 | |
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
Homebuilt PCs Building your PC from motherboards and cards (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#51
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP? -
05-22-2007
, 03:55 AM
|
The CRT monitors look fuzzy and out-of-focus next to the LCD panels at similar resolutions. Most especially so at the corners. The LCD panels also EXACTLY fill out the screen; while with good adjustment of a CRT you can only get *close* to doing so without either not displaying the whole thing, or leaving black borders in some parts of the screen. Don't believe me? Try it yourself and see! Geesh. How old is this CRT monitor? They start to go out of focus after a year |
--
Conor
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........
#52
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:05:50 -0500 'Frank McCoy' posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt: 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. Right!!!!!!!! I'm going to give it a try overnight UK time and report back here tomorrow. I predict that the difference will be minimal but will openly admit the truth of whatever it does. Watch this space!................. |
I've tried the 1280x1024 resolution and my findings are:
Pros:
-- there was no noticeable delay in generating screen images,
possibly because of the graphics card I use (ATI 9800-Pro)
and/or maybe the monitor prefers its 'native' resolution.
However I'm still of the view that higher resolutions theoretically
require more processing and therefore more delay but I accept
that this may be insignificant and unnoticeable nowadays and may
not be the case with LCD monitors.
-- screen images appear a little sharper as I expected but not
a whole lot clearer than 800x600 at 32bit colour with ClearType
running and my Samsung monitor carefully tweaked/adjusted.
Some of the sharper appearance is due to the fact that images
appear smaller on the monitor.
-- some webpages which used to invoke a horizontal slider now
display without it. The downside is that text appears smaller to
the point where I have a problem reading it, so I'd have to tweak
the font size which might then cause the pages to revert back to
using sliders. In that case there's no gain to be had.
Cons:
-- many of my applications would need reconfiguring to use the higher
resolution because font settings have been set to accomodate 800x600.
This includes my browsers, two instances of Agent, ZtreeWin etc etc.
That's a lot of changes to a lot of applications. The simple process
of enlarging font sizes to make them readable may cause the display
quality to revert back to what it is under 800x600. I dunno.
-- my icon settings are currently set for 800x600 and would need to
be reconfigured to increase their display size on the monitor so I can
read the text and see where the little devils are on the desktop!
-- my wallpaper would also need to be replaced with one which is
sized for use on the higher resolution. Currently it's carefully sized
to fill the vertical axis, under 1280x1024 it doesn't, so it looks
rather odd.
-- I have a bunch of home made screensavers which contain images
sized for 800x600 display resolution. These would either need to be
remade (a lot of work on many hundreds of images) or they would
display smaller on the monitor if I left them as-is.
-- many hundreds of scanned documents and images I have on my
computer all display much smaller, again to the point where reading
the text is difficult and a strain on the eyes. I can't rescan the
documents because the originals have been shredded long ago.
Hundreds of images are involved too. A huge piece of work.
-- even my animated mouse pointer would need to be resized.
Not sure if that's possible.
There are probably other pros/cons which I haven't mentioned
but all in all, given that my current display settings produce good
quality, this is not a change which is of clear benefit to me and
would involve a lot of time/effort to implement. It may be something
to consider when I build my next PC and install all the apps onto it
afresh.
#53
| |||
| |||
|
|
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??? |
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).
#54
| |||
| |||
|
|
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) |
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.
#55
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Mr.E Solved!" <Iamsingle (AT) askme (DOT) out> wrote in message news:cYqdnekZjYCL9c_bnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com [...] 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.
#56
| |||
| |||
|
|
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. |
for describing what occurs in the conditions when it occurs.
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. Ghosting is a single form of
visual artifact, not the only one possible. So the original statement is
correct, "moving LCD images are subject to a whole host of noticeable
artifacts, such as over shoot (a signal processing error) and ghosting
(a physical design limitation)."
The point being, none of these immersion ruining artifacts are present
in CRTs by design, making them infinitely superior in this category.
