alt Hacker News>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.
Replies
anilakar • today at 9:10 AM
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.
➕ show 4 replies
DonHopkins • today at 10:35 AM
We don't need faster refresh rates, we need slower phosphor.
➕ show 1 reply
I disagree. There’s absolutely diminishing returns above 120 or so, and at 120hz you’d do as well to remove input latency rather than output latency. On a non full screen app you’re pretty much guaranteed to have a full frame from the OS/compositor, and more if your application has an event loop that is in any way abstracted from the OS.
Any meaningful amount of work is either going to be done “immediately” (see pretty much every spreadsheet in existence except for that one on the network drive) or it will take a perceptible amount of time. Giving progress in 4ms increments instead of 8ms isn’t really going to affect the perception of the task.
There are definitely real world tools that take time - pumping petrol/gas isn’t an instant action, neither is cooking.
Also - the device that I would consider quietist in my life has a sub 1hz refresh rate, and an 800MHz cpu with a 3 week battery life.