Arrived Early February and screen was perfect.
post #41 of 62
2/18/05 at 2:11pm
Originally Posted by Oneaday
Made up numbers in math equations doesn't prove a thing. Where did you get the 30% fail rate? Is that even remotely accurate? Cause that is one hell of a fail rate.
Originally Posted by Axieth
Received Feb 11th. Perfect screen.
I presume that the majority of people out there that have a defective pixel or two have not returned their computers. Otherwise, if everyone just keeps returning their computers with defective screens to get a new one without a defect, then why wouldn’t Sager just save everyone the hassle of checking the screens and returning the unit and just check them themselves?
|If one defective pixel is as bad as some of the posts in this thread suggest, doesn’t this make the whole system seem rather strange? What other product can you buy where you can purchase an optional guarantee that it will work correctly?|
Originally Posted by vanfanel
Actually the last time I checked the yields from LCD manufacturers was around 50%. The failure rates are probably even higher for the UXGA screens and above. Yup...half of those suckers get tossed right off the assembly line. And that's probably with the industry standard for dead pixels. So you can imagine how high costs would be if the industry were to accept a 0 dead pixel policy.
edit: okay that data seems old. It appears that that yield rates are around 80% but probably lower for better screens like UXGA. Here's one example:
"Sharp Corp., which started operating an LCD production line using sixth-generation glass in January, is the market's top supplier of LCDs for TV applications, according to DisplaySearch. LG is second and Samsung is third, the research firm said. Those figures may change after S-LCD begins operation next year, but the fab's output will depend on its yield rate. Sharp's yield rate is over 80 percent."
There are a few other articles that mention yields of around 85% which sounds pretty good actually.