I am new to computers and someone told me that it was not necessary to have
a screen saver enabled all the time, would someone kindly advise me.
Thank you,
Molly

Molly wrote:
Strictly voluntary. However, running a screen saver would
prevent some burn-in of high-intensity, bright spots on
the screen. More importantly, screen savers, when combined
with passwording, is used today more for security by blanking
the screen from curious or unwanted viewers.

Thank you very much for that information, much appreciated,
Molly.
"Mistoffolees" <mistyfac01@danang.rvn> wrote in message
news:11jev5c7lgfdtb3@news.supernews.com...

"Molly" <molly@hunterlink.com.au> wrote in message
news:43377631$0$7585$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
into the phosphors of older CRT screens, but soon turned into a source of
entertainment. Complex screensavers can use a good deal of CPU power to
run, and should be kept off of servers. Screensavers are largely
unnecessary today as CRT screens are much more resistant to burn-in.

Alt

"Alt-Ctrl-Del" <AltCtrlDel@äää.òÕÿÿÿÿâÞ> wrote in message
news:PmQZe.4321$QE1.682@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
LCD do not require a screensaver at all. So that's all notebooks.

**SS**

Molly wrote:

I have my monitor set to go blank after 10 minutes of inactivity.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:16:52 +1000, "Molly" <molly@hunterlink.com.au>
wrote:

The original purpose of screen savers was to prevent an image which
was on for a long time from burning into the monitor phospher.

If you go to a place that has very old computer monitors (like a
Salvation Army store) you might see ghosts of ancient Lotus 1-2-3
spreadsheets burned into green screen monochrome monitors that weren't
protected by a screen savers.

I've seen some burn-in on bank ATM monitors (which display the same
"insert your card" screen hour after hour) and I've heard of people
getting burn in on High Definition TV's from those little channel /
network logos that are constantly on in one place usually on the
bottom right of the screen.

However, I don't think there's a significant danger of burn-in with
most personal computer setups in 2005.

Of course you might want someone who is passing by your computer after
you have been away from it for 45 minutes to have to type a password
to use it and this is usually hooked into the screen saver setup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screensaver

[quote]
Modern CRTs are much less susceptible to burn-in than older models.
Flat panel displays are used in all laptop computers and are gradually
replacing CRTs on the desktop. Flat panels are burn-in resistant
because they use a fluorescent bulb or similar light source instead of
an electron beam. For this reason, screensavers today primarily are
decorative or for entertainment, and usually feature moving images or
patterns and sometimes sound effects.
[close quote]

"Molly" <molly@hunterlink.com.au> wrote in
news:43377631$0$7585$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au :

Not any longer. Windows simply turns off the monitor after xxx number of
minutes. The setting can be changed in Control Panel.

Joel Rubin wrote:

[quote] I've often wondered if this means that today's CRTs are less
susceptible than the color CRTS of, say, ten years ago, or if it just
means that they're less susceptible than the old monochrome CRTs were.

Anyone?


--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing All Posts from GG: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

In article <slrndjggd5.n0d.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net>, Blinky the
Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:

At the very least, because of Energy Star requirements.

Mitch wrote:
Energy Star requirements include burning in less? I thought they were
about energy savings.


--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing All Posts from GG: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

In article <slrndjh7ap.19a.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net>, Blinky the
Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:

I think they require at least one standby mode.
Therefore, less time on and static.

Mitch wrote:
That's not CRT technology, though. That's software. So I'll re-ask my
question: are color CRTs less susceptible to burn-in than color CRTs
of, say, ten years ago, or has the only gain been that of using them
less?


--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing All Posts from GG: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

"Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrndjhshk.a5u.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net ...
Blink Blink, I will post what I posted earlier since you don't know how to
read other posts in the same thread.

Screensavers were originally designed so that images would not be burned
into the phosphors of older CRT screens, but soon turned into a source of
entertainment. Complex screensavers can use a good deal of CPU power to
run, and should be kept off of servers. Screensavers are largely
unnecessary today as CRT screens are much more resistant to burn-in.

Alt

Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:

|>Joel Rubin wrote:
|>
|>> [quote]
|>> Modern CRTs are much less susceptible to burn-in than older models.
|>
|>I've often wondered if this means that today's CRTs are less
|>susceptible than the color CRTS of, say, ten years ago, or if it just
|>means that they're less susceptible than the old monochrome CRTs were.
|>
|>Anyone?

Found an answer here:
http://www.macosx.com/articles/Windo...Explained.html

Also this warning:
"TIP: Be careful when using a screensaver on a computer with an LCD
screen (most laptops and notebooks). A pixel on an LCD screen is on
when it's dark; therefore, blacking the screen as some screensavers do
would cause more damage."

--
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

Alt-Ctrl-Del wrote:
I read that the first time. My question stands, as that does not
convince me that the CRT itself has been improved in that manner. An
authoritative cite would be useful; repetition isn't making the grade.


--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing All Posts from GG: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Trax wrote:
[quote]Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:

|>Joel Rubin wrote: |> |>> Only this sentence: "Eventually CRTs which were resistant to burn-in
(and which sometimes went into sleep mode after a period of inactivity)
were developed."

That does imply hardware CRT improvements toward less susceptibility to
burning as being separate from software methods. Still, it's incomplete
because I've asked (more than once) if today's CRTs are inherently less
vulnerable than older (I've been specific here) *COLOR* CRT's, and it
can't be told from that article if "eventually CRTS which were
resistant..." means more resistant then the old monochrome CRTs or if
it means they were more resistant than the earlier color CRTs (which
has been my question all along).

But since nobody can or wants to address my question *as asked* (old
color CRT to new color CRT comparison), I withdraw it unanswered.

Bye.


--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing All Posts from GG: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html