Displays

1. "Star" Performer
2. Put Your Electric Meter on a Diet
3. Seeing is Believing
4. Why 17" is Better at the Same Resolution
5. I Want a Big Office With Soft Carpets
6. Let Me Exaggerate
7. Obsolete Hardware Again
8. Non-Interlaced Video
9. Super VGA
10. Graphics Systems

<I/O Cards : Table of Contents : Modems>

"Star" Performer
From Catalog 38, page 5

Conservation is a wonderful idea, but many times it is a difficult choice. A car that gets 100 miles to the gallon sounds great until you realize that it seats one and is made of recycled aluminum foil. I know that I exaggerate, but the reality isn't much better.

There are things we can do that don't suffer from the same shortcomings. A good example is an Energy Star compliant monitor. The ADI MicroScan 3E is a prime example. While it draws nearly 80 watts in the active mode, during standby it only requires 8 watts. To get an Energy Star rating, the monitor must draw less than 30 watts in the standby mode.

Many users will save between $40 and $80 per year in kilowatt hours by having a compliant monitor. They also save by reducing the amount of heat created by the monitor, and the resulting premature aging of the monitor components.

And, lest you think you give anything up for those savings, think again. These highly rated monitors switch rapidly between display modes without the crack and sputter that is all too common. Intelligent front panel controls make this .28 mm dot pitch display a real pleasure to own. (I know because I own one!)

Back to the Top

Put Your Electric Meter on a Diet
From Catalog 38, page 22

Retrofitting your PC to make it Energy Star Compliant could be an expensive proposition. In most cases, it would require a new power supply, motherboard, display, display card and replacing your printer.

While this might result in energy savings over the next few years, it certainly isn't a very cost conscious or practical plan. How then can you save on your power bill without giving up 4 or 5 times what you expect to save? May I suggest you consider the POWERMISER?

By monitoring PC activity, the POWERMISER detects periods of inactivity and shuts off your monitor. The resulting savings in electricity can easily pay for the POWERMISER in the first year.

P.S. -- Energy Star is an Environmental Protection Agency rating of energy efficiency. In the near future, many purchase orders will require compliance, particularly government purchases.

Back to the Top

Seeing is Believing
From Catalog 36, page 22

Displaying an image on several monitors at the same time is very common in the presentation, demo and training areas. Not so obvious are the uses like the ones below. If you're in a business that depends on a network of computers connected to a mainframe, have you considered displaying status information like printer availability, print queues, or server and mainframe activity in strategic locations where people are working?

Not your business? Then how about a multimedia display with music and pictures to bring people into your store or department?

There are many situations where our VGA multipliers would make people's jobs easier or for another example, make the wait more pleasant. Consider the line at the bank. With just a little effort, that bank could be displaying stock quotes, news of the day and advertising for their "deal of the decade."

Back to the Top

Why 17" is Better at the Same Resolution
From Catalog 31, page 31

Switching back and forth between 14" and 17" monitors is a lot like bouncing between a 386SX and a 486DX powered computer. Once you experience the power of a faster computer, you'll never want to go back!

I am running the same display controller card on two machines. One has a 14" 1024 x 768 non-interlaced display, and the other a 17" monitor running at the same resolution. The difference is surprising! The level of detail on the larger monitor allows me to focus on a larger area of a printed circuit board and still do useful work.

With approximately 45% more surface area to show detail, I can usually route wires without changing views. When I am working on text documents, I can select 50 lines and 132 columns. On the 14" monitor, the characters are too small to be useful to my old eyes!

Even if your eyes are better than mine, it just doesn't make sense to strain them! The jump in cost to a larger display is rather steep, but for me, the benefits of a 17" more than equal the increased cost over a smaller display. If you spend a lot of time in front of your computer, this is a decision you need to consider.

Back to the Top

I Want a Big Office With Soft Carpets
From Catalog 29, page 13

No, not really_ in fact, my office doesn't even have a window (I like to think of myself as some kind of mushroom!). But I do like a big desktop.

Ever since I began playing with Windows and, later, OS/2, I have been annoyed by the constraints of 14 inch monitors. When you run them in high resolution mode, the characters get small and hard to read. If you run in standard VGA, it is difficult to get several windows on the screen AND use two of them efficiently for moving data back and forth.

17 inches helps both of those problems more than you might think. With about 50% more desktop to spread your work on, a very good compromise is struck.

Even a multi-tasking master of ceremonies will only be moving data between two applications at a time, and the 50% improvement means a lot more resolution for seeing both ends of the action at the same time.

Don't just take my word for it, though_look in your own living/family room. How big is the TV screen there? And remember, you can't improve the resolution on your TV in the same way that you can select 1280 x 1024 resolution on your monitor.

Back to the Top

Let Me Exaggerate
From Catalog 26, page 19

I find it difficult to convey the end user perception of the difference between interlaced and non-interlaced video. So, for the sake of making a point, let me greatly exaggerate the differences, and hope you will appreciate the description.

Imagine a strobe light control that can adjust from one blink per second to a number so great that the lamp appears to be constantly on. Set the lamp on a tall pole pointing toward the highway.

Now increase the blink rate so that a slow moving truck passing through your field of view just appears to be moving slowly. Got it set? Here comes a bright red motorcycle going in excess of 100 m.p.h.. Notice that it seems to jump from point to point as it travels in front of you.

Interlaced video is a lot like the motorcycle image. As the complexity of the screen increases, which it does in GUI (Graphical User Interface), it becomes more and more likely that you will see the flicker on the screen. This is particularly true if you work under fluorescent lights since they are a form of strobe lamp working at 60 cycles per second.

As I said, this is an exaggeration of the differences, but if you spend many hours working in front of a video display, you may prefer to use a non-interlaced display.

Back to the Top

Obsolete Hardware Again
From Catalog 20, page 17

"I'm sick and tired of playing catch up. Three years ago, I bought a VGA card and monitor, and here they are telling me I should get a 1024 x 768 VGA."

Yup, that's what I'm telling you! This isn't my advice for everyone, but there are many people out there who should pay close attention. If you run Windows, DESQview, OS/2, Desktop Publishing, drawing programs, or CAD, then a high resolution display can be very worthwhile. The prices for this equipment are quite low and the advantages many. In addition to being able to see more detail of your work on the screen, you can also see more of what is happening in another work session if necessary.

One 1024 x 768 display can show the equivalent of four full EGA displays simultaneously. If working in a high resolution environment, I strongly suggest non-interlaced video, and if you can afford it, a 15 inch or greater monitor. Your initial dissatisfaction with the cost will soon give way to appreciation of the results.

Way back then, in the good old days when this column was written, most users were still debating the cost differential between EGA and VGA. In retrospect, I think I should have been more forceful in my recommendation. 1024 x 768 is still a "high end" standard.

By now the user who took my advice would probably want to upgrade to a faster card, but the monitor would still be good.

Back to the Top

Non-Interlaced Video
From Catalog 15, page 20

TV displays are made up of many distinct dots; only one dot is illuminated by the CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) at a time. All the rest are "decaying" from the maximum illumination state created by the "ray." Have you ever seen a flicker from your TV when you caught it out of the corner of your eye? It wasn't your imagination, your TV really does flicker. In fact, it blinks at a rate of 30 flickers per second, which is half of the 60 cycles per second generated by your power company. The 60 cycle power to your lights, especially fluorescent, can accentuate the TV flicker. Only half of your screen is redrawn every 1/60th of a second. In 1/60th of a second, all of the odd lines are drawn, followed by 1/60th of a second in which the even lines are drawn.

Very high resolution displays consist of so many individual dots that it's difficult to display all of them on the screen without some of them decaying to a state of no illumination, causing noticeable flicker at 30 screen redraws per second.

Two methods are used to diminish or remove the flicker. The first uses 72 Hz instead of 60 Hz for screen redraws causing the odd or even lines to be drawn 36 times per second instead of 30. The second, non-interlaced refresh, is better. By drawing odd then even lines, all lines are drawn each cycle. This results in a display that the human eye will not see as flickering. When the display resolution reaches approximately 1024 x 768, non-interlaced refresh is easier on the eyes, and less likely to cause headaches when used for long periods of time.

Back to the Top

Super VGA
From Catalog 12, page 15

Earlier this year, I suggested that 1024 x 768 displays would not become an economical standard for another year or two_ but I hadn't anticipated Windows 3.0

Once again software is driving hardware technology. Just as Lotus 1-2-3 drove sales of the Hercules Graphics Card, Windows 3.0 is creating demand for lower cost high-resolution color displays. It is my observation that as sales increase in our industry, prices go down.

In the past year, standards have been created for display resolution. These high resolution standards have improved the display clarity 2.5 times over VGA, 3.5 times over EGA and 12 times over the original color display. Along with stabilizing the technology, the standards have simplified the work for software developers.

Not too long ago, a work station with color resolution of 1024 x 768 could cost $50,000 and would only run a few dedicated tasks at that resolution. This is no longer the case. Now programs in every major application put an emphasis on superb color displays.

Consider your next investment in display technology carefully. Even if your processing needs are moderate, the programs you buy from now on will take advantage of the new high resolution displays.

I don't want the reader to think my purpose here is just to sell stuff. If by promoting a new piece of hardware or software JDR's sales increase, fine, I like that.

But I would rather educate and promote productive choices. It doesn't profit you or I to waste our money. In fact, it is unlikely we will be repeat customers if poor purchase choices drive us out of business.

My predictions about the direction of display technology and program requirements were right on. The early adopters had to wait for some of their favorite applications to be rewritten for SVGA, but they have also had the benefit of high resolution for the last several years.

Back to the Top

Graphics Systems
From Catalog 10, page 11

I stopped recommending CGA display systems to my friends about four years ago. At the time, the cost per pixel* was lower for CGA than EGA, and my suggestion was frequently ignored. Now, however, VGA has a lower cost per pixel than either CGA or EGA. In fact, you should expect to get about 60% more resolution for your dollar with VGA as compared to CGA.

This isn't just a numbers game. Operator comfort and display presentation are the real key issues. With more and more programs using a GUI (Graphical User Interface), the need for high resolution and color increases.

Reading text on a CGA display is not particularly easy for any length of time. The lines seem to run together and during scrolling, the first few lines on the screen flicker.

With VGA, and to some extent EGA, those complaints disappear. They are replaced with comments about the smooth line edges, realistic shading, rapid screen updates, and lifelike colors. In 256 color mode, from a palette of 256 thousand colors, the ability of a VGA display to render near photographic images must be seen to be appreciated.

If the move to full color VGA isn't in your pocketbook, please let me suggest a monochrome VGA system as an alternate choice. With 16 or 64 levels of gray scale, it is particularly useful for desktop publishing where your printer doesn't do color anyway.

* Note: pixel = picture element, one dot on the screen

OK, hold up your hand if you remember CGA!

Now, if you held up your hand take this test.

How many colors could you display in hi-resolution bit mapped mode, 320 x 200 pixels?

A. 2

B. 4

C. 8

D. 16

Back to the Top