 | |
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
Homebuilt Computer Hardware Discussion of homebuilt computer hardware (alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt). Postings may deal with real hardware, or absract concepts, and are not restricted to any specific cpu or architecture. Topics may also include homebuilt peripherals added to existing off the shelf systems, or hardware hacks to existing systems/accessories.
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#61
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP? -
05-22-2007
, 12:17 PM
|
Frank McCoy wrote: In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird <hummingbird (AT) 2die4 (DOT) com 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??? |
The improvement in clarity is *well* worth the time.
Improvement over 1024x768.
(Assuming Windows XP here
Right-click on the desktop.
Select "Properties".
Select "Desktop".
Select "Effects...".
Activate the button labeled: "Use large Icons"
(Actually, I activate *all* the buttons on that page.
I prefer "Fade-effect" and "Standard" for transitions and smooting.)
Hit "OK".
In the "Display Properties", select "Settings".
Select "Advanced".
Under "Display" and "DPI setting:" Select "Large Size (120DPI)".
Hit "OK".
Try that.
You *might* want to fiddle with Icon Spacing under
"Display Properties" => "Appearance" => "Advanced".
If the large icons appear too close together.
Mine are set to 62 pixels both horizontal and vertical.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
#62
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:03:09 +0930 'Gorby' posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt: Frank McCoy wrote: In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird <hummingbird (AT) 2die4 (DOT) com 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??? Afaik the only way to do this is to reconfigure each application to use larger font sizes. That may defeat the gain from using a larger resolution. Icon sizes can be changed through the standard Windows 'desktop/right click' option and selecting 'properties/settings/advanced'. If you have an ATI graphics card, you can also do this using ATI Tray Tools utility (free). |
When using Word, it expands to your display size (one of the few nice
things I have to say about Word); thus making your typing easier to see.
Agent, on the other hand, I had to manually reset all the font sizes to
what I like for this resolution. (Options => Display Preferences =>
Fonts)
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
#63
| |||
| |||
|
|
kony wrote: That said, color depth on LCDs is comically bad resulting in ever present banding, moving images are subject to a host of noticeable artifacts (such as over shoot and ghosting) As an aside, I do wish people would stop referring to motion artifacts as ghosting. The VESA Flat Panel Display Manual defines ghosting as the problem of interference over the signal, resulting in an "echoed" image. It's quite different to motion blur. I agree it would be nice if people didn't refer to it as ghosting but there are many reviewers who use the term like that so it keeps getting perpetuated. The term ghosting is accepted lingo since it is an excellent metaphor for describing what occurs in the conditions when it occurs. |
term used to describe a different monitor problem and while
some might say "it looks like a similar kind of problem", so
it's fairly called ghosting, it is only reasonable to use
the term to crudely described perceptions of visual appeal,
not to describe the phenomenon as an understanding of what's
causing it.
Quote:
|
Also, to make the point: you can't get ghosting with a static image, it requires the scene to be in motion since ghosting is caused by the pixels switching on and off too slowly. |
excessive analog signal degradation. On a static image.
Being ignorant of what ghosting means as a term does not
mean you can just reject and reuse the term for something
else. That's why terms exist, you can't just use one that
is already taken in the same genre except as mentioned
above, if only loosely used to describe visual perception,
not actual state of output/technology.
#64
| |||
| |||
|
|
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt kony <spam (AT) spam (DOT) com> wrote: On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:32:29 -0500, Frank McCoy mccoyf (AT) millcomm (DOT) com> 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. !!!!!NNNOOOOO!!!!!!! Geesh, CAN'T YOU READ???? I get almost *90 degree* horizontal shift with *NO* degradation. |
You do not and even your monitor manufacturer will have to
concede it. As written the horizontal degradation is very
slight compared to vertical but it is nevertheless present.
There is no existing LCD technology that overcomes this.
Your monitor is not made of mythic pixie dust, it can only
perform as well as the sum of the parts.
Perhaps your eyes just can't see the difference, but
measurement tools and other people's eyes can.
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.