Tech myth debunk thread

[Arika]

Myth: its better to leave your PC on 24/7 than turn it off and on because the power surge wears out components faster.

 

This is no longer the case and hasn't been for many yeard. Any difference in lifespan between the two will be negligible. 

 

Side note: turn it off every night and you're less likely to have issues with windows update.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, comander said:

"640k ought to be enough for anybody" <- it isn't. 

I mean... that entire quote is a myth. No one has ever been able to confirm it's authenticity.

[tatte]

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

If you're 2 inches away from a CRT, you're looking at individual pixels anyway.

CRT and pixels? There's a myth for you.

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, tatte said:

CRT and pixels? There's a myth for you.

Granted that CRTs don't have "physical" pixels in the sense of an LCD - but with the vast majority of them, they couldn't do a resolution tight enough such that you could still make out each pixel.

[tatte]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

you could still make out each pixel.

Still not pixels, make out what you will. :thinking:

[dalekphalm]

22 minutes ago, comander said:

Is this a distance square relationship? I.e if you're 6x as way you get 1/36th the radiation (more accurately per unit of area)?

On that, I have no idea.

22 minutes ago, comander said:

Also, are there threshold effects i.e. the probability of damage drops like a rock if the radiation is below some threshold (i.e. can't get through a phospholipid bilayer) If there are threshold effects then the result is unlikely to be strictly additive (i.e. 1/36th effect for 36x as long results in the same effect)

Likely yes but it would depend on the nature of the radiation and the frequency operated at. X-Ray waves are very small - potentially down to 0.01 nanometers - therefore it's highly unlikely that most things will block it.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, tatte said:

Still not pixels, make out what you will. :thinking:

I mean... yeah they are. The dot on the screen is a pixel - a single "unit of measurement". The screen just doesn't have a fixed number of physical pixels (or rather, no physical pixels) - because each pixel is created by the electron gun and the scan line.

 

When a CRT is turned off (or has no signal), it has no pixels. When it's displaying an image, it has pixels in the form of the image it's drawing on the screen. The number of pixels can vary depending on the nature of the image and the capabilities of the monitor.

[tatte]

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I mean... yeah they are. The dot on the screen is a pixel - a single "unit of measurement". The screen just doesn't have a fixed number of physical pixels (or rather, no physical pixels) - because each pixel is created by the electron gun and the scan line.

 

When a CRT is turned off (or has no signal), it has no pixels. When it's displaying an image, it has pixels in the form of the image it's drawing on the screen. The number of pixels can vary depending on the nature of the image and the capabilities of the monitor.

I guess this myth stays a "fact" for you. Welp, I tried. 

[dalekphalm]

Just now, tatte said:

I guess this myth stays a "fact" for you. Welp, I tried. 

Can you point out exactly where you think I'm wrong?

 

As soon as the electron gun draws a series of dots onto the screen, in the form of an image (Let's say for example, the LTT logo), that's made up of... pixels.

 

They aren't physical pixels in the sense of an LCD where it has a small crystal module that switches on and off to make the pixel function. But the individual "dots" that make up the resolution of an image on a CRT are still pixels.

 

But please, if you think any of what I said was wrong, please state what part and why.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

The most common myth I've seen is that RAID 1 and up is a backup.

[tatte]

13 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

But please, if you think any of what I said was wrong, please state what part and why

The part where dots are spit.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Lady Fitzgerald said:

The most common myth I've seen is that RAID 1 and up is a backup.

Oh yeah - get that a lot. And for sure, for some instances, having a RAID array may be sufficient for the user that they don't bother with a backup. But they aren't backups. At all. Backups serve a purpose that RAID cannot replicate.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, tatte said:

The part where dots are spit.

Sorry, can you elaborate what you mean? Are you referring to the dots that make up an image? Eg: If I have a square JGP made up of 4 pixels, each a different colour - are you referring to each dot that makes up each of the colours?

 

Or are you referring to something else? The physical space behind/within the screen where these dots are drawn?

[harryk]

8 minutes ago, tatte said:

The part where dots are spit.

 

6 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Sorry, can you elaborate what you mean? Are you referring to the dots that make up an image? Eg: If I have a square JGP made up of 4 pixels, each a different colour - are you referring to each dot that makes up each of the colours?

The dots aka "pixels" on a CRT are physically defined and separated by a shadow mask. So yes CRT's have pixels and a maximum possible resolution.

[tatte]

@dalekphalm @harryk

Please go and try perceive your pixels on a black and white CRT. Throwing a mesh in front of the stream understandably looks like, but hardly qualifies as, pixels.

[harryk]

16 minutes ago, tatte said:

 

Please go and try perceive your pixels on a black and white CRT... 

Yes you are correct, monochrome CRT's and vector displays do not have masks and therefore do not have pixels. But color CRT's definitely do.

 

16 minutes ago, tatte said:

...Throwing a mesh in front of the stream understandably looks like, but hardly qualifies as, pixels.

I dunno, the CRT "pixels" look pretty much the same as a modern LCD certified pixel.

