A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Anti blue screen protecter



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 6th 19, 08:39 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
AK[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Anti blue screen protecter

Does anyone use a anti blue screen protector?

They are rather expensive.

Thanks,
Andy
Ads
  #2  
Old April 9th 19, 04:23 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
JJ[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 660
Default 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  
Old April 9th 19, 09:55 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,758
Default 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  
Old April 9th 19, 10:44 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,564
Default 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)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT)
  #5  
Old April 9th 19, 11:29 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 285
Default 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  
Old April 9th 19, 11:38 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,564
Default 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)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you help someone when they're in trouble, they will remember you when
they're in trouble again.
  #7  
Old April 10th 19, 03:53 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,758
Default 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
  #8  
Old April 10th 19, 05:50 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
AK[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Anti blue screen protecter

On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-5, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
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)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you help someone when they're in trouble, they will remember you when
they're in trouble again.


It's been shown that blue light affects sleep.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/stayi...as-a-dark-side

I would probably be better off with some blue blocking glasses instead.

Andy
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.