Dead Pixel? - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: Dead Pixel?

Notan, for once you're not ENTIRELY correct.

LCDs with a no dead pixel guarantee DO exist, but they are for mission-critical
displays used
for medical imaging, and they don't appear in consumer equipment due to their
extreme cost.

I was reading about that in a white paper on Dell's site (took a while to
remember how to find
it again) - a PDF at

Another Dell community support site said that if the back lighting was uneven (a
problem causing similar symptoms), then Dell would see the display as defective.
 The site was

Dell's pixel policy says "A display with 1 to 5 fixed pixels is within the
industry standards,
and is therefore considered an acceptable display...If you notice more than six
(6) fixed
pixels on your display, or if there are several fixed pixels in a small area of
the screen,
refer to the E-mail Dell section under Additional Information to contact Dell
Technical Support."

IBM/Lenovo's policy  (document ID MIGR-4U9P53 at )
isn't nearly as
good as Dell's, and it is heavily dependent on the size and resolution of the
display.  The
minimum number of dead pixels for a replacement goes from 5 light OR dark and 9
light AND dark
pixels for a 12.1" SVGA (800x600) or a 10.4" XGA (1024x768) display to 11 light
OR 13 dark and
16 light AND dark pixels for a 15.4" WSXGA (1680x1050) display.

Please send me a link as well if anyone finds a PC manufacturer that has a no
dead pixel
guarantee, AFAIK they don't exist on the consumer level, and not even on the
corporate level
(isn't that one of the things that could be better on business machines than
machines?).  If I were a PC manufacturer, I'd make sure the business clients
were getting the
best displays, since they're the ones usually able to afford the more expensive
machines, where
there is more room for profit.

Also, anyone that thinks they should have a perfect display for only having paid
a few thousand
of many currencies is being about as ridiculous as someone thinking that if
their PC breaks
down, they won't get refurbished parts (if available) used as replacements for
failure, or even entire PC replacements in some cases (then I'd be unhappy if I
paid for a new
machine and when it failed, I had to put up with a refurb one).  I've read in PC
about US stores who kept trying to fix lemon machines until the manufacturer
finds out and
sends the customer a new machine and an apology, because smart manufacturers
know that it's
better to lose a whole unit than a customer.  It was also funny to read about
the number of
Gateway laptops that failed after a Celeron processor, a Winmodem and Windows ME
were combined.

I don't think that any consumer should be complaining about ONLY ONE dead pixel,
because unless
they're a graphics professional, they really aren't doing anything
mission-critical with the
display and are just becoming obsessed with any tiny imperfection on their
system, just like
some people who find their first scratch on their shiny new car or laptop.

Hope that helps, and yes Notan, you're perhaps the most stringent enforcer of
Usenet rules (can
you tell me where I can find a copy of them?).  I wish there were someone like
you on and edm.general due to extreme decency/morality/troll problems, but
that's just my
personal views, OT to this thread.


Notan wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: Dead Pixel?

Just reading some more on the Dell white paper, I remember that apparently,
there are 4 classes
of LCD panels according to the ISO spec 13406 that defines industry standards of
defective pixels.

I'm not sure why Dell seems to be the only OEM following this and not
IBM/Lenovo, but this
standard was what I wasn't sure Notan was aware of.

I think everyone who is planning on buying anything with an LCD display should
read this PDF.

Once again, it's here:

Hope I helped, it was certainly an interesting read for me.


Cool_X wrote:
 >SNIPped, to be extra nice to Notan (still wish he'd come to my local NGs, BTW).

Re: Dead Pixel?

Cool_X wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

While the article was (fairly) interesting, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

When I said, "Show me a link to a manufacturer's zero bad pixel policy," I wasn't
saying they don't exist, but, rather, there are no manufacturers that *support*
a zero bad pixel policy. At least, as you pointed out, in the consumer industry.

As far as "You're not ENTIRELY correct," are you suggesting that I'm *usually*
correct? If so, you'll be the first! <g>

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Again, are we talking "stringent" in a good way, or bad. I like to think that
my complaints are pretty reasonable, e.g., asking people to trim their posts,
post consistently (i.e., top post *or* bottom post, but don't mix the two).

