G
Guest
Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:
>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:koh8f0pg7tlbv8kj35npn8rlqllim7slnf@4ax.com...
>> Well, actually I asked you to nit-pick the LCD the way you did the
>> CRT, but instead I got a summary devoid of extreme nit-picking, which
>> I suppose suits me fine, anyway.
>
>If you can think of some relevant "extreme nit-picking" to
>add, please be my guest. If, on the other hand, you think
>anyone here is in any way required to write whatever you
>request, think again.
But you wrote "Ask and ye shall receive", Bob. That's a strong
implication that you were providing what I requested, is it not? Just
another misinterpretation of what I wrote, Bob?
>> I note that there was nothing in the summary regarding disadvantages
>> of the CRT due to it's thick glass front. Apparently the effects are
>> so small as to not be worthy of your reasonably complete summary.
>
>Obviously, getting into every detail of both technologies would
>require a book. I've done a book before, and it's not all that
>much fun - and it's certainly not something I'm going to be doing
>for the sheer hell of it here.
>
>> This, of course, bolsters my case that the effects of the thick glass
>> do indeed NOT cause a "big difference" relative to the LCD.
>
>Boy, when you get hung up on something, you really get hung
>up on it, don't you?
Yes, Bob, I will stick to the issue at hand, thank you. It's routine
for people to try to change the subject on me, when their case in the
issue at hand is weak. I won't allow that, Bob.
>Is it as "big" a difference as, say, the problems with color purity
>or convergence or susceptibility to external fields? No, not in the
>minds of most customers. Still, the optical effects of the thicker
>faceplate IS a very obvious and visible difference
If you're purposely scrutinizing the display for imperfections, maybe.
For normal usage, I disagree.
> (and yes, it IS
>one that I have known to be a deciding factor in the purchasing
>decision in some cases). But, as with all things, it's going to depend
>a lot on what a particular customer considers to be "big."
So, even though CRT's can have excellent images, despite issues with
color purity, convergence, and susceptibility to external fields, the
relatively benign effects of the "thick glass" can be reasonably
described as a "big difference"? Sorry, Bob, but I don't think that's
a reasonable opinion, which is the entire point here.
>> I've been right all along, and you knew it, Bob.
>
>Hey, Chris, if it makes you feel good to keep score on this, and
>you think you "got one" here, by all means - knock yourself out.
>It makes very, very little difference to me one way or another.
Appearently it does, Bob. You've sure spent a lot of effort trying to
prove I was "wrong".
>You're certainly "right" in that you do not see this as a significant
>difference. You are equally certainly wrong if you believe that
>everyone trying to decide between these types shares that view.
>All I can do is to try to explain what differences exist, where they
>come from, and what if anything can be done to compensate for
>them.
That doesn't explain your aggressive, confrontational attempt to
discredit my entirely reasonable stance on this issue, Bob.
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:
>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:koh8f0pg7tlbv8kj35npn8rlqllim7slnf@4ax.com...
>> Well, actually I asked you to nit-pick the LCD the way you did the
>> CRT, but instead I got a summary devoid of extreme nit-picking, which
>> I suppose suits me fine, anyway.
>
>If you can think of some relevant "extreme nit-picking" to
>add, please be my guest. If, on the other hand, you think
>anyone here is in any way required to write whatever you
>request, think again.
But you wrote "Ask and ye shall receive", Bob. That's a strong
implication that you were providing what I requested, is it not? Just
another misinterpretation of what I wrote, Bob?
>> I note that there was nothing in the summary regarding disadvantages
>> of the CRT due to it's thick glass front. Apparently the effects are
>> so small as to not be worthy of your reasonably complete summary.
>
>Obviously, getting into every detail of both technologies would
>require a book. I've done a book before, and it's not all that
>much fun - and it's certainly not something I'm going to be doing
>for the sheer hell of it here.
>
>> This, of course, bolsters my case that the effects of the thick glass
>> do indeed NOT cause a "big difference" relative to the LCD.
>
>Boy, when you get hung up on something, you really get hung
>up on it, don't you?
Yes, Bob, I will stick to the issue at hand, thank you. It's routine
for people to try to change the subject on me, when their case in the
issue at hand is weak. I won't allow that, Bob.
>Is it as "big" a difference as, say, the problems with color purity
>or convergence or susceptibility to external fields? No, not in the
>minds of most customers. Still, the optical effects of the thicker
>faceplate IS a very obvious and visible difference
If you're purposely scrutinizing the display for imperfections, maybe.
For normal usage, I disagree.
> (and yes, it IS
>one that I have known to be a deciding factor in the purchasing
>decision in some cases). But, as with all things, it's going to depend
>a lot on what a particular customer considers to be "big."
So, even though CRT's can have excellent images, despite issues with
color purity, convergence, and susceptibility to external fields, the
relatively benign effects of the "thick glass" can be reasonably
described as a "big difference"? Sorry, Bob, but I don't think that's
a reasonable opinion, which is the entire point here.
>> I've been right all along, and you knew it, Bob.
>
>Hey, Chris, if it makes you feel good to keep score on this, and
>you think you "got one" here, by all means - knock yourself out.
>It makes very, very little difference to me one way or another.
Appearently it does, Bob. You've sure spent a lot of effort trying to
prove I was "wrong".
>You're certainly "right" in that you do not see this as a significant
>difference. You are equally certainly wrong if you believe that
>everyone trying to decide between these types shares that view.
>All I can do is to try to explain what differences exist, where they
>come from, and what if anything can be done to compensate for
>them.
That doesn't explain your aggressive, confrontational attempt to
discredit my entirely reasonable stance on this issue, Bob.