Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

LCD monitors - prices coming down?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 25, 2004 5:23:50 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
worth waiting a couple months or so?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 25, 2004 8:41:58 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Steve" <ati@bgt.inv> wrote in message
news:ika7b09e75a1683rb8j9ir8ge7p7nh1t7s@4ax.com...
> LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
> I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
> down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
> worth waiting a couple months or so?
>
>
Murphy's Law: No matter how long you wait for the price to come down, it
will still be cheaper the day after you buy it.
May 25, 2004 8:41:59 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"JerryL" <jlevine@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
>> I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
>> down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
>> worth waiting a couple months or so?
>>
>Murphy's Law: No matter how long you wait for the price to come down, it
>will still be cheaper the day after you buy it.

Yeah, I know. But the day after would be ok, it's generally 31 days
after that gets annoying. :) 

The 17" LCD monitors have been around $400-500 for quite a while now,
I'm sure the law will require them to drop to $200 the day after....
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 25, 2004 11:50:47 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

In article <ika7b09e75a1683rb8j9ir8ge7p7nh1t7s@4ax.com>,
Steve <ati@bgt.inv> wrote:

> LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
> I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
> down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
> worth waiting a couple months or so?

Electronic equipment usually comes down in price for relatively new
technology. As with any piece of computer equipment, if you need the
monitor now, buy it now. If you can wait, then wait.
May 26, 2004 12:55:05 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"JerryL" <jlevine@adelphia.net> wrote in news:cI6dnelJGesLMi7dRVn-
jw@adelphia.com:

> Murphy's Law: No matter how long you wait for the price to come down, it
> will still be cheaper the day after you buy it.

Except gas.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
May 26, 2004 11:05:32 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:23:50 -0700, Steve <ati@bgt.inv> wrote:

>LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
>I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
>down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
>worth waiting a couple months or so?
>

Someone posted in another group that 12ms response time LCD's are
about to hit the market so when those are introduced I would expect
the current crop with slower response times to drop in price.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 26, 2004 5:52:06 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Steve <ati@bgt.inv> wrote:
>LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
>I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
>down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
>worth waiting a couple months or so?
>
With IT spending up in general, and LCD TVs ramping up quickly, I doubt you'll
see any big reductions in the near term. Manufacturers didn't make much money
in the 15" space, so I'm sure nobody's in a hurry to get into a price war in the
17" and up space.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 26, 2004 6:07:35 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Slug" <no@email.here> wrote in message
news:2u89b0hv5mceq7v4v1jembao123ii2bdu0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:23:50 -0700, Steve <ati@bgt.inv> wrote:
>
> >LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
> >I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
> >down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
> >worth waiting a couple months or so?
> >
>
> Someone posted in another group that 12ms response time LCD's are
> about to hit the market so when those are introduced I would expect
> the current crop with slower response times to drop in price.

History says that isn't very likely. What you MAY find is closeout
specials on "older technology"
units, but the production lines will generally shift wholesale to the faster
material (unless it's done
by "overdrive" technology, which will result in higher prices due to added
parts).

Can't beat 'em, and can't join 'em - just have to live with what's
available, IMHO.

NGA
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 26, 2004 8:58:03 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

very likely. the best indicator is that i just bought one!:-(
--
getting out of bed in the morning is an act of false confidence
- jules feifer
to email me, delete blackhole. from my return address
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 27, 2004 5:11:40 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

You can get some already - look out for reviews on the Samsung Syncmaster
172 X - response times of 12ms and very highly rated - though for a price -
£400 in www.komplett.co.uk and I am sure similar prices in the states...


"Slug" <no@email.here> wrote in message
news:2u89b0hv5mceq7v4v1jembao123ii2bdu0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:23:50 -0700, Steve <ati@bgt.inv> wrote:
>
> >LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
> >I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
> >down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
> >worth waiting a couple months or so?
> >
>
> Someone posted in another group that 12ms response time LCD's are
> about to hit the market so when those are introduced I would expect
> the current crop with slower response times to drop in price.
May 27, 2004 5:11:41 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> > Someone posted in another group that 12ms response time LCD's are
> > about to hit the market so when those are introduced I would expect
> > the current crop with slower response times to drop in price.

I was just reading a thread in another group about this, too. fyi, many
were claiming that the 12ms time comes at the expense of color palette;
i.e., they're only going to have 16bit color at best.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 27, 2004 6:42:50 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

I don't mind that - I also remember reading that it was 16.2 million colours
as opposed to true 16 bit which is 16.7 million colours.

Can many people distinguish between 16, 24 or 32 bit colour ranges??


