Talk:Response time (technology)

message: Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 16:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Time/Assessment|WikiProject Time assessment rating]] comment 

message: "In comparison, a CRT displaying a picture with an update frequency of 60 to 80 Hz could be said to have a response time of 12.5 ms and upwards."
 In my opinion, this is utterly false. "Response time" doesn't have anything to do with the refresh rate that is produced by the graphics card, it is an intrinsic quality of display hardware, and it is not defined as the time a pixel is sustained before its next update. You can't just invert the frequency of 80 hz vertical refresh, arriving at 12.5 ms, and call it the response time; indeed this is useless and arbitrary since CRTs have a horizontal electron beam scanning frequency starting around 50,000 hz (you can easily compute it by multiplying the refresh rate by the vertical lines of resolution: i.e. 1024x768@60hz = 60 hz * 768 lines = 46,080 horizontal lines traced every second). That would imply a response time, by the same measure, of .00002 seconds.  A much more useful way to compare CRT to LCD response time is to use the response curves of phosphor illumination as an indicator of response time.  In many ways the LCD vs. CRT response time debate is like comparing apples to oranges, since the response curve for illuminating and darkening a phosphor dot is asymmetrical, with virtually instantaneous illumination, and upon darkening, exhibiting a steep decline followed by a long tail of residual photon emission. By this more accurate measure, a CRT "could be said to have a response time" of a tiny fraction of 1 ms. Somebody has to stand up for CRT...
--Ivionday (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 01:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LCD Response Time

message: Is there any special reason to have 'System' instead of 'system' in a section header? --CiaPan (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed after a year of waiting for a comment: Special:Diff/768350762. --CiaPan (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real-time Systems? 

message: If you search for the phrase "That service can be anything from a memory fetch, to a disk IO" you get a link to [this PDF|http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/10603/112263/11/11_chapter4.pdf] where the follow on text "Ignoring transmission time for a moment," actually makes sense, because the paper goes on to look at that.
Either the text was lifted from that paper, *or the author themselves* added it. If it's the latter, probably not an issue, but the para should still be edited due to its use of the first person in sentences like "With basic queueing theory math you can"..
SteveLoughran (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright issues in opening paragraph?