Hi all,
I hope this is the correct section for this post but I guess the moderators will change it if not..
This is not a question but an observation of sorts..
I am a retired electronic tech and still cling to several CRT monitors..I have observed that linux in general after being installed,linux will usually select the highest overall sweep rates that your particular monitor will tolorate..
What this does is to put a very high strain on both your horizontal and vertical monitor sweep circuits..It is well known that the faster a semiconductor changes state the more heating will occur..In practical terms this means that the sweep circuits that sweep the electron beam back and forth and up and down are some of the hardest working circuits in your monitor..It takes a moving a lot of current to deflect the deflection coils and thus as mentioned heats and sometimes damages you monitor..
Linux Distros use different methods to adjust the sweep rates..Some
use model numbers as a configuration others allow you to set the sweep rates yourself..
In General you and the driver code writers will set the maximum that
your monitor will tolerate from the specifications..This is supposed to eliminate damage to your monitor but some manufactuers are more optimistic than practical..Because your specs. say Hxxxkhz and
VxxxHz does not mean that it will run reliably over the long haul..
So the main point that I am trying to make is for reliability sake,
IMHO You would be better off to lower sweep rates that you specs. state.
You will have to modify your xorg.conf files to do this..
Some distros use special methods such as Suse has yast and Sax2 to set it up where others use different methods..
My wish is that the distro code writers make this less obscure
and allow to easily pick you choice in resolution, vertical refresh rate, color depth, and horizontal scan rate and sweep size and centering..Each distro has it's own method but many don't know how they should chose the options...
Members may disagree but what I do is select my monitor,and resolution I choose, then select the color depth I want..Next step is I think important, I then slightly lower the Horizontal frequency say from the spec. of say 87khz to about 85khz..
This gives me a slight safety factor..
Vertical scan rates for example if the spec is 160hz maximun I lower it drastically to just over the refresh rate I choose to run..In this case if I want 72hz I would pick 76 as my maximum rate..
I have found this helps me prolong my monitor life span..
Also if your monitor is in a closed space such as a close cabinet space it hampers breathing..I have a little 12v fan on top of the rear of the monitor to help remove the heat...
These are just my observations and hope that it helps others when setting up their system..
I welcome other comments and suggestions from others..The more open discussion the better I think..
Goodluck,
jolphil

Well, I don't object the technical point. But my employer has a lot of still-working CRTs just lying around, while I have only one set of eyes.

I would care more about my eyes than old monitors.

Best,
Ott

Hi otoomet,
I welcome you to the discussion although I am a bit puzzled with your comment..

I do agree with you on this point but fail to see what was suggested is a hazard..If it is the fan to help cool the rear of my monitor?

Is it my example of the refresh rate I happened to choose if so choose what you are comfortable with?

If it is framerate,let me say that to my knowledge a 72 HZ refresh rate has not
been rated as a hazard and also let me point out if you watch TV and have the PAL system you have less frames per second than I suggested.
Same is true for NTSC standard..

Again, welcome and help me understand your thinking..
Thank you,
jolphil

OK, thank you for the comment.

Perhaps I am simply ignorant, but my experience tells me that it is worthwile to reduce flicker by going well over 80Hz in vertical frequency. Perhaps it is due to my own eyes -- I have a lot of bad experience from old days with 60Hz VGA and white background. I still use black bacground fairly often, although with new monitors and glasses (for a long time I was not aware of that I needed glasses) white background does pretty well.

So, for me higher vertical frequency meant literally less headache. Perhaps I am generalising far too much, but do you have any idea how the stress of your eyes is related to frequency? There must be a lot of reasearch done, just I am not aware of it.

I hope you understand my comment which was probably a bit too impolite.

All the best,
Ott

While I definitely agree that running any piece of equipment at its maximum can put more strain on it than running it below the max level, when it comes to monitors I have to agree that flicker is very hard on my eyes too and if I spend more than about an hour with a monitor that flickers, I get a headache. Personally, I'm not willing to exchange major eye-strain for the benefit of the monitor. I guess my point of view is that if I bought a monitor because it was designed to operate at a certain resolution and refresh rate, then I want to get the maximum performance for my money. Obviously exceeding the manufacturer's specs would be a poor idea, but taking care of my eyes is more important to me than trying to extend the life of my monitor. Obviously each person will have his/her own preferences when it comes to their monitor settings, but for me, the higher the refresh rate, the better. Just my 2 cents

Not at all impolite..You and J.W. raise good points about CRT monitor flicker..To be honest I too have had a problem with 60HZ flicker but no one in our family ever had a problem with 70+..Just goes to show you that everyone is different..Again you should set yours at your comfort level..

I would be interested to know if either of you have experienced eye strain at 70+ refresh rates on CRT monitors or with any of the newer LCD monitors that use much lower refresh rates?

Thank you both for your views...
jolphil

Edit: I remember reading somewhere that the ambient lighting also plays a part in eye strain..Fluorescent in particular is the worst
for eyestrain in your work area if you have sensitive eyes..

I have fluorescent overhead lights in my office, but also have some pretty decent sized windows which let in a lot of natural light, plus I have a regular incandescent lamp adjacent to my monitor at all times (both at home and the office). My experience is that anything less than about a 72 refresh rate, I can/will notice. At 75 and above, I personally do not see any flicker.

I have various lighting conditions. CRT monitors run at 85Hz and cause no problems. Might be interesting to try without glasses but I haven't done it. LCD screens -- I have never experienced any flicker not other problems with those. I believe they do not flicker at all, refresh rate is not related to redrawing the existing content but rather the speed, screen content can be changed. But I am not sure.

I think psychologists have done a lot of research on various lighting conditions and screen types. Might be interesting to look at that literature.

Best,
Ott

Same here...I guess unless you are a serious gamer the extremely high refresh rates are just numbers..

I think a lot has to do at least on CRT monitors to the retentivity of the screen phosphors..Thats why I suspect that a monitor will exhibit flicker but The typical TV will not..TV interlace scan also a factor.But with LCD's
it's a totally different principle..Yet I wonder with the newer faster LCD monitors (5ms or less ) and the typically lower refresh of LCD's will this become a problem ? oh well


Thank you for your thoughts,
jolphil

Yet I wonder with the newer faster LCD monitors (5ms or less ) and the typically lower refresh of LCD's will this become a problem ?
Nope, LCD pixels are not driven same way as CRT pixels are refreshed. It's practically impossible for a LSD to flicker. Lowering refresh rates may result only in a frame-drop-like effect where moving picture is not smooth any more.