"Nonymous" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:go6dnfTzUYg_YCjdRVn-jg@giganews.com...
>
> > > Someone posted in another group that 12ms response time LCD's are
> > > about to hit the market so when those are introduced I would expect
> > > the current crop with slower response times to drop in price.
>
> I was just reading a thread in another group about this, too. fyi, many
> were claiming that the 12ms time comes at the expense of color palette;
> i.e., they're only going to have 16bit color at best.
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 27, 2004 10:13:58 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

I've been watching the prices for about 2 years and it seems like prices
are fropping about 10% a quarter. The well known brands aren't deopping as
fast as the unkowns. I'm waiting till the nmae brand 19" is well under
$500.00 with at least a 3 yr renewable warranty before I buy .

--
73
Hank WD5JFR
"Steve" <ati@bgt.inv> wrote in message
news:ika7b09e75a1683rb8j9ir8ge7p7nh1t7s@4ax.com...
> LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
> I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
> down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
> worth waiting a couple months or so?
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 28, 2004 6:15:01 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

b0yce wrote:

> Can many people distinguish between 16, 24 or 32 bit colour ranges??

Yes!!!

I probably couldn't tell 24- from 32-bit, but AFAIK no LCD is remotely
capable of 32-bit colour.

16-bit is easily spotted though, when doing photo work.

--
"Cues 16 thru 82... GO."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Waldman, UK email: swaldman@firecloud.org.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 29, 2004 12:26:24 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Nonymous" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:go6dnfTzUYg_YCjdRVn-jg@giganews.com...
> I was just reading a thread in another group about this, too. fyi, many
> were claiming that the 12ms time comes at the expense of color palette;
> i.e., they're only going to have 16bit color at best.

I can't speak for all monitors that migh be claiming such a response
time, but there are several techniques available which will permit
12 ms or even faster while still maintaining 8 bits per color or
better.

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 29, 2004 12:29:21 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Simon Waldman" <swaldman@firecloud.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ljqjo1-ol7.ln1@blue.firecloud.org.uk...
> I probably couldn't tell 24- from 32-bit, but AFAIK no LCD is remotely
> capable of 32-bit colour.

Well, technically, there's not going to be anything capable of
"32-bit" color; assuming you want equal dynamic range on
all three channels, your choices would be either 30 bit
(10 bits/primary) or 33 (11 bits/primary). 10-bit drivers
are starting to become available now, although certainly
this level of performance is not yet common in mainstream
products. Even 24 bits (8 per primary) would be more than
adequate, though, IF something more sensible than simple
linear encoding is used.

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 29, 2004 2:18:00 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Bob Myers wrote:

> Well, technically, there's not going to be anything capable of
> "32-bit" color; assuming you want equal dynamic range on
> all three channels, your choices would be either 30 bit
> (10 bits/primary) or 33 (11 bits/primary).

A good point and one which, to my shame, I'd never noticed. So any idea
what Windows display drivers mean when they refer to 32-bit colour?

--
Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the
same side.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Waldman, UK email: swaldman@firecloud.org.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 29, 2004 2:18:01 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Simon Waldman <swaldman@firecloud.org.uk> wrote in message news:<8tmko1-ks8.ln1@blue.firecloud.org.uk>...
> Bob Myers wrote:
>
> > Well, technically, there's not going to be anything capable of
> > "32-bit" color; assuming you want equal dynamic range on
> > all three channels, your choices would be either 30 bit
> > (10 bits/primary) or 33 (11 bits/primary).
>
> A good point and one which, to my shame, I'd never noticed. So any idea
> what Windows display drivers mean when they refer to 32-bit colour?

I believe it's usually 3 8-bit channels stored in 4 bytes; the fourth
byte is sacrificed to maintain 32-bit alignment. Some graphics engines
and drivers may be more efficient in this mode, because it causes all
data accesses to be 32-bit aligned. Some software won't work properly
in 24-bit mode and requires 32-bit mode.

(Because you can sacrifice a bit or so of resolution in the blue
channel, you could conceivably have an 11/11/10-bit RGB in 32 bits,
but I don't know of anybody who does this.)

--
Chris Green
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 29, 2004 12:13:48 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

joe smith wrote:
>>A good point and one which, to my shame, I'd never noticed. So any idea
>>what Windows display drivers mean when they refer to 32-bit colour?
>
>
> 24 bit color and 8 bit used for either padding or alpha, there are various
> hardware related reasons why it is faster to read and write to/from memory
> with chunks which have size multiples of the memory bus width.

Ah, of course. Probably alpha in my case.
Thanks.


