LCD larger size -- what for ??

Shawk wrote:
Mr.E Solved! wrote:
Shawk wrote:
Mr.E Solved! wrote:
wrote:

Any suggestion regarding this issue?

Trackball. An upside down mouse. Try one for more than a day and
experience the joy of precise, light speed cursor movement with zero
effort.

You will wonder why you were so stupid the day before. :P


Agreed. Trackballs are excellent tools for work... crap for gaming
but great for work

If gaming was work, would they be great then?

Silly person, trackballs are great for gaming too.


I guess it depends on the games. I tried the trackball when I had it
because I'm starting to get probs with wrists and fingers (old age) and
I had to go back to my MX518 for my FPS games.

Love the trackball for everything else though


Good suggestion - I totally forgot about the track ball. Damn, the
last time I use a track ball was with the Unisys ICON computer
system. Start getting use with the mouse since the day of the
C64/128 with the GEOS software package.

On Mar 26, 5:52*am, Shawk wrote:
Beladi Nasrallah wrote:
On Mar 25, 9:31 am, Shawk wrote:
Backspace wrote:
Ant wrote:
Heh, that is why I stuck with 19" LCD monitor. Even that has issues
like in World in Conflict, Crysis, etc. with my GeForce 7950 GT KO
(512 MB; PCIe). If I had a slightly bigger monitor, 1600x1200 would be
my next native resolution and that's a big jump.
Yea, you would do better to get 16:9 22" @1680x1050 instead of 4:3
@1600x1200.
After asking folk why the hell they think they need anything bigger than
a 22" WS I am now very tempted by the price and quality of this 24"...

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=MO-026-OK

What about the colour transmission of this minitor ? E.g. I have an LG
19" WS monitor, and it saturates white. The next screen I want to get
is to have a better reproduction of colour. I am not interested in a
cheap 24" screen if its quality of colour is not good.

Google

Google what ?

My comment was that the 24" monitor you were tempted with probably had
a not-too-good image quality, because it was cheap. My comment was
that _I_ put the image quality over the size of the monitor.

Mr.E Solved! wrote:

Why would he be better to get a 16:9 22" 1680x1050(WS) instead of a
1600x1200 (Assumed 22")?

Because 1600x1200 is more pixels to push than 1680x1050. For gaming
widescreen is better anyway because it helps alleviate tunnel vision
many older 4:3 games suffer from. In racing sims, flight sims and FPS's
widescreen is much better.

wrote:
For
some reason, so far no one mention about how tire you hand have to
move the mouse back and forth using a large WS LCD.

Get a Logitech Marble Trackball and let your finders do the walking
instead of your hand. I have one but still use a mouse for gaming with.
You can have both mouse and trackball hooked up at the same time with no
issues. My mouse is wired and the trackball is wireless.

Tim O wrote:

We have obvioulsy found a guy here who has never played Centipede,
Missle Command, Marble Madness, World Class Bowling or Golden Tee
Golf.

Some games they are ok for but in most games they suck.

Mr.E Solved! wrote:

Silly person, trackballs are great for gaming too.


Not in shooters. I tried my trackball in those kinds of games and it was
horrible. Need more precision and speed than a trackball can give.

* Phil:

The same thing as speakers: a
certain brand might sound good to some but sound bad to other - it's
all in the ears.
Again BS. The difference is not in the ears, it's only in the mind.


Again, that's BS. Like with music it's all in the mind.

Benjamin

So, according you, hearing of sound and seeing of images are not based
on the ears and eyes, but it's all in the mind !!!

Nope. Read again and this time at least try to understand what the words
mean even if it's obviously difficult for you. As you can see above, I
just said that to the example of the speakers that *this* is no function
of the ears because if something sounds "good" or "bad" for you is just
a function of the mind and not of the ears. There are enough scientific
documents around that cover the complexity of hearing impression.

Based on this,
everybody should have the same hearing level and same level of
'seeing' - only the mind that does all the trickery with what you hear
and see. Right?

