HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?

kony wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:59:16 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"

You purposefully seek out a screen with high reflectivity?
LOL. No wonder you have a terrible enough experience to
think CRT are better.

I read your other replies, and I will reply since I know you will
understand when I say I need to extend my remark in light of your silly
comment: I meant a polarized glass screen.

Reflectivity is easily mitigated with a variety of passive and active
methods, it is a non issue in that regard. I use polarized glass now,
they are essential display enhancers.

Also, you agree with me that "CRTs are better" since you say:

"There are only two areas of any significant user perceptibility where
CRT better LCD."

And

"so long as the LCD stays at it's native resoution it wins every time
when considering preservation of resolutional detail"

So true assertions or not, you believe LCDs are better for 1 criteria,
CRTs are better for 2. It's nice to find points of common ground, don't
you think?

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt kony wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:46:01 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"
wrote:

Frank McCoy wrote:


Even a *good* 21" CRT monitor is usually being pushed past it's
dot-pitch when you select resolutions above 1600x1200; so I don't
recommend that, even though most such monitors support far higher input
resolutions. They just don't do a decent job of actually *displaying*
such stuff.

Absurd nonsense. I would methodically go over each and every point with
you, even the subjective ones, but when you boldly mis-state technical
capabilities to try and make your point, you end up taking all the fun
out of having a discussion of the merits.

Actually it's shades of grey.

The inherant problem with CRT is that the borders of each
pixel blur into each other. At a low resolution, this is an
acceptibly low % of the total pixel area and can even be
perceived as a desirable softening of a low (compared to
real life, the human eye's perception of real world imagry)
resolution pixelated image. At higher resolution the pixels
become smaller yet at same time the % of pixel border
blurring to total pixel area is substantially larger onto
the point where the entire pixel becomes more /wrong/ than
right at highest resolutions any particular monitor
supports. DVI is slightly better but alone it can't counter
this effect and likewise an LCD can be compared with both
analog and DVI.

When it comes to resolution vs. quality, so long as the LCD
stays at it's native resoution it wins every time when
considering preservation of resolutional detail, any factor
relating to resolution.

Where the LCD falls short is areas _not_ related to
resolution, particularly contrast. Viewing angle we can
ignore, this is not a cinema theatre where broad rows of
seating are trying to look at a computer monitor.

Actually, modern LCD monitors are quite good with viewing angle; unlike
early models with TFT displays where you lost sight when turning the
screen more than a few degrees off-axis.

Mine, for example, right here in front of me, and using a protractor to
test with: is *quite* visible 80-degrees off-axis, for a full 160-degree
viewing angle where the screen is not only visible; but the text on this
very program I'm typing this respons on, is quite easily readable. I
don't know many CRT monitors that would do that good; as the far side of
most curved monitors would be bent out of sight by then. Flat-screen
CRT monitors, I'm pretty sure would be about the same.

In any case, with *MY* present LCD monitor anyway (A "Starlogic" 20.1")
I find little to choose in off-axis viewing between it and a CRT.

I also find little difference on *my* monitor anway, in contrast or
color definition between it and my CRT sitting right next to it.

Perhaps older models were different?

A 21" monitor, even the 'good' ones can and do display resolutions
higher than 1600x1200, in fact they are recommended to run the desktop
higher than 1600x1200.

"Can do" doesn't mean "does well".

Exactly.

One slight problem with LCD monitors is that in anything *other* than
the LCD panel's native resolution, the CRT does *much* better.

Well, except in the possible case of exact submultiples.
But: Nobody DOES resolutions of 840x525, do they?

My LCD panel doesn't say it accepts that as a VESA input.
So, it must compromise somehow at 800x600 (the closest).

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Sjouke Burry
wrote:

kony wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 05:50:23 +0200, Sjouke Burry
wrote:

kony wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry
wrote:


Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
And then move your head a bit around.
And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.

If you find your head can't stay still while using a
computer, you might consider a head brace or some stronger
medication?
I would rather look at a screen with decent colors,
and decent contrast, and I dont find that on an LCD.


