Intel drops HyperThreading

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

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:47:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
wrote:


"George Macdonald" wrote in message
.. .

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:00:54 GMT, Praxiteles Democritus
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:15:35 -0400, George Macdonald
wrote:

Maybe he's into photography and games,

Correct, I'm into both and crt is superior in both instances.

Maybe you can explain to him how his NEC 2010X works in games:-) - the
only
mention I've seen of reponse time quotes "60ms typical".

It works really, really well. It totally blows away the Compaq P920
sitting next to it.

Tell that to the people who play 1st person games with their infamous
gray/black shadows. 60ms isn't even close.

You know monitor mfrs have this "game" they play with specs: they hide the
underlying LCD technology of the panel behind some brand name, like
Xtraview in this case. They do this partly because they can then change
that technology by switching to a different panel without changing product
names/models. According to NEC's meagre technical docs, Xtraview == IPS
but there are also docs around the Web which declare the 2010X to be a MVA
LCD panel.

Many gamers are now well informed on the 3 basic technologies, TN+film,
(MVA, PVA) IPS, and their variants like pMVA and S-IPS. They know which is
likely to perform well under games and how much compromise they'll get if
they have dual purpose needs, like the aforementioned photography + gaming,
and try to adopt a less than optimal technology for one or the other.

The bottom line is that TN+film in its latest form is the only one of the
three basic technologies which is suitable for modern game play but it
stinks for photography; S-IPS is the closest to satisfying the dual needs
of photography + games *but* it's not quite fast enough for the fastest
games with dark shadow elements and it has other issues, such as "sparkles"
on full-motion video... apparently due to the "overdrive" used to speed up
shades of gray switching.

Whatever technology your 2010X uses, it's been around for 4 years and it's
just not up to modern game play. If it satisfies your needs, that's fine
but please don't try to suggest it is up to a CRT for multiple purpose
usage. Personally I have a PVA screen (Samsung obviously) and I'm happy,
delighted even, with its color rendition - its speed is OK for what I do
but I'm not a gamer and I'd never suggest that a gamer use it.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald