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