{ "numMessagesInTopic": 13, "nextInTime": 1142, "senderId": "jt1K6Du8Acl5dsJ9UvyOXqpRuI2SQwAVShwLJf0-B5zz9DbxAoeD2MzmIVjvNW9A2FphK-mVXLNiOG009s6xIcSY65omFSHErXTzFrl4Sg", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: T221 vs. Rest of Industry", "from": ""fluppeteer" <yahoo@...>", "authorName": "fluppeteer", "msgSnippet": "... amount taken up by the LCD and backlight (not that the T221 is all that svelte, but since it s such a special bit of kit I ll refer to it as cuddly ). I", "msgId": 1141, "profile": "fluppeteer", "topicId": 1127, "spamInfo": { "reason": "12", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 192443393, "messageBody": "
>:-) Many flat panels aren't exactly slim, considering the actual
\n> I'm not sure how I can describe this, but it seems less bulky
\n> than my 24" WUXGA monitors from dell. I don't know if it is the
\n> pscyhe of knowing 15.4" laptops exists with the same resolution.
\n
\n
> The 24" monitors seem thicker bigger frame around the screen,Hmm. Actually, looking at the specs, the 2405FPW *is* just over
\n> stand is kinda clunky, etc.
\n
\n
> Less stuff IMO is better evenAh, difference in philosophy - my car's just gone through
\n> if it does sacrafice the difficulty in being fixed. I generally
\n> don't keep things long enough to break, but at the snail pace
\n> of monitor resolution improvements then I probably should think
\n> again.
\n
\n
> That's good, I prefer night vision at night therefore whenLikewise. My CRT's slightly higher because my colorimeter
\n> it is dark I turn my lights off and my monitors down to the
\n> lowest brightness.
\n
\n
> I'm kinda surprised brightness affects power consumptionI could be spouting nonsense, but the backlight used to be
\n> so much, I always thought it had more to do with the
\n> components inside...
\n
\n
> seems my laptops rarely get longer battery life when theyReally? My laptops tend to have an option to turn the
\n> are dim.
\n
\n
> I always wondered what that cd/m2 business was all about...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candela
\n> now I know higher means brighter.
\n
\n
> Another big issue for me was I read where it puts outAgain, it might be better with the backlight turned down.
\n> 600BTU/hr...for most people that's no big deal but heat
\n> is not good for my application. Another reason I think
\n> it was dumb for me to buy it.
\n
\n
> That whole LED, SED, OLED confuses me to no end.These are the "next big thing"(s).
\n
\n
> > Less power, slightly. More resolution, it's true. Also"VESA FPMI standard mount" according to the manual. Make sure
\n> > worse refresh, and slightly heavier (the stand weighs a
\n> > ton, although it comes off).
\n>
\n>
\n> It's VESA right, i.e. I can use standard mounting systems?
\n
\n
> I only do MS office stuff and Internet stuff, so while I haveMouse movement isn't totally smooth, but I cope with it for
\n> no clue what 25hz is, I think I might do fine with that.
\n
\n
> Actually I had no idea they consumed that much power.See:
\n
\n
> Desktop systems have always seemed to want 300 watts or more.In the good old days. If it helps, PCI-e has a 75W limit down
\n
\n
> And the low power consumption ones seem less appealing thanA mini-ITX motherboard is pretty low power (my EPIA is around
\n> laptop components.
\n
\n
> The only reason for the x1800xt was to replace myAh - pro applications may benefit from a workstation card
\n> friends FX1400. He has an AVID system which is about the
\n> most sensitive hardware/software that I have ever used.
\n
\n
> Anyway, the whole FX lineup isPresumably you mean Quadro?
\n
\n
> confusing to me. Seems the X1800 and X1900 cards are betterDepends what you want it for. The X1800/X1900 and 7800 cards
\n> at a much lower price, but again I have no idea when it comes
\n> to stuff like that.
\n
\n
> Yes, you are right I am strickly looking for low powerIt would, at least, let you test the monitor properly!
\n> consumption. I was just going to get him to upgrade his new
\n> dual xeon dell.
\n
\n
> Sell the FX1400 for $150 to $200 on ebay and buy theYou'd probably be fine, certainly for office stuff. I'm
\n> X1900 card for a few hundred more on ebay. Seems easy
\n> enough, but then again I don't know what I am getting
\n> into with FX stuff.
\n
\n
> Still have no clue why the FX4500 is so insanely priced.It's a 512MB under-clocked first revision 7800GTX. The
\n
\n
> Maybe because Nvidia doesn't care about dual link inThey claim it's down to their board manufacturers (because
\n> their 7000 and 6000 series cards.
\n
\n
> That's good news, they seem to make more sense to me thanPreaching to the converted. I have no use for a workstation
\n> the FX series and some of the other cards mentioned.
\n
\n
> At least in price point and the specs I read, but I thinkNot on the graphics card, no. CPU maybe, depending on what
\n> those specs are really for gaming people. I doubt I need
\n> 1.55ghz for Excel. ;)
\n
\n
> I think if the opportunity came to buy a DG5, then I thinkI'd be interested in the result of the experiment.
\n> I would run out and buy a MacBook Pro and ask someone with
\n> a DG5 on here if I could come by their house to see if it
\n> worked. It seems to make the most logical sense for
\n> my application.
\n
\n
> If Sidecar updated the card in there, but $2k for FX600...I suspect they're limited because it's PCI-based (using
\n> It just seems foolish...