 

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

Regarding the "CRTs don't have pixels", I believe they don't have pixels. Or rather, the smallest "picture element" that can be resolved is a function of how precise the electron beam can be. Just because the electron beam hits a phosphor doesn't mean the entire phosphor lights up equally, but only as much as the beam hits it. Let's take for instance this close-up of a CRT:
 

Spoiler

 

 

 

(Just the top half, the bottom is an LCD)

 

Notice there are sub-pixels that are unevenly lit. So each phosophor doesn't actually represent a single pixel. It can, but not always.

[tatte]

10 minutes ago, harryk said:

I dunno, the CRT "pixels" look pretty much the same as a modern LCD certified pixel.

Hence the persistent myth. The mesh doesn't demonstrate the nature nor the capability of the CRT. Rather than being individually addressed, the holes may or may not align with what was intended to be displayed.

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, Arika S said:

Myth: its better to leave your PC on 24/7 than turn it off and on because the power surge wears out components faster.

 

This is no longer the case and hasn't been for many yeard. Any difference in lifespan between the two will be negligible. 

 

Side note: turn it off every night and you're less likely to have issues with windows update.

 

The myth is "leaving it on, wears out components faster than leaving it off". Which depends on which parts you're talking about. 

 

If energy use is a concern, you physically unplug it from the wall. Everything, including network cables. Otherwise you're better off just leaving everything plugged in and have the computer decide what parts to turn off when you're not using it. 

 

If you want to hypermile energy use with a PC, you actually have to make those decisions early on in the build process. Which would start with not buying a desktop in the first place.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, tatte said:

@dalekphalm @harryk

Please go and try perceive your pixels on a black and white CRT. Throwing a mesh in front of the stream understandably looks like, but hardly qualifies as, pixels.

Whether or not you can perceive the pixel - or the smallest resolution (also known as dot pitch) the CRT is capable of displaying is irrelevant.

 

I doubt I could see an individual pixel for a 5" 4K LCD display either.

39 minutes ago, tatte said:

Hence the persistent myth. The mesh doesn't demonstrate the nature nor the capability of the CRT. Rather than being individually addressed, the holes may or may not align with what was intended to be displayed.

I feel like you're attributing a definition to "pixel" that isn't necessarily the case - or rather, isn't exclusively the case.

 

A pixel is defined as a dot that makes up an image. A CRT creates pixels by using an electron gun to scan across the screen, illuminating the screen in various intensities to make up an image. The smallest "dot" or individual discernible detail on the screen is a pixel.

 

It's just a physical "thing" inside the screen, like an LCD pixel module.

 

Hell, not every LCD will even have "pixels" as we regularly think of them, as purpose built fixed displays may have large elements that illuminate as a single object, such as a letter, a symbol, or a number.

 

CRTs don't use subpixel rendering, because as previously mentioned, the pixel raster may not line up perfectly with the phosphor elements.

 

But that does not change the fact that a CRT can display digital images in the form of many pixels.

[harryk]

46 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

Notice there are sub-pixels that are unevenly lit. So each phosophor doesn't actually represent a single pixel. It can, but not always.

Sure but a bad LCD can also have unevenly lit pixels

40 minutes ago, tatte said:

Hence the persistent myth. The mesh doesn't demonstrate the nature nor the capability of the CRT. Rather than being individually addressed, the holes may or may not align with what was intended to be displayed.

Ok, I can see what your point is and I could get behind that. But this is still just an issue of alignment/calibration; once that's done you should be able to address and light up individual phosphor sites (aka pixels), albeit with some imprecision.

 

A pixel is a single point in an organized array which creates a raster image. It doesn't matter what technology is being used; it could be a bunch of candles arranged on a grid to make an image. As long as they're discrete units on an organized array, I'd call them pixels.

[Arika]

57 minutes ago, tatte said:

Hence the persistent myth. The mesh doesn't demonstrate the nature nor the capability of the CRT. Rather than being individually addressed, the holes may or may not align with what was intended to be displayed.

Pixel

/ˈpɪks(ə)l,ˈpɪksɛl/

noun

Electronics

noun: pixel; plural noun: pixels

1. a minute area of illumination on a display screen, one of many from which an image is composed

    

    

    

    

[Mira Yurizaki]

15 minutes ago, harryk said:

Sure but a bad LCD can also have unevenly lit pixels

An LCD doesn't have the capability of intentionally unevenly lighting them up.

 

A CRT does.

 

EDIT: Although you know, I could see the pedantic people going "but muh LED backlight zones." If you're going to stretch out what I'm trying to say to claim that LCDs == CRTs, then you're really grasping for straws here. We're comparing an analog device to a digital one here.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Slottr said:

AMD CPU's don't need an AMD GPU

Intel doesn't only work with Nvidia cards

 

Mix and match to your heart's desire like it's a furniture store going out of business

I did honestly think that pairing AMD with AMD and vice versa did hold some kind of benefit. Like the company would make sure their products worked better together or something.

[Mira Yurizaki]

7 minutes ago, Stylized_Violence said:

I did honestly think that pairing AMD with AMD and vice versa did hold some kind of benefit. Like the company would make sure their products worked better together or something.

There used to be some AMD system specific features like Hybrid Crossfire.

 

But I think if AMD started making it so their GPUs only work best on their CPUs or making their competitor's GPUs perform like meh on their systems, they'd get a ton of flak for it.