Intel drops HyperThreading

"Rob Stow" wrote in message
news:3TiRe.345420$s54.319602@pd7tw2no...

Current LCD monitors being pitched at gamers have 5 or 8 ms response times
and you pay about a 15% premium over a 12 ms monitor.

Since your frame rate is about 60 frames per second, it's hard to
imagine a response time better than 10mS makes any noticeable difference. I
would imagine it would look a bit better to blur one frame at least slightly
into the next than to shift instantaneously 60 times per second.

In any event, I haven't seen noticeable response time issues on any of
the LCD monitors I've seen manufactured in the past 2 years. That would be
at least 15 different models, low end to high end, 15 inch to 20 inch.

DS

Robert Redelmeier wrote:


2) LCD pixels are extremely sharp. This is great for text,
but unpleasant for images. The slight blur of CRTs mimics
natural vision and avoids hyperpixelation.


There is no disputing matters of taste. I very much prefer the
appearance of text on a CRT over the appearance of text on an LCD
array.

RM

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Praxiteles Democritus wrote:
Look at the post I responded to asshole and you will see why I
responded as I did. You're nothing but a hanky waver so screw you.

Thank you. I take your namecalling and impoliteness as
a concession that you have nothing better to say. *PLONK*

-- Robert

Felger Carbon wrote:

"chrisv" wrote:

I just don't like the fact that they are optimized for oneresolution.
I like to be able to change resolutions without suffering large
display-quality degradation.

Chris, I have a 19" LCD with native 1280x1024 resolution. At Keith's
urging, I have on three occasions made a valiant effort to switch my
desktop viewing to that resolution. I mean, I tried hard, adjusting
icon sizes, font sizes, etc. On each occasion, after wasting the
better part of a day I've had to switch back to 1024x768, which is
_not_ native resolution but is the only resolution I'm able to put up
with. Different people have different preferences. Keith thinks I'm
a neanderthal. He's probably right. ;-)

Yeah, for old folk's, the CRT's "resolution flexability" is definately
nice. Run a 21" CRT at 1024x768 to get nice large letters. 8)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers wrote:
There is no disputing matters of taste. I very much prefer
the appearance of text on a CRT over the appearance of text
on an LCD array.

Entirely true. "De gustibus non est disputandam [tametsi peccatum
est]" There's no disputing taste [even when it's wrong]

-- Robert

"chrisv" wrote in message
...

Yeah, for old folk's, the CRT's "resolution flexability" is definately
nice. Run a 21" CRT at 1024x768 to get nice large letters. 8)

I use a 20" LCD at 1280x1024 (its native resolution), and one of the
things I like most about it is that I can sit further from it than I could
with a smaller screen or higher resolution. (I previously had an 18" LCD
with the same resolution.) That really reduces eye strain.

DS

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, CJT wrote:

I guess you don't remember the power shortages in California a few years
back, which were credited in part to the rapid increase in computer use.

The main cause for the power problems turned out to be Enron's fraud.

--
Yves Bellefeuille

David Schwartz wrote:
"Rob Stow" wrote in message
news:3TiRe.345420$s54.319602@pd7tw2no...


Current LCD monitors being pitched at gamers have 5 or 8 ms response times
and you pay about a 15% premium over a 12 ms monitor.


Since your frame rate is about 60 frames per second, it's hard to
imagine a response time better than 10mS makes any noticeable difference. I
would imagine it would look a bit better to blur one frame at least slightly
into the next than to shift instantaneously 60 times per second.

I'm not a gamer but I do watch a lot of video. I notice ghosting
on my two year old 25 ms monitor, but not on my gf's much newer
and faster monitor.

On my monitor the slight ghosting is only a mild annoyance when
watching something short like a music video, but I can't stand it
if I'm trying to watch an entire DVD movie: for that I'll use
the TV.





In any event, I haven't seen noticeable response time issues on any of
the LCD monitors I've seen manufactured in the past 2 years. That would be
at least 15 different models, low end to high end, 15 inch to 20 inch.

DS

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:59:36 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
wrote:


Thank you. I take your namecalling and impoliteness as
a concession that you have nothing better to say. *PLONK*

-- Robert

Take it anyway you like. I won't lose any sleep over what you think
that's for sure.

"keith" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:25:47 -0400, Yves Bellefeuille wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, CJT wrote:

I guess you don't remember the power shortages in California a few years
back, which were credited in part to the rapid increase in computer use.

The main cause for the power problems turned out to be Enron's fraud.

No, the main cause for both was government incompetence.

There is enough blame to go around.

What I can't stand though is when the government replaces one set of
regulations with another, and then when the new regulations screw everything
up, they blame it on the "deregulation". Here's a clue: if it's illegal to
make long-term contracts, the market is regulated.

The laws were designed to make the market more dynamic. They succeeded
beyond the wildest dreams of those who drafted them.

DS