Black Background

CraigHB said:
Ha, you got me beat. I have one from 2006 that works just fine, was on all the time for about ten years. Now it sits in a box unused somewhere.
Click to expand...
For sure! That's the destiny of most monitors I have seen - become obsolete before becoming broken.
I also have a notebook from 2001. LCD is working perfectly. Some pixels show constant colors but that's probably a problem in the controller or a broken connection, not an LCD issue. The keyboard fell apart completely though, but I was able to buy a new one online for 20 bucks. From my experience this stuff just works unless you abuse it.
 
My florescent LCD display didn't last as long. It was from maybe 2009, until 2018. I believe attic dust that got into the room, which wasn't always the case, killed the florescent part of it. I could hear static coming from it, before it broke as if it were on a florescent bulb. The ways dust could get into the room has been reduced since then.

LCD Florescent light bulbs don't last as long. Touching them shortens their life sometimes to hours or days, because oils from the hand cause it to go bad, perhaps by when the lightbulb heats.

I read that some gamers prefer old CRT displays for games over LCD. The benefit was that the graphic of movement was smoother, while of course, CRT has lower resolution. It was about the order in which the images were put out, related to the refresh rate.

A similar comparison, but one which is unproven, is that music from tapes sounds better than that of CD. I noticed this, and I looked it up, that others noticed this too. They said it's unproven that it is, except the sounds feel warmer, and that people do say tapes sound better. They said it's the static hiss that sounds good around the lower bit music, but I don't believe that's the complete answer. I believe that tapes aren't digital, so the individual sound bits are smoother. A CD is higher resolution, but perhaps it's not high enough, that we can hear that the bits are square, rough, sharp edged or not smooth. Perhaps it's like seeing square edges, when we zoom in on a still image from a movie on a DVD, but instead hearing sharp edges of "square" sounds. I heard 24 bit flac before, and it does feel fuller than a CD, and the ranges are a little bit more to hear. On the timespan, they are more dense. They also seem denser when hearing a 24 bit piece of audio played on a 16bit sound card. I know others will say it's just me, but I believe a 16 bit sound card can play the rate denseness of the sounds. It doesn't play the full depth range of 24bit, can't, and isn't intended to.
 
sidetone said:
I read that some gamers prefer old CRT displays for games over LCD. The benefit was that the graphic of movement was smoother, while of course, CRT has lower resolution. It was about the order in which the images were put out, related to the refresh rate.
Click to expand...

The benefit is lower blurring and, unlike whatever you believe about 24 bit sound, it's not placebo. That said, in year 2019 we do now have very fast and capable LCD panels, see https://www.blurbusters.com/faq/motion-blur-reduction/.
 
shkhln said:
The benefit is lower blurring and, unlike whatever you believe about 24 bit sound, it's not placebo. That said, in year 2019 we do now have very fast and capable LCD panels, see https://www.blurbusters.com/faq/motion-blur-reduction/.
Click to expand...
I know 24 bit sound is real. I was saying whether listening to the density per second (bitrate) of a 24bit quality file on a 16bit capable soundcard possibly is placebo. I don't believe it's placebo, that I can tell a difference on 1 criteria of 24bit files on a 16bit soundcard, but I can't discount that argument. I will be shot down for suggesting that, I may hear a difference of bitrate on a 16bit capable sound card of higher quality audio files.

As for range (highs and lows), I know that 24bit isn't expressed on a 16 bit sound card, and I don't perceive that either. I do hear better highs and lows of 24 bit audio files on a 24 bit card, but as expected, not on a 16 bit sound card. By comparison a CD sounds dull (to exaggerate, like a hum) in the sound frequency range aspect. There's little more to hear in terms of range on a 24 bit sound, but it's an appreciable difference.

We are generally more perceptible to visual differences than audio ones.

The argument of placebo to discredit is overused. Placebo, in my opinion, can only be for what we perceive or feel, and they use placebo as an excuse for chartable differences, that can be doubted for maybe randomness or coincidence, but not placebo. I believe in the placebo argument for perception by suggestion.

