[ltp] thinkpads with rage128 M3/M4 chips in them

[Hamie]

Eben King wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Hamie wrote:
>
>  
>
>>André Wyrwa wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>This laptop has a gorgeous 16x12 display, dual-head supporting 
>>>>different resolutions would be very very useful :-)
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Must be really big, mine has 4:3 only. ;-)
>>>      
>>>
>>16:12 is 4:3 :)
>>    
>>
>
>Ah, but he said "16x12" not "16:12".  But I think Mr. Wyrwa knows about 
>aspect ratios...
>
>  
>

yeah... Sorry.. Just my humour... My kids don't like it either.

>>Methinks he meant the 1600x1200 resolution flexview display... Mine has 
>>one too. It just blows the old A20p 1400x1050 display out of the water 
>>in clarity & brightness...
>>    
>>
>
>The reason I didn't go for a higher-resolution display when I picked out 
>my Thinkpad was that I figured that while a piece of dust (bigger than a 
>1600x1200 pixel, smaller than a 1024x768 pixel) would get ignored on my 
>display but wouldn't on a higher resolution one, making dead pixels more 
>likely.  What's the mean number of dead pixels on 1600x1200 laptop 
>displays, and how many does it take for IBM to consider it faulty?
>
>  
>


Well... I have 0 dead or faulty pixels. In 3 laptops, over the last 5 
years (770x - 1280x1024, A20p 1400x1050, R50p 1600x1200) I've never 
(Touchwood) had a single pixel problem. I hear if it's got any out of 
the box, you have a good chance of just returning it, though I've never 
tested it... (You could getit mailorder as well, and if it has or 
develops any return it under the 30 day rule as  unsuitable for the 
intended use).

Heck Faulty is faulty. A dead or damanged pixel is a fault. As such the 
vendors deserve to get it returned. The 'out' clause they stick in their 
manuals that faulty pixels don't constitute a problem is just a piece of 
verbal garbage, and should be treated as so much excrement.