5 ms·
A bigger question for me is, why can't monitors boot instantly? So annoying that a monitor that went to sleep can sometimes take 10-20 seconds longer to wake up
by mojuba 7y ago
A bigger question for me is, why can't monitors boot instantly? So annoying that a monitor that went to sleep can sometimes take 10-20 seconds longer to wake up than the computer it is attached to.
- quickthrower2 7y agoBut my 5” touchscreen monitor can...
- gruez 7y agoIf it's really 10-20s, I'm guessing it's because it's because it's cycling through the various input sources looking for a signal.
- ebg13 7y agoBut it could just look at all of the input sources at the same time. And anyway, these are solid state electronics, not hamsters and flywheels. Taking seconds to send "give me electrons" and for the other side to say "here are some electrons" is bonkers.
- jamesissac 7y agoBeing able to observe all inputs sources at the same time requires extra hardware(more utilisation of the FPGA resources), considering only one input is connected to the display at a time. So it's probable that the check is sequential.
- lazyjones 7y agoI know you’re just guessing, but if that’s what happens, why don’t they just default to the last source used and start the cycling only if nothing is detected there?
- ebg13 7y ago"More" isn't a meaningful qualifier without a quantifier. I'm not convinced that it would take more than $0.01 worth of resource. I could even see doing it in a purely analog fashion with an extremely basic component like a mosfet. If a pin goes high because the computer responded to your request to send electrons, it sets the corresponding channel. > So it's probable that the check is sequential. It's a user unfriendly design for the process to be "send request, wait 5 seconds, send request on next channel, wait 5 seconds, send request on next channel, ..." when it could instead be sending requests across all channels rapidly and then that getting a response on a particular channel _activates_ that channel by analogue means.
- mojuba 7y agoMight be that, also the computer itself might be another reason. But who cares? Why doesn't the monitor just re-establish the last known good connection quickly?
- brokenmachine 7y agoWhy does it take 10-20s even if it is cycling through all the inputs though?
- kalleboo 7y agoI have auto-input select disabled since I only use my monitor with a dock. Still takes 15 seconds.
- unnouinceput 7y ago10 to 20 seconds? What monitor do you have? All decent monitors have a maximum of 5 seconds.
- Sephr 7y agoUnfortunately the very best LCD monitors currently all take pretty long to start up. The Asus PG27UQ (regarded as the current-best consumer 27" 4K LCD) takes almost 20 seconds to start up, presumably to initialize a bunch of state for its FPGA.
- unnouinceput 7y agoLCD? What year is this, 2005? I have LED for over a decade now, and all my friends as well.
- jjwhitaker 7y agoThat's on the monitor, whatever process it is using to scan for input, warm up, or other needs. Buying a cheap offbrand monitor or something low end has drawbacks.