Then why are you introducing irrelevant arguments like
whether you can sit still, whether it would matter what the
viewing angle is for a purposefully one-operator,
adjustable, stationary display unit?

Yes CRT have better contrast. Colors is not necessarily
true, if looking at one with good contrast and 8 bit
adjusted properly you will not find enough difference
between LCD and CRT to pick one over the other. This does
not mean all LCD are good. Neither were cheap CRT,
especially when trying to run the high resolutions much
modern software or webpages demand.

I did not complain about being unable to sit still.
That was the guy promoting lcds.
I just dont like to be forced to stay in one location,
just to have the right brightness/contrast/color.
A CRT gives me that and an lcd does not.

*Mine* does just *fine* thank you.
I'm not sure what kind of old-fashioned crap you're thinking about, but
it's NOT a modern LCD monitor!

Well, at least not *mine* anyway.
I'm viewing mine with my head cocked about forty-degrees off-axis right
now; and it's as clear as it would be straight-on.
With the large size of this monitor, and the fact I have to shift my
eyes right-to-left and up-and-down to take in the entire screen from
sitting about three feet away, it would indeed be a crappy monitor if
what you said was true.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:21:11 -0500, Frank McCoy
wrote:


Where the LCD falls short is areas _not_ related to
resolution, particularly contrast. Viewing angle we can
ignore, this is not a cinema theatre where broad rows of
seating are trying to look at a computer monitor.

Actually, modern LCD monitors are quite good with viewing angle; unlike
early models with TFT displays where you lost sight when turning the
screen more than a few degrees off-axis.

Modern LCD are quite sufficient for the intended use, but if
there was an extended viewing angle necessary it is one area
where CRT still proves superior.




Mine, for example, right here in front of me, and using a protractor to
test with: is *quite* visible 80-degrees off-axis, for a full 160-degree
viewing angle where the screen is not only visible; but the text on this
very program I'm typing this respons on, is quite easily readable.


Absolutely, I've never claimed otherwise, BUT at these
significant and atypical angles there is a degradation.


I
don't know many CRT monitors that would do that good; as the far side of
most curved monitors would be bent out of sight by then. Flat-screen
CRT monitors, I'm pretty sure would be about the same.

We can expect most semi-modern, mildly curved monitors to
have higher acuity at any extremes still visible within what
the curvature of their screen allows. Further we can expect
the better per-pixel accuity of an LCD to be mitigated by
this off-axis angle, but unless there is a specific use
where off-axis viewing is important, the differences can be
ignored and if it is important, the specific angle and use
would have to be the context for discrimination between
particular displays instead of a general lumping of LCD vs
CRT.

One slight problem with LCD monitors is that in anything *other* than
the LCD panel's native resolution, the CRT does *much* better.

Perhaps, it is again shades of grey. Asthetically speaking
the CRT may look better, but when it comes to the eye-brain
concentration on pixel borders and being able to
discriminate borders, the CRT will be nearly equivalent once
it has reached beyond it's optimal resolution which is
obviously below it's maximum resolution.



Well, except in the possible case of exact submultiples.
But: Nobody DOES resolutions of 840x525, do they?


If you had a video driver capable it could, certainly
nVidia's can program some made-up resolutions but I don't
see the point in doing so. Minor differences are not that
important when sticking with native resolution and merely
scooting a thin display forward a bit will achieve the same
(actually better) visual discrimination by just using a
framed display mode instead of interpolated.



My LCD panel doesn't say it accepts that as a VESA input.
So, it must compromise somehow at 800x600 (the closest).

The video card driver functionality can determine which
alternate output options you have.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:38:32 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"
wrote:

kony wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:59:16 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"

You purposefully seek out a screen with high reflectivity?
LOL. No wonder you have a terrible enough experience to
think CRT are better.

I read your other replies, and I will reply since I know you will
understand when I say I need to extend my remark in light of your silly
comment: I meant a polarized glass screen.

Reflectivity is easily mitigated with a variety of passive and active
methods, it is a non issue in that regard. I use polarized glass now,
they are essential display enhancers.

Nonsense but it was a novel idea.
The effect is obvious on any monitor you care to try.



