If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Win95
On 8/27/2020 9:34 AM, Bill wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote: I had a 19" flat screen CRT monitor. IIRC, that weighed about 90 pounds. Think of what you PAID for it too! I think I bought a light 22" for about $229 about 8 years ago. Haven't checked prices lately. Out of curiosity, I just checked Amazon.com. I didn't look at all the choices, but the lowest price I noticed was $89.99 The quality between different brands and models varies a lot, however. -- Ken |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Win95
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 12:34:20 -0400, Bill
wrote: Mark Lloyd wrote: I had a 19" flat screen CRT monitor. IIRC, that weighed about 90 pounds. Think of what you PAID for it too! I think I bought a light 22" for about $229 about 8 years ago. Haven't checked prices lately. I had a 17" monitor in 1994, Cost about $700. I noted at the time that the diagonal measurement as also about the depth of the monitor for a CRT display. Used up a LOT of desktop space. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Win95
Ken Blake wrote:
On 8/27/2020 7:27 AM, Mayayana wrote: "Chris" wrote | I wouldn't use anything less than 2560x1440 nowadays. | | Not much of a jump from 800x600 in 25 years! | | That's an 8-fold increase in area whilst shrinking the size, weight, energy | usage and improving the quality (analogue vs digital) of the monitor. I can't | imagine what kind of desk I'd need for a 27" CRT monitor. | I'm using a 27" monitor, at 1920x1080. More pixels doesn't mean more advanced technology. It's about the human body using the hardware. My eyes are getting old. So are mine, as well as the rest of me. None of us are immune to that. I set up this monitor on a cabinet drawer slide, mounted under bookshelves over my desk. So I can pull it out or push it back. Whatever I find comfortable. It's 24-bit color and it's clear enough. How clear the image is has a lot to do with what monitor it is, not just its size and resolution. There might be scenarios where more concentrated pixels are useful, but that would mostly be on tiny screens, like phones. *Tiny* screens? A higher resolution means everything appears smaller. Putting it on a smaller screen makes no sense. Higher resolutions need *bigger* screens. Nope. A higher resolution allows more pixels for rendering the same image. For example fonts are much smoother and easier to read. "Retina" like screens are much easier to read. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Win95
Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 8/27/20 9:05 AM, Chris wrote: On 26 Aug 2020 at 19:53:27 BST, "mechanic" wrote: On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:06:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: I wouldn't use anything less than 2560x1440 nowadays. Not much of a jump from 800x600 in 25 years! That's an 8-fold increase in area whilst shrinking the size, weight, energy usage and improving the quality (analogue vs digital) of the monitor. I can't imagine what kind of desk I'd need for a 27" CRT monitor. I had a 19" flat screen CRT monitor. IIRC, that weighed about 90 pounds. I never went larger than 17". 19" was simply too expensive. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Win95
Kirk Bubul wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 12:34:20 -0400, Bill wrote: Mark Lloyd wrote: I had a 19" flat screen CRT monitor. IIRC, that weighed about 90 pounds. Think of what you PAID for it too! I think I bought a light 22" for about $229 about 8 years ago. Haven't checked prices lately. I had a 17" monitor in 1994, Cost about $700. I noted at the time that the diagonal measurement as also about the depth of the monitor for a CRT display. Used up a LOT of desktop space. And sucked a lot of power and made a lot of heat! -- Life's so loco! ..!.. *isms, sins, hates, (d)evil, illnesses (e.g., COVID-19/2019-nCoV/SARS-CoV-2), deaths (RIP), interruptions, stresses, heat waves, fires, out(r)ages, dramas, unlucky #4, 2020, greeds, bugs (e.g., crashes & female mosquitoes), etc. Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly. /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org / / /\ /\ \ http://antfarm.ma.cx. Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. | |o o| | \ _ / ( ) |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Win95
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 14:05:48 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
If we look at bandwidth the difference is even larger. 8-bit colour was common for 800x600 which is 3.8m bits. We can easily do 24bits @ 2560x1440 = 88.5m bits, nowadays. Nearly 25x larger. At 60Hz refresh that's 5.3Gbps. Try pushing that with 25-yo hardware. Your video card is pushing out a 5 GB/s signal? No need to send that much data, there are screen buffers. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Win95
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 22:44:50 +0100, mechanic wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 14:05:48 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: If we look at bandwidth the difference is even larger. 8-bit colour was common for 800x600 which is 3.8m bits. We can easily do 24bits @ 2560x1440 = 88.5m bits, nowadays. Nearly 25x larger. At 60Hz refresh that's 5.3Gbps. Try pushing that with 25-yo hardware. Your video card is pushing out a 5 GB/s signal? No need to send that much data, there are screen buffers. Looking at the HDMI specs, I see various standards for those cables/connectors are indeed specifying rates for video connections upto and above 50Gb/s. Some cables, some connectors! |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Win95
