New Catalyst Control Center is up

Do you have a stretched Desktop already enabled before starting the game? It only seems to recognize the stretched resolutions (like 1600x600) only if you have it enabled before.

 

Wow.

Short version for those of limited attention span:

The point of my reply is that WaltC's post didn't really exist as an on topic discussion, merely used quotes of an on topic discussion as a conversational device to talk over a viewpoint on the topic that did not agree with his (i.e., it is another repetition of WaltC's contininuing "on topic monologue").

You're not going to find anything useful to the discussion of the CCC (unless you've been similarly obstructed by WaltC in offering even non-exaggerated criticism). This is because this post consists of showing that my original discussion of the CCC wasn't actually dealt with, which was done in order to protect my points and suggestions from the insinuations of "telapathic GUI suggestions" and other rhetoric WaltC attempts to use to redefine what I actually discussed, and dismiss it (the only discernible reason seems to be that my suggestion might also serve to propose that nVidia's implementation of profiles might actually have an advantage over ATI's current implementation).


...

If you realized that WaltC's post did this instead of progressing on topic discussion, use your mousewheel now (the bulk of the discussion is SPCMW shrunk, and would be collapsed if I had that tool available). I didn't enjoy having to write the text to clear up the mess he made, and there is no reason for you suffer through having something you realize pointed out to you.

If you did not, the illustrations here provide you an opportunity to more clearly understand my discussion of the topic in the initial post without WaltC's characterization getting in the way. If you are open to my discussion of the topic in the initial post, that is.

Agree or disagree with my points, I hope that discussion of them can occur instead of discussion of WaltC's representation of them.

...

Look, WaltC, there is no way more polite than this to give your type of conversation here the response it deserves...your conversation itself is an insult. If you are incapable of, or refuse to engage in, discussing someone's points in a way remotely useful for progressing conversation beyond your own already established viewpoint at all (instead of insulting insinuations about a "theoretical telepathic GUI suggestion"), try not saying anything.
Especially not something that quotes extensive bodies of text to only protest "I'm not sure what you mean, but let me repeat my viewpoint at greath length, while ridiculing something I made up on the spot, and saying that it is your viewpoint."

Seriously..what is your malfunction?

Get back to me when you can provide a post that I can respond to without digging through such an extensive pile of rhetoric to expose my points again. In order to preserve my points in the context of the topic, I have to deal with a post that has completely off topic problems in being relevant to the topic or my post.
I'm not going to thank you for being able to spend an entire post attempting to obscure your rhetorical tactics to simply drown out dissenting voices with rhetorical tactics and devices substituting for "logic".
Rhetoric is an easy conversational tactic to avoid discussion, it only depends on it being harder for some readers to discern a lack of logical coherence than it is for some people to come up with a way to mask it. I don't have anything nice to say about posts that seem to depend on that usage.

 

I've tried this too... I have a Sapphire 9800Pro, and have the desktop in 2560x1024, but when I try and set up Trackmania to use span mode, like the desktop is, the only resolution options are for a single monitor (1280x480 or 1280x768), and if I run the game it runs it in 'clone' mode - not span... Had a quick test with Star Wars Galaxies too - (not expecting anything there at all anyway) - but that did exactly the same too. Even UT2004, does EXACTLY the same - clone mode - not span... Why? How do I fix it?

 

Why is it you're inviting everyone else to "agree or disagree" with your points except, apparently, me? I ask because when I disagreed with some of your points (as I quoted them verbatim) your response here is only to state that I did not address any of your points.

I'm sure everyone reading this thread appreciates your interpretation of my post, D, uh--your "representation" of my response, that is. If you failed to communicate what you meant to say when you said it in your original post, and you failed to communicate it so egregiously that you contend that I completely misunderstood it, then all I can suggest is that you might wish to rewrite it...? Barring that, please email me the Demalion Decoder Wheel so that in the future I can have fun deciphering what it is you really mean to say when you say it so that I won't be guilty of "misrepresenting" your comments in the future... (Because that is certainly not my intention.)

I quoted your remarks verbatim and commented specifically on them as I inferred their meaning from your choice of vocabulary, so how could I possibly be guilty of "misrepresenting" you? I don't have any sort of ax to grind with you for any reason whatever, so it's hard indeed to decipher the source of your angst--which seems entirely misplaced, to me.

Why don't you try reading the portions I quoted of your original post and my responses to them and then see if you can divine why I might have responded as I did. At this point, all you're telling me is that you didn't mean what you wrote as you wrote it, and that the fault is mine for not being able to figure that out...

D, what is your own original post except a "repetition of your viewpoint"? I didn't bother criticizing your points on the basis of them being your "viewpoints," of course, because that isn't a legitimate criticism since all forum posts are assumed to represent the viewpoints of their authors.

