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 | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Anti blue screen protecter
Does anyone use a anti blue screen protector?
They are rather expensive. Thanks, Andy |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Anti blue screen protecter
On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 12:39:13 -0700 (PDT), AK wrote:
Does anyone use a anti blue screen protector? They are rather expensive. Thanks, Andy Not worth it, IMO. Because it doesn't solve the problem which causes the BSOD in the first place. It's like ignoring a court order that'll always end up in a bad way. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Anti blue screen protecter
JJ wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 12:39:13 -0700 (PDT), AK wrote: Does anyone use a anti blue screen protector? They are rather expensive. Thanks, Andy Not worth it, IMO. Because it doesn't solve the problem which causes the BSOD in the first place. It's like ignoring a court order that'll always end up in a bad way. There's two ways to do what I think he is referring to. 1) Aftermarket filter addon to be placed in front of LCD monitor screen https://www.amazon.com/EYES-PC-Block.../dp/B00OL26BVK Which is a bit silly, in that it places yet another layer in front of the screen, there will be parallax, and so on. It likely attenuates all colors a little bit, and stronger on blue attenuation. It would be as miserable as the old "glare" filters they tried to pawn off on us. 2) Electronic feature of monitor itself. This one is adjustable, and you can change modes as a function of the intended monitor usage. On "book reading", blue can be turned way down, as it's a black&white task. But this might mean buying a new monitor, which costs more than (1). https://www.viewsonic.com/uk/product...-light-filter/ The problem with one source of LED light, is it's a blue-emitting source, with a phosphor over top of it to "whiten" the color. This means there is a significant blue spike in the spectrum of the output. The higher the color temperature of a "white" LED, the more blue is in it, and the less phosphor they place over the LED square. There are a variety of LED backlight methods. The cheap methods likely cannot be adjusted. If on the other hand, the light source is actually RGB-like, you could adjust the balance of the three light sources, to achieve various color-temperatures. Virtually all current illumination methods are "spikey". The spectrum is never smooth. A common ordinary incandescent bulb has a smooth spectrum, but it kicks off a hell of a lot of heat, and would cook an LCD panel from behind. The methods we use today are "cool lighting" methods (CCFL/LED), and the spikey output, with the blue spike in it, is the price we pay for making other aspects of the screen work for years on end. ******* As for whether this effect is real, the eye may seem pretty simple conceptually. But there seem to be an awful lot of corner conditions on its operation. And maybe some will be more affected by blue light than others (vision already compromised for some reason). A person could switch to an OLED display, but I don't know how practical that is. I believe those are a direct emitter and don't use backlighting, so there might be some room for adjustment on the output. Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Anti blue screen protecter
In message , Paul
writes: JJ wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 12:39:13 -0700 (PDT), AK wrote: Does anyone use a anti blue screen protector? They are rather expensive. Thanks, Andy Not worth it, IMO. Because it doesn't solve the problem which causes the BSOD in the first place. It's like ignoring a court order that'll always end up in a bad way. There's two ways to do what I think he is referring to. [learned discourse on backlights deleted!] My first thought was that this was an April Fool thread, but the initial post appears to be dated the 6th. But I read it as referring to some piece of software that prevents BSODs - *or claims to*. I've never heard of such, but I can just about believe it as possible. It would have to be a very complex piece of software, though - it would more or less have to sandbox or VM your entire system. At the very least, I imagine it would have a significant effect on performance. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf 782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Anti blue screen protecter
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul writes: JJ wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 12:39:13 -0700 (PDT), AK wrote: Does anyone use a anti blue screen protector? They are rather expensive. Thanks, Andy Not worth it, IMO. Because it doesn't solve the problem which causes the BSOD in the first place. It's like ignoring a court order that'll always end up in a bad way. There's two ways to do what I think he is referring to. [learned discourse on backlights deleted!] My first thought was that this was an April Fool thread, but the initial post appears to be dated the 6th. But I read it as referring to some piece of software that prevents BSODs - *or claims to*. I've never heard of such, but I can just about believe it as possible. It would have to be a very complex piece of software, though - it would more or less have to sandbox or VM your entire system. At the very least, I imagine it would have a significant effect on performance. That's the way I read it too! If such a thing existed, it would have to operate at a very low level, and run all the time in the background, monitoring everything. But I doubt it does exist - at least for intercepting blue screens. I seem to vaguely recall some utility program that could run in the background and intercept some stuff that went astray at the higher levels, however, but can't recall the program name now |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Anti blue screen protecter
