4 ms·

The terminals you use in Linux must either be painfully slow or you must be very insensitive to latency issues because the latency on Windows console is really

The terminals you use in Linux must either be painfully slow or you must be very insensitive to latency issues because the latency on Windows console is really high. When I type something I expect it to appear immediately (<10ms), not in 20-50ms. I'm just guessing the timings here though but the point is that there's definitely a difference. A lot of basic commands in general run more slowly on Windows but I don't think that's the terminal's fault so much as it's lack of optimisation on the command itself.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
yoz-y 8y ago
Afaik, 10ms is not achievable nowadays, unless you use a very old computer. https://danluu.com/input-lag/ https://danluu.com/input-lag/
- userbinator 8y ago
  I'd be curious to see the original IBM PC/XT/AT tested too. I guess it would be near the low end of the list too. Also, the last entry in the list provides another reason why Lisp machines never became popular --- 300ms of input lag! That's definitely in unusable territory, especially when other machines of the time were almost an order of magnitude faster.
  - lispm 8y ago
    If you look at the table you'll see that the 3620 from Symbolics in 1986 was an entirely different system. It had a megapixel bitmap-only screen as a separate console (which had mouse, keyboard, serial and an audio interface) with console cables often of 30 meters. The refrigerator size machines often would be running in some machine room and the console would be used in some office room. The console was handled by a separate Front End Processor with a communication protocol over the console cable. An entirely different technology for a different setup. Later Symbolics Lisp machines used different technology for the graphics system, but basically the same console setup. See here for some more info about the 3620: http://lispm.de/3620/3620.html http://lispm.de/3620/3620.html
- half-kh-hacker 8y ago
  > For desktop results, results are measured from when the key started moving until the screen finished updating When the key starts moving and when the key actually actuates are very different times. Some of this latency could be key travel time. This is also a methodical issue I found with his [keyboard latency test](https://danluu.com/keyboard-latency/ https://danluu.com/keyboard-latency/).
  - 1996 8y ago
    Do you have any recommendation to get at least a decent latency (< 30 ms) on linux or windows 10? The least infuriating to me is lxterm. Consoles (no X) used to feel ok several years ago, but now I use fbuffer it feels slower (and I can't do without because high screen resolutions make fonts tiny, even with setfont)
GordonS 8y ago
So, I mainly use Cmder on Windows 10 these days (which uses ConEmu under the hood). I just tried typing in Windows cmd, Cmder and WSL, as well as a CentOS terminal. If I really try to notice it, I concede that there is tiny bit of latency in the Windows cmd console. Maybe it is just me (willing to accept it is!), but I actually have to try to notice any difference, and even then, it's barely noticeable.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

yoz-y 8y ago

Afaik, 10ms is not achievable nowadays, unless you use a very old computer. https://danluu.com/input-lag/ https://danluu.com/input-lag/

userbinator 8y ago
I'd be curious to see the original IBM PC/XT/AT tested too. I guess it would be near the low end of the list too. Also, the last entry in the list provides another reason why Lisp machines never became popular --- 300ms of input lag! That's definitely in unusable territory, especially when other machines of the time were almost an order of magnitude faster.
- lispm 8y ago
  If you look at the table you'll see that the 3620 from Symbolics in 1986 was an entirely different system. It had a megapixel bitmap-only screen as a separate console (which had mouse, keyboard, serial and an audio interface) with console cables often of 30 meters. The refrigerator size machines often would be running in some machine room and the console would be used in some office room. The console was handled by a separate Front End Processor with a communication protocol over the console cable. An entirely different technology for a different setup. Later Symbolics Lisp machines used different technology for the graphics system, but basically the same console setup. See here for some more info about the 3620: http://lispm.de/3620/3620.html http://lispm.de/3620/3620.html
half-kh-hacker 8y ago
> For desktop results, results are measured from when the key started moving until the screen finished updating When the key starts moving and when the key actually actuates are very different times. Some of this latency could be key travel time. This is also a methodical issue I found with his [keyboard latency test](https://danluu.com/keyboard-latency/ https://danluu.com/keyboard-latency/).
- 1996 8y ago
  Do you have any recommendation to get at least a decent latency (< 30 ms) on linux or windows 10? The least infuriating to me is lxterm. Consoles (no X) used to feel ok several years ago, but now I use fbuffer it feels slower (and I can't do without because high screen resolutions make fonts tiny, even with setfont)

GordonS 8y ago

So, I mainly use Cmder on Windows 10 these days (which uses ConEmu under the hood). I just tried typing in Windows cmd, Cmder and WSL, as well as a CentOS terminal. If I really try to notice it, I concede that there is tiny bit of latency in the Windows cmd console. Maybe it is just me (willing to accept it is!), but I actually have to try to notice any difference, and even then, it's barely noticeable.