3 ms·
Even a $1 micro should be able to handle a few bits of resolution information in less than a millisecond. This can't be it.
by fsh 4y ago
Even a $1 micro should be able to handle a few bits of resolution information in less than a millisecond. This can't be it.
- thefz 4y agoThere's a lot going through between your OS and the monitor when you plug a display, really. HDMI and DP are two-way protocols. Expecting everything instant-on is naif.
- fsh 4y agoThen there must be something badly wrong with the protocol and/or implementations. Negotiating a few bits over a high-quality cable link should be instantaneous.
- plasticeagle 4y agoThere could be, but there are (at least) three parties involved in whatever's causing the slow monitor response. I find it irritating even without a switch, just plugging in my external monitor should not take what seems like thirty seconds to actually turn on. But in reality, you've got whatever tiny micro is inside the monitor, talking to whatever's on the graphics card, in turn talking to display drivers and who-knows-what-else on the PC side. Slightly related to this, in some ways, is things like wifi connection. I have an ESP8226 that I've built a clock around. That thing will connect to the wifi, negotiate security, contact a time server, probably within one second. None of that is down to my ingenuity, it's literally how it works out of the box. So the problem may just as much be on the OS side, rather than the monitor and the E-DID protocol.
- thefz 4y ago> So the problem may just as much be on the OS side, rather than the monitor and the E-DID protocol. Yeah. And the DM must adapt to the new resolution, redraw stuff, maybe adjust the refresh rate. That's why I think stating "I want it on immediately" is a bit naive and assuming.