mrob
6 hours ago
>Everything these days is glass and refresh rates
The higher the display refresh rate the metaphorically "quieter" the computer. Discrete frames introduce latency, phantom array effect, and (on most displays) sample-and-hold blur. These don't exist in real life, so they weaken the illusion of the computer becoming part of your body, like a pencil or a hand tool. A computer that can be operated with minimum cognitive load needs a display refresh rate of at least 1000 Hz.
anilakar
5 hours ago
We had CRT displays that could easily do 100 to 120 Hz. Then we regessed to LCD panels that could do 60 Hz and it somehow became the performance target.
inigyou
2 hours ago
Now that you mention it, 60Hz was considered poor on a CRT. 85 was the target.
But that was because of flicker. AFAIK, 60Hz video frame rate was considered acceptable, but on a CRT the video frame rate was also the flicker rate and 60Hz was too low for flicker.
aitchnyu
3 hours ago
Had a Samtron 15" and the LCD that replaced it was very washed out. Commercial users in India kept them for 15+ years.
Avicebron
5 hours ago
I mean CRT is inherently bulky, it's hard not to see why LCD panels became popular.
krige
4 hours ago
To sellers, yes. The drop of visual quality when the top-down LCD push began was staggering.
tom_
11 minutes ago
Was there a top-down push? In general, people on average never really actually liked CRT displays all that much. They are annoyingly deep; they are heavy; the screen is flickery, or not quite pin sharp, or both; they use up a lot of power; they fail in annoying ways, and they're expensive to fix - and they have magnets in them.
BigTTYGothGF
8 minutes ago
I had multiple mediocre-to-crappy CRTs in the 90s and 00s and was glad to move away from them. I think the last one I owned was even one of the fabled trinitrons, and it was acceptable.
rcxdude
2 hours ago
To buyers as well. I don't recall the switch to LCDs being particularly pushed, though I was admittedly quite young at the time. Especially keep in mind that people today are generally comparing the absolute top-tier of CRTs which were not what the average person had.
(Another thing to keep in mind is that the systems of the time generally could not drive the kinds of resolutions and framerates that make those CRTs shine in some of today's comparisons. At the time the difference in quality in practice was lower because of this)
LargoLasskhyfv
3 hours ago
Depended very much on the CRTs used, there were very wide gaps in quality.
Even a now obsolete HP ZR2240w (24" 1920x1200@60Hz) was a huge upgrade from a 21" Hitachi Superscan Supreme https://crtdatabase.com/crts/hitachi/hitachi-superscan-21-cm...
That thing was at least Trinitron equivalent, if not better, because it lacked the thin wires holding the mask from within.
Now you are talking about the start of all that, OFC there were bad and cheap ones, but there was also very good stuff from the beginning by Eizo, Sharp, NEC, and many more.
Just as with CRTs.
I don't miss them.
TacticalCoder
4 hours ago
> I mean CRT is inherently bulky, it's hard not to see why LCD panels became popular.
But going from, say, a Sony Trinitron CRT [1] to one the first LCD was a huge step backwards, which is what GP is saying.
I did wait for the first LCD with DVI support before switching: for the difference in crispyness between an analog video cable and a DVI one was night and day (I also won many points when I helped friend set up a startup in southern california and we realized one person out of two had picked the VGA cable instead of the DVI one when setting up its desk / computer: so with the CTO late at night we went through every PC and changed all those with VGA cables to the DVI ones).
We're not saying modern days flat monitors aren't better than old CRTs: we're saying the first flat screens were complete suckage.
[1] even though on a Trinitron you could see two faint horizontal lines (Trinitron were still amazing)
LargoLasskhyfv
3 hours ago
DVI or not didn't matter that much when your VGA had a good RAMDAC, and you had a good cable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAMDAC
Which of course you could only see in direct comparison. Which most ppl didn't have the opportunity to do, so you needed experience instead to judge that. Which most ppl also didn't have, because they've been exposed to cheap stuff only.
TiredOfLife
2 hours ago
After 15 minutes at crt my eyes were watering, not so for lcd
DonHopkins
4 hours ago
We don't need faster refresh rates, we need slower phosphor.
mrob
3 hours ago
We need faster refresh rates. Slow phosphors also cause unnatural visual artifacts. 1000Hz is roughly the point where you get motion quality that, except for a rare few test signals (e.g. multiplexed displays), is easily mistaken for reality.
DonHopkins
3 hours ago
Naw, we just need better software and slower computers, like the PDP-1, that don't require such fast refresh rates, just slow phosphor.
But slow computers still need fast and reliable user interfaces, like radial pie menus.
Flight of the PIXIE - Yuja Wang:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDrqR9XssJI
PIXIE: A New Approach to Graphical Man-Machine Communication:
https://www.donhopkins.com/home/documents/PIXIE%20a%20new%20...
The computer shown in that video is a much more advanced and faster PDP-7, talking to an even bigger and faster Titan mainframe over a custom network!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(1963_computer)
It proves that slow computers can still be usable with better software, and that today's unusable computers are pissing away enourmous amounts of power, but still suck.
