 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Country Specific / Australian Mac Group / November 2007Recommendations for dual monitor setup for a PowerMac?
Hello again. I was wondering if anyone had experience getting a dual-monitor setup running with a G4 PowerMac (Mirror Drive Doors model)? It's got the ATI Radeon 9000 Pro card, which appears to have 1 VGA and 1 ADC output. Is it simply a matter of buying the ADC -> VGA adapter (expensive and hard to find, apparently) and plugging in the second monitor? Is there anything I need to play around with in System Preferences? I'm currently running a very old 21" CRT monitor at 1920x1200, and like the 'real estate' of that resolution but text can be a bit small at times. I'm looking at something like a pair of 20" LCD screens side by side. Any advice, including brands to NOT look at, or even a note to let me know that it's just an awful idea and to just buy a new 24" LCD instead are much appreciated. Cheers, and thanks in advance. Andy. > Hello again. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to find, apparently) and plugging in the second monitor? Is there > anything I need to play around with in System Preferences? I believe I have that very same model MDD and upgraded video card. There are two connectors on the card, neither is VGA, each is different. One currently has my 17" Apple Studio monitor attached. There is no better 17" LCD available. Video, power, and USB all run through the single cable and connector. The machine came new with a pigtail for the other connector adapting it to VGA. I have used it in dual monitor mode with a VGA CRT on the 2nd connector. Am not sure what standard this connector is supposed to meet. Am *thinking* its DVI, and am guessing this is where your VGA is currently connected. I think you need to buy a Mac Pro or 24" iMac. :-) >> Hello again. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > better 17" LCD available. Video, power, and USB all run through the > single cable and connector. Yes, you are correct. It's 1 ADC and 1 DVI port. > The machine came new with a pigtail for the other connector adapting it > to VGA. I have used it in dual monitor mode with a VGA CRT on the 2nd > connector. Am not sure what standard this connector is supposed to meet. > Am *thinking* its DVI, and am guessing this is where your VGA is > currently connected. Yes, I have the DVI -> VGA adapter running this old 21" beast. > I think you need to buy a Mac Pro or 24" iMac. :-) Nah, I've actually grown quite fond of this old Mac. It's so much quicker than the 2.8GHz Dell box I have to use at work it's not funny. I'm thinking it may get me through to the next major OS upgrade. I'm also thinking a single 24" monitor might be a whole lot less hassle than fritzing around with ADC adapters etc.... Cheers, Andy. When I did a slight upgrade (Sawtooth to MDD) the MDD came with the 17" Cinema monitor, but I was able to fit a PCI *not* AGP ATI VGA card and run the BENQ 17" monitor I had previously as well. The card is DVI and VGA cost $40 on eBay. PCI cards are probably cheaper now than they were 10 months ago. Oh PCI, *not* PCI Express :-) The set up works well, first time in ten years of dual monitor setups that I've had both at the same resolution so no 'stumble' when mousing across the middle. As for the MDD - yes it is noisier, but the speed makes it tolerable. Mark In article <472b307c$0$17206$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, > >> Hello again. > >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Cheers, > Andy.  Signatureremove "nospam" in replies! Perth Western Australia > I was wondering if anyone had experience getting a dual-monitor setup > running with a G4 PowerMac (Mirror Drive Doors model)? It's got the ATI > Radeon 9000 Pro card, which appears to have 1 VGA and 1 ADC output. Is > it simply a matter of buying the ADC -> VGA adapter (expensive and hard > to find, apparently) and plugging in the second monitor? Hm, I have the ATI Radeon 9000 on a quickSilver, but it is with DVI+ADC not VGA+ADC. So to connect the second monitor you better looke for a DVI-to-ADC converter instead of a VGA-to-ADC. - Also because most new monitors have no VGA anymore - unless they are with a dual-connector. > Is there > anything I need to play around with in System Preferences? You need to change the 'Monitors' prefspane to 'Mirroring' or 'Dubbing'. with mirroring you get the same on both monitors, and with dubbing you get a 'wide-screen' with one half on the one monitor and the other half on the second monitor. The menubar will always be on the main monitor, but you can have windows, application palettes and windows on the second monitor as well. Especially good if you're working with graphics and videoediting with many palettes and windows open at the same time. > I'm currently running a very old 21" CRT monitor at 1920x1200, and like > the 'real estate' of that resolution but text can be a bit small at > times. I'm looking at something like a pair of 20" LCD screens side by > side. First thing you have to decide is, what type of monitors you want - Should it be common 4:3 format or should it be 16:9 format.... A pair of 20" 4:3 monitors - set to 'dubbing' would be rather similar to a 29" single monitor, where a pari of 202 16:9 (widescreen) would rather much match a 35" single monitor. One thing to notice here is with the pair of 4:3 monitors the distance from where you can fully overview the full area will be around 4' (feet), and with the 16:9 monitors the