Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It could also be as simple as the glass on the smaller monitor being marginally thicker.

Using weight as a metric for judging the quality of electronics seems … peculiar.



It's a good metric for power supplies, and not much else.


Not electronics quality but amount.

And from that I drew a (simplified, yes) conclusion that more electronics => more processing => better picture.


But amount tells you nothing, particularly when making comparisons across different generations of electronics. Besides, a lot of electronics can mean shit-ass deinterlacing hardware, or far too complicated OSD functionality, or pointless A/D conversion. None of which has anything to do with build quality or picture quality.


I'd be very surprised if you could tell the difference between a high end GPU processor (for example) which could do all the processing you could imagine without raising a sweat and a DIP AVR package that would have trouble multiplying two floats by weight. Even with those, the majority of the weight is in the ceramic packaging, and not the silicon.

Add in a massive amount of packaging in terms of LCD panel, plastic around it, wiring, screws, and any weight difference you could attribute to electronics horsepower (if there was one to begin with) will be lost in the noise.

These aren't transformers or power supplies, where you want large capacitors and heavy lumps of iron to smooth out ripples in an AC to DC conversion.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: