Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

galarneau · Jun 8, 2003, 02:32 PM

My eyes bug out at anything less than 85Hz. If I could run 1280x960 @ 85Hz, I would buy one of these in a sec.

That's it... just griping. Move along, nothing to see here.

dettociao · Jun 8, 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by galarneau:
My eyes bug out at anything less than 85Hz

You're telling me you can tell the difference (visually) between 70Hz and 85Hz? I'm shocked... you must not be able to use LCDs at all...

galarneau · Jun 8, 2003, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by dettociao:
You're telling me you can tell the difference (visually) between 70Hz and 85Hz? I'm shocked... you must not be able to use LCDs at all...

That's right. I can tell the difference. It's been my experience that low refresh rates on CRT's bother some people much more than others.

As for LCD screens, if you do a little reading on the subject, I think you'll discover that a 60Hhz refresh rate on an LCD isn't as much a problem as a 60Hhz refresh rate on a CRT.

bstieritz · Jun 8, 2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by galarneau:
That's right. I can tell the difference. It's been my experience that low refresh rates on CRT's bother some people much more than others.

As a proud owner of a new emac, I can totally tell the difference between these refresh rates, even though the numbers might seem negligable.

75Hhz is the refresh rate of the highest setting on my emac. Great if you like ample screen real estate (who doesn't?) but I couldn't take looking at the screen for more than 5 minutes without getting a headache. By stepping down to the next highest setting, I kicked the refresh rate up to 80 or 85, which may only be 5 or 10 more Hhz but it made all the difference in the world as far as comfort is concerned.

I would agree with galarneau that refresh rate affects people differently, although, it seems to be the concensus that the new emac's refresh rate on its highest setting is painfully low . . . one might even ask WTF was apple thinking. Were they trying to give people migraines??

cheers,
brian

xtro · Jun 9, 2003, 03:58 PM

The eMac only does 1280x960 at 72Hz, not 75. Check again.

(if you're looking at their specs page, look really closely... 75Hz is the VGA Output setting, not the internal display)

bstieritz · Jun 9, 2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by xtro:
The eMac only does 1280x960 at 72Hz, not 75. Check again.

(if you're looking at their specs page, look really closely... 75Hz is the VGA Output setting, not the internal display)

Thanks for the correction, xtro . . .

All I remember was that it was a PAINFULLY low refresh rate.

<-- that's me after 5 minutes of that farking monitor.

cheers,
brian

theoden · Jun 9, 2003, 06:58 PM

I've been using a 233 imac for quite a few hours at a time for the past 4 1/2 years, and the 75hz refresh rate hasn't bothered me, so I doubt the 72hz of the emac on it's way here is going bother me

bartman00 · Jun 9, 2003, 10:19 PM

I can 100% tell the dif between 75 and 85hz at those resolutions..

dettociao: if you do just a little research you'll find LCD's don't even have a refresh rate... it's infinate.. they don't refresh! The pixles are ether on or off... refresh rate refers to the amount of times the gun in a CRT swipes the screen a sec... LCD's don't have a electron gun... they don't have a refresh rate...

I think what your confusing things with is the fact that most LCD's default to telling the video card they are a 60hz monitor and maybe only support 60hz... that's becsuse it dosn't freeken matter what you drive them at.. because they don't have a refresh rate..

Prove me wrong if you can.. provide links...

Bart

klinux · Jun 10, 2003, 04:03 PM

Ditto what bartman said. Whenever someone says refresh rate and LCD together in a sentence, one's BS alarm should go off. Refresh rate is meaningless on LCD.

Coxy · Jun 10, 2003, 10:32 PM

I find it strange that the people who can put up with 1280x960 on a 16" viewable screen can't bear 72 Hz.

galarneau · Jun 10, 2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Coxy:
I find it strange that the people who can put up with 1280x960 on a 16" viewable screen can't bear 72 Hz.

Refresh rate and resolution are 2 different things. I used a Dell Inspiron 8200 laptop with a 15" screen @ 1600x1200 resolution and loved it.

The fact that a refresh rate lower than 85Hhz bugs out my eyes is completely unrelated.

joe · Jun 11, 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by galarneau:
That's right. I can tell the difference. It's been my experience that low refresh rates on CRT's bother some people much more than others.

Then why buy the eMac? If money is tight, there are plenty of 2nd hand, refurb, or NOS flat panel iMacs available. Check out www.lowendmac.com as they usually run a weekly list of the best prices........joe

galarneau · Jun 11, 2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by joe:
Then why buy the eMac? If money is tight, there are plenty of 2nd hand, refurb, or NOS flat panel iMacs available.

Why? $$$. The cheapest new iMac that does >1024x768 resolution is $1800. According to Lowendmac.com, the best deal on an old 800MHz 17" is $1400. I can get an eMac for as little as $650.

bstieritz · Jun 11, 2003, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by galarneau:
Why? $$$. The cheapest new iMac that does >1024x768 resolution is $1800. According to Lowendmac.com, the best deal on an old 800MHz 17" is $1400. I can get an eMac for as little as $650.

come on man . . . it's only like a $900 difference, right?

don't you have one of those money trees growing out back??

cheers,
brian

bradoesch · Jun 12, 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by klinux:
Ditto what bartman said. Whenever someone says refresh rate and LCD together in a sentence, one's BS alarm should go off. Refresh rate is meaningless on LCD.

Maybe they're trying to say how fast the pixels can change colours. There's an area where people can get very confused.

megasad · Jun 30, 2003, 06:00 PM

I remember reading somewhere that Panther would up the refresh rates on Macs. Does anyone else know anything about this? Or did I imagine it? I'm hoping to buy an eMac around October, but I am one of those who notice the flickery screens. Higher refresh rates = good.

megasad · Jul 4, 2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by megasad:
I remember reading somewhere that Panther would up the refresh rates on Macs. Does anyone else know anything about this? Or did I imagine it? I'm hoping to buy an eMac around October, but I am one of those who notice the flickery screens. Higher refresh rates = good.

Since no-one seems to know, I can at least tell you all that the current developer build of Panther does not improve the matter. Yesterday I got to play on an eMac with said build installed, and 80MHz was the refresh rate for 1152x864 and 72MHz for 1280x960. I really want to buy an eMac in about five months, but unless the final version of Panther / the next revision to the line brings 1280x960 up to 85Mhz or more, I, like the original poster, will not be able to.

galarneau · Jul 4, 2003, 11:04 PM

Has anybody tried SwitchResX?

http://www.madrau.com/html/SRX/about.html

It helped me get an 85Hz refresh on my external monitor when my Pismo would only offer me 75Hz.

joe · Jul 5, 2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by galarneau:
Why? $$$. The cheapest new iMac that does >1024x768 resolution is $1800. According to Lowendmac.com, the best deal on an old 800MHz 17" is $1400. I can get an eMac for as little as $650.

Looks like you should've read the specs on the eMac before you bought it........joe

galarneau · Jul 5, 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by joe:
Looks like you should've read the specs on the eMac before you bought it........joe

Who said I bought an eMac? You should read my post before you reply to it....

I said I WOULD buy one if it had a higher refresh rate. WOULD buy one.

But if I had bought one and was disappointed with the refresh rate, your insightful comment would be so very helpful joe. Thanks a million.

joe · Jul 7, 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by galarneau:
...very helpful joe. Thanks a million.

np

.......joe