Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

the valdok · Jun 17, 2002, 06:41 PM

It confuses me a great deal when people talk about refresh rates. I am no dummy when it comes to a Mac, but I don't understand why people look down on the new eMac and its monitor. As far as I can tell, the eMac is a better bang for your buck versus the new iMac, and the only negative comment (besides the no DVD support) that has any backing seems to be the refresh rates for the higher resolutions. Can someone explain this for me?

Thanks,

Matthew Kelley

redhot_nyc · Jun 17, 2002, 07:04 PM

I'm on an iMac right now, running 1024x768 at 75 Hertz refresh rate. After a couple hours, my eyes really hurt. Why? You need at least 90 Hertz refresh rate to be 'comfortable' staring at the screen.
LCD Screens are much, much more comfortable to look at, especially for extended periods of time. The eMac's 'comfortable' refresh rate is 1024x768, which is the same size as the G4 iMac. The eMac has no resolution 'advantage' to the iMac, unless you've plenty of Visine.

Don't know what i'm talking about? Try filling your monitor with a white window, and then stare off into the distance with your monitor in your peripheral vision.

Peter753 · Jun 17, 2002, 10:06 PM

I only get 85 Hz out of my 17 inch crt princeton. Is this limit set by my moniter or my video card? I have a ati rage pro.

[ 06-18-2002, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: vmarks ]

rampant · Jun 18, 2002, 12:36 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Peter753:
I only get 85 Hz out of my 17 inch crt princeton. Is this limit set by my moniter or my video card? I have a ati rape pro.<hr /></blockquote>Where did you get this "rape pro" and where can I find one? <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />

Mac Zealot · Jun 18, 2002, 03:24 AM

The limit is usually set by the tube.

Knowing that the emac uses a cheap version of the monitor in the studio 17" crt, I'm not surprised.

D'Espice · Jun 18, 2002, 04:25 AM

Most people are fine with 75 Hz. Less than that is definitely not good for your eyes, it might cause damage if you're working with a monitor at less then 75Hz for a longer time period.

Personally, I can work with 75 Hz for hours without my eyes starting to hurt. A friend though needs at last 100 Hz or his eyes get all red after about an hour, his vision blurs and his eyes really hurt. You see, it totally depends on one's eyes. If you're fine with 75 Hz, the eMac will be perfect for you.

zeltrio · Jun 23, 2002, 02:43 PM

It's strange though. I spent over a year on a 400 mhz celeron running windows me. I used a 19" monitor running at a resolution of 1600x1200 @ 75hz refresh rate. It seemed fine. When I bought my powermac running at that resolution in mac os x i could see the lines going up the screen (refreshing it) and i tjust really bothered my eyes. I *HAVE* to run at 85hz or higher in mac os x(on a monitor). Anything less really bothers me....Just odd that it didn't seem to bother me in windows..ah well..I'll live with 1280x1024 until i can afford a new display..8)

z

Chimpmaster · Jun 24, 2002, 02:29 AM

zeltrio, maybe your eyes are deteriorating

I find that 85hz is optimal for a crt monitor.

LCD kicks ass over crt in my opinion, its flicker free

Mac Zealot · Jun 24, 2002, 07:05 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by zeltrio:
It's strange though. I spent over a year on a 400 mhz celeron running windows me. I used a 19" monitor running at a resolution of 1600x1200 @ 75hz refresh rate. It seemed fine. When I bought my powermac running at that resolution in mac os x i could see the lines going up the screen (refreshing it) and i tjust really bothered my eyes. I *HAVE* to run at 85hz or higher in mac os x(on a monitor). Anything less really bothers me....Just odd that it didn't seem to bother me in windows..ah well..I'll live with 1280x1024 until i can afford a new display..8)

z<hr /></blockquote>it's always been the opposite for me.. 65hz looks fine on a mac while on a pc it's hard on the eyes :-\

Cipher13 · Jun 24, 2002, 08:41 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by redhot_nyc:
I'm on an iMac right now, running 1024x768 at 75 Hertz refresh rate. After a couple hours, my eyes really hurt. Why? You need at least 90 Hertz refresh rate to be 'comfortable' staring at the screen.
LCD Screens are much, much more comfortable to look at, especially for extended periods of time. The eMac's 'comfortable' refresh rate is 1024x768, which is the same size as the G4 iMac. The eMac has no resolution 'advantage' to the iMac, unless you've plenty of Visine.

Don't know what i'm talking about? Try filling your monitor with a white window, and then stare off into the distance with your monitor in your peripheral vision.<hr /></blockquote>That's complete crap dude.

90 Hz? Haha. Yeah right. 75 is more than fine.

I use 75 for hours each day without a single prob. I can even use 60 Hz if I need to - your eyes adjust.

I can tell the difference between 85 Hz and 100 Hz though, so don't use that against me.

The eMac has a MASSIVE advantage over the iMac - a much larger area.