sitting distance must me more than 5'. - else you'll have to sit and turn your neck too many times to view what's where on the full size of the pair. The strenght with what you do this will probably give you some myosis problems (muscle contractions) with your neck with heavy headaches as result. > Any advice, including brands to NOT look at, or even a note to let me > know that it's just an awful idea and to just buy a new 24" LCD instead > are much appreciated. Hm, well 'not to look at'. there are lots of very cheap LCD monitors, some are good, some better, some worse. Instead of saying what not to go for, I'll instead pick out a couple which are very good. Acer 20" 4:3, res. 1600x1200@75hz Acer 20" 16:9, res. 1600x1050@75hz These two are in various models with both DVI or VGA. the VGA models are somewhat cheaper than the models with DVI. Samsung SyncMaster 202 4:3 and 16:9. same resolutions as the Acer, but with a bit better color than the Acer - especially good for use with graphics and videoediting. Only DVI Gateway LCD 20" 4:3 and 16:9 These models are exact same as the corresponding Samsung models, but cheaper. Housing and stand are a bit different, but technology exact same as Samsung. Only DVI HP Business Line The L20xx series from their professional series are very, very high class, but they are also more expensive than the others. 20" 4:3 1600x1200@75hz 20" 16:9 1600x1050@75hz Colors and color temperature on these monitors are professional quality. DVI+VGA (2 connections) Philips 20" 16:9 1600x1050@60hz Good but expensive, - a bit 'cold' in colors. VGA or DVI LQ 20" 4:3 and 16:9 Good standard quality, rather cheap, get much for less money. VGA or DVI. If i were you, I'd go for either Acer or GateWay. Here you get most for your money. I have an Acer AL2416Ws myself and it is one of the best monitors in the 24" series. And i also have a HP L1940T 19" pivot monitor. I haven't run these two together on the same computer, but I have used the HP on an older Powerbook Pismo 500mhz in the mirroring mode - also with the HP in upright position. That combination functioned without problems with the built-in graphics card. And the ATI 9000 is so much better and faster that i don't think you'll experience any problems... Good luck! cheers, Erik Richard Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rgds. Grüße, Mvh. Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC <mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk> <http://www.nisus.com> NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > One thing to notice here is with the pair of 4:3 monitors the distance > from where you can fully overview the full area will be around 4' [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you do this will probably give you some myosis problems (muscle > contractions) with your neck with heavy headaches as result. This in itself is enough disincentive - I just don't have to room where I am at the moment to sit that far back (I know that may sound ridiculous to some of you). I have enough issues with neck pain and headaches without making things even worse! <snip> > If i were you, I'd go for either Acer or GateWay. Here you get most for > your money. > > I have an Acer AL2416Ws myself and it is one of the best monitors in the > 24" series. Pretty much like this one? http://www.justmonitors.com.au/al2416w.htm It's actually what I'm leaning towards now. Thank you *very* much for the detailed reply! Cheers, Andy. >> If i were you, I'd go for either Acer or GateWay. Here you get most >> for your money. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.justmonitors.com.au/al2416w.htm Yes, the AL2416WD is the successor of my AL2416Ws > It's actually what I'm leaning towards now. I don't think you'll regret buying that one. It is fully mac compatible and as soon it is connected, it also create it's own Colorsync ICC profile, so you can calibrate it to exactly your needs. cheers, Erik Richard Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rgds. Grüße, Mvh. Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC <mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk> <http://www.nisus.com> NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > One thing to notice here is with the pair of 4:3 monitors the distance > > from where you can fully overview the full area will be around 4' [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ridiculous to some of you). I have enough issues with neck pain and > headaches without making things even worse! I'm sitting right now at work with three monitors 2 1/2 feet from my head. From left to right: 14-inch laptop built-in LCD, 21-inch CRT, 15-inch Dell LCD. From corner to corner is roughly 40 inches. This setup causes me no neck or headache problems. The only occasional problem I have is that the CRT is a little fuzzy compared to the LCD monitors. At home I ahve the same Mac as you do. I have a 17-inch and a 20-inch LCD hooked up to the original graphics card. Head-to-monitor distance is also about 2 1/2 feet. Both displays are Dell (1705FP and 2001FP, I think). I cannot compare them to other displays, but I have no complaints about them. Mark Geary SignatureDon't forget to stop and eat the roses. > > > One thing to notice here is with the pair of 4:3 monitors the distance > > > from where you can fully overview the full area will be around 4' [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > you do this will probably give you some myosis problems (muscle > > > contractions) with your neck with heavy headaches as result. Ah.....how about pointing them towards you? That's what most of the civilized world does......lol. Unless you're eyeballs have no lateral movement, this should be no problem. Its actually very good for your eyes to move rapidly horizontally. Sort of mimics what life would be if we spent more time in that dangerous world outside. In fact, many eye exercises use lateral movements to both relax and strengthen the eyes. The worst thing is to have a fixed focal point for hours on end. >Ah.....how about pointing them towards you? That's what most of the >civilized world does......lol. Unless you're eyeballs have no lateral [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >eyes. The worst thing is to have a fixed focal point for hours on >end. In my dotage years, I first got half-glasses for reading, and now have computer bifocals. The hardest thing to get used to is that eyeball movement doesn't work as well - I need to move my head to keep the same focus through my glasses. Irritating. > In my dotage years, I first got half-glasses for reading, and now > have computer bifocals. The hardest thing to get used to is that > eyeball movement doesn't work as well - I need to move my head to > keep the same focus through my glasses. > > Irritating. You think that's irritating? I wear trifocals, have to look at the monitor through the middle section, which covers just under half the height of the monitor. Looking through either the top or bottom section results in blurred vision. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > > In my dotage years, I first got half-glasses for reading, and now > > have computer bifocals. The hardest thing to get used to is that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > height of the monitor. Looking through either the top or bottom section > results in blurred vision. Why not use 1 pair of glasses just for the computer? The people I've talked to that use them really like them as their field of vision is suddenly wide, as it used to be. The glasses should focus just shy of the monitor. You do NOT want 20/20 clarity. You want a little less than that - just a very slight blur. This reduces eyestrain (for most people). Why? I have no idea. To test eyestrain is quite simple: find something to read and note how far away you can stand to just barely read it. Then test again after using no glasses (first thing in the morning), glasses with a slight blur, and glasses that correct to a 20/20 sharpness. Make sure you're wearing your glasses for a few hours though to test. Most people find significant differences. The best results should be after you haven't worn any glasses at all. This is for people with myopia of course - not astigmatism. But even people with astigmatism benefit greatly by wearing their corrective lenses a minimum of time or not at all if possible. In article <replytogroup-D34B64.21195014112007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com>, > > You think that's irritating? I wear trifocals, have to look at the > > monitor through the middle section, which covers just under half > > the height of the monitor. Looking through either the top or > > bottom section results in blurred vision. > > Why not use 1 pair of glasses just for the computer? Because sometimes I'm going back and forth between a printed page and the computer, and I often get up from the computer to do other things, and switching glasses gets to be a pain. > You do NOT want 20/20 clarity. You want a little less > than that - just a very slight blur. No I don't. I want clarity. > This is for people with myopia of course - not astigmatism. I have myopia and presbyopia as well as astigmatism. > But even people with astigmatism benefit greatly by wearing their > corrective lenses a minimum of time or not at all if possible. Baloney. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >>> You think that's irritating? I wear trifocals, have to look at the >>> monitor through the middle section, which covers just under half [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Because sometimes I'm going back and forth between a printed page and > the computer, OK, Michelle, I'm not sure, whether I understood you correctly. There are two types of bifocal classes... Are you using 'duo-focal' or 'bi-focal' glasses? Duo-focal = bi-focal with floating transitioning between the upper and the lower viewing field. Bi-focal = bi-focal with a sharper limit between the two viewing fields > and I often get up from the computer to do other things, > and switching glasses gets to be a pain. Sure it will... but it is a very good idea to get away from the screen from time to time, because this 'forces' your eyes to change focusing and by this force them back to more 'normal' use. >> You do NOT want 20/20 clarity. You want a little less >> than that - just a very slight blur. > > No I don't. I want clarity. Hm, have you ever been thinking of getting multi-focal glasses with a full floating transition from the upper viewing field towards the lover viewing filed? >> This is for people with myopia of course - not astigmatism. > > I have myopia and presbyopia as well as astigmatism. That's a bad combination.:-( - I myself am suffering from long-sighted, astigmatism plus a frozen iris and my lenses have been removed by surgery because of a cataract (socalled 'grey cataract) - all caused by a severe inflamation during childhood. This inflamation has also caused that my retina more or less is damaged. Because of this I'm using glasses with a strenght of +20,25dp -4,5cyl/-180°. Because of this my glasses are aspherically build with a heavy curved front, so my viewing angle is as low as 48°, where 'normal' with glasses up to +12dp is about 100-110°. - This means that the absolute maximum size of a monitor to me is 24". So in your case - presuming that you are wearing the same glasses all the time - I'd recommend a 22" - max. 24" - widescreen monitor, where you can have two full pages side by side. Then you don't have to move your eyes too much vertically to see the full page, but instead can move your eyes horizontally. The sideward movings won't change the clearity that much towards the vertical movings. cheers, Erik Richard Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rgds. Grüße, Mvh. Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC <mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk> <http://www.nisus.com> NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > OK, Michelle, I'm not sure, whether I understood you correctly. There > are two types of bifocal classes... Are you using 'duo-focal' or > 'bi-focal' glasses? Neither; as I wrote before, I'm wearing tri-focals. Three separate areas, each with its own diopter correction. > Hm, have you ever been thinking of getting multi-focal glasses with a > full floating transition from the upper viewing field towards the > lover viewing filed? Yes, but I've decided against them. > That's a bad combination.:-( - I myself am suffering from > long-sighted, astigmatism plus a frozen iris and my lenses have been > removed by surgery because of a cataract (socalled 'grey cataract) Oh, and I'm developing cataracts too, but two different opthamologists tell me that I do not need to be concerned about them for another decade or so. > So in your case - presuming that you are wearing the same glasses all > the time - I'd recommend a 22" - max. 24" - widescreen monitor, I have a 20" iMac, so monitor recommendations aren't practical. > where you can have two full pages side by side. Then you don't have > to move your eyes too much vertically to see the full page, but > instead can move your eyes horizontally. If I were doing the kind of work where side-by-side pages would be possible, that would be a good idea, but I'm not. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> OK, Michelle, I'm not sure, whether I understood you correctly. There >> are two types of bifocal classes... Are you using 'duo-focal' or >> 'bi-focal' glasses? > > Neither; as I wrote before, I'm wearing tri-focals. Three separate > areas, each with its own diopter correction. OK, I overlooked that... >> Hm, have you ever been thinking of getting multi-focal glasses with a >> full floating transition from the upper viewing field towards the >> lover viewing filed? > > Yes, but I've decided against them. I know many who can't get used to use multi-focal glasses, so you're not the only one here... >> That's a bad combination.:-( - I myself am suffering from >> long-sighted, astigmatism plus a frozen iris and my lenses have been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tell me that I do not need to be concerned about them for another decade > or so. The problems with 'normal' cataract is that is can be steady for years and then suddenly develope into a nearly total blindness within few months, so i can only recommend to consult your opthamologist very regularely. cheers, Erik Richard Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rgds. Grüße, Mvh. Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC <mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk> <http://www.nisus.com> NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> and I often get up from the computer to do other things, >> and switching glasses gets to be a pain. > >Sure it will... but it is a very good idea to get away from the screen >from time to time, because this 'forces' your eyes to change focusing >and by this force them back to more 'normal' use. That makes tri-focals more useful. >>>> You think that's irritating? I wear trifocals, have to look at the=20 >>>> monitor through the middle section, which covers just under half=20 [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > >--=20 The equals 20 on the end of eqach line gets a bit tedius too. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Rgds. Gr=FC=DFe, Mvh. Erik Richard S=F8rensen, Member of ADC > <mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk> <http://www.nisus.com> > NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Barry ===== Home page http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og I do not represent atheists or atheism > I have myopia and presbyopia as well as astigmatism. Well, at least you don't have Presleyopia, a condition that causes you to see the ghost of Elvis. BTW, I have the same vision combination as you do. > > But even people with astigmatism benefit greatly by wearing their > > corrective lenses a minimum of time or not at all if possible. > > Baloney. That old wives tale, that wearing corrective lenses causes ones vision to worsen, has been around as long as I can remember. Signature<http://designsbymike.info/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.info/shop/dance.cgi> Ballroom dance shirts & gifts >> I have myopia and presbyopia as well as astigmatism. