Unpopular Tech Opinions

[Blademaster91]

3 hours ago, Stylized_Violence said:

A few more thoughts to add

 

1. Film screen protectors are better than tempered glass

 

2. Buying an overclockable processor and not overclocking is not a waste of money

 

3. The amount of time, money and R&D spent on a cell phone camera is ludicrous and could be better spent elsewhere (build quality, cell antennas, wireless protocols, battery life, etc)

 

 

1. Not sure if a glass screen protector would better shield a curved screen,but glass feels nicer than the plastic film protectors.

2. I agree on that one.

3. Yeah while I like a good camera,phone cameras are more than good enough, I'd like a replaceable battery and a more durable phone.

[Bombastinator]

19 minutes ago, Stylized_Violence said:

Got a thing for projectors do ya? Tbh I never considered projectors to be good for anything other than PowerPoint presentations. You'd really choose a projector over a monitor to watch movies? I'm ignorant in this field, how are projectors better? Legit question, no sarcasm.

Projectors have almost no size limit and can be stored away.  Your living room is not dominated by a giant video deity unless you want to to be and suddenly it’s a whole wall.  There are issues though.  Brightness and occlusion (things in front) are the big ones.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

1. Not sure if a glass screen protector would better shield a curved screen,but glass feels nicer than the plastic film protectors.

2. I agree on that one.

3. Yeah while I like a good camera,phone cameras are more than good enough, I'd like a replaceable battery and a more durable phone.

I never liked the tempered glass ones because they crack so easily, and a small crack soon spiderwebs into more and you gotta replace it. That's why they come in packs of like five and ten because you'll go through them constantly. Yeah they protect the screen but so inconvenient. The ones I get aren't plastic but some kind of flexible material that absorbs impacts without cracking, transferring some of the energy to your screen which is already tempered. Like a bulletproof vest honestly. The last one I had lasted almost three years before I replaced the phone, and it was dropped many times. IDK, everyone seems to have a hard on for tempered glass and I never understood why.

[dalekphalm]

14 minutes ago, Stylized_Violence said:

I never liked the tempered glass ones because they crack so easily, and a small crack soon spiderwebs into more and you gotta replace it. That's why they come in packs of like five and ten because you'll go through them constantly. Yeah they protect the screen but so inconvenient. The ones I get aren't plastic but some kind of flexible material that absorbs impacts without cracking, transferring some of the energy to your screen which is already tempered. Like a bulletproof vest honestly. The last one I had lasted almost three years before I replaced the phone, and it was dropped many times. IDK, everyone seems to have a hard on for tempered glass and I never understood why.

I’ve never had a tempered glass screen protector crack, ever, and I drop my phone all the time. I’ve been exclusively using them for at least 4 phones (plus my fiancées two previous phones). We also have dozens of iPads using them at work too. 
 

I’ve seen them chip occasionally, but it has never spread to a crack. 
 

Either you’re being super rough, or you’re buying the wrong protectors. I’ve used a bunch of different brands (spigen, phantom glass, etc) - no issues. 
 

The glass ones also have the best finger experience that is closest to using the phone without a protector at all. 

[Blademaster91]

6 hours ago, Stylized_Violence said:

I never liked the tempered glass ones because they crack so easily, and a small crack soon spiderwebs into more and you gotta replace it. That's why they come in packs of like five and ten because you'll go through them constantly. Yeah they protect the screen but so inconvenient. The ones I get aren't plastic but some kind of flexible material that absorbs impacts without cracking, transferring some of the energy to your screen which is already tempered. Like a bulletproof vest honestly. The last one I had lasted almost three years before I replaced the phone, and it was dropped many times. IDK, everyone seems to have a hard on for tempered glass and I never understood why.

I've only had the adhesive fail on a glass screen protector, it's really annoying when lint and dust gets underneath.

Though I know what you mean with the film, it's more a vinyl like material, the nice thing about those are more fingerprint resistant than glass,and used to be more popular now they're difficult to find since everyone wants tempered glass.

[cafe]

47 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Projectors have almost no size limit and can be stored away.  Your living room is not dominated by a giant video deity unless you want to to be and suddenly it’s a whole wall.  There are issues though.  Brightness and occlusion (things in front) are the big ones.

short throw and there are projectors that deal with things like occlusion properly and there are some decently bright projectors*, but if you have all your windows open and lights on when watching a movie, are you even human?

[TempestCatto]

13 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I’ve never had a tempered glass screen protector crack, ever, and I drop my phone all the time. I’ve been exclusively using them for at least 4 phones (plus my fiancées two previous phones). We also have dozens of iPads using them at work too. 
 

I’ve seen them chip occasionally, but it has never spread to a crack. 
 

Either you’re being super rough, or you’re buying the wrong protectors. I’ve used a bunch of different brands (spigen, phantom glass, etc) - no issues. 
 

