There's some merit to using a CRT from that area.
But LCDs from back then just plain sucked, bad colors, bad viewing angle and atrocious response times.
Inferior in every way.
1280x1024 is still good
Actual high resolution 4:3 LCDs are fricking unicorns
I had a shitty monitor that looked just like that. It started to die at one point in a weird way, it would go black and I had to turn it off and on again to get a picture, it got worse and worse with time and I had to do it more and more until at one point it just wouldn't stabilize anymore and would go black after a few seconds no matter how many times I turned it on again.
AFAIK they topped out at 1600x1200 / 20" though
my current compromise is a 30" 16:10 (1600p) which I don't believe has been improved upon for vertical real estate (assuming you prefer wider-than-taller - obviously any monitor could be rotated)
I've been waiting for Dell or somebody to make a 2x density version of this, 3200p instead, but it looks like it's never going to happen 🙁
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I had two 1600x1200, 19 inchers
They died however after years of use, both of them
It was a powersupply issue (power supply was built in and not an external power brick)
They're both shit. The historical revisionism in this place is unreal. With this junker 1280x1024 flat panel here, I can at least have it on a normal sized desk in a normal sized location for holding things in a place where I have no reason to care about burn-in. A CRT would look worse, have a worse time being connected to a modern machine, and I'd have to place it where my 27" 1440p side monitor is just to make it fit, and for what? To have a fuzzier image?
I had a shitty monitor that looked just like that. It started to die at one point in a weird way, it would go black and I had to turn it off and on again to get a picture, it got worse and worse with time and I had to do it more and more until at one point it just wouldn't stabilize anymore and would go black after a few seconds no matter how many times I turned it on again.
If color accuracy is a concern then I suggest calibrating the display. It won't change much but there will be some noticable improvement if done properly.
Also if you have a higher-end old LCD you can overclock the refresh rate. I have an old Dell that can be clocked to 75hz as opposed to the default 60hz.
I work in one of the largest most advanced fabs on the planet. The vast majority of the $100m machines or whatever the frick they cost, are interfaced with using 1280x1024 monitors.
I asked them to spend a literal one weeks worth of a single persons salary to replace all the ones in my dept with 1920x1200 ones and they said no. So I quit
non-disclosure and IP and etc. ill just say its an american company
yes everything is mouse, GUI driven, and Windows based. there are machines that are an exception that arent Windows based, theyre touch based and use "MMI"s which have built in displays. those might be low resolution but its totally fine as their whole UI is built around it.
The others, the ones that actually program the machine and stuff are 1080p.
but to operate the machines, and do things like read manuals, are 1280x1024. reading manuals is one of those situations where high res monitors shine, so this is incredibly annoying. theres a multitude of programs we need to run. some programs look at lot data (ID numbers, wafer state, etc), some look at test results (particle count, layer thickness, etc), some actually load test wafers, some operate the machine (taking it offline or online), some tell you info about the machines, some let you lock out certain operations (maybe the layer thickness isnt accurate enough for 7nm but its fine for 14nm for example).
so basically, we need at least half a dozen, sometimes a full dozen, *individual programs* open at the same time. as you can imagine, a single 1280x1024 monitor is not well suited to this task. and holy shit what a joke when literally only a couple thousand dollars could literally double your display area on all 60 or 70 machines.
keep in mind a single FOUP contains a few millions of dollars worth of individual chips. and each machine runs many, many thousands of FOUPs over time. So if someone makes a mistake because a certain part of a manual was cut off, or juggling 10 programs made them lose their concentration since they can only display one program at a time, and $5m worth of wafers are scrapped (this happens somewhat reliably), well, $3k is fricking nothing
There's some merit to using a CRT from that area.
But LCDs from back then just plain sucked, bad colors, bad viewing angle and atrocious response times.
Inferior in every way.
Looks fine to me
t. reading this on one
I have a Gateway FPD1730 sitting right next to me, waiting to take the reins when my SyncMaster dies.
