home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.Edu!dab6
- From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
- Subject: Re: Wanted: opinions of 1024x768 at 60Hz
- Message-ID: <1992Aug23.001216.18366@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
- Sender: news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
- Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu
- Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
- Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
- References: <176ct5INN26k@agate.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 00:12:16 GMT
- Lines: 32
-
-
- In a previous article, forest@soda.berkeley.edu (Forest Edward Wilkinson) says:
-
- >
- >I'm planning on buying a monitor this week, and I can get
- >one that does 1024x768 at 60 Hz (rather than 70 or 72 Hz)
- >for about $100 less.
- >Would anyone who uses this configuration please send me
- >mail with your opinions? I'd like to know how noticable
- >the flicker is, how solid thin lines appear, etc. Basically,
- >is 1024x768 at 60 Hz easy on the eyes?
- >
- >Thanks.
-
-
- Well, basically, 60 hz sucks. It flickers, especially under florescent
- lights or when viewed out of the corner of my eye. The picture just
- does not look as solid as interlaced modes or 70hz.
-
- If you are just going to be displaying pictures, an interlaced mode
- will look better. If you are going to use os/2 or something else that
- uses lots of narrow horizontal lines, 60hz is better that interlaced,
- because the horizontal lines will dance.
-
- But I find 60 hz painful to look at for long periods of time.
- 70hz is many times easier on the eyes.
-
- Other factors are also involved such as the persistance of the phosphor.(sp)
- A long persistance will not flicker, but will leave trails on moving
- objects. I find 60 htz bad on short or medium short persistance.
- Most 14" monitors are medium-short persistance.
-