Re: Monitor Choice
- From: meow2222@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 16 Feb 2006 18:14:13 -0800
if wrote:
meow2222@xxxxxxxxx wrote in
Cheap 17" CRTs such as the ones bundled with Dell pcs won't do 85Hz above
1024x768, if you want a higher res. than that they're best avoided I think.
They also have poor voltage control - a blank screen saver displays as dark
grey instead of black, whereas on my Iiyama, blacks are dead black whether
it's a blank screen or not.
yes, though in fairness LCDs are poorer at that, with lower contrast
ratios. My oldest lcd doesnt look good on an all black screen. Black
windows are ok, but once the eye-training white is all gone, its a
streaky dark grey.
(and you usually have to fight against Windows and display drivers to
exceed 60Hz)
never had that prob myself.
I find all flavours of Windows default to no higher than 75Hz, even if you
ask for "optimal" refresh rate, even when Windows knows the monitor and
video card are capable of 85Hz at the resolution in question. It seems to
be one of several long-standing defects in Windows,
its odd, I seem to have missed this. I set monitors to 85 and 100Hz,
and have never had a problem. Perhaps its a model specific thing?
another being that by
default Windows installs with all power saving disabled, thus undoing all
the good work of hardware manufacturers in making "green" energy star pcs
(bearing in mind that most PC users never alter the default settings of
Windows, and thus get stuck with both flickery displays and needless power
consumption).
More a case of win defaults than monitors though. Another power waster
is screen savers, which serve no purpose, and havent for many years.
Yes Mr Gates, modern monitors can power down now. If anything should
run after a period of idle, it would be a small power-loss-safe defrag
routine with monitor off.
Either will work fine really, but there seems to be a lot of
unwarranted hype surrounding LCDs. Anything to get folk to throw away
decent kit and buy over again I spose.
It's like how some years ago, mountain bikes became all the rage and
suddenly it was almost impossible to buy a decent racer with drop handle
bars etc. Everyone I knew who got a mountain bike quickly concluded that
for on-road use (commuting etc) they were worse than the old style bikes,
but for some reason this new design was considered the way forward, when in
reality it was a step back to a less aerodynamic riding position, greater
rolling friction, and over-wide handlebars that snagged car mirrors, etc.
Sadly manufacturers in all product sectors seem eager to jump aboard the
"worse is better" bandwagon.
Yes. Or even the 'anything except what youve already got' is better
banwagon - I think they just want to sell, and dont care what.
I find it strange seeing people rush out to buy replacement goods when
what theyve already got is the better item, and theyre convinced to
throw it away and pay for another one. But when did humans make sense.
NT
.
- References:
- Monitor Choice
- From: David Baxter
- Re: Monitor Choice
- From: meow2222
- Re: Monitor Choice
- From: David Baxter
- Re: Monitor Choice
- From: meow2222
- Re: Monitor Choice
- From: Tony Houghton
- Re: Monitor Choice
- From: meow2222
- Re: Monitor Choice
- From: if
- Monitor Choice
- Prev by Date: Re: Monitor Choice
- Next by Date: Re: Monitor Choice
- Previous by thread: Re: Monitor Choice
- Next by thread: Re: Monitor Choice
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
