Unpopular Tech Opinions

[Retro_R]

14 minutes ago, RelativeMono said:

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.

I didn't say anything about it's gaming abilities, I'm saying it as general. There are a lot of disadvantages that a projector has against tvs (and likewise).

 

Also, you can buy a 4k monitor for about $400, the cheapest 4k projector (that I can find) is about $1,000. Just saying, it would be better to get a monitor imo

[cafe]

12 minutes ago, Retro_R said:

I didn't say anything about it's gaming abilities, I'm saying it as general. There are a lot of disadvantages that a projector has against tvs (and likewise).

 

Also, you can buy a 4k monitor for about $400, the cheapest 4k projector (that I can find) is about $1,000. Just saying, it would be better to get a monitor imo

im not talking about budget. a 1080p projector is better than a 4k monitor, you can do more things with a projector. also along with being able to do more, you can de-emphasis the issues with a projector by changing colors of backdrop, making your own (not being a degenerate and turning off your lights.)

 

28 minutes ago, Tegos said:

Damn I actually never thought of that. I mean, I've seen those usb numpads before, but keeping towards the right side of the mouse sounds way more practical.

oh yeah. its nice i tell ya

if the right side of your mouse is too far you can also move the numpad above your mouse, close to the right of your keyboard. which is nice because you still can get the mouse realestate you want while also having a numpad on the leftish of your mouse.

A seperate numpad is just better too, you can just move it wherever. (to the left side of your keyboard even)

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, RelativeMono said:

higher resolution doesnt = better movie display, thats normie talk

Show me where I said this.

 

1 hour ago, RelativeMono said:

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

Yes, you very easily can.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, messy said:

 

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. 

Well I didn't mean that we need to stop doing camera research. Like when one of the tech Youtubers reviews a new phone, it seems like 90% of the review is dedicated to the camera and splitting hairs on little things like lighting and noise. I understand people want their phones to take good photos, but this nit picking on things so slight makes me think we're not caring about what really makes a phone a good buy. Any smartphone on the market today will take a decent photo, whether it has one camera or ten. I think the main reason smartphones are so expensive is because those camera units cost a lot of money to make, and I'd just like to see more money thrown towards what I would call better things like what I mentioned earlier.

 

Being a photographer I think you're an exception to the mainstream rule, so in your specific case I see your point.

[Retro_R]

I feel that ryzen 3000 should be on almost every new build list. Just looking at the part list opinions on PCPP forums, I feel like most of the builds should/could have Ryzen 3000. You could save some $$ from just the included cooler alone (and the fact it's actually decent, at least for a stock cooler). Maybe it's just me wanting to find the lowest price I could for something, or just not really knowing stuff, but ryzen and intel are bassicly the same rn. Maybe it's just me. idk

[ImNotGayBut5BuckIs5Bucks]

Blizard was evil garbage 20 years ago and jumping on the hate blizard bandwagon now just cuz some comies across the water something somthing blah blah is a fad that will fade.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 10/14/2019 at 4:01 PM, wisex said:

I don't mind playing games at 1080p 60fps, hell I'd rather have a good 1080p 60fps monitor with amazing color (like 100% RGB coverage), vs something like a 1080p 144hz tn panel

Not unpopular with me

After IPS, I can't do TN, no matter the framerate. First give me a gorgeous picture, and only then we can discuss how many of those you have.

I understand higher resolutions, though, as aliasing can be significant in not-that-big 1080p monitors, and antialiasing is a GPU-consuming mess, often no better in terms of GPU stress than using a higher resolution, and arguably worse in terms of results.

[Retro_R]

2 hours ago, -Kriss- said:

The stock cooler with the 3600 is ass.

Yeah, but it's better than nothing. Also, The stock cooler that comes with the 3600 is about on par with the stock cooler Intel gives on all it's cpus (if it includes a stock cooler). Also, with the price compared to Intel's offerings rn (9600k), you could get a decent aftermarket cooler and the cpu and still save some money. Plus the one in 3700x and above are pretty adequate.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

A few more contributions, screen edition:

 

1.  21:9 is a bad form factor for phones and we all deserve the remote-control-shaped phone for letting this happen
2. 16:10 is the pinnacle of computer screen formats, and we should only deviate from it to replace multi-(16:10)-monitor setups.
3. Curved screens are only tolerable as a second-best remedy to poor viewing angles in extra-wide TN panels, which should not happen because see rule number 2 (and because of no TN panels, see previous post ).

 

[MK29]

Chrome OS is a good OS for people, that use a Laptop for documents and surfing.

