W3V: 108mbps wireless and loose O key

Hi,

Besides the below, I am thoroughly impressed with my W3V for my first laptop. Gaming performance is exceptional too. I have been playing Juiced (at maximum gfx) and LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth (at high gfx, yet to try maximum) with no slow-downs. The W3V could use some more RAM, as load times are less than impressive. After I purchase more RAM, I shall benchmark a couple of games.

I paired my W3V with a Netgear WGT624 wireless router. How do I configure my W3V to connect at 108mbps. Also, sometimes when I press the O key, it becomes unlatched (?) and I have to press it again harder to snap it back into place. Anyone have any ideas on how to fix this?

Other issues include a bright red pixel in the lower left of the LCD and the screen brightness problem as discussed in this thread. However, the bright pixel is only noticeable when the screen is completely black and the brightness is at 100% (when the charger is plugged in), as is the other problem.

Any help with the above will be greatly appreciated:asus:

 

You don't. Not without swapping out the Intel 2200BG.

You could try massaging the area gently with a soft cloth and see if it goes away. If not: Tough luck. Such are the way with LCDs. The error-tolerance for the standard all Asus notebook screens comply (unless additional warranties apply) to will allow for up to 5 pixels with subpixel faults (for example stuck red) per milion pixels (2 for either completely dead or completely stuck pixels). For a 1280x768 screen this means that 4 such pixels is within tolerance and the fifth is reason for an exchange.

 

I'll have to agree...... 108mbps isn't a standard yet and if you *want* to use that router at that speed you'll have to use a pcmcia card just for that unit...... You really don't need that speed either..... The ONLY place you'd even see a difference is if you have a 1gb or so file that you are trying to send to another desktop in your home..... not something everyone does anyway..... if you do, then it would be worth it, but the internal card is plenty good enough.

Actually - the screen warranty is different now.. at least in the US.... basically it reads very simply........ 3 or more anywhere on the screen is reason for exchange...... 2 or more that are touching is also reason for exchange.

 

Three or more what? I have a hard time believing that Asus would offer terms that's worse than ISO 13406-2 class II, so for the W3 two completely dead or two completely stuck pixels should be outside of spec.

Also: what does 'touching' mean? Do they have to be absolutely next to each other? The standard defines an error cluster as faults within a 5x5 pixel area. No such clusters (for any screen) are allowed for any combination of completely dead or completely stuck pixels, while 2 clusters with subpixel errors per million pixels are acceptable (1 for the W3 having only 980k pixels).

Most 'simple' statements I have ever seen regarding LCD warranties comes from either paraphrasing the standard, or simply misunderstanding it, sometimes leading to terms that are worse than they should be. Any warranties improving on ISO 13406-2 class II, though, I applaud.

Edit: Can't actually find any reference to the standard on the new (international) asus website. There used to be a couple. Now it seems that only Asus Germany mention it. In fact I can't find anything about the LCD warranty of the non-ZBD covered models anymore. That's a bit weak.

 

Simply put, without having to explain it........ Asus' policy was updated this spring and *improved*..... This is certainly better than and standard. Asus' pixel policy is exactly what we follow on our custom systems....... so just take a look at our page and try to grasp it..... we must not be on the same page, this should clear things up.

http://www.proportable.com/support.htm

 

Ok. Those policies as you list them there will be somewhat better than ISO 13406-2 class II for the higher resolution screens (SXGA+ and above) and somewhat worse for the lower resolution ones. If 'adjacent' only mean that they can be right next to each other, then this is also worse. And what does 'dots' refer to exactly? Is a 'black dot' a fully dead pixel (all three subpixels dead) or do 'black dot' also include subpixel defects? Edit: Really wondering. Not trying to be difficult. If you will exchange, for example, a Z71V (1.764.000 pixels) with 4 'bright dots' (meaning subpixel faults, say two stuck blue and two stuck red on a black background) this is quite good. The standard would allow for 9 pixels with subpixel errors. If you, on the other hand, mean completely bright or completely dead...

I fail to see how this is 'improved' all around, but if no reference to the standard is made anymore, then I guess they want to define their on criteria. They are free to do so, of course, but I think it's a bit weak when the criteria infer worse conditions for the consumer than the standard does in some cases. The ZBD-warranty on the other hand is quite good for the models it apply to. As it covers bright subpixels as well it is actually useful. Much better than a 'no dead pixel warranty' (only completely dead) as I know some manufacturers have. This hardly ever happens anymore, so such a warranty is pretty much a paper tiger.

