Bob, Being an LCD, 60 is the normal refresh rate. I viewed the website on an LCD also, but did not get bothered as much as you. I suspect that the small size of pixels on your screen may make the phenomenon more noticeable than on mine. 1600X1200 on a 15" is quite small pixels. I viewed on 1280X1024 on a 16" screen.
I think we all agree that it was poor design on the part of the web page author, but not bad enough to not read it. Perhaps it was also that the content for you was not something you cared to read? --- Bruce Thursday, October 23, 2003, 3:08:15 PM, you wrote: BW> Hi, BW> Thursday, October 23, 2003, 10:14:35 PM, you wrote: >> 60 Hz is very low, Bob. >> I can very well imagine your problems; my previous screen didn't support any >> higher refresh rates. In the end I developed a chronic headache. >> Usually, the graphics card in the PC support higher refresh rates than the >> screen. Try to set it as high as the screen will allow. Personally, I prefer >> 85 Hz or higher, but most people at work are happy with 75 Hz or higher. >> With CRT screens, that is. If you have a TFT screen, 60 Hz is reasonable. >> But I don't think you would have been troubled by that on a TFT...:-) BW> Mine seems to support only one setting. It is a TFT LCD; to be precise, it BW> is an NVIDIA Quadro4 500 GoGL, 1600x1200 resolution on a 15 inch BW> screen. I rarely, if ever, see any flickering. The visual interference BW> on that web page is not, I think, a function of my monitor, but of the BW> web-page design. White-on-black is just bad design, and would be bad BW> design on paper, just as the hotspots on this grid always interfere, BW> whatever the medium: http://www.optillusions.com/dp/1-1.htm