>bad viewing angles
This is the only issue I have ever experienced.
if TFT has 1600x1200 resolution its useful even today, smaller resolution aint
1280x1024 is still good
Actual high resolution 4:3 LCDs are fricking unicorns
Probably the backlight
AFAIK they topped out at 1600x1200 / 20" though
my current compromise is a 30" 16:10 (1600p) which I don't believe has been improved upon for vertical real estate (assuming you prefer wider-than-taller - obviously any monitor could be rotated)
I've been waiting for Dell or somebody to make a 2x density version of this, 3200p instead, but it looks like it's never going to happen 🙁
I had two 1600x1200, 19 inchers
They died however after years of use, both of them
It was a powersupply issue (power supply was built in and not an external power brick)
theres plenty of 1600x1200 LCDs available
Yeah, but someone was throwing it away, so free extra screen on my second system.
their values will skyrocket once monitors have smart shit with ads
🙁
They're both shit. The historical revisionism in this place is unreal. With this junker 1280x1024 flat panel here, I can at least have it on a normal sized desk in a normal sized location for holding things in a place where I have no reason to care about burn-in. A CRT would look worse, have a worse time being connected to a modern machine, and I'd have to place it where my 27" 1440p side monitor is just to make it fit, and for what? To have a fuzzier image?
only in the very cheapest or early ones from the 90s, later ips were fine
i had this bad boy and i was very glad to replace my crt with it
I had a shitty monitor that looked just like that. It started to die at one point in a weird way, it would go black and I had to turn it off and on again to get a picture, it got worse and worse with time and I had to do it more and more until at one point it just wouldn't stabilize anymore and would go black after a few seconds no matter how many times I turned it on again.
If color accuracy is a concern then I suggest calibrating the display. It won't change much but there will be some noticable improvement if done properly.
Also if you have a higher-end old LCD you can overclock the refresh rate. I have an old Dell that can be clocked to 75hz as opposed to the default 60hz.
I used to have a monitor like this. It got so hot I could melt wax on it.
>not 1600x1200 20”
>20" Dellslop
mogged by superior quality 21" Nippon panel
I work in one of the largest most advanced fabs on the planet. The vast majority of the $100m machines or whatever the frick they cost, are interfaced with using 1280x1024 monitors.
I asked them to spend a literal one weeks worth of a single persons salary to replace all the ones in my dept with 1920x1200 ones and they said no. So I quit
I hope my autism leads me somewhere comfy
*worked
intel? tmc?
what do you have to do on the monitor? do you have a mouse and drag stuff around? or is it just some simple keyboard only app?
non-disclosure and IP and etc. ill just say its an american company
yes everything is mouse, GUI driven, and Windows based. there are machines that are an exception that arent Windows based, theyre touch based and use "MMI"s which have built in displays. those might be low resolution but its totally fine as their whole UI is built around it.
The others, the ones that actually program the machine and stuff are 1080p.
but to operate the machines, and do things like read manuals, are 1280x1024. reading manuals is one of those situations where high res monitors shine, so this is incredibly annoying. theres a multitude of programs we need to run. some programs look at lot data (ID numbers, wafer state, etc), some look at test results (particle count, layer thickness, etc), some actually load test wafers, some operate the machine (taking it offline or online), some tell you info about the machines, some let you lock out certain operations (maybe the layer thickness isnt accurate enough for 7nm but its fine for 14nm for example).
so basically, we need at least half a dozen, sometimes a full dozen, *individual programs* open at the same time. as you can imagine, a single 1280x1024 monitor is not well suited to this task. and holy shit what a joke when literally only a couple thousand dollars could literally double your display area on all 60 or 70 machines.
keep in mind a single FOUP contains a few millions of dollars worth of individual chips. and each machine runs many, many thousands of FOUPs over time. So if someone makes a mistake because a certain part of a manual was cut off, or juggling 10 programs made them lose their concentration since they can only display one program at a time, and $5m worth of wafers are scrapped (this happens somewhat reliably), well, $3k is fricking nothing
>1024p
>:|
>1080p
>:O
>reading comprehension
>[ ] pass
>[x] fail
Ghosting and dead pixels. So many cases!
these things looked like absolute donkey dick compared to a CRT monitor with the same resolution (or higher) that you already owned at that time.
cs_office