BTW: Asus around here said that they rely on ISO 13406-2 class II to determine if a LCD fit warranty conditions.

 

a "dot" is a pixel.

a "bright dot" means red, green, blue, white ..... "stuck" pixels

a "black dot" means it doesn't turn on... "dead" pixels

"bad dots" just means any mixture of "bright dots" or "black dots"



I'd really like to see someone who has a better pixel policy in their standard warrranty than what Asus offers. I really would because that would really be something. The way it breaks down is this:

Regular LCD Panel Warranty:

a) over 3 bright dots or 6 black dots or 8 mixed bright and black dots in total,
b) 2 adjacent bright dots or 2 adjacent black dots,
c) 3 bright and / or black dots within an area of radius 7.5mm


This goes for any of the notebooks...... Asus' ZBD (zero bright dot) warranty which is being run on the V6/W1/W2 right now.... really isn't that great. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's better, but I hardly think it's needed. It's for 30 days and then the rest of the warranty is just like the rest of our ensemble and custom notebooks. Since most of Asus' screens are perfect anyway, it only affects a fraction of one percent of their customers. With that said.... why don't they just put it on all of their notebooks? ... I think they want to see how the trial program works out.... then we'll see if it becomes standard down the road. From what I've heard, they've only gotten a handful of V6 screen's back in all of North America.... and I think all but one only had one bad dot.... Asus uses those screens which still fall under the normal pixel policy guidelines as RMA screens... so they don't really lose anything by doing this.

Other than that... anything I missed I'm just not that familiar with. I don't know where you're from, but I guess it's in Europe someplace..... I don't know a lot about subpixels, but from what I do know, this would be more of an issue on like a larger, lower resolution panel... From what I know right now, the warranty is just what I said above. I don't think we've actually run into an issue on that level before, so I put a call into Asus just to find out what they do in that situation.

 

bugmenot is right... you can't connect at 108 mbps unless you get a faster wireless card since the Intel 2200BG can only connect at 54mbps MAX

 

Right.

A pixel would be the combination of three subpixels. A single pixel is made up from a red, a green, and a blue subpixel.

Now: 95% of all LCD panels out there will comply to ISO 13406-2, Class II. Many will not mention this other than some tested/approved/whatever logo somewhere, but they do. Many Dells, for example if one digs up the certification datasheets on their site. I guess any talk of 'tolerable faults' isn't considered good advertising. Edit: Nec has a nice Flash whitepaper.

ISO 13406-2, Class II - Tolerances per milion pixels:

2 copletely dead (all three subpixels off - pixel always black) pixels
2 copletely stuck (all three subpixels on - pixel always white) pixels
5 subpixel faults (one or two of the red/green/bulue subpixels always on or off) resulting in a wrongly colored pixel.
0 hot/dead clusters (2 faults of any combination of completely dead or completely stuck in a 5x5 grid)
2 subpixel clusters (2 faults of any subpixel error in a 5x5 grid)

For a W3 with only 980.000 pixels this would be: 1/1/0/4/1 and for a Z71V with 1.764.000 pixels on the other hand: 3/3/0/8/3.

As you can see: The Asus policy, as you state it, will in most cases be better than the standard for the high resolution display (apart from the 6 'dead' pixels) and worse for the low resolution one. Now, completely dead (black) or comletely hot (white) pixels are pretty much rare these days. Stuck subpixels are the most common, but many never notice. On sensible brightness settings blue or even red instead of black doesn't stand out too much. A stuck green subpixel can be very annoying, though. A dead subpixel causing pink instead of white, for example can also be easily noticable. (Would this be a 'bright dot', a 'black dot' or none of the above in your terminology?).

 

Gotcha.... I guess I never really understood that as a subpixel, but instead as bright or stuck... or whatever.. we're on the same page.

Now... two things and we can change the name of the thread to pixel policies........

1. the easiest way to explain it is Asus calls them "abnormal pixels" ...... you're right and bring up something good...... yes it can be pink it can be any combination of what isn't perfect.

