Displays

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Well given you should sleep at least 1/3 of a day you would still get 600 days out of an abhorred abuse of your time

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] towerful@programming.dev 5 points 10 months ago (1 child)

When your hobby overlaps with your job and you still enjoy both :(

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 months ago

cries But you know having children helps - you have a lot less time for hobbies

parent

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

In terms of the study? Clearly it was long enough to experience quite a bit of failure.

In terms of those 20% of devices? I'm in complete agreement.

parent

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

Burn-in is still a problem, though. For actual television - not an issue, unless you leave CNN on all day every day. (What, do you live in an airport?) For a computer display... yeah, that's gonna show up.

https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/gaming-monitors/after-15-months-and-3-800-hours-of-worst-case-usage-one-independent-test-finds-oled-burn-in-is-now-almost-a-non-issue/

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] cm0002@no.lastname.nz [S] 1 point 10 months ago

Seems to have been mitigated as well

parent

5 comments in c/hardware@programming.dev view that post

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 10 months ago

They also said that every single OLED suffered from burn in. I would count that as a partial failure for every OLED TV they tested.

[–] KiwiTB@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

So expensive TVs last longer than cheap ones. That goodness this new information has come to light, thanks Tom's hardware for this breaking analysis.

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip [S] 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Finally, when it comes to price, you'll be happy to know that quality control doesn't scale with cost. Some of the best-performing models were budget options, while some of the most expensive TVs didn't perform as well on the test.

Literally the opposite of what they said.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] KiwiTB@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

They said OLED had lowest failure rate, which is true, LCD has highest. LCD are cheap, OLED is expensive. They even said local dimming tech sits in the middle, which is true for price and returns. We get LCDs coming back all the time, OLEDs almost never.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip [S] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

So it's about display technology and not the price. If you compare products of the same technology and the price you can see that it doesn't correspond to better longevity.