"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On 1/15/11 10:47 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> There's two reasons it's good for games: >> >> 1. Like you indicated, to get a better framerate. Framerate is more >> important in most games than resolution. >> >> 2. For games that aren't really designed for multiple resolutions, >> particularly many 2D ones, and especially older games (which are often >> some >> of the best, but they look like shit on an LCD). > > It's a legacy issue. Clearly everybody except you is using CRTs for gaming > and whatnot. Therefore graphics hardware producers and game vendors are > doing what it takes to adapt to a fixed resolution. >
Wow, you really seem to be taking a lot of this personally. First, I asume you meant "...everybody except you is using non-CRTs..." Second, how exacty is the modern-day work of graphics hardware producers and game vendors that you speak of going to affect games from more than a few years ago? What?!? You're still watching movies that were filmed in the 80's?!? Dude, you need to upgrade!!! > > It's odd how everybody else can put up with LCDs for all kinds of work. > Strawman. I never said anything remotely resembling "LCDs are unusable." What I've said is that 1. They have certain benefits that get overlooked, and 2. Why should *I* spend the money to replace something that already works fine for me? >> And if I'm doing some work on the computer, and it *is* set at a sensible >> resolution that works for both the given monitor and the task at hand, >> I've >> never noticed a real impromevent with LCD versus CRT. Yea, it is a >> *little* >> bit better, but I've never noticed any difference while actually *doing* >> anything on a computer: only when I stop and actually look for >> differences. > > Meanwhile, you are looking at a gamma gun shooting atcha. > You can't see anything at all without electromagnetic radiation shooting into your eyeballs. >> >> I've actually compared the rated power consumpsion between CRTs and LCDs >> of >> similar size and was actually surprised to find that there was little, if >> any, real difference at all on the sets I compared. > > Absolutely. There's a CRT brand that consumes surprisingly close to an > LCD. It's called "Confirmation Bias". > I'm pretty sure I did point out the limitations of my observation: "...on all the sets I compared". And it's pretty obvious I wasn't undertaking a proper extensive study. There's no need for sarcasm.
