mate most of your posts in this thread are : "Pointless clutter"mikkel wrote:
mitch212k_2 wrote:
Very simply a higher res is better for everyone other than Mikk :pPlease, read the thread to avoid the pointless clutter.mikkel wrote:
The higher your resolution is, the clearer your picture is. That's what high definition is. High resolution. The best resolution you can have is the highest resolution you find practical.
All of my posts are addressing people's comments to my posts. That's the point of discussion. So far your track record here has been posting a comment to me that goes contrary to my very first post, suggesting that you haven't a clue of what we're talking about here, and then this very elaborate reply. No technical input, no arguments to either side, nothing to contribute to anything. That's colloquially referred to as spam. Please, if you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion, just stay away.mitch212k_2 wrote:
mate most of your posts in this thread are : "Pointless clutter"mikkel wrote:
mitch212k_2 wrote:
Very simply a higher res is better for everyone other than Mikk :pPlease, read the thread to avoid the pointless clutter.mikkel wrote:
The higher your resolution is, the clearer your picture is. That's what high definition is. High resolution. The best resolution you can have is the highest resolution you find practical.
Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-02 03:10:18)
Seriously,,, native resolution is the only way to go about it unless you just want your screen to look like crap....mikkel wrote:
I'm on the verge of giving up here. We've already established that the best resolution for the monitor is the native resolution. Please stop repeating this tired argument.FloppY_ wrote:
Now this is excatly why we are arguing with you mikkel... a higher resolution is NOT clearer than the native resolution... because you loose pixels going to higher than native res, making it unclear....mikkel wrote:
Please, read the thread to avoid the pointless clutter.mitch212k_2 wrote:
Very simply a higher res is better for everyone other than Mikk :p
HD is high resolution, yes. but the high resolution is 1080px x (something)px and that is what the TV's are made for because that is the resolution HD tv is broadcasted at.. therefore.. HD tv will run no higher than it's native resolution because thats what the hardware is made for.... unless you go stupid and view HD tv on a CRT screen with the res. boosted over HD res. making it stretch and warp pixels to make them fit, making it less clear...
The higher your resolution is, the sharper your picture is. That's an undeniable truth, it's the consequence of adding more detail to a picture, so when the thread starter asks if having a high resolution is good, then the answer is "yes, it's fine". Some monitors are designed for a certain resolution, and work best at this resolution. You get the sharpest picture at this resolution. We've already established that. He can read that in his manual, and by the sound of things, he has found the native resolution. His question then boils down to "I like 1680x1050 best. Is having such a high resolution good?". The answer to that question is "yes, it's fine". Had the resolution he liked the best been 1200x1024, the answer to the question of whether or not it's good to have such a high resolution would still be "yes, it's fine", but this is where you seem to derail and fail to take into account that people have individual preferences. Apparently you're suggesting that no matter which resolution you like the best, you should abandon it in favour of the native resolution. That's simply not true, and you've done nothing to argue against me at all.
You need to argue against what it is that I'm saying, so that I can actually answer things that are relevant to my position, because my patience with these irrelevant comments is running very low, and I'm tired of hearing how people who do things the way they want to do them are "stupid" and "retarded", because honestly, I expect somewhat more of you.
After choosing native res you edit your windows to look the way you want it,, (font size, size of menu bars etc.)
So you are simply arguing for the fact that you like your screen to look blurry and that is what you do... becuase everything else can be customized to look the way you want it to on the native res.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Dear lord. Let's try again. I am well aware that the native resolution is the best resolution for your monitor. Anyone can read that in their manual. Some people prefer off-native resolution. Obviously they don't think it looks like "crap", and even if they do, they obviously prefer the alternative resolution, since they're using it, making it the "best" resolution for them on their monitor. I hope this settles that.FloppY_ wrote:
Seriously,,, native resolution is the only way to go about it unless you just want your screen to look like crap....mikkel wrote:
I'm on the verge of giving up here. We've already established that the best resolution for the monitor is the native resolution. Please stop repeating this tired argument.FloppY_ wrote:
Now this is excatly why we are arguing with you mikkel... a higher resolution is NOT clearer than the native resolution... because you loose pixels going to higher than native res, making it unclear....
HD is high resolution, yes. but the high resolution is 1080px x (something)px and that is what the TV's are made for because that is the resolution HD tv is broadcasted at.. therefore.. HD tv will run no higher than it's native resolution because thats what the hardware is made for.... unless you go stupid and view HD tv on a CRT screen with the res. boosted over HD res. making it stretch and warp pixels to make them fit, making it less clear...