[Mihle]

17 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

A few more contributions, screen edition:

 

1.  21:9 is a bad form factor for phones and we all deserve the remote-control-shaped phone for letting this happen
2. 16:10 is the pinnacle of computer screen formats, and we should only deviate from it to replace multi-(16:10)-monitor setups.
3. Curved screens are only tolerable as a second-best remedy to poor viewing angles in extra-wide TN panels, which should not happen because see rule number 2 (and because of no TN panels, see previous post ).

 

Large VA (32" 4k for example) needs to be curved on monitor distance because viewing angle if you care anything about colour.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

6 hours ago, Mihle said:

Large VA (32" 4k for example) needs to be curved on monitor distance because viewing angle if you care anything about colour.

True. Replace TN with "non-IPS". "Peasant panel" works too.

[Anonymous247538]

On 9/19/2019 at 3:22 AM, Arika S said:

Windows 10 is a good OS.

 

Intel is not the Devil

 

NVidia is not evil incarnate

No widows 9 is a good OS

[kelvinhall05]

You don't need an i9 and 2080TI. Most people can probably do with a modern mid-range CPU and GPU or an older high-end combo.

[FakeNSA]

2 hours ago, kelvinhall05 said:

You don't need an i9 and 2080TI. Most people can probably do with a modern mid-range CPU and GPU or an older high-end combo.

Yes! I have not yet played a game that cannot be enjoyed at med/high 1080p60 on my gtx 1060 and i5 6600. Although I heard battlefield 5 might be a problem. (Haven’t bought it yet.)

[FALC0N]

On 10/17/2019 at 7:44 AM, Genwyn said:

Motherboard design these days is absolutely disgustingly bad. A lack of cooling and actual interesting feature sets................Its so BORING looking at motherboards now. They literally all look the exact same. Nobody is doing anything interesting except for a few very high end options.

 

I completely agree.

[messy]

On 10/17/2019 at 2:26 PM, -Kriss- said:

I get that some people are into photography and thats totally fine. But what makes cell phone cameras so important? I understand the convinence of having a decent camera on you at all times but..

What do you do with the pics? I mean even if you share them via social media its probably compressed or has that little bit extra that the vast majority of people arent going to notice anyway.

Im lot saying that they shouldnt ever try to improve the picture quality but we're pretty much at diminishing returns now for price/quality.

 

 

I might be biased though is camera (past like 2015 quality) is the least important to me in a new phone.

 

You can choose in the setting to shoot in a raw format and then it will only get compressed if you choose to do so in processing. If you're not that into photography you cna just choose to shoot in jpeg and although it is compressed the quality is still very good for most things a home user would want (printing out and framing etc)

[messy]

On 10/17/2019 at 7:59 PM, Stylized_Violence said:

Well I didn't mean that we need to stop doing camera research. Like when one of the tech Youtubers reviews a new phone, it seems like 90% of the review is dedicated to the camera and splitting hairs on little things like lighting and noise. I understand people want their phones to take good photos, but this nit picking on things so slight makes me think we're not caring about what really makes a phone a good buy. Any smartphone on the market today will take a decent photo, whether it has one camera or ten. I think the main reason smartphones are so expensive is because those camera units cost a lot of money to make, and I'd just like to see more money thrown towards what I would call better things like what I mentioned earlier.

 

Being a photographer I think you're an exception to the mainstream rule, so in your specific case I see your point.

the problem is that phone makers have run out of things that set them apart form the competition. Most of a phones features cant really be improved so they focus one one of the things that they can - the camera.

The other thing is screen resolution and how well it can "game" but I think they realized that mobile gaming is not really a platform anyone is much interested in and after a certain point increasing a tiny screen resolution is just pointless.

 

So the camera is their only way forward

[Inversion]

21 hours ago, kelvinhall05 said:

You don't need an i9 and 2080TI. Most people can probably do with a modern mid-range CPU and GPU or an older high-end combo.

Is this unpopular? Like most people on the Steam Hardware Survey are using middle of the road parts. It's generally what's affordable and most people still game at 1080p

[Bombastinator]

On 10/16/2019 at 10:40 PM, RelativeMono said:

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?

“I think therefore I am” -Descartes

[Guest]

5 hours ago, messy said:

the problem is that phone makers have run out of things that set them apart form the competition. Most of a phones features cant really be improved so they focus one one of the things that they can - the camera.

The other thing is screen resolution and how well it can "game" but I think they realized that mobile gaming is not really a platform anyone is much interested in and after a certain point increasing a tiny screen resolution is just pointless.