I mean, if I wasn't responding to your "viewpoint" then what was I responding to, exactly? (Scratching my head...) It seems to me that I asked for clarification only because I wasn't sure what you meant, and over something minor, too. No need to take offense for something as mundane as that, is there? It wasn't my intention to do anything other than ask you what you meant. Don't you think it would be more productive to just briefly answer the query instead of to quibble over how it was asked? Forum posts often misunderstand one another--nature of the beast, etc.-- and asking for clarification is pretty routine .

OK, I can see that again you simply decline to explain what you mean by "tedium removal" within the context of your original post. No biggie...you certainly aren't under any compulsion to explain it, of course--I was just asking--primarily because I can't find anything "tedious" about the CCC profile manager (I covered that pretty well in my last missive) and so I wondered what it might be that you found so tedious about it. Simple question.

Truthfully, what I find tedious (not to mention inexplicable at times) is your penchant for complaining about the questions I ask without bothering to answer them... The entire block of your text above is a complaint as to my question instead of a simple answer to it--which you might have written out in a couple of sentences--had you bothered to simply answer it instead of to complain about it.

OK, when I ask you to clarify that you are comparing an existing piece of software with one which does not exist--a theoretical profile manager, you answer and say, "Yes...that's what I just said." That's fine--I simply wanted to clarify that to make sure I was addressing your points. But then, in the very next paragraph quoted verbatim above, you return to objecting to the way I chose to ask and characterize the question, even though your answer to it was "Yes...that's what I just said."

The reason I asked the question as I did, with a bit of a light-hearted satirical edge to it (which you unfortunately interpreted as "ridicule") was because--from my viewpoint--it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to compare existing software with software which does not exist. Why? Because existing software is necessarily constrained to its reality, whereas theoretical software can be anything the imagination can conjur, without regard to its complexity or feasibility. That of course doesn't invalidate your own opinion as it isn't possible for me to do that where opinions are concerned, and I wouldn't try. I was, however, expressing my own point of view about the matter. The question was asked simply so that I could be sure of what your intended point was.

About the "telepathic" comment. First, it was made in jest, which I'm sorry you missed--as I know that you weren't literally talking about a telepathically controlled interface. But I used the term to illustrate that once you eliminate all of the GUI "tedium" you've associated with the CCC profile manager--it seems to me that "telepathic control" would be all that's left ... As I mentioned, your "wildcard" suggestion, for instance, certainly contained within it far more potential for "tedium" and GUI complexity, not to mention tedium of thought, than any of the things you objected to in the current CCC profiles manager formats--IMO, of course. I thought the contrast was so stark, in fact, that I felt the jest was appropriate. It was not intended to be "mean."

I'm listening to you--but I think the problem is that you weren't listening to me in my response...

Since you've already answered in the affirmative that your proposal was indeed about theoretical software, why do you find the description of "theoretical" to be so stinging? Sure, I could have changed the syntax to "proposed app-recognition mechanism," but would that have made it less theoretical? I don't understand your objection, because my point was in clarifying that you did not in fact mean to compare the CCC profile manager with the ForceWare profiles manager, but with an imaginary profiles manager, instead. That distinction is what I was getting at. I wanted to make sure you were not talking about the nVx profiles manager.

No, I didn't forget, I wanted to make sure I understood your intent clearly. I'm sorry that should bother you, but it shouldn't. Yes, as you point out the thread is indeed "Catalyst Control Center is up," and as you'll note within the thread prior to your post the subject of the nVx app-detection profiles manager is raised several times, and as the thread was not "Theoretical Profile Managers We All Love to Hate," I did indeed want to make sure that I understood precisely what software your specific points concerned. If you weren't strictly going to compare the CCC with theoretical software I wanted to know about it so that I could better understand your points. Make more sense now?...

You're really hung up on that word ("theoretical"), aren't you?....

It seems to me that the only "conversational tactic" you actually object to is the tactic generally known as "a question".... You've certainly written far more in complaint about my asking questions of you than you have devoted to answering the questions I posed. I have to say that in my opinion that's a very poor conversational tactic, as it generally tends to restrict the scope of the "conversation" to a single person instead of to the *two* people having the conversation (or I should say, "attempting to have a conversation.") I mean, if I ask you questions and you decline to answer the majority of them but complain in detail about my having asked them--well, that doesn't make fertile ground for a "conversation," does it?

Funny also that I can't recall "extensively quoting text that you actually give no recognition to", btw... Hmmmm...since I went to the trouble of quoting you verbatim but then didn't post anything relevant to those quotes, what, I wonder, was I writing about? The weather? Stock market? Football? What? The price of egg nog in Siberia, widgets in Warsaw?...

Also, think about about it for a moment--if the "answers were evident" as you surmise, then I would never have had to ask you for clarification, would I? So it seems to me that you might want to consider that there is far less "evident" info in your orignal post than you apparently thought it contained.

