>> or services they don't really need.
>>>>
>>>>    - LCD / Plasma / LED
>>>>    - DVD / Blu-ray / 4K Blu-ray
>>>>    - DVD recorder / Blu-ray recorder / Digital recorder
>>>>    - TV / HDTV / UHDTV / SUHDTV / 4K / 8K
>>>>    - Widescreen / Extra-widescreen / 3D / Curved / Smart
>>>>    - Freeview / Freeview Plus / Sky / Streaming
>>>>    - etc.
>>>
>>> Hopefully you realize there is no such thing as an "LED" TV; it's just
>>> another marketing gimmick.  The screen is still LCD, but the
>>> *backlighting* is LED instead of a CCFL.
>>
>> Yep, but marketing departments needed a new name in their attempts to
>> con people into throwing away their recently-new and still working LCD
>> and buy a new "better" LED.
>
> Despite your apparent love of hyperbole, there's nothing insidious going
> on here. The terms "LED display" and "CCFL display" are simply natural
> ways for us to distinguish between displays with different technologies
> used to light the panels. While nobody should throw away a working CCFL
> display just for the hell of it, LED back lights are actually better
> than florescent back lights in a few different ways. They have a much
> longer lifespan, consume less energy, and emit a more uniform brightness
> across the display, for instance. So if given the choice, I'll generally
> take an LED display over a CCFL display.
>
And I will stick with my plasma, thanks! I'd love an OLED UHD, but can't 
justify dumping the plasma.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73048

In article <mga2ei$9l3$1@dont-email.me>, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/10/15   PDT 7:07 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> > On 2015-04-10, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >> In article <55273648$0$20134$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, Joe
> >> <joe@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>> On 4/8/2015 4:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> These days it's all become a massive gimmick fest by TV makers to try
> >>>> and con the public into throwing away their current equipment every
> >>>> year or two and buying a new over-priced TV set, set-top boxes, and /
> >>>> or services they don't really need.
> >>>>
> >>>>    - LCD / Plasma / LED
> >>>>    - DVD / Blu-ray / 4K Blu-ray
> >>>>    - DVD recorder / Blu-ray recorder / Digital recorder
> >>>>    - TV / HDTV / UHDTV / SUHDTV / 4K / 8K
> >>>>    - Widescreen / Extra-widescreen / 3D / Curved / Smart
> >>>>    - Freeview / Freeview Plus / Sky / Streaming
> >>>>    - etc.
> >>>
> >>> Hopefully you realize there is no such thing as an "LED" TV; it's just
> >>> another marketing gimmick.  The screen is still LCD, but the
> >>> *backlighting* is LED instead of a CCFL.
> >>
> >> Yep, but marketing departments needed a new name in their attempts to
> >> con people into throwing away their recently-new and still working LCD
> >> and buy a new "better" LED.
> >
> > Despite your apparent love of hyperbole, there's nothing insidious going
> > on here. The terms "LED display" and "CCFL display" are simply natural
> > ways for us to distinguish between displays with different technologies
> > used to light the panels. While nobody should throw away a working CCFL
> > display just for the hell of it, LED back lights are actually better
> > than florescent back lights in a few different ways. They have a much
> > longer lifespan, consume less energy, and emit a more uniform brightness
> > across the display, for instance. So if given the choice, I'll generally
> > take an LED display over a CCFL display.
> 
> And I will stick with my plasma, thanks! I'd love an OLED UHD, but can't 
> justify dumping the plasma.

Ewww, yuck!! Plasma is ancient obsolete technology.  ;-) 
I don't think anyone even makes Plasma TV sets any longer (shops have
certainly been dumping them at very cheap prices). LED is the preferred
TV type these days.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73074

