My partner and I have a few new monitors, and some older ones. The new ones all seem to have the problem that the buttons are not responsive.

Often, if the monitor doesn’t detect a signal, you just can’t enter the menu and the monitor turns off. Which becomes annoying when you are trying to change the inout to something that is putting out signal.

On the older monitors, the menus and buttons seem wholly divorced from the monitors state beyond being on or off. You change inputs and the little blue menu doesn’t even blink.

So what changed technically speaking? I would imagine the newer monitors have faster micro controllers. Is there some standard everyone uses now that sucks? Or have I just gotten unlucky and many modern monitors have more responsive buttons?

  • Ephera@lemmy.mlEnglish
    7·
    5 hours ago

    Good question. My best guess is that the buttons have become less important, because:

    • they try to auto-detect where a signal comes,
    • they have better defaults, so you don’t really need to change settings, and
    • even monitor brightness can partially be controlled by the OS.

    But yeah, I got a new monitor at work, and instead of buttons, it has a joystick on the backside. Now the monitor’s menu pops up every so often, I’m guessing because something shook the joystick just enough to trigger it.
    When I saw that joystick for the first time, I wondered how long it’ll take before it breaks, but it’s broken on day 1, so that’s great. 🫠

    • crimsonpoodle@pawb.socialOP
      3·
      5 hours ago

      Oof yeah I guess that makes sense; but I hate the monolithic way modern software is made: “it does everything automatically, It will work always” Not the unix way.

      Same thing with the joystick on my monitors at work too.