 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> I wonder what people were saying about LCD 20 years ago...
>>
>> But LCD hasn't changed how a screen is used, it's just made it a bit
>> more efficient and a bit smaller (and, arguably, a bit crapper,
>> certainly in the low end of the TV market). E-paper requires a whole
>> new product
>
> You mean like how LCD has popped up in cars, phones, portable navigation
> devices and games consoles etc - none of which had any sort of graphic
> display before LCD.
Yersss... true, although I still don't think there has been a
fundamental shift in the way pre-existing devices are used. With phones,
the screen technology (as well as the computing and battery technology)
has just enabled several common portable devices to be integrated into
one small one, without changing how the different functions are used.
Navigation devices would also still be small and indispensable without a
screen. Most people don't use the screen with them anyway, the voices
tell them when to turn up wrong-way streets or drive 60 ton lorries down
unmade country roads perfectly efficiently ;-)
>> and a whole new set of habits from the consumer. This will take a
>> little longer. I don't expect to see e-paper widely used anytime soon,
>> and only maybe within my lifetime.
>
> As I already said, ePaper is already used in supermarkets, it will only
> be a matter of years (not decades) before it becomes more cost-efficient
> than a lot of existing paper-and-ink based things.
We might have to curb society's urge to throw everything in the skip
first, but that's another matter of course.
> Sure, it's not going to replace a real book or a newspaper for a long
> time (perhaps never), but there are plenty of other markets that ePaper
> will take over relatively soon.
Yes, I guess I was only really considering the issue of it replacing
actual paper.
> Another example is the odometer in cars - the OEMs are already asking
> for a zero-power display for this so that it is always visible. Expect
> to see ePaper based odometers within 10 years in cars, and cars have one
> of the longest product development cycles.
Fine, but that's really just a gimmick, isn't it? Would it really be
cheaper, more reliable and the rest than a small mechanical dial? Maybe
it would, I'm only being a luddite cynic here... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Another example is the odometer in cars - the OEMs are already asking for
>> a zero-power display for this so that it is always visible. Expect to
>> see ePaper based odometers within 10 years in cars, and cars have one of
>> the longest product development cycles.
>
> Fine, but that's really just a gimmick, isn't it? Would it really be
> cheaper, more reliable and the rest than a small mechanical dial? Maybe it
> would, I'm only being a luddite cynic here... :)
In general electronic components are orders of magnitude more reliable than
mechanical ones, which is why car OEMs always try to replace mechanical
parts with electronic ones if they can. It happened decades ago for the
distributor in the engine, and more recently for the odometer. However for
the odometer the ability to see the mileage of the car without turning on
the ignition was lost. ePaper can fix this, because the disadvantages it
has (low switching time, poor quality colour displays) do not matter for an
odometer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Ah. Right now rendering two scenes (in a mind of testing) with max
> brightness on the screen, ie. burning the CPU. I'm not consuming extreme
> memory nor using wireless interfaces
>
> groath ~ # cat /proc/acpi/battery/C1B5/state
> present: yes
> capacity state: ok
> charging state: discharging
> present rate: 2749 mA
> remaining capacity: 3797 mAh
> present voltage: 11671 mV
>
> 2749mA*11671mV=~32W.
Mine goes up to about 45W while using POV with both CPUs, drops to 22W when
idle. There is about 5W difference between min and max screen brightness.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Mine goes up to about 45W while using POV with both CPUs, drops to 22W
> when idle. There is about 5W difference between min and max screen
> brightness.
Wait... a dual-core laptop?
31337!!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> I wonder what people were saying about LCD 20 years ago...
Um... maybe I'm just stupid, but I'm pretty sure when I was 7 years old
I was *using* LEDs...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v3 wrote:
> scott wrote:
>
>> I wonder what people were saying about LCD 20 years ago...
>
> Um... maybe I'm just stupid, but I'm pretty sure when I was 7 years old
> I was *using* LEDs...
Hahahaha!
Oh dear...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v3 wrote:
>
> Wait... a dual-core laptop?
Yep. I wasn't after CPU power, but the cheapest one to fullfill my specs
(including hardware rs-232 and parallel ports) was equipped with one.
But I won't complain, since C2D ain't a heater.
> 31337!!
Yeah :).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethis zbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Mine goes up to about 45W while using POV with both CPUs, drops to 22W
>> when idle. There is about 5W difference between min and max screen
>> brightness.
>
> Wait... a dual-core laptop?
>
> 31337!!
Intel Core2Duo T7200 @ 2 GHz
2.0 GB of RAM
1920x1200 display
Quadro FX 3D card
It's sweet, and it lasts for like 4 or 5 hours so long as you don't run POV.
year :-) I really wanted a high-res screen for CAD work, and Dell was the
only place that offered it at a reasonable price.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> I wonder what people were saying about LCD 20 years ago...
>>
>> Um... maybe I'm just stupid, but I'm pretty sure when I was 7 years old I
>> was *using* LEDs...
>
> Hahahaha!
>
> Oh dear...
:-)
You were probably using LCD too (calculator...watch?), but not in a form
anywhere near suitable for PC displays. I remember when I was about 10 my
dad brought home a laptop from work. It had a black and white screen and
the refresh rate was like 2 seconds. IIRC it ran DOS and we had some Lotus
equivalent of "power point" running - it was hideous to use, if you moved
the mouse too fast it disappeared into a sea of grey blurriness!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Intel Core2Duo T7200 @ 2 GHz
> 2.0 GB of RAM
> 1920x1200 display
> Quadro FX 3D card
>
> It's sweet, and it lasts for like 4 or 5 hours so long as you don't run
> POV.
>
> the year :-) I really wanted a high-res screen for CAD work, and Dell
> was the only place that offered it at a reasonable price.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