Edit: I just showed you a video of a computer with a light pen. Did you check that out? It's only two minutes, and I made it to musically highlight PIXIE, because most people don't want to sit through silent hours of the original digitized films from Cambridge.
PIXIE is not one box. It is a network distributed CAD workstation (1967–1972) -- like AJAX, but with P7 two-layer cascade phosphor on a 16ADP7A radar tube instead of HTML:
Interactive front end: DEC PDP-7 + Type 340 CRT. Real-time drawing, light pen, radial "control lightbuttons", graph model in core.
Compute / storage host: Titan (Cambridge’s Ferranti/ICT Atlas 2 prototype). RAINBOW apps: CONN, COMPACT, PLOT, LADAN circuit analysis, file store.
Wire between them: Wiseman link (Cambridge custom) + Lang's supervisor software. Move typed ring-structure models blocklet-by-blocklet.
Word size: 18 bits. Core (PIXIE design target): 8K words — "only 8K of 18 bit words ... no auxiliary storage".
Core (likely installed): 8K–16K (GUIDE: "here likely 16K").
Cycle time: ~1.75 µs. ~571K cycles/s.
Addressing: 13-bit + indirect bit.
Registers: One accumulator + link bit.
DEC made lots of "instruction sets in a chassie" extension boxes, and Wiseman at Cambridge rolled his own network with its own custom instructions.
Extended Arithmetic Element: Type 177 EAE. Multiply, divide, shifts, normalize (64xxxx op family in listing).
Precision incremental display: Type 340. Required — second processor + DMA display file.
Light pen: Type 370. Pen flag IOTs; diagnostic 7-78-M in pdp-7 reference.
Symbol generator: Type 342. 6-bit character codes → stroke sequences in display file.
Subroutine option: Type 347. DJS / DJP — display jump-to-subroutine (subpictures as display subroutines)
Titan link interface: Cambridge custom (Wiseman) Undocumented IOTs: LCF, LSF, LKE, LLB6, LLB18, LRB18, LLAM, LSA, LKD — networking as instructions.
The 340 display was an amazing ensembel of hardware, and could plug into a PDP-1 as well. The SIMH emulator supports it well.
Model: DEC Type 340 Precision Incremental CRT System (H-340, Nov 1964).
Tube lineage: Type 30E → 16ADP7A radar tube, P7 phosphor, 1024×1024 address grid.
CPU coupling: Cycle steal / data break — 340 fetches display words from PDP-7 core while CPU runs.
Vector timing: ~1.5 µs incremental vectors (vs Type 30 ~50 µs per CPU-plotted dot).
Display word types: Parameter, point, vector, vector-continue, increment, character; with 347: DJS/DJP subroutines.
Light pen: Per-word pen-enable bits; tracking uses cross + recovery spiral (~2× cross size) — spec in Ch. 5.
The 340 executes its own instruction set in memory (display file = program). PIXIE’s subpictures are literally display subroutines — Myer & Sutherland’s "wheel of reincarnation".
The Titan mainframe it communicated woth was another story, a big deal at the time! It ran RAINBOW: BCPL + FORTRAN analysis (e.g. LADAN), file store, COMPACT/PLOT/CONN/CONNMAP pipeline.
Identity: Ferranti/ICT Atlas 2 prototype; Cambridge name Titan (1964–Oct 1973).
Word size: 48 bits (8×6-bit chars or 2×24-bit halfwords).
Core growth: 32K → 64K → 128K words.
Addressing: Base/limit registers; user address ORed with base (not added).
“Cache”: Tunnel-diode operand slave store — Cambridge claims first cache.
Software “instructions”: Up to 512 extracodes (supervisor code in main store).
OS: Titan Supervisor / Cambridge Multiple-Access System — public 22 Mar 1967.
Storage: Two Data Products 16M-word discs; tape; card/punch.
Terminals: Cambridge 64-line multiplexor — 73 registered, 26 simultaneous; modems from 1967.
I've been able to gather together and shared all this information about it, thanks to an ongoing discussion with Heinz Lemke, the guy operating the lightpen in the video. He has recently unearthed 128 pages of PIXIE source code in PDP-7 assembly source and octal machine language, and we're scanning it in, and working on reincarnating it with SIMH and a virtual lightpen!
mrob
3 hours ago
You can get away with slower refresh rate if you're using keyboard input only, but keyboard input is annoyingly restrictive for many common tasks. Anything involving graphics (even just looking at graphics, e.g. zooming in on a graph) is much easier with a mouse.
skydhash
2 hours ago
> Anything involving graphics (even just looking at graphics, e.g. zooming in on a graph) is much easier with a mouse.