--
"People don't ask for facts in making up their minds. They would rather
have one good, soul-satisfying emotion than a dozen facts."
- Robert Keith Leavitt
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Waldman, UK email: swaldman@firecloud.org.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 29, 2004 3:34:33 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:11:40 +0000 (UTC), "b0yce"
<b0yce@.NOSPAM.btinternet.com> wrote:

>You can get some already - look out for reviews on the Samsung Syncmaster
>172 X - response times of 12ms and very highly rated - though for a price -
>£400 in www.komplett.co.uk and I am sure similar prices in the states...

Are these 12ms LCD's 24bit or just 16bit.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 30, 2004 3:12:19 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Simon Waldman wrote:
> b0yce wrote:
>
>> Can many people distinguish between 16, 24 or 32 bit colour ranges??
>
>
> Yes!!!
>
> I probably couldn't tell 24- from 32-bit, but AFAIK no LCD is remotely
> capable of 32-bit colour.

??? Explain please. My notebook is running at 1024 x 768 @ 32 bits
My main desktop runs at 1280 x 1024 @ 32
My office desktop runs at 32 bit also (I think 1280 but I'm not sure)

dick
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 30, 2004 5:08:30 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> ??? Explain please. My notebook is running at 1024 x 768 @ 32 bits
> My main desktop runs at 1280 x 1024 @ 32
> My office desktop runs at 32 bit also (I think 1280 but I'm not sure)

The question wasn't can it display the signal but can it display it with all
significant color bits. How many gray levels does your notebook running 1024
x 768 @ 32 bits can display? How many gray levels your desktop running at
1280 x 1024 @ 32 can display? How many gray levels does your office desktop
running at 32 bit also can display?

1024? 256? If less, how many?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 31, 2004 2:11:56 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

I wonder too . I excpected lower laptops/notebooks to be much less
than they are now . I think the cost to make them has been drastically
reduced but the demand is high .

On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:23:50 -0700, Steve <ati@bgt.inv> wrote:

>LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
>I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
>down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
>worth waiting a couple months or so?
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
June 1, 2004 10:31:38 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"joe smith" <rapu@ra73727uashduashfh.org> wrote in message
news:c98m1i$i8r$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> Alright. 24 bit color has 8 bits per component which means 256 different
> levels of intensity. This is adequate (not enough, IMHO; but adequate.. in
> near future we'll be using floating-point color everywhere but not just
> yet..).

Ummmm...you know of a display technology that
inherently speaks floating-point notation? :-)

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
June 1, 2004 10:34:20 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

<nospam4me@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:40bb04e7.52396627@news.myjoi.net...
> I wonder too . I excpected lower laptops/notebooks to be much less
> than they are now . I think the cost to make them has been drastically
> reduced but the demand is high .
>

It's a question of supply and demand, with the "supply" side of
the equation controlled by the rate at which new, larger LCD
fabs can come on line. A good number of Gen. 5-7 plants are
in the planning, construction, or start-up phases at present, and
will be brought to full capacity over the next couple of years.
At the moment, though, the industry is still coming out of an
undersupply situation.

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
June 2, 2004 3:54:33 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> Ummmm...you know of a display technology that
> inherently speaks floating-point notation? :-)

Since you fail to quote the specific part of my post I must extrapolate that
you mean this snip:

"24 bit color has 8 bits per component which means 256 different
levels of intensity. This is adequate (not enough, IMHO; but adequate.. in
near future we'll be using floating-point color everywhere but not just
yet..)."

When you put it into context of memory organization you realize I was
talking about framebuffer, not display technology. Do you want another
lengthy lecture why floating-point framebuffer is advantageous in image
generation? I really don't have as much time currently as I had when made
the previous post.

I will be brief:

- floating-point framebuffer has more stops for intensity ramps in
low-intensity range which is crucial for good looking gamma correction: when
you "zoom" (luminance wise) into limited numeric range with fixed integer
steps from one intensity to another banding will appear, especially on
really dark areas of generated image.

- we can store intensity values over 1.0 maximum, even though the DAC will
clamp each component to 1.0 when we do post-processing and multipass
rendering we will find out that more vibrant and bright images are possible
to generate compared to color blending system where everything is saturated
to range from 0.0 to 1.0

- more precision will mean less loss of precision, example:

If we have 4 layers we are blending together we lose lowest bit to round-off
error every time, in this case it means maximum error will be 4. this means
two bits. Out of 8 bits of precision means we have only 6 significant bits
left so we only have 64 distinct luminance values we have control on how
they are computed.