On 4/10/15   PDT 9:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article <mga2ei$9l3$1@dont-email.me>, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 4/10/15   PDT 7:07 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2015-04-10, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <55273648$0$20134$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, Joe
>>>> <joe@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/8/2015 4:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These days it's all become a massive gimmick fest by TV makers to try
>>>>>> and con the public into throwing away their current equipment every
>>>>>> year or two and buying a new over-priced TV set, set-top boxes, and /
>>>>>> or services they don't really need.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     - LCD / Plasma / LED
>>>>>>     - DVD / Blu-ray / 4K Blu-ray
>>>>>>     - DVD recorder / Blu-ray recorder / Digital recorder
>>>>>>     - TV / HDTV / UHDTV / SUHDTV / 4K / 8K
>>>>>>     - Widescreen / Extra-widescreen / 3D / Curved / Smart
>>>>>>     - Freeview / Freeview Plus / Sky / Streaming
>>>>>>     - etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully you realize there is no such thing as an "LED" TV; it's just
>>>>> another marketing gimmick.  The screen is still LCD, but the
>>>>> *backlighting* is LED instead of a CCFL.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, but marketing departments needed a new name in their attempts to
>>>> con people into throwing away their recently-new and still working LCD
>>>> and buy a new "better" LED.
>>>
>>> Despite your apparent love of hyperbole, there's nothing insidious going
>>> on here. The terms "LED display" and "CCFL display" are simply natural
>>> ways for us to distinguish between displays with different technologies
>>> used to light the panels. While nobody should throw away a working CCFL
>>> display just for the hell of it, LED back lights are actually better
>>> than florescent back lights in a few different ways. They have a much
>>> longer lifespan, consume less energy, and emit a more uniform brightness
>>> across the display, for instance. So if given the choice, I'll generally
>>> take an LED display over a CCFL display.
>>
>> And I will stick with my plasma, thanks! I'd love an OLED UHD, but can't
>> justify dumping the plasma.
>
> Ewww, yuck!! Plasma is ancient obsolete technology.  ;-)
> I don't think anyone even makes Plasma TV sets any longer (shops have
> certainly been dumping them at very cheap prices). LED is the preferred
> TV type these days.

So is Wendy's or MacDonald's over burgers at a gourmet restaurant.

Plasma may be older technology than OLED or even LED, but it is superior 
to LCDs by a country mile. It was killed by consumer perception that 
they were power hogs, as the first iterations were.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73075

In article <mgbc5v$54j$1@dont-email.me>,
 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> Plasma may be older technology than OLED or even LED, but it is superior 
> to LCDs by a country mile. It was killed by consumer perception that 
> they were power hogs, as the first iterations were.

I want my betamax. 

There's a tv show called "The Americans" that's set in 1983. Both VHS 
and Beta were available then, but the main characters seem to own some 
kind of Umatic machine, in their home. There's a scene where an FBI 
agent gives the son a "pirated copy" of Tron on this great big cassette 
and the kid puts in a great big player. How expensive were domestic 
Umatic machines? I only ever saw and used the professional ones, and 
they were seriously costly.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73079

In message <55293a5a$0$42907$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com> 
  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <mgbc5v$54j$1@dont-email.me>,
>  John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

>> Plasma may be older technology than OLED or even LED, but it is superior 
>> to LCDs by a country mile. It was killed by consumer perception that 
>> they were power hogs, as the first iterations were.

> I want my betamax. 

> There's a tv show called "The Americans" that's set in 1983. Both VHS 
> and Beta were available then, but the main characters seem to own some 
> kind of Umatic machine, in their home. There's a scene where an FBI 
> agent gives the son a "pirated copy" of Tron on this great big cassette 
> and the kid puts in a great big player. How expensive were domestic 
> Umatic machines? I only ever saw and used the professional ones, and 
> they were seriously costly.

Looked like a VHS tape in a black snapcase to me.

Didn't notice the VCR, but the VCR on The Goldbergs is the VCR my
girlfriend's family had in about 1983 or so (the one with the big blue
play button). It was expensive, but I couldn't tell you how much. Over
$500, and closer to $1000, I believe.

-- 
'You make us want what we can't have and what you give us is worth
nothing and what you take is everything and all there is left for us is
the cold hillside, and emptiness, and the laughter of the elves.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73078