Anything that involves manipulating a viewport is better with a joystick like device (spacemouse) and anything that involves tracing is better done with a pen. A mouse (and trackpad) is just a cheaper solution, not a better one.
mrob
2 hours ago
If those input devices are so good, why don't we see people winning e-sports tournaments with them? The mouse (as in a high-end gaming mouse on a high-end gaming mouse pad) is the best positioning device yet invented because it allows very precise positioning with very small movements of the hand. And unlike a pen, you're not constantly fighting gravity.
My arm would get tired quickly if I tried to point to things by pen as fast as I can by mouse.
DonHopkins
2 hours ago
The classic paper about this topic is:
Buxton, W. (1983). Lexical and Pragmatic Considerations of Input Structures. Computer Graphics, 17 (1), 31-37.
https://www.billbuxton.com/lexical.html
TL;DR: "It's complicated."
TL;DR-but-not-illiterate:
Claim: How you spell a command (lexical) and how you move your body to do it (pragmatic -- device, gesture, layout) are different problems. Treating all "locators" as the same -- mouse, tablet, light pen, joystick -- is a design error.
Figure 1: Input devices sit in a grid by what they sense (position / motion / pressure) and how your hand moves. Light pens cluster with touch screens; mice with tablets; joysticks with trackballs. Different motor skills, not interchangeable.
Why mrob is wrong here: "Graphics need a mouse" assumes one cheap locator fits every graphics task. Buxton's point (and skydhash's): viewport pan/zoom wants isometric/spacemouse control; tracing wants a pen. A mouse is a compromise, not the default.
What PIXIE has to do with it: I already showed the right transducer: light pen on a vector display for tracing and radial lightbuttons. No 1000 Hz, no mouse. The 1969 demo is a pragmatic match; Buxton (1983) is the theory that says that match matters.
Buxton defines the terms Chunking: Good interfaces fuse actions into one gesture (pick up => drag => release). Pie menus and pen tracking are in that family -- syntax, tension, and closure enforced by the body, not remembered as steps.
Quieter computing isn't only slower phosphor or fewer Hz. It's also picking the right input device for the task instead of defaulting to mouse + glass.
Miyamoto closes the loop from the other end. He designs from the hands: start with the kinesthetics of the controller, how the thing feels before what it does.
Will Wright on Miyamoto: "Miyamoto starts from the kinesthetics of the controller. What is this thing going to feel like in my hands? Will I feel like I'm instinctively connected to this world? As opposed to, I've got sixteen buttons, and I'm trying to figure out which button does the super-thrust power-up, in which case it's very cerebral, kind of like learning to play the piano. Rather than, you know, just picking up a shovel and starting to dig."
Will Wright on Miyamoto, New Yorker profile "Master of Play":
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/20/master-of-play
And Miyamoto judges from the face. GDC 2007 keynote: "What I always try to envision is the face of the player when he or she is experiencing the game, not any individual part of the game."
I've posted about his two GDC keynotes before, with links to all the videos (1999 full, 2007 parts 1-6, the wife-o-meter) and my transcription of the face-of-the-player passage. They bracket an amazing time in game development history, 1999-2007, and every word is profound:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27918255
Shigeru Miyamoto GDC 1999 Keynote (Full):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC2Pf5F2acI
The grandfather and granddaughter moment, GDC 2007 Part 3 at 12m29s:
https://youtu.be/SY3a4dCBQYs?t=12m29s
Buxton is the theory, Miyamoto is the practice: pick the transducer with your hands, verify it with the player's face. Watch Heinz Lemke's hands and face in the 1969 PIXIE film and you can score the interface without reading a word of the thesis.
Flight of the PIXIE, 1969 light pen and radial menus on the PDP-7:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDrqR9XssJI
Heinz (the guy in the the video demonistrating the PIXIE system he wrote) recently wrote me:
>Hope it doesn’t surprise you, that the use of a light pen in combination with the radial menus of PIXIE are very much related to the activity of a typical technical draftsman of the 1950’s. During that time and in the beginning of the 1960’s, I was such a technical draftsman in a number of companies in Germany, see attached a typical drawing from 1960 (few days ago digitised from a 1m by 2,5m drawing).
>What you may observe in this drawing is the frequent use of special symbols such as circles, squares, arrows, valves, nuts and bolts, etc. These are usually entered into the drawing (on a vertically positioned but slightly tilted drawing board) with a pencil at one hand and a special template with symbols held at the other hand. In PIXIE, I simply translated this into the light pen with the templates being simulated by a radial menu of symbols (PIXIE’s control light buttons) that can be dynamically adapted to the technical content of the drawing. Both, the light pen and the template can then be operated with one hand, leaving the other hand free to enter data, for example on the TTY.
>If at the same time the drawing gestures and drawing components are also translated into a computational model on the small computer, which after model completion can then be analysed or simulated on a larger computer, it becomes a winning situation all round. This was the aim of the PIXIE-Rainbow (PDP7-Titan) framework in those times. What appears to be missing now in our times is the “vertically positioned but slightly tilted drawing board” that used to be in the 1950’s and 60’s a social meeting point for all the colleagues in the drawing departments. This may be the loosing part of the advances in computer graphics.