3 ms·
I'm assuming it's a function of building the devices down to a price point. Fewer atoms makes for lower cost. I look at some large TVs of 2016 vintage being so
by EvanAnderson 10mo ago
I'm assuming it's a function of building the devices down to a price point. Fewer atoms makes for lower cost.
I look at some large TVs of 2016 vintage being sold for surplus and I was shocked at how heavy they were. I don't have the specific numbers handy, but I recall they were >40 lbs heavier than I expected them to be compared to today's TVs.
- squigz 10mo agoComing from rear-projection TVs as a kid to 75"+ TVs I can pick up with one hand is still super surprising to me
- piltdownman 10mo agoI remember nearly killing myself as a younger man trying to hook up a games console to our powerhouse of a 32" Philips Trinitron, tipping the scales at a svelte 150lbs or so.
- EvanAnderson 10mo agoThere was a 32" flat screen Sony CRT up for surplus on the same site. I really, really wanted it and then I saw it was nearly 300 lbs. I was sad to see it go but I didn't have the manpower to move it!