\n
\n
> I think I would rather check into the pc card optionIt is a bit steep, it's true.
\n> below. Thanks, I checked into them too. I don't remember
\n> but for whatever reason I wasn't crazy about the options.
\n
\n
> > however what is also interesting in that pc cardSorry, crossed wires. I meant the "everything you want", not
\n> > > device that allows up to 2, 4, 7, 13 PCI video cards...
\n> > > if that actually works then that would be ideal. My problem
\n> > > is everything I want isn't easily available. :(
\n> >
\n> > :-) Always the way. It may turn up eventually - I spent
\n> > ages waiting for a dual link consumer graphics card. (Of
\n> > course, now I can't afford to upgrade...)
\n>
\n>
\n> It's actually here now, I forget the website, I'll post
\n> it later.
\n
\n
> Yes, a pot hole would be my biggest concern. Which isThe refurbished models come with a warranty, AFAIK.
\n> why I think I would only buy the T221 if I could get a
\n> manufacturers warranty which would mean paying a premium
\n> as well as being nearly impossible now that it is
\n> discontinued.
\n
\n
> While they don't cover pot holes, I doubt they would thinkSo long as it looks like random component failure. I'm not
\n> that I had it mounted in a vehicle.
\n
\n
> Thus all the pros of the T221 are delightful, the consI just embraced the insanity.
\n> keep me sane. Occassionally I get an insane bug in me
\n> and a slight desire to get one regardless, but I think
\n> I will prevail over this.
\n
\n
> It's been a project for a decade now and I've triedI have software projects like that. And a plan to enter
\n> various things, but recently I have been more aggressive
\n> in putting the final touches together. I think this is
\n> one of my biggest challenges, everything else I have figured
\n> out.
\n
\n
> But essentially I am putting this in a small custom R.V.*Nod*. I don't need the pixels, but I certainly like them.
\n> I bought a new RV in 2003, tore everything out and did it
\n> my way because the only people who know how to make RVs are
\n> people like Prevost but they are way out of my pricerange
\n> and too entirely too large...it's still not finished. I enjoy
\n> modifying things and tinkering with things, so that is
\n> probably more it than an actual need for lots of pixels.
\n
\n
> But mainly, here's the thing. I am a visual learner and myInteresting mix of display sizes - although I have a group
\n> life is nothing but learning, so the more screen real estate
\n> the more I find I get things done, however I also work well
\n> with my OQOs, which I have been pondering as maybe the better
\n> solution.
\n
\n
> I think after typing all of this out and thinking about itLet me know if you do this? I might be able to scrape up
\n> and after countless hours thinking about it, I have come to
\n> the following conclusions for my solution.
\n>
\n> 1. I get a group buy going for the WUXGA 15.4" monitors (or
\n> just buy 50 myself and attmept to sell the ones I don't need
\n> on ebay)
\n
\n
> and use either several laptops with VTcards using remoteSounds expensive. I'd really think about mini-ITX and normal
\n> desktop to just have one keyboard/mouse or if that PC card
\n> to multiple PCI slots work then I would prefer that because
\n> I could find some low power consumption cards that run
\n> simple VGA wuxga resolution and just one computer. This is
\n> the solution I think I really need so I'm going to pursue this.
\n
\n
> The standard 800x480 works great, but in my experienceI think I missed that. Does this mean that if you run SXGA
\n> the 1280x1024 works like a charm...hard to explain.
\n
\n
> right. Anyway, my thought is this...If you put 3 OQOs side byMaxivista can do four machines at once. I didn't think remote
\n> side, then the total resolution with spanning is 3840x1024. If
\n> I were to put 6 OQOs, 3 on top and 3 on bottom then I would have
\n> 3840x2048. But I've never put the oqos side by side and spanned
\n> using remote desktop, but I do intend to try it.
\n
\n
> annoying and the spanning would drive me crazy. The 02 which IIntel have been talking about mini-PCs like the OQO, but with
\n> am fairly sure is coming in October with a powerful mobile
\n> processor would be pretty neat though.
\n
\n
> It's more of a thought and I have the OQOs to play around withI'm not sure how easy it is to do in Windows; Linux should
\n> 3840x1024...even at the native resolution, six would be 15" x 7"
\n> at 2400x960...not bad for that footprint. All those OQO fans
\n> blowing would be insane...but it's a fun thought. I love my
\n> babies. (oqo)
\n
\n
> Appears NEC dropped that QXGA 15" laptop resolution optionGood luck. A shame. Not that I'd say no to a 15.4" WUXGA screen,
\n> within months of making it available, they made headlines
\n> with this laptop, but I guess it was either not profitable
\n> or they had problems with the screens. I'm still checking
\n> into it but I am 99 percent certain it is a lost cause. Nobody
\n> would know of a controller board for it...but I am still going
\n> to continue to inquire about it from time to time, planting
\n> seeds in various forums.
\n
\n
> Appears one person found someone who would do it if you gotHmm. Worth considering.
\n> 50 WUXGA monitor orders for the controller boards and BIOS.
\n> Appears it is around $300 for each controller board and custom
\n> bios, plus whatever you paid for the monitor, which is cheaper
\n> than the mammoth Dells.
\n
\n
> Well, the way I calculate it is this...these monitors have to[snip]
\n> the best of ALL worlds, i.e.
\n