Did these folks not look at the display before buying? Such a waste of time and money for the sake of what? Greed?

Palm got sued over this same thing, about 4.5 years ago. I'd be surprised that somebody would still be manufacturing a laptop sized screen that cannot display 24-bit color, but if it's true, I'd say the lawsuit has merit.

As far as looking at the display before buying, I don't think that's a legitimate argument. Today, a consumer would be rightfully surprised that a modern display cannot display millions of colors, particular when the manufacture tells them that it can. In fact, I still have a hard time believing a MacBook display would dither colors.

So, in other words, I'm skeptical of the plaintiffs' claims, but if they are true, the lawsuit is justified, and not motivated by greed alone (the lawyers' involvement, on the other hand...).

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,104553-page,1/article.html

"(the lawyers' involvement, on the other hand...). "

Were the plaintiffs supposed to represent themsevels pro se?

Quote

Engine Joe wrote:
"(the lawyers' involvement, on the other hand...). "

Were the plaintiffs supposed to represent themsevels pro se?

The only people who benefit from class-action lawsuits are the lawyers and the defendants. The plaintiffs might walk away with about $.50 when it's all over and the lawyers get their cut.

Maybe, maybe not. But the individual plaintiffs can't afford to bring this litigation on their own - the investment would be much larger than any gain they would earn if they won. Class actions allow for "small value" litigations to actually push forward (when meritorious).

How do defendants benefit by a class-action lawsuit, exactly? I'd love to know.

Quote

Engine Joe wrote:
How do defendants benefit by a class-action lawsuit, exactly? I'd love to know.

LOL. That's a good question.

For me, it really comes down to who actually got the ball rolling on this thing. Many times it seems like the lawyers create these just to drum up their own business. If that was the other posters' point, then they didn't do a good job of explaining it. But it's more likely another case of people repeating things they've heard in an attempt to sound intelligent. Fight the establishment!

Quote

Biff wrote:

Quote

Engine Joe wrote:
How do defendants benefit by a class-action lawsuit, exactly? I'd love to know.

LOL. That's a good question.

If seen a couple settlements that were little more than marketing opportunities for the defandant. I got one recently where the "settlement" was a $5 coupon off Verizon accessories worth more than $25. To have to spend it on more Verizon stuff was probably more beneficial to Verizon than to anyone else. Also the initial California anti-trust settlement against Microsoft provide vouchers to schools for Microsoft software. I think after an outrage, it was modified to apply to any companies software. But the initial settlement was more to the benefit of Microsoft than anyone else.

Sure, the Verizon settlement is stupid, and does little to help consumers, but I'm sure the company also spent a good chunk of change defending themselves. I don't think companies look forward to these lawsuits, thinking they're going to get a settlement that makes people spend money on their stuff. They have to incur legal costs dealing with it, along with the PR black eye.

I'm not saying "Boo hoo, poor companies." I'm just saying that it's not like they really benefit that much from a settlement like the Verizon one. I seriously hope most consumers don't feel the need to use the coupon just because they have it.

Some people are total idiots due to the unfortunate circumstance of their lives.
I honestly hope they burn in hell.

Class action lawsuits ARE for the benefit of the legal profession. The consumer seldom gets a fair shake in the suit. If he/she does, it would be a fluke. And another thing!, Why am I, by default, in? I think I should be automatically out! Send me the notice and if I have had the problem and wish to be in then it is up to me to choose to opt in. Okay?

I received a notice the other day that I could join a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo.
I would receive (stop the presses): 2 free FICO Scores and $50 off my next Wells Fargo mortgage (yes, $50 off a mortgage).
I threw it in the trash.
What I really wanted to do was choke the living $#!% out of the lawyers who organized this lawsuit.

This complaint my have merit:

http://peewaiweb.free.fr/

From website:

After reading the macbook pro article on wikipedia, I checked the references at the end of the article, and especially reference #22. This links to Macrumor's forum. A few MBP (Macbook Pro) owners complain about the poor colors of their screens... Indeed, all of these Macbook Pros are fitted with 262k colors maxi screens from various manufacturers!

I tested mine and found out that I too had a 262k colors screen, here is how:

--update: hassle free method under OS X using SwitchResX
Go to this page http://www.madrau.com/html/SRX/DL.shtml
Download and install the control panel only (at the end of the page)
Then choose 'Export DDC'
And here you go, full report including the model of your screen

More details on this method can be found here: http://www.colorblindmac.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30#30

Sorry to double post but I wanted to add a subject line...