On 27 Aug 2020 at 22:44:50 BST, "mechanic" wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 14:05:48 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: If we look at bandwidth the difference is even larger. 8-bit colour was common for 800x600 which is 3.8m bits. We can easily do 24bits @ 2560x1440 = 88.5m bits, nowadays. Nearly 25x larger. At 60Hz refresh that's 5.3Gbps. Try pushing that with 25-yo hardware. Your video card is pushing out a 5 GB/s signal? I said 5giga*bits* per second, but yes. And then some... Remember that's per connection and modern graphics cards can drive several monitors at upto 8K at the same time. So 5Gbps is a stroll in the park. No need to send that much data, there are screen buffers. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Win95
Chris wrote:
On 27 Aug 2020 at 22:44:50 BST, "mechanic" wrote: On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 14:05:48 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: If we look at bandwidth the difference is even larger. 8-bit colour was common for 800x600 which is 3.8m bits. We can easily do 24bits @ 2560x1440 = 88.5m bits, nowadays. Nearly 25x larger. At 60Hz refresh that's 5.3Gbps. Try pushing that with 25-yo hardware. Your video card is pushing out a 5 GB/s signal? I said 5giga*bits* per second, but yes. And then some... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort UHBR 20 (20.0 Gbit/s per lane) Maximum total bandwidth 80.00 Gbit/s Maximum total data rate 77.37 Gbit/s Encoding scheme 128b/132b Just to give some idea what kinds of rates a modern card can cough up. The interface is clock-synthesized, and "only runs as fast as it has to". If sending 800x600 at 60FPS, the rates would be quite a bit lower. That makes the per-lane speed, similar to some flavor of Thunderbolt. ******* Twenty five years ago, cards were showing up with two VGA connectors, but the connectors were not equal. One VGA connector had a Brooktree DAC running at whatever was the "full rate" of the day. The second DAC was less capable, like maybe 1024x768. The DAC arms race, stopped at "400 megahertz bandwidth". This seemed to equate in the specs, to a horizontal resolution of 2048 at a refresh of 60 frames per second. So in terms of what resolution was being pushed, that's to give an idea. Still pretty decent. Brooktree was kinda "wiped out", when the GPU makers managed to put a DAC inside the GPU, and then Brooktree no longer had a "magic sauce" to offer. It's not clear what we should quote as the vertical resolution. Some specs may have listed 2048 x 1536, it's possible others hand-waved at 2Kx2K. Not a lot of monitors out there could be used to test that the output looked reasonable. (Higher res monitors exist, but they may not have VGA connectors on them for the most obvious reasons of how ****ty it might look.) You couldn't do 2560x1600 on VGA, but you could do something in roughly the same ballpark. Since VGa is analog, and the wiring isn't all that good, the higher resolution settings tend to have reflections and ghosting. If pushed to the limit, it's hard to say what the best-case recovery of the signal would look like. But it probably doesn't quite cut it at 2560x1600. On VGA, 1920x1080 is safer. Paul |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Win95
On 8/27/20 1:29 PM, Kirk Bubul wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 12:34:20 -0400, Bill wrote: Mark Lloyd wrote: I had a 19" flat screen CRT monitor. IIRC, that weighed about 90 pounds. Think of what you PAID for it too! I think I bought a light 22" for about $229 about 8 years ago. Haven't checked prices lately. I had a 17" monitor in 1994, Cost about $700. I noted at the time that the diagonal measurement as also about the depth of the monitor for a CRT display. Used up a LOT of desktop space. I decided that was big enough (for a CRT monitor),, that 19" was a mistake. New monitors fit in much less space (and weigh a lot less too). -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ Jesus -- The other white meat! |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Win95
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:04:19 -0400, Paul wrote:
Since VGa is analog, and the wiring isn't all that good, the higher resolution settings tend to have reflections and ghosting. If pushed to the limit, it's hard to say what the best-case recovery of the signal would look like. But it probably doesn't quite cut it at 2560x1600. On VGA, 1920x1080 is safer. That's the point, anyone familiar with working with systems at that sort of bandwidth knows the difficult problems of getting consistent impedance across the cards, through the connectors and then the connection from a HDMI cable to the monitor. A TDR plot would be a nightmare! |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Win95
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:29:22 +0100, mechanic
wrote: 25 years on, we are reminded of the big changes Win95 showed compared to the preceding Win3.1 (I'm talking of home/consumer versions). 25 years is a long time - what is it, 12-15 Moore periods? Shouldn't we expect rather more change in the hardware as a result? Software has come a long way, we have AI and virtual reality on the horizon, but the hardware seems to have stagnated. The basic vision behind 'one computer for each home/desk' hasn't changed. We now have thin clients. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Win95
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 17:28:04 +0100, ? Good Guy ?
wrote: This post contains hypertext message that contains the main information. Your machine can't handle this correctly so you'll be better off plonking my posts once and for all rather than wasting time trying to read it. You use ? in your name it won't work in a killfile. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|