The glass ones also have the best finger experience that is closest to using the phone without a protector at all. 

Just going to add to this. My best friend just recently got a hairline crack in his, but he abuses his phone and treats it very roughly. He's had it for almost two years. Given the way he treats it, I'd say his glass screen protector did its job, and rather well at that. I personally think glass protectors look more sleek and don't get dirty like the other kinds do. You can just wipe it clean and it looks as good as the phone's bare screen.

[cafe]

1 hour ago, Stylized_Violence said:

Got a thing for projectors do ya? Tbh I never considered projectors to be good for anything other than PowerPoint presentations. You'd really choose a projector over a monitor to watch movies? I'm ignorant in this field, how are projectors better? Legit question, no sarcasm.

when you get into it super deep, like computers, you can create yourself a setup with your perfect backdrop for your perfect color reproduction.

you build the thing the projector projects on, if you really want to

movie theatres were projectors, idk if they are anymore but yeah.

the color could get stupid insane good.

Also you can watch old movies and new on any size "screen" you want.

its literally endgame for any real entertainment enthusiast, rich billionaires dont create a movie theatre room just to say they have a cinema in their house

its because they want to recreate the awe of the best movie medium to exist.

look at how into it you can get

 

[TempestCatto]

21 minutes ago, RelativeMono said:

movie theatres were projectors, idk if they are anymore but yeah

They're still projectors. Some are still 35mm(?) film.

 

As someone who works with them in a live environment (as a side gig) they're way better than a digital display. The more expensive ones (I'm akin to Eiki) punch through bright house lighting and stage lighting from about 150 (or so) feet away with no issues what so ever (I used to work with one mounted 300 feet away and it works amazingly. Though it's over 10 years old and is LCD, it's showing its age). Perfect colours, smooth movements, no latency. If I ever get my own house, I won't be getting a TV, rather a good laser projector.

[Drak3]

15 minutes ago, RelativeMono said:

rich billionaires dont create a movie theatre room just to say they have a cinema in their house

its because they want to recreate the awe of the best movie medium to exist.

Billionaires with movie theaters as rooms do so to have something to spend money on, and they're usually new money, so some form of bragging rights is a factor.

 

17 minutes ago, RelativeMono said:

its literally endgame for any real entertainment enthusiast

Not really. The best projectors aren't going to beat out high end panels, and the price difference isn't justifiable to most enthusiasts. Nor does everyone give a shit about having an entire wall act as their display. The trade offs have already been mentioned of conventional projectors. Sure, short throw projectors can fix them, but bring the compromises of higher expense, lower comparative quality, and a lower ceiling for quality.

Don't gatekeep based on your preferences and preconcieved notions.

[cloneman]

Removing the headphone jack was instrumental in pushing forward aptX and SBC-HD on Android & LineageOS. Now we just need to put it back so we get the best of both worlds.

[Skipple]

25 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

the price difference isn't justifiable to most enthusiasts

endgame != justified spending

 

25 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Don't gatekeep based on your preferences and preconcieved notions.

...what? Nobody is gatekeeping anything. They are just discussing projectors 

 

25 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Billionaires with movie theaters as rooms do so to have something to spend money on, and they're usually new money, so some form of bragging rights is a factor.

Sorry, who has preconcieved notions?

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, Skipple said:

Sorry, who has preconcieved notions?

Not really a preconceived notion. There is a large historical precedent that the wealthy fall within two mindsets:

Those that spend lavishly because they can (almost always because they didn't have much money throughout their young life, and didn't do much to earn their wealth): new money.

Those that hold onto their wealth or reinvest it into new economic endeavors: old money.

Old money are usually comprised of either a first generation that worked hard for their money (Bill Gates being a prime example) or have been born into wealth and groomed to respect wealth (Rockerfellers, Kennedys, Hiltons). Lavish spending is looked down upon.

11 minutes ago, Skipple said:

...what? Nobody is gatekeeping anything.

Quote

its literally endgame for any real entertainment enthusiast,

^ That is gatekeeping. That insinuation is that if you don't strive to have high end projector setups, you aren't a real enthusiast, is an elitist attitude.

 

14 minutes ago, Skipple said:

endgame != justified spending

The endgame has to be justifiable to whoever is trying to reach it. That was pretty obvious by the full context of the sentence. Otherwise I would have said this:

Quote

the price difference isn't justifiable

Instead of qualifying it with this:

Quote

to most enthusiasts

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I’ve never had a tempered glass screen protector crack, ever, and I drop my phone all the time. I’ve been exclusively using them for at least 4 phones (plus my fiancées two previous phones). We also have dozens of iPads using them at work too. 
 

I’ve seen them chip occasionally, but it has never spread to a crack. 
 

Either you’re being super rough, or you’re buying the wrong protectors. I’ve used a bunch of different brands (spigen, phantom glass, etc) - no issues. 
 