Maybe I'm being an ass. While *I* don't think so, it's more than possible that
others feel differently.

Happy Holidays!


Re: Dead Pixel?

I said you weren't entirely correct because you weren't specific about only
meaning the
consumer industry.

As far as being usually correct, I'd never been able to argue with anything
you'd previously
posted, although it didn't take very long when I first joined this NG to see how
vigorously you
   corrected people in regards to Usenet rules.  Speaking of which, I'd like to
learn more from
you about Usenet's rules, and how to become a better NG user (even though I find
easier, for numerous reasons).  And my local NG could still use someone like
you, as it's too
heavily troll-infested...

I was making a neutral statement about you being stringent, as perception is
relative.  I
personally think that you have a good influence on the NGs that you're in, as
you seem to act
like a moderator.  I've never come across anyone who was as stringent as you
are, and am quite
surprised to see that people here seem to be perfectly fine with your style,
because there are
always people who won't agree with you...  And yes, I find most of your
corrections reasonable,
but I think you get wrapped up in technicalities sometimes, like changing a
subject mid-thread.
  I always find myself adhering to a higher standard here, because I'm unaware
of many things
that you could find fault with in my posts.

I would be very interested in learning how you got to know this much about
Usenet, as I've had
to teach myself everything I know through hard experience, and I still don't
think I know
enough...  Could you direct me to where I could learn what you know about
posting, and tell me
how I can improve my local NG?


Notan wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: Dead Pixel?

Cool_X wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Assuming you're not pulling my leg (and if you are, that's OK! <g>)...

Let me preface this with, I'm certainly not a Usenet expert, nor do I
claim to be. My background is in medicine, with education as one of my
many sub-interests.

I look at Usenet as a *great* teaching/learning tool. Most of what I've
learned, here, were the results of me screwing up, and people correcting
me. Learning is a win-win situation. The teacher gets to show what he/she
has learned, often from personal experience, with the result being the
student gets to learn something new.

Threads should be easy to read, and just as important, easy to follow.
While Usenet *suggests* bottom posting, personally I couldn't care less,
whether one top posts or bottom posts. But, whichever ever you choose,
at least be consistent. If the thread has been top posted, bottom posting
does nothing but serve to confuse subsequent readers. And, vice versa.
Trim your posts. To me, and maybe I'm being ridiculous, there's nothing
more Usenet-annoying than scrolling through 5 pages of posts/responses,
only to find a one word response at the bottom of the post.

Speak English. It's purely a personal thing, but the "new English" drives
me nuts! I'm a huge fan of the written word. SMS on a cell phone is great,
but in a thread, it's *so* much easier to read an entire sentence, written
with entire words.

You said, "I think you get wrapped up in technicalities sometimes, like
changing a subject mid-thread." To me, while I can follow the thread
with a little bit of extra effort, wouldn't it be easier, on everyone,
to just change the subject? I figure, If it's difficult for me to follow,
it's *got* to be difficult for others. Maybe not. It's not a matter of
"follow the Usenet rules," it's one of "be considerate of others."

As I said, I'm no expert. Someone will, more than likely, find something
wrong with this post and correct me! Am I offended. Maybe, but probably
not. It all depends on how it's presented.

If you were serious, I hope this helps. If not, never mind. <g>

Take care!


Re: Dead Pixel?

Re: "Most manufacturers now have a zero bad pixel policy ..."


I don't know of ANY manufacturers that have a "zero bad pixel" policy.

Re: Dead Pixel?

As far as the manufacturer is concerned, it's not a defect.  However,
the retailer may let you exchange it anyway.

LCD screens are not guaranteed "perfect".  Indeed, the most common
quality specifications allow quite a few dead pixels (up to about 8 is a
common criteria, but the criteria take into account where they are
located and whether or not any are directly adjacent, thus larger and
more noticeable). In any case, I'm not aware of any manufacturer that
considers less than 4 non-adjacent bad pixels to be a defective screen.

However, many users have a problem with even one bad pixel, and some
retailers will accept such a laptop back for refund or exchange, not
withstanding the manufacturer's policies.

KJB wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Site Timeline