Comment by outworlder

4 years ago

That's essentially older GUI desktops before GPUs did more than just provide an interface for the monitor. Paints used to be very expensive (and remained so for quite a while). Pixel scrolling also took a while to appear on consumer desktops.

For older computers, the limitation was in the graphics card itself. Monitors could respond limited only by scan and refresh rates, typically 60--120 Hz, possibly better.

For e-ink, it's the electrophoretic display itself which imposes lag. It's a bit like pushing a wet noodle or a heavy arm. No matter how fast the graphics card is responding, the physical display simply can't keep up and iposes inertia on changes.

Again, for text-heavy applications and reasonably static imagery, this isn't much of a problem.

Current displays can cycle between refresh modes, and it's possible to trade image quality for response time. Presently that's only possible for the whole display at a time, but I might imagine it would be possible to zone a display such that a portion is at a high-fidelity mode and another at a lower-fidelity, higher-refresh mode.

If the idea is for a low-distraction device, I'm not sure that's actually the direction you'd want to go in, however.

  • > For older computers, the limitation was in the graphics card itself. Monitors could respond limited only by scan and refresh rates, typically 60--120 Hz, possibly better.

    If we go really old, we start getting into really slooooow phospors. It would take multiple seconds for a blinking cursor to fade.

    • Or ink latency. (Best latency.)

      Or punch cards.

      Or toggled programs.

      Or jaquard cards.

      Or ...

      The discussion above was of the 1990s. Displays were graphical and bitmapped, not text. I remember when dragging and resizing windows with contents visible became A Thing.

      And yes, I used computers in the phosphor age. And just a tad during the teletype period. I don't think either applies, though e-ink does have some characteristics of phosphors in terms over overall response rate.

      The main distinction though is that phosphors painted in a line, not a full-screen refresh (though it might be interesting to see just how e-ink does refresh in super-slow motion), and then decays.

      For e-ink, the characteristic is that higher-quality refreshes take longer, and that a full flush (blacking then blanking the full screen) creates a marked flash. It's much better on recent high-end displays than on, say, a ten-year-old Kindle. But there's still some of the effect visible.

      Much less a problem when paging, or when there's a single cursor-point-of-change when typing text. More a problem with complex dynamic displays.