See what I mean? Not only did I never give the speech you claim I gave, but you missed the point entirely. I was criticizing your objections to using hotkeys on the basis that such use required "thought", etc., or that the use of shortcuts for profiles required "additional graphical navigation," etc. ad infinitum.

To me, none of those are legitimate objections to the operation of the CCC simply because both "thought" and "graphical navigation" and lots more are absolute requirements for anyone who wants to use a computer, an OS, and software. Hotkeys and GUI navigation and desktop organizing, for instance, are not new burdens introduced into computerdom for the very first time with the CCC... Their use within the CCC is so intuituve to the standard Windows GUI that the learning curve they present with the CCC is all but flat. I would not have thought I'd have had to spell this out twice, but I guess I do....

What I thought was most interesting about the "wildcards" suggestion you made was that you demonstrated no appreciation for the "workload" that would have entailed in terms of thought, planning and organization--not to mention the degree of complexity it would add to a profiles manager. As an opinion you hold it's fine--I just disagree with your many comments about the "complexity" the CCC entails for you in the absence of an understanding of how much more of the same a wildcard feature of the type you mention would impose within a profile manager environment.

Thanks for another answer, finally.

I think for some reason you just really resent people asking questions on general prinicple... Whether or not someone who responds to a post you write asks a question you think you've already answered is really irrelevant, you know. The point is that the question is asked, and a simple answer will suffice, even if you think you already have answered it. You see, the person asking you the question cannot read your mind and therefore you must presume that if a question is asked the questioner is seeking an answer. You know what you mean when you write--but that's no guarantee a person reading what you write will divine the meaning from it that you intended to impart. A basic part of human conversation is Q&A--it's often called "dialogue."

I do not recall ever disagreeing with the statement that the CCC creates custom shortcuts. If you think I disagreed with that then you have but to ask and I will answer...

Which brings us, in circular fashion, back to the point that your original objection about hotkeys was pointless since one does not need to use hotkeys if one does not desire to use them, correct? That was my whole point. While you may find the "overhead" for hotkeys prodigious, others may see hotkeys as a Godsend. But, if others share your concerns about hotkeys, then that is addressed by the fact that hotkeys are not required to make use of the CCC profiles manager in the first place.

Again, circular argument. If the listing of additional options ameliorates your objections to options when considered independently, then there is no logical basis on which to complain about the options independently. That is the point I made. IE, since you do not have to use hotkeys at all to manage your profiles, there is then no legitmate basis to criticize an option for hotkeys.

Again, though, that's beside the point. The way to approach the issue is to list all of the options and then explore where *all of them* are lacking, and to examine the things that might be considered bothersome about *all of them* as a whole. IE, why blame me because you chose to criticize the options independently in a limited, linear fashion as if each of them was the only control route possible? It seems to me that you are just taking my arguments and using them against your own positions as outlined in your original post.

No more than you are pretending not to understand what I originally said.

Again, you use my own arguments to support your position... It's fine to list all of the options in a linear list, but your mistake (to me) was that you criticized each option as though the options you would later list were not available. This is quite beside the fact that I found the nature of your objections to each option lacking in substance (you know, your objections to things like "memorization," and "thought," and "additional graphical navigation," etc. These are things *required* to use a computer, OS, and software generally and are not endemic to the CCC exclusively.)

OK, I confess that I cannot understand what it is that you wrote that you construe as an "argument." I didn't see any arguments--only your opinions as to what you found objectionable about the CCC profiles manager and what you'd like to see in a future profiles manager. Arguments, where?

Uh, D....If you call my response to your initial post "rhetorical," then what might you call this post of yours that I'm responding to now--Super-rhetorical?...

Uh, no. I asked you questions for which I sought answers, because those answers were all but clear to me in your original post, and I made comments it would have been nice to see you respond to in some fashion. It's called, in forum parlance, "conversation"... That's what I was aiming for, but somehow I don't think I'm going to get it--unless you can get over the shock that I had the effrontery to ask you what you meant about some things. It seems to have shocked you right down to your bones...

Amazing really, how my previous post is a waste of your time--but this post of yours in which you answer in about as many lines two questions I asked originally--is what if not a far more blatant abuse of my time? 95% of your second post here, when it isn't obliquely talking about me in the third person, is devoted to complaints about the syntax used in the questions I asked and in the the points I made originally. Less than 5% of your second post revolves around anything more substantial than objecting to the fact that in my post I asked questions and made points to which you do not wish to respond. I think you need to seriously evaluate the word "conversation," because we aren't having one, and it's not because I haven't tried.

 

Dude, use PM or email.

 

Thanks for that succint comment. Unfortunately, I did not write what you quoted me as having said.

 

OT...anyone else hate the term "Dude"?

 

This dude does!!!

 

Only demalion and WaltC can argue in such length about a control panel.

Anyway, I won't be installing it, and will wait until ATI can work out all the kinks and turn it into a useful upgrade.