Newer LED technology is improving, and is expected to surpass past deficiencies. I'm not that much aware of newer technology than OLED. There was one, but I barely know of its existence. It wasn't QLED, which was said to be less better than OLED, but I don't know of QLED's current status.

About CRT, yes, it was about bluring, maybe other aspects of smoothness too. IIRC, that had to do with the order by the scanlines, refresh rate or otherwise of the display. It was how the order of the LED's were activated, that were each singular LEDs, rather than the backlight or tube, which put out an image more of at once. I may have gotten details wrong about the CRT vs LED subject for motion, but generally, this is my basic understanding of it.
 
Geezer said:
Using vi has always sucked.
Click to expand...

Kind of, yeah. The first time I used VI was in the early 90's when I was involved with maintaining a SCO Unix cluster. Up until that time I had only been using MS DOS and Windows (though I had some programming education on PDP and IBM systems in college). I quickly felt Unix was just the most awesome operating system, so smartly designed. And of course prompted me to check out the Walnut Creek releases which on a personal level led me to Debian Linux until favoring FreeBSD after some years.

Anyway that VI really put me back a bit when I first started using Unix. It does take a bit of time to learn and get used to. Though due to my indoctrination I've always used VI with Unix, don't think that will ever change no matter how much I end up in VI hell. I call it that when you get confused using it which still happens to me sometimes.
 
Geezer said:
I'll take the vi army straight on and emacs from behind.

The world is full of nice simple intuitive graphics based text editors.

Yes, I know the we all use a VT (of sorts), so what about ee.
Click to expand...
It's fine. I am myself a fan of mcedit (misc/mc). It's not black (by default) but it's still text mode. :)
Well, you could skin it black if you prefer to.
 
kpedersen said:
Using vi must have sucked back then ;)
Click to expand...
Nobody used vi at that time; they probably used ex or qed or another line-oriented editor which worked well on teletypes. Trying qed or ex will make you very happy to be able to use vi. Yes, I have tried both qed and ex.
 
tingo said:
Nobody used vi at that time; they probably used ex or qed or another line-oriented editor which worked well on teletypes. Trying qed or ex will make you very happy to be able to use vi. Yes, I have tried both qed and ex.
Click to expand...
Or they used vi in open mode.

(FreeBSD's version of vi – derived from nvi – doesn't support open mode, though, neither does vim. SunOS / Solaris did support it when I last tried; I guess they still have the original BSD version of vi created by Bill Joy.)
 
You know what I realized, that takes away from the background being black? Florescent LCDs have a backlight, and older LEDs don't have true darkness for black. The black on my screens have a minor bright glow to it.

I noticed this from the glare of the dark parts of my screen, more on my LED monitor on a VGA port, than on the florescent LCD TV that I use as a monitor on HDMI. There's differences in the two, but I notice it on both of them. The glare from the black parts have more glare on the LED monitor.
 
SirDice said:
VGA is an analog signal, HDMI is a digital signal.
Click to expand...
I know, but that has less to do with the types of monitors for lighting the display. I have it that way because my motherboard only has a VGA and an HDMI output (and I don't want to put a graphics card in). The other motherboard that would have allowed me two or 3 digital outputs blew out. I have it this way, so I can check up on things with my lesser VGA monitor, while I can watch TV. I could connect the HDMI cable to the smaller monitor, but it would make little difference in the glare, only in the resolution.
 
sidetone said:
You know what I realized, that takes away from the background being black? Florescent LCDs have a backlight, and older LEDs don't have true darkness for black. The black on my screens have a minor bright glow to it.
Click to expand...

All LCDs have backlight, the liquid crystals in the matrix are used to selectively block a certain amount of light per subpixel. The matrix can't block all light, so you in reality you are always looking at a rather gray background.