In message , Bill in Co
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 12:39:13 -0700 (PDT), AK wrote: Does anyone use a anti blue screen protector? They are rather expensive. Thanks, Andy [] But I read it as referring to some piece of software that prevents BSODs - *or claims to*. I've never heard of such, but I can just about believe it as possible. It would have to be a very complex piece of software, though - it would more or less have to sandbox or VM your entire system. At the very least, I imagine it would have a significant effect on performance. That's the way I read it too! If such a thing existed, it would have to operate at a very low level, and run all the time in the background, monitoring everything. But I doubt it does exist - at least for intercepting blue screens. I seem to vaguely recall some utility program that could run in the background and intercept some stuff that went astray at the higher levels, however, but can't recall the program name now "Andy"/"AK": if you're still reading this thread, can you tell us more about these? You say "They are rather expensive", which suggests you have at least one specific product in mind. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If you help someone when they're in trouble, they will remember you when they're in trouble again. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Anti blue screen protecter
Bill in Co wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Paul writes: JJ wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 12:39:13 -0700 (PDT), AK wrote: Does anyone use a anti blue screen protector? They are rather expensive. Thanks, Andy Not worth it, IMO. Because it doesn't solve the problem which causes the BSOD in the first place. It's like ignoring a court order that'll always end up in a bad way. There's two ways to do what I think he is referring to. [learned discourse on backlights deleted!] My first thought was that this was an April Fool thread, but the initial post appears to be dated the 6th. But I read it as referring to some piece of software that prevents BSODs - *or claims to*. I've never heard of such, but I can just about believe it as possible. It would have to be a very complex piece of software, though - it would more or less have to sandbox or VM your entire system. At the very least, I imagine it would have a significant effect on performance. That's the way I read it too! If such a thing existed, it would have to operate at a very low level, and run all the time in the background, monitoring everything. But I doubt it does exist - at least for intercepting blue screens. I seem to vaguely recall some utility program that could run in the background and intercept some stuff that went astray at the higher levels, however, but can't recall the program name now If such a thing existed... um, there'd be a patent. If you hark back to your MacOS days, which was a cooperative multitasking system, that would illustrate what a difference a good OS partition makes. That OS used to crash like crazy (once or twice a day, I used to keep MacsBug loaded to try to "escape"). g Finder And it only got worse going from MacOS 6 to MacOS 9. *Every part* of the environment, *every* application program (MSWord!), plays a part. As the thread of execution winds its way through all that code sequentially, many times a second. Any little leak, a burp or a fart, could spell catastrophe. Each program "gives up control" ("cooperates") after some period of milliseconds and says "here, you use the processor for a bit while I sleep". Programs have to be polite (and give up regularly), to keep such abominations responsive. All the major OSes eventually got preemptive multitasking. The kernel lives in its own "ring", for protection from the elements. It "remotely controls" (pre-empts) the execution of processes in userland. If Firefox dies, nobody cares, least of all the kernel. If Firefox dies, you don't reboot the computer, you just restart Firefox, then curse Firefox for being "bad software" (no matter what the real reason might have been). The kernel in such cases, can have extremely long up-times (at least, if we're using a cooperative tasking OS as our baseline). The quality of the preemptive implementation, how many "land mines" you put in it, determines how close to ideal it is. Microsoft likes to poke fun at NVidia and ATI drivers, as a major source of instability. You can be sure that on Solaris (where the hardware manufacturer has something to say about video hardware), the opportunity for bulletproof hardware is a lot higher. And these exposures can even be seen in an "overclocking" situation. If you run Linux on a processor that is clocked higher than it should be, the first thing that disappears is programs. You see Firefox crash. You see the file manager crash. You see decorations or dialogs crash (ones that have their own process to run them). The very last thing you see is the kernel panic, when it comes crashing down. Even that kind of a demonstration, helps show how a "small" kernel is less suspectable to mischief than a bloated "Firefox". Even if this is not really all that logical of a demonstration, it neatly shows how a different partitioning can make the "core part" of the OS stable enough, you don't need to keep MacsBug loaded :-) In light of the apparent good underpinnings of modern OSes, it would be "snake oil" to be selling a "BSOD preventer". The design itself is a "BSOD preventer". Rewriting the NVidia driver might be as close as you get to "BSOD prevention" :-) (At least if you inhale some of those MS statements on the topic.) Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|