The glass ones also have the best finger experience that is closest to using the phone without a protector at all. 

I lol'ed at 'best finger experience'. But for real, perhaps I did buy the wrong ones. Last purchase of them was around 2015 so I don't recall the brand, but they always seemed to be too brittle. Either way, to each their own. I got a nice $7 protector that I LOVE so whatever works for people!

[messy]

11 hours ago, Stylized_Violence said:

A few more thoughts to add

 

1. Film screen protectors are better than tempered glass

 

2. Buying an overclockable processor and not overclocking is not a waste of money

 

3. The amount of time, money and R&D spent on a cell phone camera is ludicrous and could be better spent elsewhere (build quality, cell antennas, wireless protocols, battery life, etc)

 

 

 

3. I disagree  The ONLY thing that will tempt me to upgrade to a newer phone is does it have a better camera.

I used to have a DSLR and like photography a lot but I found I wasn't making time to go out with all my gear etc so the expensive kit was going to waste. When I looked at the camera on my phone (Samsung S6) I realised that the quality was really very good (not SLR good but good enough for a compromise) so I sold all my gear and just use my camera now. In advanced mode I can more or less control all the settings I'd like.
 

I thought about getting a S9 or 10 recently but when I looked at photo comparisons I actually think the s6 is better so if it ever breaks ill just buy a new old stock one.

 

Stopping camera research wont suddenly make other parts much better - its not like these companies are lacking in research funds - they have more than enough to fully research everything. 

[cafe]

10 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Not really a preconceived notion. There is a large historical precedent that the wealthy fall within two mindsets:

Those that spend lavishly because they can (almost always because they didn't have much money throughout their young life, and didn't do much to earn their wealth): new money.

Those that hold onto their wealth or reinvest it into new economic endeavors: old money.

Old money are usually comprised of either a first generation that worked hard for their money (Bill Gates being a prime example) or have been born into wealth and groomed to respect wealth (Rockerfellers, Kennedys, Hiltons). Lavish spending is looked down upon.

^ That is gatekeeping. That insinuation is that if you don't strive to have high end projector setups, you aren't a real enthusiast, is an elitist attitude.

 

The endgame has to be justifiable to whoever is trying to reach it. That was pretty obvious by the full context of the sentence. Otherwise I would have said this:

Instead of qualifying it with this:

 

haha "unpopular tech opinions" and you cry

higher resolution doesnt = better movie display, thats normie talk

you sure as hell cant have a better movie experience on a 1 million dollar tv over a 1 million dollar projector setup.

[cafe]

Just now, Genwyn said:

“Oh our motherboard has the best vrm cooling on the market, we put a tiny fan and a single heat pipe on our vrm cooler for ultimate gaymer performance!”

 

NOPE

Bow down retards, to the Gigabyte ep45t extreme.

You think your vrm cooling is impressive? This thing can cool the whole neighborhood. It has six pounds worth of copper on it. This board did your mom last night. It doesn’t use water for the water cooling, it exclusively cools using tequila with gold flakes in it.

 

ive never seen a pci mounted headspreader before lol

[DrMacintosh]

Large phone bezels are beneficial to phone handling. Conversely small bezels are detrimental to phone handling. 

[cafe]

i want a phone with a slideout keyboard again

and the android sidekick sucked, but i want a new sidekick with the sidekick2 size and look and feel on new android.

[Retro_R]

14 hours ago, RelativeMono said:

1080p is the endgame and anything larger than 24" is only acceptable as a projector.

The only valid option for movies is a projector.

Cloth projector screens are the best.

Grey is the best color for projector contrast.

The goal should be 1ms projectors for gaming, not better monitors.

I can agree with 1080p, but I feel that projectors have a lot more disadvantages than monitors/tvs. First of all, like others on here have said, the brightness is a lot lower on a projector than a monitor/tv. You need to have almost all the lights and windows turned off/shut just to see the picture properly, whereas, with a monitor, you can watch with the lights on or off. Second off, you almost always have to buy a projector screen to see the image right, unless you have a white (or off white) wall with nothing on it and able to be displayed, which most people don't have. Also, the screen has to be taken as in the physical space and cost, and time to set it up. Also, monitors are a lot more versatile, whereas projectors aren't. For example, my desk/setup just isn't fit for a projector, my led lights would interfere with the display quality, and I don't even know where I would hang the projector. Also, the price could also be a factor. If you go for a projector over lets say, a tv, you would most likely want a ceiling mount along with the screen (And of course the projector) can add up. Compared to a tv, the set up (trying to be as equivalent to the tv and likewise as possible) was about $1,100, where as the tv was $900. Imo monitors > projectors at least for gaming. I can get projectors for movies tho.