 

So the camera is their only way forward

I disagree. LTE bands, reliability and stability of wireless protocols like Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, battery longevity and quality...I mean there are plenty of areas to improve upon. To your point about moving forward with camera quality, I'd wager most people would be hard pressed to find legit differences in picture quality from a camera two years ago to now. The difference would be slight at best; a little less noise here, a little better in the dark over there, but honestly is it worth the price tag? I guess people will make that call for themselves, I just feel the camera is pretty much as good as it's going to get and the hardon tech Youtubers get over the slightest improvement isn't justified. But to each their own

[Roswell]

4 hours ago, Stylized_Violence said:

I disagree. LTE bands, reliability and stability of wireless protocols like Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, battery longevity and quality...I mean there are plenty of areas to improve upon. To your point about moving forward with camera quality, I'd wager most people would be hard pressed to find legit differences in picture quality from a camera two years ago to now. The difference would be slight at best; a little less noise here, a little better in the dark over there, but honestly is it worth the price tag? I guess people will make that call for themselves, I just feel the camera is pretty much as good as it's going to get and the hardon tech Youtubers get over the slightest improvement isn't justified. But to each their own

That's not true. For instance, low light performance has improved at a staggering pace over the last two years. If you take a look at what the iPhone 11 and Pixel 3/4 can do in comparison to what came before, it's insane. This is iPhone 11 vs iPhone X:

 

[kaiju_wars]

On 10/15/2019 at 4:01 PM, EldritchMoose said:

Video games are worse than they have ever been.

 

Bearing in mind that there are exceptions to the rule, the majority of big game releases nowadays are less engaging, less complete and often less stable than they have been in previous decades. Specifically within their own franchises, newer titles are more often than not carved up for the benefit of selling DLC, preorders and season passes (for instance, the latest Mortal Kombat had a roster of 24 fighters at launch, whereas Mortal Kombat Trilogy had 29 and Mortal Kombat Armageddon had 62) and that's if they even release in a stable enough state that they run.

 

It used to be that €60 would get you a full gameplay experience with a ton of unlockable content, now anything even resembling additional content gets a fancy name slapped on it and sold as an add-on to the game. Games used to make you get the adrenaline rush of progression early and often, whereas nowadays it's one grindfest after the next punctuated by the ability to buy timesavers, which is never anything more than an admission that the game is built to waste your time.

I disagree with this.. depending... I think multiplatform videogames have been really going down in quality.  

As for exclusive titles, I think they're better than they have been even five or six years ago.

Look at Nintendo for example:

• I loved Super Mario 3D World, but Odyssey is a much better 3D Mario game, tons of content.
• Kirby and the Rainbow Curse was unique, sure (and I loved it myself), but people had wanted a traditional Kirby game in HD.  Kirby Star Allies was that.
• Yoshi's Crafted World, imo, an amazing follow up to Yoshi's Woolly World.
• Super Smash Bros Ultimate.  I liked SSB for Wii U, but I honestly just prefer Ultimate a lot more, I love that literally everyone (plus some new characters) are there.
• Astral Chain.  Nintendo Published, made by Platinum Games.  Amazing game.  I played through it and loved every minute, very fun action adventure RPG.
• Splatoon 2.  Nintendo supported it for two years.  They released DLC that was actually worth it's $20 asking price, and even after July when support was supposed to be done, they released another patch to fix some things.
• Super Mario Maker 2.  It's great, not much to explain there.  It's better than the first one, and it added slopes.  
• The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.  I would argue it beats Ocarina of Time for me, tbh.  That's subjective, but still.

 

Same with Sony and some of their exclusives.

The Last of Us, the Gravity Rush series aren't the best things since sliced bread, but it's a fun and unique twist on the 3D platformer aspect.  Uncharted 4 is really fun, and God of War is great too.  Same with Horizon Zero Dawn.

 

Sure, these are exclusives, but they're all big AAA releases.

 

Now when it comes to multiplatform releases, I don't have as much high hopes.  Adding Division style combat/enemies to Wolfenstien Young Blood was a bad decision in my mind.  I loved the Wolfenstein reboot series, but the third game is just... meh  Ghost Recon Wildlands wasn't a good follow up to Future Soldier, imo.  Far Cry 5, yeah, worst one of the series IMO.  Battlefield and CoD every year.  EA with what they did to Star Wars.  Do I even need to discuss Fallout 76

 

[kaiju_wars]

On 10/16/2019 at 6:38 PM, Stylized_Violence said:

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

 

On 10/16/2019 at 9:49 PM, Blademaster91 said:

2. I agree on that one.

Considering every single one of AMD's CPUs on the consumer market minus the Athlons are overclockable, I think this is a silly statement.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

Considering every single one of AMD's CPUs on the consumer market minus the Athlons are overclockable, I think this is a silly statement.

I think you misunderstood. To say it another way, buying a CPU that can be overclocked but instead you leave it at stock, or however it comes out of the box.