"Sorry - I certainly didn't intend it that way.- "-and 'uptight' was only intended as a non-offensive way to acknowledge that I'd accidentally upset you."

'Uptight' is always offencive. There's no innocent way to call someone uptight.

"You're obviously a very sensitive man and I'm sorry to upset you so."

Awww c'mon!? Don't act like I'm sitting here in tears or something?
I'm just pointing out that you SAY you don't mean to insult me, but you clearly try to. It's thinly veiled at best.

"I'm sorry and I'll try to be better."

I don't care if you insult me or not. I just point out contradictions like the one above to show where you're coming from.

"Of course they won't kill existing product or product lines that are making $$$!"

Right, and they also won't replace them with costlier/poorer quality systems either.

"-But it's pretty obvious which new technology they're betting most of the chips on, and thus trying to perfect/pursue."

It's NOT clear at all that they're betting on DLP, LCD or any other microdisplay. You pull this non-fact out or nowhere. Just 'cuz they 'try' something new doesn't mean they're betting the farm on it!?

And again, we're mostly talking about historically poor quality companies like Samsung, RCA, and Zenith.
Have you seen a DLP set from Pioneer (makers of the best RP CRT sets)? No.
So they're falling behind leaders like Samsung and Zenith acordingto your logic (or lack there-of)?? Uh... no.

Maybe one day they'll make one or two models and 'test the waters' like these other companies have done, but this still won't make them get rid of the best quality RP displays on the market.
They make some of the best Plasma sets (so when they release something display-wise it's good), but they're still not better than thier CRTs.
I bet behind the scenes they've been working on DLP and other systems too, but unlike crappy companies like Samsung they choose not to degrade their high quality name with poor quality sets. Hard to further degrade a name like Zenith RCA or Samsung.

What these 'market' is totally diff. than what the best quality picture is (the point here).

I don't know how anyone would get ripped off on a plasma set (from ANY plasma maker), but people certainly are out there buying them so follow the money as they say.

Just 'cuz Samsung, etc..'ll sell you their so-so 'test lab' DLP set doesn't mean it's better than a CRT for half the price (which it isn't).

"And don't discount the Koreans, they will be a quality force to contend with soon, as the Japanese already are."

Uh.. ok?? But I didn't say anything about the Koreans -for the record. You're "-and don't discount them" remark makes it sound like I did.

"With all due respect Charlie in Oregon and Ryan in Arizona are not going to be consulted on this manufacturing choice"

Wha-?? Who said we were?? Certainly not me. No idea where that remark came from?

"People will buy what is available, and if manufacturers research and make available LCoS, that's what will get bought. If DLP, then that's what will get bought."

Pointless. You might as well be saying "if someone sells something someone will buy it". The debate should stick to 'quality' not marketing issues. No amount of Bose speakers sold will make them sound good. Same for poor quality DLP sets.

I said -... like when you implied GLV is something diff. than a MEMS system.

You reply -
"Not intentionally implied. How so? I merely stated the non-MEMS part count in 1D systems is proportionally higher and thus the system would not benefit from MEMS research to the same scale as a 2D device, all else equal."

I was only talking about when you implied GLV was something diff. than MEMS, and that's all I said.
You already admitted you were wrong on this point so you must just be confused about this, or maybe you're just trying to confuse any issue that you are wrong about?

"First, I believe SL also when they state the ribbons are expected good for 1x10N iterations, just like I believe TI."

That seems silly to me for you to believe either companies 'data sheets' but do as you please. I'm more inclined to trust the 'data' on the GLV chip based on the way it works but if it comes to market and ribbons break I won't be quoting any 'data' they wrote about how they don't break.

Personally I know TI is distorting the facts since I've SEEN several DLP chips that had bad pixels, and seen lots of other posts/photos of others reporting bad pixels.

I said I never guessed what 'percent' this might be of all DLP's in production, but it's bad enough to scare me away from trusting them.

This pretty much shoots down your '80 years before I have a pixel failure' remark too based on TI's distorted data.