The higher your resolution is, the sharper your picture is. That's an undeniable truth, it's the consequence of adding more detail to a picture, so when the thread starter asks if having a high resolution is good, then the answer is "yes, it's fine". Some monitors are designed for a certain resolution, and work best at this resolution. You get the sharpest picture at this resolution. We've already established that. He can read that in his manual, and by the sound of things, he has found the native resolution. His question then boils down to "I like 1680x1050 best. Is having such a high resolution good?". The answer to that question is "yes, it's fine". Had the resolution he liked the best been 1200x1024, the answer to the question of whether or not it's good to have such a high resolution would still be "yes, it's fine", but this is where you seem to derail and fail to take into account that people have individual preferences. Apparently you're suggesting that no matter which resolution you like the best, you should abandon it in favour of the native resolution. That's simply not true, and you've done nothing to argue against me at all.
You need to argue against what it is that I'm saying, so that I can actually answer things that are relevant to my position, because my patience with these irrelevant comments is running very low, and I'm tired of hearing how people who do things the way they want to do them are "stupid" and "retarded", because honestly, I expect somewhat more of you.
After choosing native res you edit your windows to look the way you want it,, (font size, size of menu bars etc.)
So you are simply arguing for the fact that you like your screen to look blurry and that is what you do... becuase everything else can be customized to look the way you want it to on the native res.
As for what I like and dislike,
I hope I won't need to quote previous posts anymore. When I use LCDs, I prefer the native resolution. It looks nicer to me.mikkel wrote:
Actually, I don't own an LCD.
Other people, however, prefer different resolutions. It's an empirically established fact to anyone who has been around people using computers. It's not because they're idiots, it's not because they're "retarded", it's because they like their resolution better than the others they're presented with. If they like their resolution, then who on Earth are you to tell them that they should use a different resolution?
You seem to hop back and forth between arguing about my statements concering resolution, and arguing against my statements about people's preferences. Arguing that people's preferences are secondary to how they use their equipment is a futile argument. It's just not true. Arguing against that higher resolutions make for higher fidelity pictures, and that certain monitors display certain resolutions better than others has no footing in the technical aspects of it.
I honestly don't know what you're trying to prove here.
Just go away, do everyone a favour - and you have absoultely no idea what I do or don't know too "Mikkel"
There's no point posting "technical input" as FloppY has tried too, because you're so convinced you're right you won't take notice of it, it says a lot about someone when they have to sit on the forum hitting refresh so they can check EVERY new post ...
There's no point posting "technical input" as FloppY has tried too, because you're so convinced you're right you won't take notice of it, it says a lot about someone when they have to sit on the forum hitting refresh so they can check EVERY new post ...
Last edited by mitch212k_2 (2007-12-02 03:34:13)
Mikkel, this was never about user preference. When will you see that? You just put that in because you didn't want to look like a complete idiot.
QFTmitch212k_2 wrote:
Just go away, do everyone a favour - and you have absoultely no idea what I do or don't know too "Mikkel"
There's no point posting "technical input" as FloppY has tried too, because you're so convinced you're right you won't take notice of it, it says a lot about someone when they have to sit on the forum hitting refresh so they can check EVERY new post ...
People who follow discussions usually make an effort participate in them. What exactly is your point?mitch212k_2 wrote:
Just go away, do everyone a favour - and you have absoultely no idea what I do or don't know too "Mikkel"
There's no point posting "technical input" as FloppY has tried too, because you're so convinced you're right you won't take notice of it, it says a lot about someone when they have to sit on the forum hitting refresh so they can check EVERY new post ...
The point of a discussion is to argue your case. I argued mine, people disagreed, but no one seems to have any sort of relevant argument against, it, 'cause people aren't posting them.
I understand what FloppY is saying. He is saying precisely what I've said previously, and it's just as irrelevant to my position now as it was then.
Why don't you go away? You've contributed nothing to the thread. At all. It says a lot about a person when they post in a thread just to attack others, with no input or substance of their own. Do everyone a favour and just stick to posting in threads where you have valuable input.
Same goes for you. I see a lot of people being offensive, very few people actually trying to argue why they disagree with what I say, and absolutely no people actually saying anything contrary to what I'm claiming.Gawwad wrote:
QFTmitch212k_2 wrote:
Just go away, do everyone a favour - and you have absoultely no idea what I do or don't know too "Mikkel"
There's no point posting "technical input" as FloppY has tried too, because you're so convinced you're right you won't take notice of it, it says a lot about someone when they have to sit on the forum hitting refresh so they can check EVERY new post ...
People who just resort to pointless attacks without actually arguing against others are the type of people who just want to "win", and don't feel the need to prove things. I'm actively asking for people to post something contrary to what I'm claiming, but no one is. If you want to "win" this debate, please, post something that's contrary to my opinion so that we can stop this farce of irrelevant posts and get to the core of the matter.
Try reading my very first post in the thread.elbekko wrote:
Mikkel, this was never about user preference. When will you see that? You just put that in because you didn't want to look like a complete idiot.
Last edited by mikkel (2007-12-02 04:09:13)
thread had its answer long time ago
