I had the same op in the UK about 3 years ago.... Was expensive but certainly the best "investment" of my money. I had to stop wearing contacts due to scaring on the inside of my eye lids, so was back to glasses which was a pain. Fortunately I don't suffer from the halo affect at all, although it was suggested I might.
-----Original Message----- From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 05 August 2009 17:37 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: The "Duh" Question of the Day 8/4/09 Yeah, it's great. I still have some slight halo effect for high contrast scenes (i.e. lights at nite time), but the tradeoff is well worth it. Not having to futz with glasses... not having the "tired eyes" after the contacts had been in my head for 12+ hours, etc... -sc > -----Original Message----- > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 12:33 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: The "Duh" Question of the Day 8/4/09 > > I got lasik done when I was 41. That was, uh, some number of years ago. > > I was seeing at distance - blurred a bit by the drops and the > protective plastic lenses - on my way home. No, I didn't drive, but > being able to see the road signs on the way home added to the > blurriness, if you catch my meaning. It's something I hadn't been able > to do since the 5th grade. > > Yes, that was a long time ago, and as a relatively early adopter, it > cost a lot of money. I've never regretted it, despite the fact that I > needed reading glasses immediately thereafter. > > Kurt > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 07:33, Steven M. Caesare<[email protected]> > wrote: > > Old enuff to know better, yet still manage to be an idiot most of > > the > time. > > > > > > > > ve needed corrective lenses since 7th grade. Glasses for several > years, > > then contacts. I had Lasik a year ago[1]. I need about +2.5 diopters > of > > correction in each eye. > > > > > > > > -sc > > > > > > > > [1] Lasik rocks. > > > > > > > > From: Jonathan Link [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 10:17 AM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: Re: The "Duh" Question of the Day 8/4/09 > > > > > > > > Out of curiosity, how old are you? > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Steven M. Caesare > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > I prefer to shrink the scale on most docs and have _TWO_ side by > > side > pages. > > > > > > > > Well, actually, thas a lie.m almost always bouncing between > multiple > > windows, so when m editing I actually have a full height doc (@ > 80%)on the > > right and then room on the left to get at other things (CMD windows, > emails, > > e) > > > > > > > > With a decent resolution monitor, and ClearType enabled, there are > very few > > cases where I find I need to use the Office Apps or a browser at > > 100% > scale. > > I find 75-80% works well, and I can usually get a full page in there. > > > > > > > > Ditto for CMD window. I permanently crank the font down to a ~9 > point(as > > well as go green-on-black) and can get a couple of 50-line tall > windows > > rolling without sucking up all the screen real estate. > > > > > > > > Lasik not included. > > > > > > > > -sc > > > > > > > > From: Jonathan Link [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 9:23 AM > > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: Re: The "Duh" Question of the Day 8/4/09 > > > > > > > > Two words: protrait mode. > > > > > > > > I changed my 22" to portrait and have never looked back. PDF files, > page at > > a time and readabl Websites, no scrolling to get to the bottom (or > > significantly less). Since most websites are aligned for 1024 > horizontal > > resolution, you won't have to scroll left or right. And, I find I > prefer a > > long screen than a wide screen when remoting into servers. > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Sherry Abercrombie > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > So yesterday afternoon just before I leave for the day, the > HelpDesk/Desktop > > lead comes to my cube and asks this question: "Would you be willing > to give > > up one of your 19" monitors for a new 23" monitor Well DUH..... > > > > So now I get to setup my new 23" Samsung monitor..... > > > > -- > > Sherry Abercrombie > > > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from > magic." > > Arthur C. Clarke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ The information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence is private and is intended solely for the intended recipient(s). The information in this communication may be confidential and/or legally privileged. Nothing in this e-mail is intended to conclude a contract on behalf of QinetiQ or make QinetiQ subject to any other legally binding commitments, unless the e-mail contains an express statement to the contrary or incorporates a formal Purchase Order. For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such information is prohibited and may be unlawful. Emails and other electronic communication with QinetiQ may be monitored and recorded for business purposes including security, audit and archival purposes. Any response to this email indicates consent to this. Telephone calls to QinetiQ may be monitored or recorded for quality control, security and other business purposes. QinetiQ Limited Registered in England & Wales: Company Number:3796233 Registered office: 85 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6PD, United Kingdom Trading address: Cody Technology Park, Cody Building, Ively Road, Farnborough, Hampshire, GU14 0LX, United Kingdom http://www.qinetiq.com/home/notices/legal.html ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