2. You're obviously taking these tolerences and dividing the number of pixels on any given screen and by a milion..... so every resolution is different. I'm not sure if that's correct, but I've never heard about it and Asus head tech (who did just respond) isn't familiar with this either. He said all of the screens have the same policy.... I guess you could imagine how impossible it would be to have half a dozen or more pixel policies.... or really just broken down to what you came up with.

 

It should be. I don't have access to the standards document itself anymore (different job) but AFAIR it doesn't specify any more than exactly that: Tolerances per million pixels. A quick round with google show that many monitor manufacturers have chosen to interpret this by rounding up, while others, as I did, have rounded down when determining tolerances for individual displays.

 

True... to be honest though, as far as major notebook companies go.... who's standard policy beats Asus? All in all... that's really what's important, although you'd be hard pressed to find a company who used better screens on a whole.

 

Wow...what a comprehensive conversation about pixels/LCD technology...

 

Agreed. (Hell, I'm one of those 'morons' who think the W3 screen is pretty good overall... ) Not saying the Asus policy is bad. Just having one in the fist place is quite OK, and unlike you I think that the ZBD in quite decent. I mean: Dell will honour the standard for those notebooks where they say it's compliant, but you almost have to poke them in the eye with it. They used to have a document somewhere stating if you find more than five abnormal pixels you could contact support to determine if yours was within spec, but I couldn't find it ATM. It's mot like they go out of their way to let people know. The only manufacturer I know that very explicitly make their policies known is Fujitsu-Siemens. They refer to ISO 13406-2 (Class II) numbers in their manuals (rounding up). HP is utterly unhelpful for notebooks especially (err... what 'strict quality and reliability specifications', exactly?), but may or may not refer to their general LCD policy (seemingly at random) when in contact with tech support.

Edit: Looked up Acer policy. Somewhat worse than standard as they count all subpixels. IBM seems to get their numbers from the standard (heavily rounded up) but lump complete faults and subpixel faults together so that the result is somewhat worse than standard for some faults. Haven't got any personal experience with these two, though.

 

I hear you... do you remember what this thread was even about? Man, we hi-jacked this one didn't we?

 

[as I struggle to reel the thread back on topic]

LOL! Really guys. I have to *try* to notice the bright dot on my W3V's LCD so it's not a problem. Nevertheless, this is a great discussion.

PROPortable, you're right. I don't need 108mbps. I just assumed 108mbps wireless connections were standard by now.

As for my loose "O" key, I called my retailer and he said he would take care of it.

I am planning on upgrading the RAM. What are your recommendations? Should I just get another 512MB stick or should I go all out and get 2 1GB sticks? Also, is there any differences between the major makes of RAM (Corsair, Kingston, OCZ, etc.)?

:asus:

 

Realistically... you're probably never going to need more than 1gb..... if you wanted to, I'd say go w/ 1.5gb.. leave the stick that's in there, there..... and get a 1gb stick if anyway.

I'm going to support corsair as it's all we use now and I can guarentee their 512 and 1gb ddr2 533 sticks work very well in all of our systems including, but certainly not least.. the W3v.

Kingston would be second on my list.

 

Not yet. There will be faster wireless standards coming eventually, but current products offering speeds faster than 54Mb/s are all using one vendor specific extention or another. Your router has 'Super G' coined by the Wi-Fi chipset maker Atheros. You can probably find a PC-Card card or a Mini-PCI based on an Atheros chip for not too much money if you want the higher speed.

Good that worked out for you.

Sorry to have been part of the attempted thread hijack.

 

Does dual-channel work if the RAM modules are different sizes?

 

Kind of, but most of the time probably not. The 'first half' of the unmatched stick could recieve a dual channel boost in the best case scenario.

Intel themselves say:

A notable exception, allthough not applicable to the W3V, is that systems with the integrated video will recieve a dual channel boost (Edit: when it comes to graphics speed) even when running mismatched DIMMs ('Asymmetric Mode' in the Intel terminology).

 

For the system to pick up "dual channel" they must be the same size....

There really only one type of expection - for instance.... if you had a v6 and it had 512mb ddr2 400 and you used512mb ddr2 533 --- you could run it in dual channel as the system would auto clock the faster stick down to 400...... but you couldn't run a 512mb stick and a 1gb stick.

 

Man, you guys are great! Thanks for the info.