PDA

View Full Version : LCD's- Dead Pixels & not answering the consumer


Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2003, 12:28 PM
www17.tomshardware.com/ Has a very interesting question for all Lcd makers and that is how many dead pixels are needed before you will replace. This is a very interesting article and seems manufactors cant even agree what a dead pixel is let alone tell us how many we must have before a panel is considered defective. Apple uses the same line we are familiar with and refuses comment period. Iam planning on a Lcd in the future but after reading this article it is very clear that there should be a single standard for them all to follow.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2003, 12:33 PM
Here is a little graph from the article

edesignuk
Mar 20, 2003, 12:35 PM
Here is the article. (http://www17.tomshardware.com/display/20030319/index.html)

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2003, 01:03 PM
Thanks i dont know why my link didnt work.

FlamDrag
Mar 20, 2003, 01:35 PM
This chart is inherenly flawed - what's the difference between "no answer" and "refused to answer". The two are both non-answers and two companies in red skews the data and makes them appear worse than the 'no answer' companies when in reality they are the same. This is a classic case (although by no means the worst case) of not letting the data do the talking.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2003, 01:55 PM
What you say may be true but by reading this article it is very clear the majority of makers dont seem to want to address this issue. There are a few more charts in the article with other companies and how they fare. some needed 10 or more dead pixels. cant imagine having to look at that many dead pixels on a dailey basis. Almost makes me glad i have a crt.

yzedf
Mar 20, 2003, 02:51 PM
a dead pixel carries no electrical current.

a stuck pixel is just that, stuck at one level of on.

number of dead pixels required to get a new unit is a function of many things, but firstly; qulaity of the LCD itself. higher quality ones will replace at 3 or 4 dead pixels. lower quality will require 8 or 10. it's a averages game. good ones will have a very low rate of 3 or more, whereas 8 or 10 is required of the junky stuff.

seems rather obvious to me. :rolleyes:

cc bcc
Mar 20, 2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by yzedf
a. higher quality ones will replace at 3 or 4 dead pixels. lower quality will require 8 or 10. it's a averages game. good ones will have a very low rate of 3 or more, whereas 8 or 10 is required of the junky stuff.

seems rather obvious to me. :rolleyes:

Apple makes high quality panels, but I'm not entirely sure that they'll replace when you have 3 or 4 dead pixels.

Apple Knowledge base:

http://kbase.info.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/kbase.woa/wa/query?type=id&val=22194

If you suspect your display contains a high number of pixel anomalies, take your Apple product to an Apple Authorized Service Provider for closer examination. There may be a charge for the evaluation.

A high number? Meaning what? I guess it's not 3 or 4..

yzedf
Mar 20, 2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by cc bcc
Apple makes high quality panels, but I'm not entirely sure that they'll replace when you have 3 or 4 dead pixels.

Apple Knowledge base:

http://kbase.info.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/kbase.woa/wa/query?type=id&val=22194



A high number? Meaning what? I guess it's not 3 or 4..

Apple BUYS ok quality panels. There is nothing real high quality about them (brightness, contrast etc) compared with the rest of the LCD market.

I have no idea what Apple's actual requirements for replacement are. It is a very annoying subject with me. To me anything over 2 (6 anomolies to Apple) is annoying as heck.

I have a 4 year old IBM notebook with zero dead/stuck pixels...

Choppaface
Mar 20, 2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by FlamDrag
This chart is inherenly flawed - what's the difference between "no answer" and "refused to answer". The two are both non-answers and two companies in red skews the data and makes them appear worse than the 'no answer' companies when in reality they are the same. This is a classic case (although by no means the worst case) of not letting the data do the talking.

If you look at the article, it appears the companies marked with 'no answer' gave them conflicting information and/or bs. When one calls constomer service, one can get good information, no information, or one can be lied to. I think most people would agree being lied to is worse than no information.

iJon
Mar 21, 2003, 12:49 AM
i thought reading here on the forums or something apples was like 8 or 10. cant really remember. many time dead pixels can be fixed by rubbing the pixel, giving a small shoch and a variety of other things.

iJon

ddtlm
Mar 21, 2003, 02:31 AM
When I was buying my Sony LCD (the brother of the Apple 23") I looked for weeks but couldn't find at what point they would consider it defective. I even did some of those tech chats, sent an email, got a lot of wishy-washy crap answers. How many thousands of dollars does a screen have to cost before they'll stand behind the product? :rolleyes: