The VALUESTAR W VW900/CD, NEC's new 26-inch LCD TV + PC

NEC has a new all-in-one PC/TV unit called the VALUESTAR W VW900/CD that combines a 26-inch widescreen, 1360 x 768 resolution, high-definition LCD TV with a 2.8GHz Pentium 4 processor, 300GB hard drive, DVD-R/RW/RAM drive (there's also the W700, a lower-end model that sports a 2.93GHz Celeron processor and a 250GB hard drive). Pretty much for the Japanese market only, though to be honest we wouldn't recommend buying this—or any all-in-one—even if it were for sale over here. In 18 months you'll be stuck with a sweet display that's permanently attached to a rapidly obsolescing PC.

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

"In 18 months you�ll be stuck with a sweet display that�s permanently attached to a rapidly obsolescing PC."

Thing is, though, for a media center this doesn't really matter. I am currently using a 9 year old motherboard and 9 year old RAM, coupled with a 5 year old CPU in my Windows Media Center machine. It works fine.

Now, if there's no way to add HDTV (it looks like this just comes with an SDTV tuner), then that could be a problem. But in terms of the computer itself, unless you want to play games, you really have no need for constant upgrades in an HTPC. It basically either works right or it doesn't. It's not like ATSC is gonna be coming out with new TV standards every six months.

Of course, given that, I think this machine is way overpriced. It's priced and spec'd like a game machine, but for that it's pretty unsuitable. As an HTPC, though, it could be fine for a long time.

[Patrick @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

>> In 18 months you�ll be stuck with a sweet
>> display that�s permanently attached to a
>> rapidly obsolescing PC.

*cough* iMac *cough*

[Gary @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

If they made the keyboard hide away and was wireless to boot they'd be cookin with gas...Of course I'd just use a thin client with wifi and remote into my desktop...

[Josh McCormick @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

"Finally! A screen that combines all the disadvantages of a computer monitor, with all the disadvantages of a teleivision. YES!"

[Tenaya @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

You know what I'd find REALLY useful? The price. The product is called ValueStar. In my long history with marketing and other spin, I have learned that I need to decide for myself if it's really a value or not.

Thus, I make this request: Change Engadget policy to ALWAYS include the price in EVERY article (general technology exempted).

[otakucode @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

Being as the screen is not even HDTV resolution, you would be stuck with a crappy display hooked to a crappy computer. Come on, 26" display and it can only do 1360x768? What were they thinking?

[nathan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

exactly, Patrick. and how can engadget make this comment after its long tradition of politely and uncritically reproducing apple's ad campaigns? meanwhile, apple's neverending quality control travesties are reported as curiosities for the hobbyist's consideration. having had to fight like hell to return both a defective iMac and a defective eMac in the last year, i really can't say i give a damn about apple's underdog status anymore.

[ragnar @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

An interesting design of blowing your eyes out with a low quality and massively oversized picture way too close to your eyes everytime you need to type something - nice!

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

"Being as the screen is not even HDTV resolution"

1280x720 is the lowest HDTV resolution (1920x1080 is the *highest* HDTV resolution, it is not the only one).

1360x768 most definitely is HDTV-capable. And probably 75% of all HDTV's sold today are native 720p sets, not 1080i. That includes most sets 40" and above, whether it be DLP or plasma or CRT or whatever. Look it up if you don't believe me. They'll display 1080i but they "downconvert" it to 720p (I put that in quotes for a reason - keep reading).

Some people think 720p looks better than 1080i anyway. I am not necessarily one of them, but there is a school of thought that 1280x720 progressive looks better than any interlaced signal at any resolution, even downconverted. So I don't think this screen is really at all lacking for HDTV.

[otakucode @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

Jeff: I am aware that most bargain-basement "HDTVs" are pieces of junk that scale images down and can't handle 1080i resolution natively. And there are even MORE sets that can do 1080i (scaled) but not do 720p because they can't process the higher number of lines per single pass required (mostly conventional rear projection TVs are like this, not LCD/DLP/Plasma). That the native resolution of my set was 1080i resolution or higher was the #1 concern when I was buying an HDTV set. Exactly tied with that was its ability to display a 720p signal truly progressively.

I believe you are being very over-charitable in your assumption that when HDTV monitors with crap-ass resolutions scale 1080i content down to their native resolution that they are actually deinterlacing the content. If they were doing this, you would most likely be seeing significant artifacts as de-interlacing material is a very complex task. Fields are not always in the same order, and some content uses "tricks" of interlacing. For instance, I have a DVD that loses a lot of quality if played progressively because it uses the interlaced nature to simulate 60fps video captured from a computer. It's not perfect, no, but it is much better than the alternative of either blending the 2 frames and making them progressive or dropping one frame and making it interlaced.

I'm picky. If I play some content that has 1920*1080 pixels available for my viewing pleasure, specifically formulated to be displayed in such a format, and my set only wants to warp the image and do god-knows-what to it to get it to its arbitrary native resolution, I'm not happy.

[Kentucky Wildcats! @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

I got worried about this one being 26" widescreen (as compared to my new 24" Dell widescreen), but chuckled when I saw the paltry 768 vertical resolution (the Dell has 1200 vertical). Also what's all that extra packaging on every side of the screen. They're trying to make it something it's not . . . bigger. Engadget, I'd be more worried about being stuck with the screen that being stuck with the computer part. I think the other commentators are seeing it that way too.

[ddd @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

Maybe those things on the side are speakers? Just a thought...