Subject: Re: monitor refresh rates & epilepsy
From: Richard Wentk (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 17 2005 - 21:17:26 EST
At 23:16 17/01/2005, you wrote:
>jef chippewa wrote:
>>85Hz is a significant difference from 60/70, not optimal, but noticeably
>>more stable. i immediately noticed the difference physically when i got
>>my current monitor, and have never gone below a refresh rate of 85 since
>thanks - thats good to know. i think it is the particular brand of HP
>monitor i have, but 85 has been excellent this morning, since i changed it
>i havent felt screen flicker quite so much (just a little, but its
>probably more screen /glare/ now, which means i need a glare shield)....
Gods no. No one should *ever* use a CRT at less than 85Hz. Anything less is
a fantastically efficient way to ruin your eyesight and make your working
day extremely unpleasant and tiring.
>i'm also glad its not going to lead to monitor burn-out which is what i
>was concerned about...
I've been overclocking my old Iiyama for more than four years now. It's
nominally rated at 70Hz for 1600x1200, but I've been running it at 85Hz and
it's only now starting to show signs of stress.
Usually if you don't get smoke and showers of sparks in the first few
seconds, it's okay. ;)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:05 EST