DVCS (was Re: Moving to D)

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 1/15/11 10:47 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Daniel Gibson"<metalcaedes at gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:igtq08$2m1c$1 at digitalmars.com...
> 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.

>> For non-games-usage I never had the urge to change the resolution of my
>> flatscreens. And I really prefer them to any CRT I've ever used.
>>
>
> For non-games, just off-the-top-of-my-head:
>
> Bumping up to a higher resolution can be good when dealing with images, or
> whenever you're doing anything that could use more screen real-estate at the
> cost of smaller UI elements. And CRTs are more likely to go up to really
> high resolutions than non-CRTs. For instance, 1600x1200 is common on even
> the low-end CRT monitors (and that was true even *before* televisions
> started going HD - which is *still* lower-rez than 1600x1200).
>
> Yea, you can get super high resolution non-CRTs, but they're much more
> expensive. And even then, you lose the ability to do any real desktop work
> at a more typical resolution. Which is bad because for many things I do want
> to limit my resolution so the UI isn't overly-small. And yea, there are
> certian things you can do to scale up the UI, but I've never seen an OS,
> Win/Lin/Mac, that actually handled that sort of thing reasonably well. So
> CRTs give you all that flexibility at a sensible price.

It's odd how everybody else can put up with LCDs for all kinds of work.

> 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.

> Also, it can be good when mirroring the display to TV-out or, better yet,
> using the "cinema mode" where any video-playback is sent fullscreen to the
> TV (which I'll often do), because those things tend to not work very well
> when the monitor isn't reduced to the same resolution as the TV.
>
>
>> OTOH when he has a good CRT (high resolution, good refresh rate) there may
>> be little reason to replace it, as long as it's working.. apart from the
>> high power consumption and the size maybe.
>>
>
> 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".


Andrei