Also, you agree with me that "CRTs are better" since you say:

Not at all, you're confused.

CRT, on average, have higher contrast. If that is most
important it is a reasonable reason to chose one. If there
is any other criteria more important, the choice must be
weighted and many many people HAVE done so and chose LCD.
They didn't become popular because manufacturers refused to
make CRT, rather it was the market demand. There's a lot
more to want besides good contrast. Truth be told, many
people are so ignorant of contrast that they end up
increasing it so much that they can't even perceive the full
gamnut of greyscale anymore. What "looks good" at first
glance, is not necessarily any better than what reveals more
detail at second glance if your work (or play) is detail
oriented.

A very good LCD can even be good for tasks that require good
contrast such as photoediting, because at magnified zoom the
per-pixel boundaries are better. An editor can eyeball the
image and be aware of the differences between CRT and LCD
contrast (on average) and compensate while appreciating the
per-pixel precision. It does require more attention to
calibration on an LCD than CRT though, but calibration is
still required on both so even then it is not as though a
step is subtracted from proper use.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 07:33:25 +0200, Sjouke Burry
wrote:


I did not complain about being unable to sit still.
That was the guy promoting lcds.
I just dont like to be forced to stay in one location,
just to have the right brightness/contrast/color.
A CRT gives me that and an lcd does not.


Yes you made reference to LCD viewing angle being
significant which could only be true if you can't use a
computer like everyone else with your monitor aimed at you
and your head still.

If you don't like being forced to stay in one location, so
what? It's not like you can't shift around in your seat
some and if you are doing jumping jacks while trying to
critically use an LCD and that minor difference is
important, you are just an oddball we can ignore because you
can't have good visual acuity of anything if you aren't
concentrating on what you're doing. Otherwise the minor
differences won't matter.

If you are far enough away from a monitor to do acrobatics
safely, you aren't even talking about a computer monitor,
you would need a hi-def largescreen TV running at lower
resolution than serious professionals use. So yes I'll
agree that if you are watching some TV show while standing
on your head in the corner, a CRT might help if you have
binoculars. Now for the REST of us using a display as would
be expected, it is not so significant unless contrasting
only the lower-end poor 6 bit LCDs.

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt kony wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:21:11 -0500, Frank McCoy
wrote:


Where the LCD falls short is areas _not_ related to
resolution, particularly contrast. Viewing angle we can
ignore, this is not a cinema theatre where broad rows of
seating are trying to look at a computer monitor.

Actually, modern LCD monitors are quite good with viewing angle; unlike
early models with TFT displays where you lost sight when turning the
screen more than a few degrees off-axis.

Modern LCD are quite sufficient for the intended use, but if
there was an extended viewing angle necessary it is one area
where CRT still proves superior.

I guess it depends on the LCD then.
*MINE* has just about as full a veiwing angle as it's possible to get.
I can still read text with the screen 10-degrees from edge-on.
My CRT won't do that; simply because the bezel gets in the way.




Mine, for example, right here in front of me, and using a protractor to
test with: is *quite* visible 80-degrees off-axis, for a full 160-degree
viewing angle where the screen is not only visible; but the text on this
very program I'm typing this respons on, is quite easily readable.


Absolutely, I've never claimed otherwise, BUT at these
significant and atypical angles there is a degradation.

Not on MINE!!!!
I don't know what you've been looking at but what I have here just does
*not* do that. Yes, I've seen LCD screens on many laptops that do.
But not my personal desktop LCD monitor.


I
don't know many CRT monitors that would do that good; as the far side of
most curved monitors would be bent out of sight by then. Flat-screen
CRT monitors, I'm pretty sure would be about the same.

We can expect most semi-modern, mildly curved monitors to
have higher acuity at any extremes still visible within what
the curvature of their screen allows. Further we can expect
the better per-pixel accuity of an LCD to be mitigated by
this off-axis angle, but unless there is a specific use
where off-axis viewing is important, the differences can be
ignored and if it is important, the specific angle and use
would have to be the context for discrimination between
particular displays instead of a general lumping of LCD vs
CRT.