Don't dis the eMac cause you got ripped off, or something.

Chimpmaster · Jun 24, 2002, 09:45 AM

Cipher, I think its a very personal thing.

I cant look at 60hz for much more than 5 minutes without getting really sore and watery eyes.

75hz is the minimum and 85hz is optimal - lcds are better than crts though.

Emacs are a wonderful buy though, and they do have a good screen, but I wouldnt go back from lcd myself unless I had to.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Vanquish · Jun 24, 2002, 01:48 PM

I do think your eyes adjust to the situation, but on my Studio Display 17 (CRT) looking at 1600x1200 @ 60 hz was undoable now i'm looking at a pc-monitor (gateway-thing, because the crap Studio Display died on me) and i'm on 1280x1024 @ 60 hz, and it's fine, maybe it's my eyes who have adjusted or maybe it depends on the type of monitor you have.
I think even 50 hz could do, and no your eyes WON'T suffer damages, because you can look at a 50 hz TV don't you ?
And IMO the 1024x768 res on an iMac is crap, especially on OSX, the eMac is better I think because of his higher resolutions and the 17" (yeah about 16" viewable I know...) but I can't comment on the quality of the eMac CRT because I've never seen an eMac in real life

(it's about time I'm going to the nearest mac resellers I think).

CubeWannaB · Jun 24, 2002, 02:56 PM

I've got to point out that this whole concept is like discussing what dpi to use for graphics on the web.

So I'll mention some things that no one else has said:

1. Refresh rate isn't as important as screen size. In the same way that horse power doesn't matter to cars as much as the weight of the car - that's how 140 hp makes the Celica very fast but 185 hp doesn't make the Jetta faster - refresh rate is only relevant when compared to screen size.

75Hz on a 15" monitor is completely different than on a 21" monitor. The beam has much further to go on a 21" monitor so the beam is actually moving *much* faster to have the same refresh rate.

Perhaps if everyone posted their screen size we'd see a corelation between those who hate 75Hz and their screen sizes.

2. Glasses. I'm not pointing fingers but anyone who needs glasses or a different prescription will be more succeptable to refresh rate annoyances.

3. Screen quality. 75Hz on a nice Apple monitor will be much better than on a Daytek monitor. Take this into consideration.

In conclusion I'll add that I am fine with the 75Hz on the eMac I tested. And - I only now just checked - am running this Apple flat CRT at 75Hz and I use it all day without headache or the like.

zeltrio · Jun 24, 2002, 02:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chimpmaster:
zeltrio, maybe your eyes are deteriorating

I find that 85hz is optimal for a crt monitor.

LCD kicks ass over crt in my opinion, its flicker free

<hr /></blockquote>Maybe they are. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> But I agree, I find 85 hz to be optimal.. And yes I agree again...LCD's are lovely..

rampant · Jun 24, 2002, 03:20 PM

American TV's are all 60 Hz.

Chris Grande · Jun 24, 2002, 03:38 PM

I just saw a eMac at the local CompUSA and I have a view issues with it. For one the monitor is set back what looks like a 1/2 inch from this outer glass shell, gives a strange look (makes me feal like I am looking through a window to see the monitor). Also the higher res is nice, but it seemed to shake slightly at its max res, a bumped it down to 1152x864 and it was much better.

Mac Zealot · Jun 24, 2002, 08:30 PM

Haven't you heard the saying "Sitting too close to the tv is bad for your eyes!"?

:-D

And yeah, the emac monitor is behind a 1/2" thick or so piece of flexiglass, most monitors are but you can't always see it.

My old trinitron monitor has this 'safety glass', it's a real help if the monitor gets scratched or chipped.

Chimpmaster · Jun 24, 2002, 09:21 PM

yes, most tvs are 50 or 60hz but you dont sit within a foot away from them when you watch tv do you?

Also, you dont look at static images on your tv, it is a constantly moving picture - I guarantee it if you sat as closer to your tv as your monitor and watched static, dekstop type images on your tv, youd be blind after a day

xandro · Jun 24, 2002, 11:28 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chimpmaster:
yes, most tvs are 50 or 60hz but . . . [snip] . . .you dont look at static images on your tv, it is a constantly moving picture <hr /></blockquote>Exactly right. I had a WebTV (where you browse the web on your TV) , and generally it was oK. However, if I spent long periods reading off the TV, it would begin to make my eyes water. (No, I wasn't sitting a foot in front of it.)

xandro · Jun 24, 2002, 11:34 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chimpmaster:
yes, most tvs are 50 or 60hz but . . . [snip] . . .you dont look at static images on your tv, it is a constantly moving picture <hr /></blockquote>Exactly right. I had a WebTV (where you browse the web on your TV) , and generally it was oK. However, if I spent long periods reading off the TV, it would begin to make my eyes water. (No, I wasn't sitting a foot in front of it.)