"When you see something like 'expected useful life of 1x10^14 cycles that is a hard number an engineer is pretty sure about. Engineers are very cautious people."

The emperical data I SEE in 'real life' refutes these number 'guesses' in a blatant matter of fact way... no matter how much caution you think TI engineers have.

I've said it before... you rely far too much on this type of 'data' when it clearly doesn't stand true in actual application.
And it's that end result that you SEE from the display (or amp) in question that matters.

That's the ONLY thing that matters. You don't watch white papers, you watch a display. You should know this, but you don't seem to care about this critical point!?

"That looks like an insult. But I don't mind too much - maybe you mean it in a nice way?"

Not really, but then I don't pretend "I didn't mean it" like you do. I assume neither of us are choking back the tears here.

"I didn't mention it because I understand statistical analysis and know that my individual experience is no more valid for the entire DLP population than any other casually interested DLP viewer."

I agree with you on what it 'doesn't mean', but that's not the point... In my case having seen so many pixels is evidence enough that the TI DLP life span data is worthless in real world use.

I don't need to know what percent of chips are bad. It's enough that I know that I've seen several that ARE bad and heard about many more.

Your data can't tell me the DLP system I might buy won't have bad pixels, even though you claim it does (your '80 years before a pixel goes bad'remark).

While my 'data'... SEEING several bad DLP chips is enough to prove to me that it does happen, and at at any time even within weeks (in the case of the latest Samsung set I saw).

My 'opinion' is that it seems to happen enough to scare me away, but take whatever risk you want.

"Rather than spout potentially distorted personal viewpoints or opinions as fact I prefer to provide provable or measurable facts."

Often distorted and/or pointless facts.

"When I mention personal opinion or supposition I try to be careful to use words like 'I suspect' or 'I think' to ensure the reader is clear as to the source of the statement."

The 'trick' is that you usually just spout 'facts' that don't add up. I couldn't refute you if you said you think you'd totally trust a DLP system to never get a stuck pixel. I'd just say there's plenty stuck pixels out there to prove it can happen but good luck trying your luck.

"The fact that some LCDs actually need external or motorized adjustments indicates to me that in reality they all (or at least most) probably have internal adjustments."

They don't. Ask every LCD owner.

"Well I doubt Sharp engineered, tested and advertized a feature that is of no use. Or is that what you think? Do you think your personal experience makes you more qualified to decide whether the projector needed a set of adjustments than the engineers at Sharp?"

Try asking actual owners of these systems and find out how much adjustment they need. 'None' will be the typical anwer.

Now go collect this 'practical application data' and ignore 'feature lists' in specific projector models that tell you nothing about it's actual use.

I knew you had no idea so I just said 'None Ever' to get you to drop it as an issue w/ 3 chip projectors. As I always said the main point is that if you don't have to adjust these systems to have perfect color convergence then that 'real world' perfect.

Go try to find people who are adjusting thier 3 chip system panels. You'll be gone along time looking some. Sadly, I doubt you'll try.

"The problem with words like 'never', 'always', 'cannot', 'must', 'ever' and others of that ilk is that they are seldom really applicable to real things."

I frequently use the terms in 'real world use'. I've said this over and over.

Like 'Perfect'... which in your mind is a fictional word, is too me able to be used to mean something 'close enough to perfect in relation to something else' like.... the human eye seeing no pixels at a certain distance I would call 'Perfect' pixel fill.... even though you could walk up to the same screen and get out your micrometer and measure the pixel gaps to refute my claim.

I try to live in the rea world though.

"Now I will say that in most cases it seems that routine re-convergence adjustment is a thing of the past and may be only required at the factory or on infrequent intervals-"

Oh, you might finally see my point though you still pointlessly guess about these 'infrequent intervals'.

"-but to flatly state not only that it needn't ever be done, but also that there is no way to do it is a pretty broad statement that requires extraordinary proof."

Only in your narrow data confinded world. 'Real world' speaking 3 chip convergence ain't an issue.
Drop it or prove it is.
Having adjustments doesn't prove this though.

People actually needing to frequently adjust their projectors would. Try to find some.