This complaint my have merit:

http://peewaiweb.free.fr/

From website:

After reading the macbook pro article on wikipedia, I checked the references at the end of the article, and especially reference #22. This links to Macrumor's forum. A few MBP (Macbook Pro) owners complain about the poor colors of their screens... Indeed, all of these Macbook Pros are fitted with 262k colors maxi screens from various manufacturers!

I tested mine and found out that I too had a 262k colors screen, here is how:

--update: hassle free method under OS X using SwitchResX
Go to this page http://www.madrau.com/html/SRX/DL.shtml
Download and install the control panel only (at the end of the page)
Then choose 'Export DDC'
And here you go, full report including the model of your screen

More details on this method can be found here: http://www.colorblindmac.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30#30

What you may not be aware of, is that it is custom in the industry to sell six bit panels as "16.2 million colors" while 8 bit panels are sold at "16.7 million colors". If you purchase a laptop with the same panel that Apple advertises as "millions of colors" from any other manufacturer, it will most likely be advertised as "16.2 million colors".

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
What you may not be aware of, is that it is custom in the industry to sell six bit panels as "16.2 million colors" while 8 bit panels are sold at "16.7 million colors". If you purchase a laptop with the same panel that Apple advertises as "millions of colors" from any other manufacturer, it will most likely be advertised as "16.2 million colors".

How? 6 bits per pixel gives only 262,144 colors (2^18). 16.2 million is not a power of 2.

That number appears to come from About.com.

Also, it appears that using 6 bit panels is not only common in the industry, but also required to get fast refresh rates. 8 bit (actually 24 bit) panels do not have a fast refresh. At least that is what the About.com page says.

Looking on their site, Apple never actually claims 16.7M colors. It claims "millions of colors". which seems to be computer manufacturer-speak for a 6 bit display.

With a cursory look around, it doesn't appear that any of the laptop manufacturers advertise 16.7M colors, at least not on their large displays. They do advertise millions, though. They may be out there, but I didn't trip on them during the admittedly quick search.

Were any of the other manufacturers that advertised millions of colors actually using displays that were only capable of hundreds of thousands of colors, then using dithering and not disclosing this fact? That's what Apple did.

According to some sources, there aren't laptop displays of that size that actually do support 16.7 million colors. If that is true (and I have no proof either way) then yes, they are using dithering and not disclosing that fact. Again, the refresh rate seems to be the main driver. From what I can see, the 24 bit (8 bit) screens have something like a 25ms response time. the 6 bit are closer to 5ms.

Quote

Intruder wrote:
According to some sources, there aren't laptop displays of that size that actually do support 16.7 million colors. If that is true (and I have no proof either way) then yes, they are using dithering and not disclosing that fact. Again, the refresh rate seems to be the main driver. From what I can see, the 24 bit (8 bit) screens have something like a 25ms response time. the 6 bit are closer to 5ms.

What sources? What size is the cutoff? It'd be nice if you provided more information than whatever you feel like typing. That's a lot of supposition there, without a single resource to back up any of it. Maybe that's good enough for you, but the rest of us prefer something more than an about.com link that speaks only in very general terms.

Sheesh. Do some research yourself and quit being a troll. I already stated that I have no proof either way, nor am I going to spend my time re-looking up sources that I happened to stumble upon. It just isn't worth it.

But anyway, here is an easy comparison. I have a Compaq TC4200 tablet PC. It has a TFT display made by BOE in Korea. It is advertised by HP/Compaq and all of the review sites as being either 16M or 16.7M colors (depending on where you look). Looking up the display on the BOE website shows that it supports 262K colors. BOE does not make any 12.1 XGA displays for tablets that support 16.7M colors. In fact, it appears that none of their PC laptop displays support more than 262K colors.

Go look for yourself if you want. The site is www.boehydis.com. Do the comparisons for 12.1 XGA displays for tablet PCs.

The point is all of the laptop manufacturers apparently do the same thing. Apple is just the favorite target lately. If you have proof that it isn't common practice, then by all means provide it.

Sorry if asking you to support your claims is something you considering trolling, but most people think spouting opinions to support your preconceived notions that have no data to back them up is worse. Trolls can just be ignored, but you're presenting your opinion as fact.

Quote

Intruder wrote:
Sheesh. Do some research yourself and quit being a troll. I already stated that I have no proof either way, nor am I going to spend my time re-looking up sources that I happened to stumble upon. It just isn't worth it.

a.k.a it doesn't exist!

