life after Windows....

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

Not at this time. While the quality of the displays as such can be
fine, LCDs and plasmas suffer from the need to convert an incoming
signal to their native spacial resolution frame rate.

Their frame rates are more than adequate for any source material, all of which
is going to be at lower rates than they can handle.

For still images, frame rates are not an issue at all.

Also since at this time they are not capable of interlacing, it
has to be thrown away.

Interlacing is useless and meaningless for flat-panel displays. It was used
in CRTs because of the low persistence of phosphors, and it always produced
lower resolution and image quality than progressive scanning. It is not
necessary for flat panels. It doesn't even have meaning for flat panels,
since they don't scan to begin with.

While spacial scaling can be done very well, there exists no good
solution to frame rate conversion, not even in theory.

Frame rate conversion should not be necessary.

And throwing away interlacing is unforgiveable as it means throwing
away temporal resolution.

I threw away interlacing as soon as I could get a CRT and driver that would do
progressive scanning, the latter being far superior.

The strange artefacts one can see on flat screen tvs showing SDTV
material stem mostly from the resolution conversion processes, often
worsened by some other electronics trying to hide the defects
introduced by it.

Those conversions would produce the same artifacts on CRTs.

When run at their native resolution with non-interlaced signals
(typically some HDTV mode or computer signal) they don't have to
convert, that's when they look best.

That's how they should be used.

CRTs don't suffer from these problems, as they can be made to work at
the signal's resolution without any scaling, frame rate conversion or
deinterlacing.

Unfortunately, they have a lot of other disadvantages.

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) writes:

Get a grip.

That only makes it worse.

erilar writes:

Not if you can neither read street signs nor ask a passerby.

If you are reading street signs or asking passerby, you are using neither a
compass nor a map.

Martin writes:

Many French people speak French or German, some speak both fluently.

Certainly true for French, much less so for German.

Spencer Primate writes:

Ability to spell is no indication of intelligence or education.

It is highly correlated with both. The single simplest and most accurate test
of intelligence, if a comprehensive test is not possible, is a vocabulary
test.

Shakespere never spelt his own name the same way twice.

There were no firm standards for spelling in his day. There are now.

Keith Willshaw writes:

Contrary to Mixi's claims the latest Sunday Times rich list
shows that only 24% of the top 1000 richest people in Britain
inherited their wealth.

What proportion of the cumulative wealth of those 1000 people do they control?

David Horne writes:

Even less interesting- Europe saw (US$) millionaire households grow by
26.4% in 2006. Boy, those royal families must have been going at it like
rabbits...

Exchange rates and inflation.

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) writes:

You're sounding like Mixi!

He's right. You can't do much with a million dollars today.

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

Who makes European millionaires then?

Their ancestors, in many cases.

William Black writes:

Name then, name them...

Why? Are you one of those people who follow royals like movie stars?