I'll agree; except I se *NO* such deterioration in off-axis viewing that
you assume is always there in an LCD monitor. As I've said repeatedly,
NOT IN MINE!

Yes, I have a laptop that does just such things; becoming awkward to
read or see and the colors changing as you move the screen. My
*present* Starlogic LCD panel doesn't do that much more (if any) than a
CRT monitor does. The interior workings are *different* than in my
laptop. I'm not sure *how* it works; I'm just certain that it *does*;
because I'm staring at it right now; and tilting the thing every which
way ... not losing brightness, contrast, or changing colors when I do.

Oh, when I move it *vertically* WAY past normal viewing angles, the
contrast deepens ... very slightly; and the pale eggshell color of my
selected color for the program I use becomes slighly yellowish in tinge.
The white remains white however. I have to tilt it WAY over though; and
only vertically to get a small shift in color ... unlike earlier LCD
panels like my old laptop.


One slight problem with LCD monitors is that in anything *other* than
the LCD panel's native resolution, the CRT does *much* better.

Perhaps, it is again shades of grey. Asthetically speaking
the CRT may look better, but when it comes to the eye-brain
concentration on pixel borders and being able to
discriminate borders, the CRT will be nearly equivalent once
it has reached beyond it's optimal resolution which is
obviously below it's maximum resolution.



Well, except in the possible case of exact submultiples.
But: Nobody DOES resolutions of 840x525, do they?


If you had a video driver capable it could, certainly
nVidia's can program some made-up resolutions but I don't
see the point in doing so. Minor differences are not that
important when sticking with native resolution and merely
scooting a thin display forward a bit will achieve the same
(actually better) visual discrimination by just using a
framed display mode instead of interpolated.



My LCD panel doesn't say it accepts that as a VESA input.
So, it must compromise somehow at 800x600 (the closest).

The video card driver functionality can determine which
alternate output options you have.

That's true. ;-{
Most cards only accept "standard" resolutions.
I had to get an updated driver for my card to get it to accept 1680x1050
resolution. Before that, I was running 1600x1200 on the thing; and
while it *accepted* that as input, it wasn't as nice as when I got
native resolution going.

Superficially, it *looked* almost the same; until I compared it with the
"real thing". I'm NOT going back to a CRT ... Ever again.

Actually, I'd *prefer* a full 21" LCD screen that did 1600x1200, over
the wide-screen one I have now. Only the *price* of those is about
twice or more what this one was. I've seen them ... and drooled.
I actually *prefer* the old taller and narrower format.
Oh well ... I'm getting used to this type now.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

On Tue, 22 May 2007 02:07:25 -0500, Frank McCoy
wrote:

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt kony wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:21:11 -0500, Frank McCoy
wrote:


Where the LCD falls short is areas _not_ related to
resolution, particularly contrast. Viewing angle we can
ignore, this is not a cinema theatre where broad rows of
seating are trying to look at a computer monitor.

Actually, modern LCD monitors are quite good with viewing angle; unlike
early models with TFT displays where you lost sight when turning the
screen more than a few degrees off-axis.

Modern LCD are quite sufficient for the intended use, but if
there was an extended viewing angle necessary it is one area
where CRT still proves superior.

I guess it depends on the LCD then.
*MINE* has just about as full a veiwing angle as it's possible to get.
I can still read text with the screen 10-degrees from edge-on.
My CRT won't do that; simply because the bezel gets in the way.

It is not just about "can I read text" it is about whether
it retains the majority of the contrast originally present.
If the entire viewing experience remains intact. However,
again I must stress that this distinction has everything to
do with whether there is an unusual viewing angle. It's not
hard to place one's head near what they want to see, just
like they would any inanimate object if they wanted to
change their viewing angle.


Not on MINE!!!!
I don't know what you've been looking at but what I have here just does
*not* do that. Yes, I've seen LCD screens on many laptops that do.
But not my personal desktop LCD monitor.

