Thread: My brand new xenarc has 1 bad pixel!

I dont think the manufacturer can cope if everyone want a zero dead pixel on their screen.

It is very costly for them to scrap every screen with a single dead pixel...if thats the case then they gonna have to pass on the cost to the customer. So a $400 screen might now cost $600 due to more rejects.

It is true that you might get 2 dead pixel next time, even worst if its right on the middle of the screen. So consider yourself lucky if you only got 1 and very lucky if you got non at all

They might replace your screen but I bet you they will sell that to someone else wishing hes not gonna complain.

There are a few "tricks" you can do to a stuck pixel which is different from a dead pixel. I had an old laptop that developed a stuck pixel for a short period of time. After looking around the net I found quite a few sites saying that sometimes it is possible to revive a stuck pixel by "massaging" the screen around the pixel. I tried it and it worked for my old laptop but I only tried it because it was an old laptop. Let's just say your mileage may vary for this trick. In reality, perfection and volume just are not there to gurantee perfect screens, although now days good screens seem to be more the rule then the exception.

LOL...My GF must have been massaging the dead pixels I had on the digital camera and on my 18in IBM screen. I didnt know the trick but hey they are gone.

C4M - i wish i could be as unconcerned as you in the face of being burned for $400, looking at a screen with dead pixels. looks like i'm not the only one who would be ****ed off if i spent that much money and got a defective screen, oh and yes...ITS DEFECTIVE...if it wasnt then every single screen they sold would have dead pixels.

It would be nice to think that we're receiving perfection

well...they are recieving perfection...perfectly green, US tender, they can make screens that are without dead pixels... like i said we have 6 here, that may be viewsonics policy but if i got one of their screens that had a dead pixel it would be returned, and i wouldnt buy another from them. if they cant make it right they dont need to be making it, period!

What is ridiculous is your constant agression (particularly in relation to monitor vendors)

well, some people have higher standards...and some...obviously do not.

Ummmmmmm!

"Either way, consider yourself lucky that you are getting a replacement."

Whatever price you pay the unit should be in full working order. The builders of these screens should take a little more care and effort into satisfying the customer with a great product.... not just good.

If we as consumers don't stand up for our rights then 6-7 dead pixels may be acceptable at the next company. I think if anyone is bothered by 1 pixel (like me and I'm not even anal) then the screen should be fixed.

Metiocraty stops here if we make sure that no one accepts less. You guys/gals can set the standard.

I'm ready to buy a screen this week. I'll take an 8.4" or 7" touch. What's the best. Price is not the issue if reasonable.

JP

I hate bad pixel, we all do. Sure we all gonna try and complain about it...I would for sure.

But the manufacturing process of these screen cannot always be 100% perfect. They can however sell the one with bad pixels cheaper and more on those without. In this case every one is happy.

Have a read :

It's all in the process
Widespread overclocking in techie circles brought CPU manufacturing quality into the limelight. Processors are mass-produced in sheets or wafers. Due to the nature of the manufacturing process, some processors are of inherently higher quality than others. Quality varies from wafer to wafer and within individual wafers. (This next bit is somewhat speculation, but I believe it's correct.) As part of the post-manufacture testing procedure, a processor is tested at a low speed (in the case of the classic Pentium, this might be 90MHz). If the processor performs well at this speed, it is tried at 100MHz. If it passes there, it is tried at another step up (in our example, perhaps 120MHz). This process continues until the processor fails to perform reliably at a speed. At that point it is rated at one of the lower speeds at which it performed successfully. A number of processors are tested in this fashion, and statisical sampling magically determines the likely rating for the rest of the CPUs on the wafer.

So you can say that poeple do pay less for slow CPU...make sense. They should do that with the screen with bad pixels...low grade - 4 pixels, medium - 2 pixels, grade 1 - perfect.

The car Im driving now which I bought from new. Looking at the engine I realised my engine is oversized, high grade...due to manufacturing tolerance. I considered my self lucky as it is the biggest engine made due to tolerance, yes I do have more horse power than most.

Originally Posted by Ricky327

I hate bad pixel, we all do. Sure we all gonna try and complain about it...I would for sure.

But the manufacturing process of these screen cannot always be 100% perfect. They can however sell the one with bad pixels cheaper and more on those without. In this case every one is happy.

Agree. I for one would be one of those willing to buy ones with dead pixels if it'll save me money (say $20/pixel). You usually don't even notice them unless you have to screen in one color.