In message <mgbc5v$54j$1@dont-email.me> 
  John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/10/15   PDT 9:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> In article <mga2ei$9l3$1@dont-email.me>, John McWilliams
>> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 4/10/15   PDT 7:07 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> On 2015-04-10, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <55273648$0$20134$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, Joe
>>>>> <joe@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/8/2015 4:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These days it's all become a massive gimmick fest by TV makers to try
>>>>>>> and con the public into throwing away their current equipment every
>>>>>>> year or two and buying a new over-priced TV set, set-top boxes, and /
>>>>>>> or services they don't really need.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     - LCD / Plasma / LED
>>>>>>>     - DVD / Blu-ray / 4K Blu-ray
>>>>>>>     - DVD recorder / Blu-ray recorder / Digital recorder
>>>>>>>     - TV / HDTV / UHDTV / SUHDTV / 4K / 8K
>>>>>>>     - Widescreen / Extra-widescreen / 3D / Curved / Smart
>>>>>>>     - Freeview / Freeview Plus / Sky / Streaming
>>>>>>>     - etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully you realize there is no such thing as an "LED" TV; it's just
>>>>>> another marketing gimmick.  The screen is still LCD, but the
>>>>>> *backlighting* is LED instead of a CCFL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, but marketing departments needed a new name in their attempts to
>>>>> con people into throwing away their recently-new and still working LCD
>>>>> and buy a new "better" LED.
>>>>
>>>> Despite your apparent love of hyperbole, there's nothing insidious going
>>>> on here. The terms "LED display" and "CCFL display" are simply natural
>>>> ways for us to distinguish between displays with different technologies
>>>> used to light the panels. While nobody should throw away a working CCFL
>>>> display just for the hell of it, LED back lights are actually better
>>>> than florescent back lights in a few different ways. They have a much
>>>> longer lifespan, consume less energy, and emit a more uniform brightness
>>>> across the display, for instance. So if given the choice, I'll generally
>>>> take an LED display over a CCFL display.
>>>
>>> And I will stick with my plasma, thanks! I'd love an OLED UHD, but can't
>>> justify dumping the plasma.
>>
>> Ewww, yuck!! Plasma is ancient obsolete technology.  ;-)
>> I don't think anyone even makes Plasma TV sets any longer (shops have
>> certainly been dumping them at very cheap prices). LED is the preferred
>> TV type these days.

> So is Wendy's or MacDonald's over burgers at a gourmet restaurant.

> Plasma may be older technology than OLED or even LED, but it is superior 
> to LCDs by a country mile. It was killed by consumer perception that 
> they were power hogs, as the first iterations were.

They are unquestionably better in picture quality. But, since companies
are not making them, servicing them in the future will be a problem.

They are also much heavier than an LCD panel and they do still draw far
more power. Also, the power draw curve rises very steeply for a plasma.
So while a modern-ish 2-3 year old plasma 42" will only draw say double
the power of a 42" LCD/LED, a 65" will draw triple the power of a 65"
LCD/LED and weight 4 or 5 times as much.

Also, you are restricted in size. WHile you can get 80" LCDs, There are
no 80" plasmas.

And then there's the price. Samsung's last 60" Plasma goes for $5,000.
The 64" version is $6,000. The 65" LCD/LED 4K from Samsung is $2,100. A
64" 1080p is $1,000.

Is the Plasma 2.4x better than the 4K LCD/LED? 5x better than a 1080p
display? Maaaaybe?

I kind of doubt it.

-- 
S is for SUSAN who perished of fits
T is for TITUS who flew into bits

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73115

On 4/11/15   PDT 8:28 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <mgbc5v$54j$1@dont-email.me>
>    John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 4/10/15   PDT 9:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>> In article <mga2ei$9l3$1@dont-email.me>, John McWilliams
>>> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/15   PDT 7:07 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-04-10, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <55273648$0$20134$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, Joe
>>>>>> <joe@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/8/2015 4:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These days it's all become a massive gimmick fest by TV makers to try
>>>>>>>> and con the public into throwing away their current equipment every
>>>>>>>> year or two and buying a new over-priced TV set, set-top boxes, and /
>>>>>>>> or services they don't really need.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      - LCD / Plasma / LED
>>>>>>>>      - DVD / Blu-ray / 4K Blu-ray
>>>>>>>>      - DVD recorder / Blu-ray recorder / Digital recorder
>>>>>>>>      - TV / HDTV / UHDTV / SUHDTV / 4K / 8K
>>>>>>>>      - Widescreen / Extra-widescreen / 3D / Curved / Smart
>>>>>>>>      - Freeview / Freeview Plus / Sky / Streaming
>>>>>>>>      - etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully you realize there is no such thing as an "LED" TV; it's just
>>>>>>> another marketing gimmick.  The screen is still LCD, but the
>>>>>>> *backlighting* is LED instead of a CCFL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, but marketing departments needed a new name in their attempts to
>>>>>> con people into throwing away their recently-new and still working LCD
>>>>>> and buy a new "better" LED.
>>>>>
>>>>> Despite your apparent love of hyperbole, there's nothing insidious going
>>>>> on here. The terms "LED display" and "CCFL display" are simply natural
>>>>> ways for us to distinguish between displays with different technologies
>>>>> used to light the panels. While nobody should throw away a working CCFL
>>>>> display just for the hell of it, LED back lights are actually better
>>>>> than florescent back lights in a few different ways. They have a much
>>>>> longer lifespan, consume less energy, and emit a more uniform brightness
>>>>> across the display, for instance. So if given the choice, I'll generally
>>>>> take an LED display over a CCFL display.
>>>>
>>>> And I will stick with my plasma, thanks! I'd love an OLED UHD, but can't
>>>> justify dumping the plasma.
>>>
>>> Ewww, yuck!! Plasma is ancient obsolete technology.  ;-)
>>> I don't think anyone even makes Plasma TV sets any longer (shops have
>>> certainly been dumping them at very cheap prices). LED is the preferred
>>> TV type these days.
>
>> So is Wendy's or MacDonald's over burgers at a gourmet restaurant.
>
>> Plasma may be older technology than OLED or even LED, but it is superior
>> to LCDs by a country mile. It was killed by consumer perception that
>> they were power hogs, as the first iterations were.
>
> They are unquestionably better in picture quality. But, since companies
> are not making them, servicing them in the future will be a problem.
>
> They are also much heavier than an LCD panel and they do still draw far
> more power. Also, the power draw curve rises very steeply for a plasma.
> So while a modern-ish 2-3 year old plasma 42" will only draw say double
> the power of a 42" LCD/LED, a 65" will draw triple the power of a 65"
> LCD/LED and weight 4 or 5 times as much.
>
> Also, you are restricted in size. WHile you can get 80" LCDs, There are
> no 80" plasmas.
>
> And then there's the price. Samsung's last 60" Plasma goes for $5,000.
> The 64" version is $6,000. The 65" LCD/LED 4K from Samsung is $2,100. A
> 64" 1080p is $1,000.

My mere 58" Sammy plasma was ~$2000, four years ago. There are a number 
of price points for a given size.
>
> Is the Plasma 2.4x better than the 4K LCD/LED? 5x better than a 1080p
> display? Maaaaybe?
>
> I kind of doubt it.

Is my plasma twice as good as a comparably priced LED? Yes. Is it 
several times better than a set that cost half that? Yes. More precise 
quantification isn't realistic for me, but it's not a question of dollar 
for dollar matching.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73126

On 2015-04-11, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> And then there's the price. Samsung's last 60" Plasma goes for $5,000.
>> The 64" version is $6,000. The 65" LCD/LED 4K from Samsung is $2,100. A
>> 64" 1080p is $1,000.
>
> My mere 58" Sammy plasma was ~$2000, four years ago. There are a number 
> of price points for a given size.

Perfectly happy with my sub-grand010 42-inch Panasonic plasma.

>> Is the Plasma 2.4x better than the 4K LCD/LED? 5x better than a 1080p
>> display? Maaaaybe?
>>
>> I kind of doubt it.
>
> Is my plasma twice as good as a comparably priced LED? Yes. Is it 
> several times better than a set that cost half that? Yes. More precise 
> quantification isn't realistic for me, but it's not a question of dollar 
> for dollar matching.

