Sender: nate AT cartsys DOT com
Message-ID: <36C352DD.4756645C@cartsys.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:59:57 -0800
From: Nate Eldredge <nate AT cartsys DOT com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.1 i586)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Screen Savers vs Blankers
References: <3 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 16 DOT 19990211115703 DOT 2cdf9a40 AT shadow DOT net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Ralph Proctor wrote:
 
> I only write this because I believe "savers" are a waste of memory

Hmm... as I write this on my Linux box, `ps' with the xlock
"screensaver" running shows it eating about 3 MB... of course, xlock has
about 60 designs (from "ant" to "worm") and they're all compiled in to
the binary.  Can't argue with you on that one.

> and are
> mainly for the purpose of  home/office decoration.

Hence the interest in them.  :) AFAIK, modern screens don't really need
saving.  Burn-in was much more of a problem with old monochrome
monitors.  Screen savers are mainly useful to look at and impress your
friends ("Look how smoothly that ball bounces!")

And if you *really* want to protect the monitor from burn-in, you should
use some of the DPMS facilities to stop the scan or power the thing
down.

-- 

Nate Eldredge
nate AT cartsys DOT com