Why is the video card industry driven by games but not the..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Leythos wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:24:20 +0000, Andrew wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:52:48 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Not on any of the First Person games I play, a object that is 6 pixels
>>>at 800x600 is also 6 pixels at 1600x1200.
>>
>>So every object is half the size on the screen at 1600x1200? Try to
>>think through what you wrote.
>
>
> Not quite half the size, but if you go from 800x600 to 1600x1200 you see
> more of the surrounding area, but everything is much smaller - call it
> what you want, but it's still smaller and not double the size.

For a given display, a given object, viewed from a given point will be a
fixed physical size regardless of resolution. Thats true for every
single 3D game I have played.

If you move from 800x600 to 1600x1200 the object has 4 times as many
pixels that make it up, and it therefore has more detail.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[boe]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

It turns out LG has a 32" LCD with a 8ms response time. That is pretty
impressive. This gives me hope that they might make a standard format
instead of wide screen that might come closer to my goal.


"boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>
> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen that
> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic developers
> would want.
>
> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say about
> 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
> but how about the standard format too?
>
> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it
> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
> format would be better for me.
>
> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>

 

[minotaur]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

You want Quality, not Lucky Goldstar 8ms I doubt it, but if so,
sounds great..

boe wrote:
> It turns out LG has a 32" LCD with a 8ms response time. That is pretty
> impressive. This gives me hope that they might make a standard format
> instead of wide screen that might come closer to my goal.
>
>
> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>
>>Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>>
>>I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
>>replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen that
>>should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>>manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic developers
>>would want.
>>
>>I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say about
>>24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
>>less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
>>but how about the standard format too?
>>
>>Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
>>or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
>>tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it
>>doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
>>the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>>format would be better for me.
>>
>>Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
>>started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Minotaur wrote:

>
>
> You want Quality, not Lucky Goldstar

What leads you to believe that LG suffers from any lack of quality? I've
been using their stuff now for 15 years or so with no problems. The only
problems I've ever even _heard_ of anybody having with their stuff were
with the firmware on a few models of DVD burner. It's not always cutting
edge but it's always been reliable. Bear in mind that they make IBM heavy
iron for the Korean market. If they lacked quality IBM would not license
them to do that.

> 8ms I doubt it, but if so,
> sounds great..

<http://us.lge.com/Product/proddetail.do?actCategory=computer&archivedYn=&actType=search&categoryId=0000000201&prodId=1000000469&parentId=0000000002&parent2levelId=0000000002&category_level=3&totalItem=31&currentPage=1&perPage=10>

Currently everybody seems to be sold out.

> boe wrote:
>> It turns out LG has a 32" LCD with a 8ms response time. That is pretty
>> impressive. This gives me hope that they might make a standard format
>> instead of wide screen that might come closer to my goal.
>>
>>
>> "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>>>
>>>I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
>>>replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen
>>>that
>>>should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>>>manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
>>>developers would want.
>>>
>>>I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
>>>about 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh -
>>>8ms or
>>>less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
>>>but how about the standard format too?
>>>
>>>Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
>>>or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
>>>tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it
>>>doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
>>>the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>>>format would be better for me.
>>>
>>>Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
>>>started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>>>
>>
>>
>>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[coup]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:17:47 -0700, "boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:

>It turns out LG has a 32" LCD with a 8ms response time. That is pretty
>impressive. This gives me hope that they might make a standard format
>instead of wide screen that might come closer to my goal.
>
>
>"boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:5cOdnSlTkLokAc_fRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>> Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.
>>
>> I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
>> replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen that
>> should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
>> manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic developers
>> would want.
>>
>> I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say about
>> 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
>> less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice
>> but how about the standard format too?
>>
>> Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV
>> or otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've
>> tested the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it
>> doesn't compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like
>> the wide screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard
>> format would be better for me.
>>
>> Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
>> started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.
>>
>

Also close:

HP L2335 based on the same panel used by one Apple monitor.
23 inches, 1920x1200 max resolution, HP doesn't quote a response time,
I'm betting it's 25ms at best, and the one review I have found says
you have REAL fun finding a video card that will sync to it at
1920x1200...but it can be done.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:01:40 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:

>Minotaur wrote:
>> You want Quality, not Lucky Goldstar
>
>What leads you to believe that LG suffers from any lack of quality? I've
>been using their stuff now for 15 years or so with no problems.

If you'd been around for more than 15 years, you'd remember the gawd
awful cheap TV sets that Goldstar used to whore around.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 02:40:45 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 08:07:51 -0700, boe wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your reply and the food for thought. This is a 20" viewable
>> - same as my current model - I'm hoping to find something with a bigger
>> viewable area.
>
>Since bigger won't improve your online playing ability, won't improve your
>shot accuracy, and will increase eye strain, what are you hoping to get
>out of the larger monitor?

You live in an interesting world. Do they have you on prozac ?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

repairs_r_us wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:01:40 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Minotaur wrote:
>>> You want Quality, not Lucky Goldstar
>>
>>What leads you to believe that LG suffers from any lack of quality? I've
>>been using their stuff now for 15 years or so with no problems.
>
> If you'd been around for more than 15 years, you'd remember the gawd
> awful cheap TV sets that Goldstar used to whore around.

I don't remember seeing a "Goldstar" TV until very recently. The first LG
product I remember seeing was a monitor that had been working fine for
years.

But that might have been the time in my life when I had little interest in
television.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:02:50 -0700, LOL wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 02:40:45 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 08:07:51 -0700, boe wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply and the food for thought. This is a 20"
>>> viewable - same as my current model - I'm hoping to find something
>>> with a bigger viewable area.
>>
>>Since bigger won't improve your online playing ability, won't improve
>>your shot accuracy, and will increase eye strain, what are you hoping to
>>get out of the larger monitor?
>
> You live in an interesting world. Do they have you on prozac ?

Do you not understand the basics of resolution and gaming while you're on
Viagra? I think the blue shift has tinted your judgment.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:11:56 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:02:50 -0700, LOL wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 02:40:45 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 08:07:51 -0700, boe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your reply and the food for thought. This is a 20"
>>>> viewable - same as my current model - I'm hoping to find something
>>>> with a bigger viewable area.
>>>
>>>Since bigger won't improve your online playing ability, won't improve
>>>your shot accuracy, and will increase eye strain, what are you hoping to
>>>get out of the larger monitor?
>>
>> You live in an interesting world. Do they have you on prozac ?
>
>Do you not understand the basics of resolution and gaming while you're on
>Viagra? I think the blue shift has tinted your judgment.


LOL. Some of us have real eyes and real reflexes.

We don't make up strange excuses and then pawn them off on others

Buy the 21" Mitsubishi/Nec CRT monitor.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

<repairs_r_us> wrote in message
news:96pl515cim2nsqoom58v227198e9mtjlqe@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:01:40 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Minotaur wrote:
> >> You want Quality, not Lucky Goldstar
> >
> >What leads you to believe that LG suffers from
any lack of quality? I've
> >been using their stuff now for 15 years or so
with no problems.
>
> If you'd been around for more than 15 years,
you'd remember the gawd
> awful cheap TV sets that Goldstar used to whore
around.

Their CD Writers are great. The old Goldstar
stereos from the 90's were nasty.