DVCS (was Re: Moving to D)

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 1/16/11 2:07 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "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.

Not at all!

> 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!!!

You have a good point if playing vintage games is important to you.

>> 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,

The benefits of CRTs are not being overlooked. They are insignificant or 
illusory. If they were significant, CRTs would still be in significant 
use. Donning a flat panel is not a display of social status. Most people 
need computers to get work done, and they'd use CRTs if CRTs would have 
them do better work.

A 30" 2560x1280 monitor is sitting on my desk. (My employer bought it 
for me without asking; I "only" had a 26". They thought making me more 
productive at the cost of a monitor is simple business sense.) My 
productivity would be seriously impaired if I replaced either monitor 
with even the best CRT out there.

> and 2. Why should *I* spend the money to replace something that
> already works fine for me?

If it works for you, fine. I doubt you wouldn't be more productive with 
a larger monitor. But at any rate entering money as an essential part of 
the equation is (within reason) misguided. This is your livelihood, your 
core work. Save on groceries, utilities, cars, luxury... but don't 
"save" on what impacts your real 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.
>>
>
> You can't see anything at all without electromagnetic radiation shooting
> into your eyeballs.

Nonono. Gamma = electrons. CRT monitors have what's literally called a 
gamma gun. It's aimed straight at your eyes.

>> 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.

There is. It would take anyone two minutes of online research to figure 
that your comparison is wrong.


Andrei