[TempestCatto]

2 minutes ago, Retro_R said:

the brightness is a lot lower on a projector

Just going to chime in and say the projectors I work with don't have this issue. While yes, it does help to lower lighting, projectors made for live environments are actually rather good at this. Expensive for sure, but not for the consumer either. I wouldn't personally buy a consumer model myself, rather I'd buy one made for a live environment with a short throw lens. Typically the lens's are separate from the body itself, kinda like a good camera. You can pay almost 20,000 USD for just a body alone. But you get what you pay for here, that's for sure.

[Retro_R]

4 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

Just going to chime in and say the projectors I work with don't have this issue. While yes, it does help to lower lighting, projectors made for live environments are actually rather good at this. Expensive for sure, but not for the consumer either. I wouldn't personally buy a consumer model myself, rather I'd buy one made for a live environment with a short throw lens. Typically the lens's are separate from the body itself, kinda like a good camera. You can pay almost 20,000 USD for just a body alone. But you get what you pay for here, that's for sure.

by 'live environments' do you mean like public displays of movies, and stuff like that? Like you said these aren't really consumer grade, and I don't think you can really buy those at like Best buy. I'm talking more of that stuff. Yes, you can get the professional stuff, but the price doesn't justify it, compared to a tv (at least for personal use). For example, the $20,000 projector you were talking about for one of the 'live environment projectors. For that price you can get 8 of these 85" smart 4k tvs. 8 tvs for the price of 1 projector. Although the projectors you're talking about are business focused items, which usually go for a lot more than consumer stuff.

[TempestCatto]

2 minutes ago, Retro_R said:

by 'live environments' do you mean like public displays of movies, and stuff like that? Like you said these aren't really consumer grade, and I don't think you can really buy those at like Best buy. I'm talking more of that stuff. Yes, you can get the professional stuff, but the price doesn't justify it, compared to a tv (at least for personal use). For example, the $20,000 projector you were talking about for one of the 'live environment projectors. For that price you can get 8 of these 85" smart 4k tvs. 8 tvs for the price of 1 projector. Although the projectors you're talking about are business focused items, which usually go for a lot more than consumer stuff.

Live environment as in live venue stuff. Punching through bright house and stage lights (sometimes even sun light, but that gets tricky). These projectors don't typically go above 1080p. Cinema projectors obviously go way above that, and are far more expensive. It's kind of a hobby, in a way. All the good hobbies are expensive. It's more or less the experience you get out of it. But a projector is not something I'd recommend for most people, as they're not economically practical. They have their cons, but have their pros too. I wouldn't use one for gaming myself, unless the game was a more cinematic type, like Flight Sim. 

 

Knowing what I do, working with what I do, I can't help but laugh at consumer grade projectors. They don't have the lumens to have even a small light on in an otherwise dark room. I don't think those on a consumer level are worth buying/using. Spend more money and you'll have something far more versatile. But as stated, you can buy higher res smart tv's for far less; and that's what I'd recommend to most people. Just a cheaper 4k tv.

 

Projectors need a screen, a good one at that. Good screens have a reflective property to them that makes the image seem brighter to the viewer, when it's really not. This helps colours to pop and makes the overall image much more clear. A good screen costs a good chunk of change as well (depending on size that is).

 

So are they economical? Absolutely not. Should someone buy one? Only if they're really into it, kinda like I am. Otherwise buy a nice tv and you'll never look back.

[cafe]

20 minutes ago, Tegos said:

1- Keyboards without numpads really weird and the people who can use them are powerful and scary.
2- Gaming chairs and desks are ridiculous.
 

people who actually need a numpad just buy a separate one and put it on the right side of the mouse, where is belongs.

[cafe]

35 minutes ago, Retro_R said:

I can agree with 1080p, but I feel that projectors have a lot more disadvantages than monitors/tvs. First of all, like others on here have said, the brightness is a lot lower on a projector than a monitor/tv. You need to have almost all the lights and windows turned off/shut just to see the picture properly, whereas, with a monitor, you can watch with the lights on or off. Second off, you almost always have to buy a projector screen to see the image right, unless you have a white (or off white) wall with nothing on it and able to be displayed, which most people don't have. Also, the screen has to be taken as in the physical space and cost, and time to set it up. Also, monitors are a lot more versatile, whereas projectors aren't. For example, my desk/setup just isn't fit for a projector, my led lights would interfere with the display quality, and I don't even know where I would hang the projector. Also, the price could also be a factor. If you go for a projector over lets say, a tv, you would most likely want a ceiling mount along with the screen (And of course the projector) can add up. Compared to a tv, the set up (trying to be as equivalent to the tv and likewise as possible) was about $1,100, where as the tv was $900. Imo monitors > projectors at least for gaming. I can get projectors for movies tho.

i never said projectors were even remotely good for gaming. I just think that should be the goal.

although a 4k projector is tits for a second computer display.