Talk:Response time (technology)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
WikiProject Time assessment rating comment
[edit]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)
response time
[edit]response time t90 time interval between the instant of a sudden change in the value of the input quantity to a measuring system and the time as from which the value of the output quantity is reliably maintained above 90% of the correct value of the input quantity NOTE The response time is also referred to as the 90 % time.
LCD Response Time
[edit]"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)
I agree. The CRT response time should be the time that it takes the phosphor to light up once the electron beam hits. Josephus78 (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I added "GTG" as an alternate abbreviation for "G2G" (grey to grey). Samsung and a few other manufacturers are using the GTG spelling variant on their newer products. See: http://www.google.com/search?q=gtg+lcd&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS260US260 Peaceoutside (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a disambiguation link with Reaction TimeJaderVason 02:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
public safety vs. technology
[edit]I'm not sure this is the appropriate article to be at the main heading response time. A Google search for "response time(s)" related to police, fire, or ambulance returned 1.8M hits, while one for those related to web or Internet pulled in 3.4M. But since this is a tech-heavy topic (and those are very general search term qualifiers), that's to be expected. More interesting is that the term is also used as a variant for reaction time in biology. Given the wide number of possible topics, I'd like to see this be a disambiguation page and response time (public safety) and response time (technology) be set up (the latter being simply a page move of what's here now), with a See also link to the biological definition at reaction time. There's also things like Round-trip delay time (redirected from Response time (telecommunications)), which is slightly different than what's here. Another alternative would be to merge that with what is here, but I'm not sure what the correct common name title would be.
This would also make it much easier to check bad links, as anything at Special:Whatlinkshere/response_time would need to be evaluated, rather than having to scan the list periodically by eye for bad links. Thoughts? -- nae'blis 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom the move of Response time to Response time (technology). --Serge 22:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Real-time Systems?
[edit]Is there any special reason to have 'System' instead of 'system' in a section header? --CiaPan (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Changed after a year of waiting for a comment: Special:Diff/768350762. --CiaPan (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Copyright issues in opening paragraph?
[edit]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"..