Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (
More info?)
I am neither a hardware engineer, venture capitalist nor in hedge funds so
I'll just end that part of this discussion.
I would say $1500 - $2000 would be a reasonable price.. Lower of course
would be better.
They use them for their own development - they need to see as much detail as
possible so the customer sees the best image.
I would say 17" monitors are standard and P3 850s would be standard - do you
think ID or Valve develops games using those? Are you trying to be
recalcitrant or are you just playing devil's advocate?
Line quadruplers and phase systems did exist so although there was no
broadcast content, there was the capacity for higher resolution systems.
Perhaps you don't get the point of this discusssion. Just because something
isn't available at this very second on the shelf does not mean the niche
does not exist nor does it mean it is technologicially impossible.
I have my opinion and apparantly you have a different one - shall we leave
it at that?
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:d2v0580208a@news3.newsguy.com...
> boe wrote:
>
>> I certainly have nothing against being rich although developing the
>> technology for such a screen is a tad out of my skill set.
>
> You don't have to develop the technology, just find out how big an order
> you
> have to place with Sony or whoever to get them to make a tube to your
> specification--you can hire designers to do the chassis design--once
> you've
> got the costs worked up then go to the venture capitalists, place the
> order
> etc.
>
> The hard part is going to be convincing the venture capitalists that you
> can
> actually sell the number of monitors you have to build to absorb the
> minimum buy on the tubes at the price you need to charge to recoup the
> startup costs.
>
>> I do believe
>> the know how does exist and I do believe I'm not the only one who wants
>> it.
>
> So we have two people who _say_ they want it. How much would you pay?
>
>> Just one of my clients is a gaming company and they would order 20 if
>> they
>> existed.
>
> At what price? And why would they want 20 displays that were _not_
> typical
> of what their customers would be using?
>
>> Now not every company is in the gaming industry but I have an AV
>> client as well who would order these if they could.
>
> At what price? What kind of "AV" are they doing that would make it
> desirable for them to use a different type of monitor from the mainstream?
>
>> Seeing as I am just
>> one person with a few small accounts, I would imagine there are much
>> bigger companies that would like such screens as well.
>
> At what price?
>
>> I do believe that such a niche exists just as much as a niche for big
>> screen TVs exists although bigscreen HDTVs haven't been around 10 years
>> ago in the US doen't mean there wasn't a niche to be filled.
>
> There was no niche for HDTVs ten years ago because there was no HDTV
> content. However there were most assuredly big (measured in _feet_, not
> _inches_) screen displays available that could handle HD content.
> Further,
> those were CRTs. They cost more than a fair sized house, but they _were_
> available.
>
>> I consider anything at a size of 21" or larger only capable of 1280 as
>> being
>> too low of a resolution. 1280 is fine for a 17" monitor but leaves
>> something to be desired on a larger screen capable of benefiting from
>> greater detail. A 20" high definition TV doesn't really benefit from
>> being high def as much as a 60".
>
> Depends on how close you sit.
>
> I'm sure that it is technologically possible to make a 1000 foot CRT with
> a
> resolution of 4 million x 3 million. That is not why they don't exist in
> the market. The reason they don't exist in the market is that the market
> for them is too small for anyone to be able to manufacture them at a price
> that any significant number of potential purchasers is willing to pay.
>
>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:d2ujro1k20@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> boe wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if you were joking or not but in case anyone takes this
>>>> post seriously,
>>>>
>>>> This is a TV pretending to be a monitor - low refresh rate max 64kHz(it
>>>> doesn't say at what resolution) and low resolution 1280 x 1024
>>>
>>> Find another 37" direct-view CRT that does 1280x1024. That's hardly a
>>> "TV pretending to be a monitor", it's a purpose made monitor that when
>>> new cost
>>> about ten grand and still rents out for $300/day. It's not even a
>>> product of the consumer division of Mitsubishi, it's a product of the
>>> same division
>>> that made all their other monitors.
>>>
>>> And when did 1280x1024 become "low resolution"?
>>>
>>> Sorry, but if you want a large direct-view CRT that is designed as a
>>> computer monitor that's _it_. There was also a 34" but nobody seems to
>>> have any of those anymore.
>>>
>>> If you don't like your choices then the only thing you're going to be
>>> able
>>> to do about it is build your own. If you think that there's a real
>>> market
>>> there then get some venture capital and _fill_ it and get rich. If you
>>> don't think there's a real market there then why would the display
>>> manufacturers want to be bothered with a market that even you admit
>>> doesn't
>>> exist? And if you say you don't want to be rich, that's a cop-out.
>>>
>>>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:d2ucqf0akn@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>>> boe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW - if any of you are thinking about this model, you are correct,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> does come close but the refresh rate is much too slow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/proseries/vp230mb/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>>>>>>> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers -
>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they
>>>>>>> will replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a
>>>>>>> screen that
>>>>>>> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>>>>>>> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
>>>>>>> developers would want.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
>>>>>>> about 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast
>>>>>>> refresh -
>>>>>>> 8ms or
>>>>>>> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are
>>>>>>> nice
>>>>>>> but how about the standard format too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV
>>>>>>> HDTV
>>>>>>> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that
>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is
>>>>>>> nice, it
>>>>>>> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>>>>>>> format would be better for me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three
>>>>>>> people started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take a look at a Mitsubishi XC-3725C.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --John
>>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>>
>>> --
>>> --John
>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram