Input Lag, Or Why Faster Isn't Always Better
mr_sifter writes "LCD monitor manufacturers have constantly pushed panel response times down with a technique called 'overdrive,' which increases the voltage to force the liquid crystals to change color states faster. Sadly, there are some side effects such as input lag and inverse ghosting associated with this — although the manufacturers themselves are very quiet about the subject. This feature (with video) looks at the problem in detail. The upshot is, you may want to test drive very carefully any display boasting low integer millisecond pixel response times."
First of all, I'm not really sure why that's considered a "upshot." But more importantly, I baffled by the submitters implication that I would have to carefully test an 8ms lag screen but not a 7.5 or 8.2ms screen. Huh?
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
was when I fire up Outlook and start typing a new email, and nothing shows up on the screen for 10 seconds
Buying an LCD is becoming a real pain in the arse.
Perhaps, but buying a CRT was a real pain in the back.
So vi is ok at 5fps, but vim needs 60fps?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
What matters is how the display looks and feel
Yes, how a display feels is critically important because I'm touching it all the time. Except that I never touch it, as I have a strict "don't put your greasy fingers anywhere near my display, you mouth breathing moron" policy.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Low double millsecond displays are ok?