Quote

Intruder wrote:

But anyway, here is an easy comparison. I have a Compaq TC4200 tablet PC. It has a TFT display made by BOE in Korea. It is advertised by HP/Compaq and all of the review sites as being either 16M or 16.7M colors (depending on where you look). Looking up the display on the BOE website shows that it supports 262K colors. BOE does not make any 12.1 XGA displays for tablets that support 16.7M colors. In fact, it appears that none of their PC laptop displays support more than 262K colors.

Go look for yourself if you want. The site is www.boehydis.com. Do the comparisons for 12.1 XGA displays for tablet PCs.

The point is all of the laptop manufacturers apparently do the same thing. Apple is just the favorite target lately. If you have proof that it isn't common practice, then by all means provide it.

Um, okay, BOE is the manufacturer of the screen, so I'll assume that it's incapable of 16.7M colors, but where's this plethora of advertising you speak of? I cannot find any locations where it's advertised as 16.7M, or even millions of colors without clarifying the methods used to create them. Unfortunately, the product is discontinued, so grabbing the marketing material for that specific laptop is difficult.

Sorry, but you can claim all you want. Fact is, Apple did something unethical, and there is no proof that this unethical behavior is common in the industry, in fact, there isn't even a single example that you can provide, and so your point that all of the laptop manufacturers do is invalid. Please, provide at least one example, just one, any one, it can be some weak off brand if that's all there is.

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/05/apple_lcd_lawsu.html

http://reviews.cnet.com/tablet-pcs/hp-compaq-tc4200/4507-3126_7-31273672.html

http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/12138_na/12138_na.HTML (claims 16M colors or 16.7M, even though they all use the same displays)

From comments on the wired.com article:
"It *is* all hooey - both HP and Dell claim "millions of colors" on their laptop LCD's but, IF YOU CROSS REFERENCE THE PANEL MANUFACTUER'S SPECS FOR THE ACTUAL PANEL USED...the LCD is 262K colors.

How do I know?

I checked my own HP, IBM and Dell laptops, using the EDID - for example, (my) HP ZD7000 uses

AU Optronics B170PW01

for which HP claimed on the ZD7000 "16.7 million colors"

http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/hp-pavilion-zd7000/4507-3121_7-30557633.html?tag=sub

HOWEVER...AU only claimed 262K hardware colors for the B170PW01

http://www.horizontechnology.com/display/AU/B170PW01.htm

And there you have it. The balance of the colors "supported" is by dithering.
"

You owe an apology.

But I'm still confused why you didn't do this with the initial post. I know you claimed you didn't want to "waste your time" but why bother posting in the first place? Especially when you came up with such great supporting evidence?

Actually, I don't owe any apology. Perhaps it's the other way around. You claimed to not want to waste time, but it took you how many posts to actually produce this. Wait a minute. How many times did I already say I'm sorry? Twice!

You owe everyone an apology. See the previous guests' post.

Now, onto the substance. These links still do not prove what you think they prove. You're quoting an anonymous comment to a post in another blog as evidence of what screen is used in an HP laptop? That doesn't count. Can you find a non-anonymous blog post, something that is reliable, that shows exactly which screen the HP computer is using? There is no reliable link between the screen and the laptop in the links you've provided. I'm fairly certain that those two different HP laptops do not use the same display, especially considering one is 5 inches larger than the other. Yes, that one AU screen lists itself as 262K, but there is no evidence that it is the same screen used in the laptops you linked to, unless you trust Eric. Do you trust Eric?

Nope. You care trying to change the subject on him. You prove that it is not the screen used for the HP. You asked for evidence, he supplied some. Your turn. Or are you just going to call everybody on the web a liar if they don't agree with you?

Or you are, in fact, a hopeless troll.

Why did I post it? Because you demanded proof and I had a few spare minutes to provide it.

You've managed to ignore the fact that I have provided you an example (the TC4200) of a screen that is advertised (by Compaq and the reviews, see the links) as being able to display 16.7M colors and yet, ACCORDING TO THE SCREEN MANUFACTURER, does not.

The second section is referring to a different computer (no kidding). I have no reason to doubt the claim of what the poster said (it is difficult to just make up screen part names and numbers), and the part number does check out on the suppliers site. HP does not list the parts suppliers or part numbers for their screens on their website. Really the only way to find out is to ask the machine itself, which "Eric" apparently did. Provide me a good reason why it should be doubted. Even better. Go check the EDID of your computer (if you have a laptop) and check the specs of your display. I'm sure we'd all be curious as to what it shows.

You won't. You are here to troll, plain and simple. You just refuse to accept that other companies are guilty of doing exactly the same thing that Apple is accused of.