Nope. Vision and hearing degrades over time, and this degradation is
different for every individual.

But degradation has nothing to do if some speaker sounds "good" or "bad"
to you.

So please explain to me why there are people with
hearing aids device or corrective lenses. Why a 80 years old doesn't
have the same hearing and seeing 'power' as one in his/her teen?

Again this is due degradation of hearing. And again this has *nothing*
to do if a speaker sounds "good" or "bad" to someone.

You obviously mix the signal reception (ears/eyes) with the signal
processing (brain, your "mind"). The hearing/vision *performance* is
decided by the ears/eyes, but what you find "good" or "bad" is not.
Someone who bought a set of speaker he finds sounding "good" won't find
them "bad" when he gets older and his hearing degrades. Hearing is much
more than just a function of the ears, and the human signal processing
(brain) is very good in interpolation to correct flaws in the signal
reception. The same is valid for the eyes.

Again, I suggest you read into how seeing and hearing really works and
not how you think it does.

So I guess why should some spend thousand of $$$ for a pair of
speakers while a $100 one would sound the same to all. Or why some
would spend more on a high-end LCD while a cheapest brand would give
the same image?

The only real difference between a cheap LCD and a high end LCD is color
reproduction. High end displays have a much better color reproduction,
combined with a consistent backlight. Cheap LCDs usually come with
backlights that are brighter or darker in some parts of the screen, and
the color reproduction isn't as good. That means these ****ing expensive
LCDs are bought for applications where color reproduction is essential
(i.e. image processing).

If you buy such a high end display for generic apps or games just
because you hope to get a better overall image quality you're stupid
like hell. BTW: most of these displays have quite high response times.

Sir, your arguement is full of hole !!!

Just because you're too stupid to see the difference between
vision/hearing degradation and that what is usually called "taste"
doesn't make my statements wrong. Of course, I understand that *you* are
not able to see it as it seems that biology on Canadian schools don't
cover this topic at all. In other countries this is part of basic school
education.

Benjamin

* Shawk:
Trackballs are excellent tools for work... crap for gaming but
great for work

I can't agree that trackballs are crap for gaming as I don't use mice
for around 15 years now since I bought my first trackball. With a
trackball I can aim faster and more precise than with a mouse. I'd never
ever go back to a mouse, not for work and especially not for gaming.

Of course this is my personal experience and probably not valid for
everyone. As always this is a thing of personal preference.

Benjamin

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
* Shawk:
Trackballs are excellent tools for work... crap for gaming but great
for work

I can't agree that trackballs are crap for gaming as I don't use mice
for around 15 years now since I bought my first trackball. With a
trackball I can aim faster and more precise than with a mouse. I'd never
ever go back to a mouse, not for work and especially not for gaming.

Of course this is my personal experience and probably not valid for
everyone. As always this is a thing of personal preference.


I hated it Ben. Perhaps like any other new controller I should have
spent more time with it? One thing i do hate is how quickly the track
ball picks up crap and deposits it on the insides requiring me to take
out the ball and scrape gunge out. This is a MS Optical trackball
version 1.0 - which one do you have?

On Mar 30, 3:47 am, Benjamin Gawert wrote:

Just because you're too stupid to see the difference between
vision/hearing degradation and that what is usually called "taste"
doesn't make my statements wrong. Of course, I understand that *you* are
not able to see it as it seems that biology on Canadian schools don't
cover this topic at all. In other countries this is part of basic school
education.

Benjamin

Sir,

Exactly, vision/hearing degradation is the reason why each person has
his/her own preference of good/bad sound/image quality.
The brain can only process whatever signal send to it via the eyes or
ears. Look through a dirty window and a clean window, which image is
better. Cover your ears and uncover them, which is receive sound
better. The brain can only process what ever signal that the eyes
and ears can recieve and send to it. So seeing and hearing are based
on the eyes and ears. With good eyes, you see better and vice
versal.

I don't care which kind of education you got but obviously, the
function of the eyes and ears are not being taugh. I am to tire of
arguing with stupid.