On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 12:56, Vikki Roemer wrote: > On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 07:02:20PM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote: > > superiority of DDR. Non-DDR SDRAM is pretty much obsolete, though cheap. > > DDR is king. > > Great. Can DDR RAM go in an RDRAM slot and work with an RDRAM module? Nope, 'fraid not. > If not, if/when my parents want to upgrade their box I'm going to have > a *lot* of fun... :( Because they have RDRAM in them now? > But I thought that P4s didn't work as well with DDR as with RDRAM-- or > was that just FUD on Rambus' part? Probably. > > Xbill. Ouch. For those who can't be bothered to get carpal-tunnel > > syndrome the hard way (on a keyboard)... > > *grin* > > Nah, not likely; I only play that when I've had a *really* bad day on > a Window box *and* I have some free time. Needless to say, that's a > pretty rare combination-- I have more than my fair share of 'bad > Windows days', but free time is the problem. Or, when I *do* have > some free time, I'm spending on my Linux box (of course ;). Like now? > BTW, how is xbill worse than anything else out there? It requires a terrible amount of mousing. > > > Hmm, I'm not sure. But how can you *see* anything at that high a > > > resolution? > > > > My eyes work extremely well at the distance between the monitor and my > > head. They never seem to get tired from it, either. I'm somewhat > > nearsighted, but that doesn't really explain this ability of mine; more > > likely it's a side effect, rather than the cause. I don't think I ever > > remember having any trouble reading off monitors, even at high > > resolutions. > > Yeah, that's not nearsightedness-- I'm nearsighted, but this monitor > is the only one that I'm trying to get above 800x600. Mine is a 15", > but it's only about ~1 ft. away from me when I'm sitting forward > typing, so 1024x768 is more comfortable for me to work with > (unfortunately, I'm having a heck of a time configuring X to work with > this bloody video card...) The monitor is generally between 1 and 2 feet away from my head when I'm using a stationery computer. > my parents' monitor, OTOH, is a 17", but > they would kill me if I turned up the resolution and I wouldn't be > able to see properly anyway if I did-- the monitor is 3-4 ft. away, so > that's probably part of it. Otherwise... *shrug* maybe it's a Windows > thing. I don't have any trouble at 3-4 feet away with 1280x1024 on a 17" monitor. Ok, a little bit, but not enough to bother me. Windows is involved, though; while you can configure the display resolution (in dpi), doing so causes all sorts of horrible graphics glitches. X, on the other hand, deals with the rather odd setting of 106x100 dpi without a hitch, and so do all the applications. Go figure. Fonts are scaled up to compensate (when the size is specified in points, at least), but I usually set them pretty small regardless. > > As a result, I often use very high resolutions, and generally prefer at > > least 1280x1024 on my 17" monitor. I would run 1280x1024 on my 15" > > Whoa! Tiny writing... I wouldn't have it any other way! > > monitor too, were it not for the fact that my parents need to use it > > sometimes, and their eyes can't handle that; they want 800x600 on it. > > Neither of these monitors can support resolutions higher than 1280x1024 > > at a decent refresh rate, sadly, or I would push it higher. On my 17" > > Jeez, I really have a crappy monitor-- the highest mine will handle is > 1024x768, with 800x600 as the recommended resolution, according to the > manual. The manual isn't necessarily correct. This 17" monitor has a label on the front that specifies its maximum resolution at 1280x1024, but I'm pretty sure I convinced it to do 1600x1200 one time, and I know my 15" monitor can do 1600x1200. This will probably give you a very low refresh rate, though. Of course, LCD monitors aren't really affected much by low refresh rates; see below. > > > I just want an LCD monitor because it would fit on my > > > desk better than this CRT monitor does. And it wouldn't take as much > > > electricity to run it, which would make it run cooler. > > > > And it would reduce your power bill, and it's easier on the eyes (even I > > can see more clearly on such a display), and it doesn't expose the > > viewer to a strong electromagnetic field, and it isn't disturbed by > > electromagnetic fields from other devices (eg, unshielded speakers)... > > And it slices, and it dices, and it smooths wrinkles, and it cures > [random terminal disease] ...flash! Oh, not that kind of terminal... > Seriously, I started going off the same way, too, when I was typing > originally-- that's why I stopped where I did. *grin* But I'm not > sure that an LCD monitor is worth $3-500, even if I *did* have the > money, which I don't. *shrug* Well, I just tried a quick experiment on my dad's laptop. (One good thing about Windows 2000 is it lets you change refresh rates easily.) There is no visible difference between a refresh rate of 60 Hz and 100 Hz. None. I also looked at each display through my digital camera's CCD sensor; some scan patterns are clearly visible on the CRT, and there is no such thing on the laptop display. If nothing else, LCD monitors are _much_ easier on the eyes, for this reason. Even if you have to run them at a refresh rate of 60 Hz, they are very gentle. Alex. -- PGP Public Key: http://aoi.dyndns.org/~alex/pgp-public-key -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS d- s:++ a18 C++(++++)>$ UL+++(++++) P--- L+++>++++ E---- W+(+++) N- o-- K+ w--- !O M(+) V-- PS+++ PE-- Y+ PGP+(+++) t* 5-- X-- R tv b- DI D+++ G e h! !r y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part