- 8 bits per primary component is too little for any serious work, the next
logical step is 16 bits per component because it adds up to a nice
power-of-two sum (64 bits). Silicon Graphics used 12 bits (integer) per
primary on their workstation chipsets for years. This was a compromise we
don't have to do anymore because we are beyond the point where it is too
cost inefficient to implement floating-point arithmetic at affordable price.
The reason for this is that the we can now pack more transistors into
smaller area which means we can make chips smaller which means higher yields
which means products are cheaper to manufacture so we can finally get this
incredible performance and feature-rich hardware for peanuts.

It really doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure this out. The Display
Technology doesn't have to keep up even, 8 bpp or even 10 bpp per component
displays are alright. More would be better obviously but the more serious
quality bottleneck of the framebuffer has atleast been overcome in
higher-end hardware. Now there is loss only at end of the pipeline: not in
every single step, add increased range for color components for the image
generation and it's a no-brainer. So the increased precision helps in more
ways than one.

Did you know that is is very difficult to get "perfect gray" on RGB565?
Interested in why? Even if not, the point is that 888 is just split of hair
away from 565, barely above the treshold of adequate. I would expect
intelligent beings to aim higher. And we are.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
June 2, 2004 3:54:34 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"joe smith" <rapu@ra73727uashduashfh.org> wrote in message
news:c9iqfv$cn3$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> > Ummmm...you know of a display technology that
> > inherently speaks floating-point notation? :-)
>
> Since you fail to quote the specific part of my post I must extrapolate
that
> you mean this snip:

Joe, this: :-) is a smiley. It is used to indicate a response that
is to be taken less-than-completely-seriously. In this case, about
half seriously, if that.

Yes, I am well aware of the advantages of floating-point representation
within a frame buffer - however, ultimately, all images wind up being
presented to human users, with regular ol' human vision, on SOME
sort of electronic display. So the serious point to be taken from my
half-serious comment is that it makes little sense to build performance
into the graphics hardware which could never have a visible impact on
the displayed image.

Does this mean that I think that 8 bit/primary linear encoding is
adequate? Of course not; however, we don't quite have to go to a
full floating-point representation, either, in order to provide a good
deal more color information than any practical display device will
every be capable of, or for that matter could possibly be handled
by the human visual system. Somewhere in the neighborhood
of 10-12 bits/primary, ESPECIALLY if we think beyond simply
linear encoding, you're at the point where further improvements
are likely going to be not worth the effort - from those perspectives.

Re your latest, more specific points:

> - floating-point framebuffer has more stops for intensity ramps in
> low-intensity range which is crucial for good looking gamma correction:
when
> you "zoom" (luminance wise) into limited numeric range with fixed integer
> steps from one intensity to another banding will appear, especially on
> really dark areas of generated image.

On the other hand, it IS reasonable to ask just how much you need
in this respect, and what the best practical means is for delivering it.
There's also a difference between how images are generated (and the
accuracy you need to carry around in the numbers within that process)
and the representation you finally want to come up with for delivery
to the output hardware. And please note that your "snip"
DID include the following:

"This is adequate (not enough, IMHO; but adequate.. in
near future we'll be using floating-point color everywhere but not just
yet..)."

I can't tell from this what you meant by "everywhere," but to ME,
that would imply things like the DAC (if you've got one) or, more
likely, whatever digital representation you're feeding to your
display device.

In short, let's try not to take any of this so seriously in the future, OK?
It just ain't worth the stomach acid...

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
June 2, 2004 1:54:00 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> I can't tell from this what you meant by "everywhere," but to ME,
> that would imply things like the DAC (if you've got one) or, more
> likely, whatever digital representation you're feeding to your
> display device.

For me it means in image generators (even mobile devices - eventually :) 

> In short, let's try not to take any of this so seriously in the future,
OK?
> It just ain't worth the stomach acid...

I think it is a topic worth the trouble.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
September 24, 2004 3:47:32 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

In article <ika7b09e75a1683rb8j9ir8ge7p7nh1t7s@4ax.com>,
Steve <ati@bgt.inv> wrote:

> LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
> I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
> down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
> worth waiting a couple months or so?

As with any computer equipment, if you need it now, buy it
now. If you can wait, then wait.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
September 24, 2004 2:30:36 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Shawn Hearn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in misc.consumers:
>In article <ika7b09e75a1683rb8j9ir8ge7p7nh1t7s@4ax.com>,
> Steve <ati@bgt.inv> wrote:
>
>> LCD monitor prices have been holding pretty steady for a while, but
>> I've seen a few news articles indicating that they may start coming
>> down sometime around mid-summer. Any indications on whether it's
>> worth waiting a couple months or so?
>
>As with any computer equipment, if you need it now, buy it
>now. If you can wait, then wait.

s/computer equipment/purchase/ :-)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
!