DVCS (was Re: Moving to D)

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:igvhj9$mri$1 at digitalmars.com...
> 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.