What matters to me is the viewing experience; plasma delivers a
better one than any LED I've seen so far. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73131

On 4/11/15   PDT 6:02 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-04-11, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> And then there's the price. Samsung's last 60" Plasma goes for $5,000.
>>> The 64" version is $6,000. The 65" LCD/LED 4K from Samsung is $2,100. A
>>> 64" 1080p is $1,000.
>>
>> My mere 58" Sammy plasma was ~$2000, four years ago. There are a number
>> of price points for a given size.
>
> Perfectly happy with my sub-grand010 42-inch Panasonic plasma.
>
>>> Is the Plasma 2.4x better than the 4K LCD/LED? 5x better than a 1080p
>>> display? Maaaaybe?
>>>
>>> I kind of doubt it.
>>
>> Is my plasma twice as good as a comparably priced LED? Yes. Is it
>> several times better than a set that cost half that? Yes. More precise
>> quantification isn't realistic for me, but it's not a question of dollar
>> for dollar matching.
>
> What matters to me is the viewing experience; plasma delivers a
> better one than any LED I've seen so far.
>
Keee-rect. Beaten only by OLED and UHD.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73141

In article <mgc9gb$mlh$1@dont-email.me>, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/11/15   PDT 8:28 AM, Lewis wrote:
> >
> > Is the Plasma 2.4x better than the 4K LCD/LED? 5x better than a 1080p
> > display? Maaaaybe?
> >
> > I kind of doubt it.
> 
> Is my plasma twice as good as a comparably priced LED? Yes. Is it 
> several times better than a set that cost half that? Yes. More precise 
> quantification isn't realistic for me, but it's not a question of dollar 
> for dollar matching.

It depends on what you use it for. Plasma is better in some ways, LED
is better in some ways. For example, one can have better colours
accuracy, faster update speed, better visibility in daylight
conditions, wider viewing angles, less pixelisation, etc.

As well as being more expensive (to make as well as to buy), plasma
"failed" partly because they couldn't / wouldn't make small screen
versions at a time when people still wanted smaller displays like 32".
These days more people want massive screens.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73097

On 2015-04-11, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/10/15   PDT 9:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>
>>> And I will stick with my plasma, thanks! I'd love an OLED UHD, but can't
>>> justify dumping the plasma.
>>
>> Ewww, yuck!! Plasma is ancient obsolete technology.  ;-)
>> I don't think anyone even makes Plasma TV sets any longer (shops have
>> certainly been dumping them at very cheap prices). LED is the preferred
>> TV type these days.
>
> So is Wendy's or MacDonald's over burgers at a gourmet restaurant.
>
> Plasma may be older technology than OLED or even LED, but it is superior 
> to LCDs by a country mile. It was killed by consumer perception that 
> they were power hogs, as the first iterations were.

Indeed. The plasma picture quality in my 2010 television is miles ahead
of even the very latest crap LED panels they are peddling at the store
today.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73096

On 2015-04-11, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/10/15   PDT 7:07 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>> Despite your apparent love of hyperbole, there's nothing insidious going
>> on here. The terms "LED display" and "CCFL display" are simply natural
>> ways for us to distinguish between displays with different technologies
>> used to light the panels. While nobody should throw away a working CCFL
>> display just for the hell of it, LED back lights are actually better
>> than florescent back lights in a few different ways. They have a much
>> longer lifespan, consume less energy, and emit a more uniform brightness
>> across the display, for instance. So if given the choice, I'll generally
>> take an LED display over a CCFL display.
>>
> And I will stick with my plasma, thanks! I'd love an OLED UHD, but can't 
> justify dumping the plasma.

Same here! Love my plasma!

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72985

In message <55273648$0$20134$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> 
  Joe <joe@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/2015 4:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> These days it's all become a massive gimmick fest by TV makers to try
>> and con the public into throwing away their current equipment every
>> year or two and buying a new over-priced TV set, set-top boxes, and /
>> or services they don't really need.
>>
>>   - LCD / Plasma / LED
>>   - DVD / Blu-ray / 4K Blu-ray
>>   - DVD recorder / Blu-ray recorder / Digital recorder
>>   - TV / HDTV / UHDTV / SUHDTV / 4K / 8K
>>   - Widescreen / Extra-widescreen / 3D / Curved / Smart
>>   - Freeview / Freeview Plus / Sky / Streaming
>>   - etc.
>>

> Hopefully you realize there is no such thing as an "LED" TV; it's just 
> another marketing gimmick.  The screen is still LCD, but the 
> *backlighting* is LED instead of a CCFL.

Which makes a huge difference to not only brightness, but to the
evenness of the light. I'm not sure how much I care about it on a TV,
but it is such a difference on my computer displays that I would not
consider getting a display without an LED backlight.

-- 
"Two years from now, spam will be solved," -- Bill Gates, January, 2004

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web