DVCS (was Re: Moving to D)

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:igvlf8$v20$1 at digitalmars.com...
> On 1/16/11 2:22 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org>  wrote in message
>> news:igvc0k$c3o$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> I think your eyes are more important than your ability to fiddle with
>>> resolution.
>>
>> Everyone always seems to be very vague on that issue. Given real, 
>> reliable,
>> non-speculative evidence that CRTs are significantly (and not just
>> negligibly) worse on the eyes, I could certainly be persuaded to replace 
>> my
>> CRT when I can actually afford to. Now I'm certainly not saying that such
>> evidence isn't out there, but FWIW, I have yet to come across it.
>
> Finding recent research on dangers of CRTs on eyes is difficult to find 
> for the same reason finding recent research on the dangers of steam 
> locomotives. Still, look at what Google thinks when you type "CRT monitor 
> e".
>

It's not as clearcut as you may think. One of the first results for "CRT 
monitor eye":
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/52709-3-best-eyes

Keep in mind too, that the vast majority of the reports of CRTs being 
significantly worse are either have no backing references or are so 
anecdotal and vague that it's impossible to distinguish from the placebo 
effect. And there's other variables that rarely get mentioned, like whether 
they happen to be looking at a CRT with a bad refresh rate or 
brightness/contrast set too high.

I'm not saying that CRTs are definitely as good as or better than LCDs on 
the eyes, I'm just saying it doesn't seem quite as clear as so many people 
assume it to be.