Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
just when i was finally starting to get the hang of linux my monitor crapped out on me. it was working fine when i went out last night and when ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    25

    i think my monitor died


    just when i was finally starting to get the hang of linux my monitor crapped out on me. it was working fine when i went out last night and when i got back this mourning i cant get anything. the green lights on so its getting a signal just no display. i even tried it on another computer to no avail. it looks like im going back to the darkside with my laptop until i can figure out a way to get another monitor. sucks to be a broke ass college student.

  2. #2
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Täby, Sweden
    Posts
    7,578
    So you're saying that it's a hardware fault in the monitor itself? Like I've said before, everything can be fixed, it's just a matter of time and effort. If you turn it on and give it a signal and everything and look down on the picture tube, can you see the electron cannon glowing? Do you get some kind of high-pitched squealing sound from the monitor? If you turn out all the lights (so that your room is completely dark), can you see if the monitor surface is illuminated (even slightly). If not, try increasing the contrast/light knobs and see if it starts to illuminate. I guess you can't bring forth your OSD, right?

  3. #3
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    25
    thanks for the advise. i cant see antything in it now, but ill try again tonight in the dark. i think im going to use this as an excuse to finally get a lcd. my birthday is in a couple weeks so i going to use that cash and pick one up.

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #4
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Täby, Sweden
    Posts
    7,578
    NO! Don't get an LCD! They may be smaller and look neater, but a CRT gives both better contrast and better refresh rate, plus you can look at it from all directions. An LCD is really not worth the money IMHO.

  6. #5
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Lebanon, pa
    Posts
    994
    Refresh rates really don't apply to lcd since the cell is on or off unlike a crt which is using 3 electron guns to light the cells. I personally like the way lcd look over crt. On my laptop, the fonts are a lot more crisp. Yes lcd can be annoying though if you ever have to look at it from an angle.

  7. #6
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Täby, Sweden
    Posts
    7,578
    Think twice, genlee... Do you think every pixel in a LCD is physically wired to a control circuit?
    This is how a LCD works: there is one wire for each X coordinate, which goes over all pixels on that same X coordinate, and the same for all Y coordinates. What you do is that you loop over all Y coordinates, and connect that Y wire to ground. Then you can put a voltage on each of the X wires, depending on whether you want that pixel to be on or off (and how much on or off, so to speak). That means that the refresh rate means how many times per second you loop over the Y wires, making it essentially the same as the refresh rate on a CRT.
    There are, however, two refresh rates on a LCD. First, there is the Y loop frequency, but you also have a refresh rate that depends on how fast you can make the crystal solution turn. In old LCDs (I have, for example, a notebook from 1989) they turned extremely slow, but that was because TFT was not yet invented. In those days, if you applied a voltage over a pixel, that pixel would turn on (become transparent), and as soon as that voltage disappeared, the crystals started turning back to an untransparent angle. That meaned that they had to turn slowly, lest you would see the monitor blinking for each Y loop. (It just about corresponds to the phosphor latency of a CRT.)
    In a TFT monitor, however, there is a small, transparent unit consisting of one transistor and one capacitor for each pixel (TFT = Thin Film Transistor, for those that didn't know), which retains the voltage over that pixel until it is reset, exactly one Y loop later. That means that the crystals can turn faster nowadays, since they are held in place by the voltage from the capacitor. The are still slow in my opinion, though. Phosphor latency makes the level on each pixel diminish in a 1/t manner, while crystal rotation is far more linear, so its more visible.
    Also, I think CRT displays have much better contrast.
    While I also like the crispness of a LCD, I do prefer the variable resolution of a CRT. It means that you can choose resolution without making it look like crap. Plus CRT monitors can usually handle much larger resolutions, and Trinitron monitors are also really crisp (not as crisp as LCDs, but still).

    IMHO, LCDs look extremely nice in their physical configuration, but when it comes to the image being displayed on them (which is, of course, what really matters), I prefer a CRT any day.

    But just wait until the OLED monitors are ready for the market... it will be great!

  8. #7
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Lebanon, pa
    Posts
    994
    I never said each pixel was wired on a lcd, I just stated that they are either on or off unlike a crt. I have only used TFT lcd's and I have yet to ever see one flicker. Have you seen the lastest laptop display from dell? My friend just bought a inspiron 8500 with the 15.4" ultra sharp WUXGA lcd. That display is amazing at 1920 x 1200. I didn't see any type of blur at all when watching dvd's with lots of fast movements. Another good thing about lcd is it is a lot easier on your eyes. I hate to look at a crt all day. Also lcd uses a lot less energy and doesn't give out radiation like a crt does.

  9. #8
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Täby, Sweden
    Posts
    7,578
    Are you kidding me?! An LCD at 1920x1200?! How much did that cost?
    Anyway, what you first stated was that refresh rates don't apply to LCD monitors, which it does; that's basically what I tried to explain. However, they might have made that better on recent LCDs, so maybe you can't see that anymore. However, I have yet to see one LCD monitor that gives the same contrast as a CRT; then I might consider changing teams. My neighbour recently got a recent Fujitsu-Siemens portable computer, and I must say that the experiences I got from there is that the contrast still doesn't match that of a CRT, plus it reacts worse to a bright environment than a CRT does.
    However, what's that "flicker" you mentioned? I've never noticed a CRT flickering, except when running on extremely low refresh rates (whyever you would want that is beyond me, though).

  10. #9
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Lebanon, pa
    Posts
    994
    I am not sure how much the total cost of the laptop was but I know he pays like $70/month for it. I'll admit that the contrast on a crt is better then a lcd but when I have to work at a computer all day, I would take an lcd over a crt if I had a choice. What I met was that refresh rates don't mean as much on a lcd then a crt. Lcd uses a lot lower refresh rate but it would never flicker like a crt would with a low refresh rate. What would happen is some spots would blur with fast movement. A refresh rate of 60hz is plenty for a lcd, you won't get any blur with that. Atleast its that way with the newer ones, now I have never used an older lcd display at all.

  11. #10
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    25
    for the the form factor is biggest advantage. with an lcd i will be able to actually work on my desk rather that just use my computer.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •