| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Comments:
<0> which dvd-risbetter LG or NEC ?
<1> i'd say lg
<2> frankly, any
<0> hmm
<1> i prefer plextor over all
<0> here LG gives2 years guarant. and nec 3
<0> theprice issame50 euros
<2> in 2 years time they wont be worth the cost of postage back to the manu, let alone the agro of waiting for a replacement
<0> I know I have a teac 2 years now
<0> andit broke
<0> after the end of the guarant.
<0> anywayLG u said is better?
<2> lg, nec, plextor, sony, and lite-on are all essentially the same really
<3> don't buy Benq
<0> I wouldnt
<3> Sony should be fine .. since lite-on tends to sell some sub-standard stuff in thier own brand name
<4> is it possible for black text on a white background to have a "dirty" background (CRT monitor)
<4> I swear this monitor isn't right... or I'm going crazy...
<3> Auzer: what kind of "dirty" background ?
<5> clean your monitor? :)
<4> nope
<4> I notice it mostly on the web...
<3> Colin does wonders , zard0z
<4> smaller text the background looks almost gray
<4> like if I wrote in pencil and rubbed the text
<3> Auzer: probably due to winderz XP's Anti-alias
<4> grrr
<4> can I shut it off?
<3> you can try disabling "clear-type"
<4> I don't think I have this problem in linux
<3> actually winXP does a very good job of AA with the right drivers
<4> but I'm not sure because I've been working from windows for while
<3> Auzer: display -> effects
<4> it has all the right drivers, perhaps not the latest... but they're right (have problems with nvidia's latest)
<4> Hmm, I don't see it under effects
<3> advanced
<3> hmm , effects has it
<4> display > appearance tab > effects
<4> ah
<4> use the following method to smooth edges of screen fonts (unchecked already)
<3> k , try checking it then
<4> no change
<4> I looked at my girlfriend's computer... it's not my eyes.
<3> crt-itis ?
<4> :(
<3> check it , and use "clear-type"
<3> that looks nice with small text
<4> uhhhhh
<4> now they really look smeared hehe
<4> I could be going nuts.
<4> I need a bigger display, if I need to convince myself this thing is blurry to do it, I guess that's what it'll take
<4> 17" is old school
<4> (I still do think it's blurry)
<4> graphics don't really strike me as being bad
<4> but text does
<6> anyone know a method to test what port a exe is using ?
<7> netstat
<8> sounds like the crt is old
<8> and is just blurry
<8> it doesnt take long for a lot of crts to be noticeably blurry
<5> try lowering resolution
<5> and especially refresh rate
<5> some idiots run 100Hz @ 1600x1200 and then wonder why everythings blury
<8> why would you lower resolution and refresh. heh, if anything that helps you
<8> we are talking crt here
<5> so am i
<5> lower refresh rate = sharper image
<8> whoever told you that needs to be slapped
<5> it's a fact
<7> ummm
<7> so 20 hz is better than 60 then?
<7> :P
<5> you're not pushing monitor to it's limits, and it can perform better
<8> dude you must work at best buy
<7> if the monitor's recommended refresh rate is 100 hz, use 100
<7> CosmicCat - yeah no kiddin. :D
<9> ouch
<5> CosmicCat you obviously don't know what you're talking about, nor from theory or experience
<8> let me see...everyone is telling you that you are wrong.
<5> run something like ntest, use highest refresh rate possible, then lower it, and compare sharpness
<8> what are the possiblities of everyone else being wrong
<5> 2 random people != everyone
<8> and you being mankinds last supergenius
<5> I tested it. did you?
<10> heh
<5> did you test it? or are you talking out of your ***?
<10> refresh rate is what hz is
<8> id say your monitor is old and you are stupid
<10> which tells how many times the monitor refreshes
<9> What do you think REFRESH rate means?
<10> on a crt
<10> on an lcd it doesnt really play much of a role
<5> CosmicCat I'd say you're a cunt who's ***uming to much
<8> this idiot is saying lower refresh results in a sharper image EneergE
<7> zard0z explain your concept and provide supporting links, then, please.
<8> on a crt
<5> lesser video bandwidth used = sharper image
<7> i'm interested to learn how a low refresh rate produces a more stable image than a high one
<5> it's a known fact
<7> ok
<9> i tell you what i'll try it
<7> url?
<5> nerp www.google.com
<7> oh lick my nuts
<7> 40hz is not more stable than 60hz
<8> zard0z: whoever you got your info from is a ****ing moron.
<7> sorry
<7> you're a moron
<5> [C]hris please do. use the highest refresh rate, then 85 or 75
<7> take two idential monitors
<7> put one at 40
<7> put one at 72
<5> nobody is talking about 40 dumb***, these are crts
<9> i'm in 1280x1024 w/ refresh rate of 85, i'll drop it and tell you if the picture is clearer or not
<5> 40 would be unusable
<7> which is more stable? the one that looks normal or the one that's flickering and goes black when you move your eyes?
<7> but its lower
<7> so your theory is flawed
<8> its lower it has to be better!
<8> dumb ****
<7> LESS BANDWITH
<7> hahaha
<9> Looks better in higher refresh to me
<5> clueless morons
<5> in a #hardware channel too
<7> sounds like he's confusing professional video recording equipment specs with a consumer monitor
<9> the lower seems a little blurry
<7> if a monitor is rated at 72 hz, lowering it to 60 is not going to make it better.
<5> monitor is not rated as 72, usable refresh rate depends on resolution
<7> most monitors have recommended refresh rates depending on the resolution
<7> and that's the refresh rate you should use
<7> forcing it lower because you believe it will be better is silly
<5> bullsack. I'll test it myself, and use the one I prefer
<9> Zard0z i just droped my refresh rate to 43 in 1280x1024, and i can now infact see lines in my picture, your wrong
<5> I don't "believe", i tested it
<7> oh, a guy on irc "tested" it.
<7> that's re***uring.
<5> [C]hris I'm not wrong, you just don't know how to test it properly
<9> lol
<7> you still havent' provided any links. you're the one making the claim.
<7> oh yeah, there's a better way than selecting the refresh rate?
<9> How else do you want me to test it? i changed the refresh rate
<5> [C]hris use highest refresh rate possible. use a program like ntest with pattern to test sharpness. then switch to 75 or 85 Hz
<7> ah yes, a synthetic test. :P
<8> why the **** would you make a crt run at a ****ing higher refresh rate to start with then? are you out of your mind.
<8> if thats your theory, ever resolution would be at 60
<7> how many monitors did you test?
<7> 1?
<5> CosmicCat nonsence. it depends on resolution. and having ability to run it at higher refresh rates will give you better picture at lower
<5> nerp countless
<7> i'm still waiting for a URL that indicates this is "widely proven"
Return to
#hardware
or
Go to some related
logs:
#microsoft
#politics
#computers
#beginner
#worldcup
#linux-noob
#freebsd
#unixhelp
#nhl
#nhl
|
|