All LCD do have inferior viewing angle. That you can "see"
it isn't same thing as having it preserve as much detail in
contrast. As stated above the purpose has to be considered.
For some being able to read the text is enough, for others
it is not, and for either group, they are oddballs in trying
to judge it if they cant just get in front of the monitor
like any typical user does.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:32:29 -0500, Frank McCoy
wrote:


*Mine* does just *fine* thank you.
I'm not sure what kind of old-fashioned crap you're thinking about, but
it's NOT a modern LCD monitor!


Yours behaves like most, you can shift horizontally and the
degradation is minor for the first 50' or so, but
nevertheless a discriminable degradation. That doesn't mean
it's "bad" per se at that angle, but we are contrasting
minor differences already when someone acts as though
choosing CRT is somehow important versus CRT for such
aspects - then those have to be determined objectively and
objectively any LCD does measure as lower contrast at
horiztonal angles.

Vertical angles are where they are far worse though, so if
someone has an unusual use where they need that viewing
angle they will need to be sure they had auditioned the LCD
prospects before assuming one would be acceptible, rather
than just legible.


Well, at least not *mine* anyway.
I'm viewing mine with my head cocked about forty-degrees off-axis right
now; and it's as clear as it would be straight-on.

What does head cocked have to do with anything? That
wouldn't have any substantial differences in viewing angle
in an absolute sense unless you are a giraffe.



With the large size of this monitor, and the fact I have to shift my
eyes right-to-left and up-and-down to take in the entire screen from
sitting about three feet away, it would indeed be a crappy monitor if
what you said was true.

Nobody is saying crap but the fact remains LCD does have a
primary weakness in viewing angle. You need not agree,
every single review of LCDs every written agrees with this.
That does not disqualify them though since it is not a
typica thing to do, to extend oneself at odd angles from
what they are trying to view as even if everything else were
perfect it would still necessarily upset the correct aspect
ratio and by most scenarios, increase viewing distance which
by itself interferes with best perceptions.

Frank McCoy wrote:
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird
wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?

Or does it matter????????
I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
people use higher res on similar monitors.
Frank & FKS:
I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
I can't locate right now.

Most likely, if it's shown as max, that's your native resolution.
Most modern LCD panel displays report to the OS what resolutions they
support (as do most modern CRTs). I'm not sure exactly how they do; but
am pretty sure it's part of the VESA spec for monitors.

Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.

Actually, going "native" in this case *could* actually make things
faster ... but most likely the images would be generated at the same
rate. And as for image/colour quality ... You don't know what you're
missing by not running at native resolution. I think you'll find the
difference is about the same as shifting from EGA resolution to 800x600.

Yes, THAT much.

Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
the screen.

Actually, I'd say TRY IT!!!
I think you'd find the difference in size minimal between 800x600 and
1280x1024; being not much of a (only 60%) difference, while the
improvement in *clarity* could be tremendous!

IOW: Even though *smaller*, with native resolution the images would be
*so much sharper*, they'd be far easier on the eye to look at and grasp.

I don't think you fully realize what a compromise it is when downgrading
resolution on an LCD panel. On a CRT monitor, not much is lost, if any.
On an LCD, the things done to make lower resolutions work at all is
really CRAPPY.

Try it: You'll never go back; and wonder why you ever ran in that mode
on an LCD panel in the first place.

If it doesn't work, you can always shift back.
It only takes a few SECONDS to shift resolutions, you know.
And, a few more to shift back.
Run a few of your favorite programs.
Look at some of your favorite pictures.
Shift between modes, and see the astounding difference.
Geesh.

An LCD panel is pretty much CRIPPLED except at native resolution.
Especially one below 1680x1050 native.
Even there, the compromises are bad.

OK! I've read the entire thread so far. Lots of good reading.
My problem is my eyes! As I'm getting older I don't like the text
getting too small.

I had a 21" CRT monitor running at 1024x768. Looked great!
I purchased an LCD (to get more desk space) and running it at native
resolution was clear if I got up really close. But my old eyes need
bigger text. I cranked the LCD back to 1024x768. I think it looks
horrible! Setting clear type helps, but icons, etc now look crappy.

I've even played around with DPI settings in Display properties.

Does anyone have some good settings (for whatever) that will allow me to
run at 1280x1024 and still have text and other icons large enough???