For example, if you are trying to aim at a small fast moving target,
with ghosting you will never be sure the object you are shooting at is
actually where your display says it is, the smaller the target, the
greater the impact of ghosting, this is why one of the most recognizable
measurement criteria for LCD 'quality' is the pixel response time, since
it impacts ghosting directly.
What would you prefer to call it?
#57
| |||
| |||
|
|
kony wrote: |
Quote:
|
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. |
confuse people not aware of the differences between ghosting and motion
blur.
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. |
shouldn't use it to refer to motion blur.
#58
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
|
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. |
Geesh, CAN'T YOU READ????
I get almost *90 degree* horizontal shift with *NO* degradation.
It just gets a bit hard to read in that last ten degrees from
right-angle. The thick glass of a CRT is actually *harder* to see
through at such an angle! And there's no, I repeat *!NO!* degradation
in either color, contrast OR brightness when the thing is a full 80+
degrees from horizontal. By the time it does deteriorate, I'm almost
looking at the BACK of the panel instead of the front!
There is a *tiny* bit of such "degradation" with vertical shift; but not
enough to notice until well past 45 degrees ... and who tilts their
screen back THAT far?
Quote:
|
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. But there IS no such lower contrast in mine. |
Quote:
|
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. Like I said, vertical gets a *tiny* bit of change in color and contrast |
now, it's *barely* noticeable difference when tilted a full 50 degrees
from face-on to me. Only at about a full seventy degrees does the shift
in hue and slight decrease in contrast become quite noticeable. The
screen is *still* readable though to a full 80 degrees and beyond.
Try that with a CRT ... You can't. The thing will fall over first.
Like I said, I see *laptops* with the kind of displays you talk about,
as if they were modern LCD monitors ... But they're NOT.
My monitor has *NONE* of those problems you mention.
Those are pretty much old-style technology.
Quote:
|
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. Geesh I had my head cocked almost *three feet* off to the left side. |
moving it to one side of the screen, way past the edge.
<Sigh.>
Quote:
| 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, |
That's a "problem" that's been *FIXED*!
Geesh.
The LCD is actually *easier* to view off-angle and BETTER than any CRT
I've ever looked at. Hell, like I say, I've a 21" CRT sitting right
here and *IT isn't as clear viewed off-axis, because the thickness of
the front panel glass gets in the way!
Quote:
|
every single review of LCDs every written agrees with this. |
Hell, I'm reviewing my own right now; and comparing it with a 21" CRT
monitor; and in almost every comparison *THE CRT LOSES*.
Yes, in viewing-angle most specifically!
Here:
Read *these* reviews of modern LCD tft monitors.
Can't find a review, good or bad, of mine.
http://www.reviewcentre.com/products93.html
Quote:
|
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. |
but perhaps laptop screens or old technology.
When comparing fluorescent bulbs to incandescents, you *don't* complain
they all need long mounts, must hang from the ceiling, and have
expensive transformer ballasts, do you?
Don't similarly compare OLD LCD panels to CRTs and then say THAT is
where they fall down! Modern ones DON'T!
Geesh.
You'd think this was alt.folklore.computers, not
alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt.
It's like you guys are describing a computer built with a Pentium II to
a modern Apple, and saying that "Intel Processors just don't compare."
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
#59
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <39j4531q2cf4bu21sflut46qeu3s1rik8s (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Frank McCoy says... The CRT monitors look fuzzy and out-of-focus next to the LCD panels at similar resolutions. Most especially so at the corners. The LCD panels also EXACTLY fill out the screen; while with good adjustment of a CRT you can only get *close* to doing so without either not displaying the whole thing, or leaving black borders in some parts of the screen. Don't believe me? Try it yourself and see! Geesh. How old is this CRT monitor? They start to go out of focus after a year or so and need adjusting periodically. |
You're talking to somebody who started out as a TV technician clear back
in 1960. I *do* know about keeping a CRT in focus.
Can't stand one out of focus or misaligned.
Drives me *nuts*.
Most people would never notice; but *I* do.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
#60
| |||
| |||
|
|
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.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
« 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.