Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rlev who wrote (32061)	2/3/2002 7:25:58 PM
From: HerbVic	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213176

That's what I was thinking, too. Duuh, ... about the use of two ports ... that is. Where is the bandwidth limitation? It's not the bus that limits the current display bandwidth? If so, two ports wouldn't overcome that. Or, are you saying that the bus ceiling is somewhere just above a 26" 2400 X 1806? You know with OS X, the display graphics is in PostScript, I believe. On a 100% OS X machine with a PostScript savvy graphics card, the bus bandwidth may not even enter into it. I really expect a revamp of the FPDs. My expectations of what they might be are pure conjecture. But, I was thinking of a butterfly flexure arrangement with about 17 degrees flex between two displays utilizing two interfaces. About 4 million pixels would be about right for the whole thing. If all the new FPDs went to the table lamp architecture, the base would need to hold something besides mere ballast. That's why I think they might have Airport built into it. Just musing... HerbVic