Hacker News Reader

Comment by Xcelerate | Hacker News Reader

These monitors a great deal. One thing that always bugs me on forums (or deal websites) where these are discussed is that people are quick to point out that these monitors have A- panels -- the rejects from the Apple and Dell supply.

While this is true for a few of the companies, it is not true for all of them. "Korean monitors" isn't one entity. There's a lot of companies selling these things, and a lot of them are A quality panels. (So the lesson is to not just repeat things you hear without finding a primary source first).

I believe most rumors point to Apple releasing a 27 or 30 inch super resolution display within the next year. I'll be waiting for these Korean companies to release their own version and then snatch it up for a cheap price.

View on HN

There's also a subtext that makes me a bit nervous. The OEM did not build these monitors as an act of charity. They were ordered by someone, with the intent of selling them at a much higher price.

When you see a deal like this -- especially if the monitors are actually of better quality than represented in the ad -- it means that someone at a major PC manufacturer ordered a metric assload too many monitors. Why/how did that happen? Does it signal a larger market collapse?

Probably signals a market collapse in the last 2years. Dell and co either ordered, or suppliers thought they would order lots of new big screen monitors, so fab lines were setup, components were bought, screens were made.

... and then the world (or at least those who still had jobs ) ... bought tablets.

Or, you know, the panels just weren't up to the PC manufacturer's standards. Happens all the time.

... low price.

I don't always nitpick, but when I do, I go after "cheap prices".

Then that explains the hesitation I felt when I typed that.

I'm curious, why is "low price" wrong?

Low price is correct, cheap price is wrong. Price is implied in the word cheap.

"Redundant" is not the same as "wrong".

(To pick a nit on a nit.)

I don't regard that as correct. Cheap can mean multiple things. I can say this fabric has a cheap feel to it. This is a reference to quality. The shirt may have cost me $400, but the workmanship and materials that went into it were of low value. When you say you'll give me a full refund for the shirt but then only give me store credit, I could tell you that your words were cheap.

Yes, this relates back to price in the end, but having a cheap price means you paid a small amount for it. Having a cheap quality means it's worth a small amount, but you might have paid much more for it. Clarifying with the word price gives a very specific meaning. Cheap doesn't always imply price.

Yeah, I'm hoping to pick up a generic version of whatever high-res monitor they introduce, if they don't clamp down supply too hard. Windows isn't quite ready for that kind of scaling, though...

re: windows - nonsense. GDI+ has been capable of doing resolution-independent rendering since 2000-ish. I think since vista there have been DPI-settings within easy reach. More recent UI platforms like WPF and silverlight are vector-based and resolution-independent. My primary monitor is 2560x1440 and it looks beautiful.

You missed the part where almost every Windows app breaks at high DPI.

Indeed. Windows apps are resolution-independent in theory, but not in practice. Even the OS itself has a bunch of tie-ins to ancient dialog boxes that have only been incrementally improved and break when you change the DPI.

So when you said "Windows isn't quite ready for that kind of scaling" you meant "some windows apps" or "most windows apps"?

So is there any way to figure out if you're getting an A or an A-?

Ask the group selling the monitors. They'll normally tell you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com