I don't know to what you refer as "older LEDs", but likely that's just LCDs with LED backlight. True LED displays such as OLED do not have this limitation, they are just very expensive to produce and currently have lifespan issues. There are some LED TVs on the market, though.

sidetone said:
I noticed this from the glare of the dark parts of my screen, more on my LED monitor on a VGA port, than on the florescent LCD TV that I use as a monitor on HDMI. There's differences in the two, but I notice it on both of them. The glare from the black parts have more glare on the LED monitor.
Click to expand...

If glare is moving when you move your head, that is the difference in matrix types or just angle of view, I doubt you look at both monitors straight. If glare doesn't move, that is the difference in quality control and/or backlight position within display.
 
They both have glare glow anyway. Older LEDs are said to have glare as well. If I used the HDMI cable for the LED, it would probably make a difference, but a small one. The darkness and colors too on the LED screens is worse when looking at it from an angle.
I could compare the LCD on VGA, to the LED on HDMI. I don't think anyone would care for it, if they did, it would sound like a science project or an article by someone else.

I should have said glow, but the effect is like glare. It's that the glow varies. Even straight on, the LED monitor has glow, and perhaps glare from the light too. The angles can be discounted partially for that, but I think the glare and glow combine to show a shininess. It still had that glow with the lights off.

OLEDs have true darkness, so they're better in that aspect. Only the blue light LEDs degrade faster. You mentioned lifespan issues, which can go with that.
 
sidetone said:
OLEDs have true darkness, so they're better in that aspect. Only the blue light LEDs degrade faster. You mentioned lifespan issues, which can go with that.
Click to expand...

That's not the real issue. The actual problem with OLED and similar displays is that parts of the screen (or, rather, individual subpixels) degrade at different rates depending on usage.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say otherwise. If a blue part of an led degrades faster, it's likely other colors do to, but at different rates. Blue on OLED's is/was an issue by itself that it had to be specifically addressed.
 
roccobaroccoSC said:
It's fine. I am myself a fan of mcedit (misc/mc). It's not black (by default) but it's still text mode. :)
Well, you could skin it black if you prefer to.
Click to expand...
I only know 10%(or less) of Vi, but that 10% covers all I can do with mc edit.
One of Vi's greatness is when you do all the stuff without using function keys nor modifiers(Shift, CTRL ...).
You feel it when using Vi inside like splitted sysutils/screen. Vi's shortcuts does not conflict with sysutils/screen. My beautiful "scene of nature" is having www/lynx inside one split and editors/vim inside other one.

OJ said:
I use green text on a black background and that's the clearest I've found.
Click to expand...
I haven't researched about it, But really feel good with yellow on black.
 
eax.qbyte said:
I only know 10%(or less) of Vi, but that 10% covers all I can do with mc edit.
Click to expand...
I use vi in a very lean manner also (I don't use vim), but those handful of basic commands generally cover my needs. I also use mc/mc edit; Or geany. Collectively those three are all I need/use. Do have distant memory of using ed single line editor.

:wq
 
eax.qbyte said:
I only know 10%(or less) of Vi, but that 10% covers all I can do with mc edit.
One of Vi's greatness is when you do all the stuff without using function keys nor modifiers(Shift, CTRL ...).
You feel it when using Vi inside like splitted sysutils/screen. Vi's shortcuts does not conflict with sysutils/screen. My beautiful "scene of nature" is having www/lynx inside one split and editors/vim inside other one.


I haven't researched about it, But really feel good with yellow on black.
Click to expand...
I use text editors for very basic stuff - to change a value in a configuration file, etc. To accomplish this effectively, the text editor must be simple and intuitive.

If I need an IDE, I would use something that understands the structure of my code - like Eclipse.
So vi is neither nor. It's way to complex for simple tasks, and it does not understand my source code for complex tasks. I cannot imagine refactoring Java code with vi....
 
roccobaroccoSC said:
So vi is neither nor. It's way to complex for simple tasks
Click to expand...
vi is as complex as an on/off switch. Such statements remind me of reddit posts which claim they can't figure out how to quit out of vim. That, too, is as simple as an on/off switch but I can understand why it's waaaay over the head of anyone on reddit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top