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That old wives tale, that wearing corrective lenses causes ones vision > to worsen, has been around as long as I can remember. I have worn glasses for nearly 45 years. Until very recent years, my sight improved steadily (as the increasing long sight of aging "corrected" my short sight.) In recent years I have the common "loss of accommodation" (*) of those in late middle age, and I switched to varifocal lenses (+) some 5 years ago. (* Or as I call it, "homelessness".) (+ Lenses whose focal length varies smoothly from top to bottom. Like a bi-focal, but without the sharp transition between the top and bottom. These are fine for someone who works at a screen, with paperwork, as I do all day.) Signature"Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one." [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk] > > I have myopia and presbyopia as well as astigmatism. > > Well, at least you don't have Presleyopia, a condition that causes > you to see the ghost of Elvis. Ghost? How can he have a ghost? He's not dead. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> Well, at least you don't have Presleyopia, a condition that causes >> you to see the ghost of Elvis. > >Ghost? How can he have a ghost? He's not dead. Is it a requirement for celebrities to be dead to have ghosts? > >> Well, at least you don't have Presleyopia, a condition that causes > >> you to see the ghost of Elvis. > > > >Ghost? How can he have a ghost? He's not dead. > > Is it a requirement for celebrities to be dead to have ghosts? Not just celebrities. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > > > But even people with astigmatism benefit greatly by wearing their > > > corrective lenses a minimum of time or not at all if possible. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That old wives tale, that wearing corrective lenses causes ones vision > to worsen, has been around as long as I can remember. Well my vision improved 20% in one eye and 30% in another measured by eye charts. But hey, its an old wives tale...:) LOL. >> That old wives tale, that wearing corrective lenses causes ones vision >> to worsen, has been around as long as I can remember. > >Well my vision improved 20% in one eye and 30% in another measured by >eye charts. But hey, its an old wives tale...:) LOL. Usually people's eyes get worse with age. Whether or not they wear glasses. > >> That old wives tale, that wearing corrective lenses causes ones vision > >> to worsen, has been around as long as I can remember. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Usually people's eyes get worse with age. Whether or not they wear > glasses. That's true with aging. I'm talking about people up to the age before their close vision starts to deteriorate. > > That old wives tale, that wearing corrective lenses causes ones vision > > to worsen, has been around as long as I can remember. > > Well my vision improved 20% in one eye and 30% in another measured by > eye charts. But hey, its an old wives tale...:) LOL. Ah, okay, I get it. What _you_ experience has to be a hard and fast rule, and everyone else's experiences must be the same. Show us one shred of scientific evidence, though. Signature<http://designsbymike.info/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.info/shop/dance.cgi> Ballroom dance shirts & gifts > > > That old wives tale, that wearing corrective lenses causes ones vision > > > to worsen, has been around as long as I can remember. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Show us one shred of scientific evidence, though. Not just me Mike. Many other people on vision forums have noticed the same thing. And there won't be any scientific evidence to back this up because nobody will pay for research costing hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars involving many doctors, assistants and reams of people because who would pay for it? You'd think government would benefit but they are controlled largely by big business. On the myopia.org front page it explains how the optometry field, which is of course massive, controls ever facet of vision and they would not take kindly to research that would bankrupt every eye doctor through malpractice lawsuits if the wrong information got out. There is no great conspiracy - just human nature. People will naturally protect their livelihood. And of course its just easier to put on a pair of glasses and "see clearly". But like most things, short term gain has long term costs. For anyone that's curious the information is out there thanks to that marvelous information dispenser: the internet. > Not just me Mike. Many other people on vision forums have noticed the > same thing. And many have not. I have not. Therefore, since that is _my_ experience... > And there won't be any scientific evidence to back this > up because nobody will pay for research costing hundreds of thousands > or millions of dollars involving many doctors, assistants and reams of > people because who would pay for it? You don't know of any scientific evidence in either direction because you haven't so much as looked for it. HAVE you actually put any effort into looking for it? Or are you just blowing hot air, just like you did about blowing hot air? How about just doing some basic reading on exactly what the causes of the various types of vision impairments are? Have you even ever done that much? Then explain how bending the light that reaches you eye can possibly effect physiology. Signature<http://designsbymike.info/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.info/shop/dance.cgi> Ballroom dance shirts & gifts > > Not just me Mike. Many other people on vision forums have noticed the > > same thing. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > into looking for it? Or are you just blowing hot air, just like you did > about blowing hot air? On http://myopia.org it explains quite succinctly why "scientific" reviews will never be forthcoming in areas that are not monetarily profitable. Did you read all those links I posted? When one has improvement, measured by an eye chart, any eye doctor will admit the results. That's my proof. An eye chart. It doesn't get much simpler than that. The eye chart is their proof. Why shouldn't it be mine? It is rather reliable, as long as the lighting is consistent. > How about just doing some basic reading on exactly what the causes of > the various types of vision impairments are? Have you even ever done > that much? Then explain how bending the light that reaches you eye can > possibly effect physiology. If my eyes see smaller lines on an eye chart, that's all the proof I need. It works. And my eye doctor admitted it. But do you think they would tell anyone? Not on their life....! And conversely, if I do a lot of close work without reading glasses I will see less on that eye chart. Easily verifiable by anyone. For anyone trying reading glasses for close work whose close vision has not deteriorated, remember that you use more correction for the better of the eyes. So if you have a prescription of -1 and -2, you might use your -2 eye without correction and a +1 lens for the -1 eye to equalize things. Its vital for both eyes to focus on the same plane. A lot of vision sites fail to mention this but since most myopia sufferers have quite different vision acuity in each eye, its vital. You can get cheap reading glasses almost anywhere. If you want to correct both eyes, buy 2 pairs of identical styles and, if possible, move the lenses around so your eyes are equalized. Plastic frames may be easier for this. If your eyes are weaker (more than -2) it gets more challenging. The trick is to use reading glasses before the eyes deteriorate to that state. Functioning normally in society is difficult with vision worse than -2 I would think. Perhaps a partial correction would be workable in that situation - I don't know. >For anyone trying reading glasses for close work whose close vision >has not deteriorated, remember that you use more correction for the >better of the eyes. So if you have a prescription of -1 and -2, you >might use your -2 eye without correction and a +1 lens for the -1 eye >to equalize things. Its vital for both eyes to focus on the same >plane. If that was vital, then there would be a lot of dead Lasek patients, as it is a common technique in Lasek to set up one eye optimized for close up vision and the other eye optimized for far vision. > >For anyone trying reading glasses for close work whose close vision > >has not deteriorated, remember that you use more correction for the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as it is a common technique in Lasek to set up one eye optimized for > close up vision and the other eye optimized for far vision. Its called monovision to deal with declining close up vision as we age. By vital, I meant that if you want to see the benefits, you can't be straining one eye. If someone tries this I want to make sure they don't make any mistakes, thats all, Howard. Both eyes must focus at the same plan for Plus Lens Therapy (its nickname now) to work properly. And for people with only mild myopia, an easy way might be to leave the worse eye uncorrected (say it focuses clearly to 15" uncorrected) and bring the other eye to 15" by using a + lens. The increments on cheap reading glasses is usually .25 of a diopter. So you can get both eyes fairly close. > > You don't know of any scientific evidence in either direction because > > you haven't so much as looked for it. HAVE you actually put any effort [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reviews will never be forthcoming in areas that are not monetarily > profitable. How convenient! Here's what I'm saying is true, it's true because I'm saying it's true, and I'll dismiss the lack of one shred of scientific evidence to support what I'm saying is true. You didn't answer my question: Did you put any effort into looking for any scientific evidence? Or are you just accepting what they say at this sight because it happens to be what you already believe? > Did you read all those links I posted? No. Have you _ever_ done any reading on the physiology of vision impairment? > When one has improvement, measured by an eye chart, any eye doctor > will admit the results. That's my proof. An eye chart. It doesn't > get much simpler than that. The eye chart is their proof. Why > shouldn't it be mine? It is rather reliable, as long as the lighting > is consistent. An eye exam certainly demonstrates whether one's vision is had improved, gotten worse or remains the same. It doesn't say anything about why. Okay, YOU didn't wear glasses and your vision improved. Where's any evidence that the glasses had anything to do with it? What about people who didn't wear their glasses and their vision stayed the same or got worse? What about people who continued wearing glasses and their vision stayed the same (I'm one of them) or improved (my mother is one of them)? Oh, and why did I even need glasses in the first place, for myopia, if I didn't wear glasses until I wore glasses? Signature<http://designsbymike.info/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.info/shop/dance.cgi> Ballroom dance shirts & gifts > An eye exam certainly demonstrates whether one's vision is had improved, > gotten worse or remains the same. It doesn't say anything about why. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > them)? Oh, and why did I even need glasses in the first place, for > myopia, if I didn't wear glasses until I wore glasses? For several years in my early to mid 40s, my vision improved. While wearing glasses. My opthamologist explained it was common in people my age and had to do with changes in the lens (it begins hardening). Alas, the end result was that a couple of years ago she prescribed progressive trifocals for me. SignatureHelp improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups. http://improve-usenet.org/ > For several years in my early to mid 40s, my vision improved. While > wearing glasses. So there's proof that wearing glasses causes vision improvement. > My opthamologist explained it was common in people my > age and had to do with changes in the lens (it begins hardening). Oh, come on Dave, there's no need to bring an understanding of physiology into this. I first needed glasses when I was 15 year old. Until that age, my vision was fine both near and far. But then I noticed that it was difficult to read the board in school from the back row when it hadn't been a problem before. I didn't say anything to my parents at first, but it grew worse, and the kicker was when I went to a Knicks game at Madison Square Garden, sitting in the nosebleed seats, and had to ask my friend whether the players had numbers on their jerseys. I got my first pair of glasses several days later, and my vision remained about the same for about 30 years. This proves that: 1) not wearing glasses causes vision problems 2) wearing glasses prevents vision problems from worsening 3) the Knicks were great when they had Walt "Clyde" Frazier, Dave DeBusschere and Bill Bradley. Signature<http://designsbymike.info/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.info/shop/dance.cgi> Ballroom dance shirts & gifts > > For several years in my early to mid 40s, my vision improved. While > > wearing glasses. > > So there's proof that wearing glasses causes vision improvement. Mike, you just want to ridicule everything I say. Fine. Have fun. I've explained the differences. > > My opthamologist explained it was common in people my > > age and had to do with changes in the lens (it begins hardening). > > Oh, come on Dave, there's no need to bring an understanding of > physiology into this. Nothing to do with vision improvement in younger people. Only when your getting presbyopia. > I first needed glasses when I was 15 year old. Until that age, my > vision was fine both near and far. But then I noticed that it was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 1) not wearing glasses causes vision problems The fact that you didn't get glasses right away was good for your vision, but you don't realize it. And if you wore them all the time, your vision got much worse much sooner than necessary. > 2) wearing glasses prevents vision problems from worsening Well we know that that is false because almost all teenagers and young adults experience consistent vision deterioration, year by year when wearing glasses. Their prescription needs to get stronger and stronger to see the same line on the eye chart. To be fair its a very challenging job determining with surety exactly why our vision deteriorates. But close work is definitely a factor. There's a direct correlation between the two. Reading glasses can prevent this needless suffering. You owe it to your children to try it. Use an eyechart to monitor their vision. > Mike, you just want to ridicule everything I say. Not true at all. You're saying things that _are_ ridiculous. > > I first needed glasses when I was 15 year old. Until that age, my > > vision was fine both near and far. But then I noticed that it was [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > vision, but you don't realize it. And if you wore them all the time, > your vision got much worse much sooner than necessary. What I said was: 1. My vision got worse until I was 15. 2. Then I got glasses. 3. At that point my vision remained about the same for the next 30 years. My vision got bad, I started wearing glasses, my vision stabilized. The eye chart proves that not wearing glasses is bad, wearing glasses is good. YOU told me that the eye chart proves cause and effect, so stop arguing with your own statements. > > 2) wearing glasses prevents vision problems from worsening > > Well we know that that is false because almost all teenagers and young > adults experience consistent vision deterioration, year by year when > wearing glasses. Their prescription needs to get stronger and stronger > to see the same line on the eye chart. What I said was: 1. My vision got worse until I was 15. 2. Then I got glasses. 3. At that point my vision remained about the same for the next 30 years. My vision got bad, I started wearing glasses, my vision stabilized. The eye chart proves that not wearing glasses is bad, wearing glasses is good. YOU told me that the eye chart proves cause and effect, so stop arguing with your own statements. > To be fair its a very challenging job determining with surety exactly > why our vision deteriorates. It's certainly challenging if you don't read anything about the actual causes of the different types of vision problems, and you haven't made any effort to read about the physiology of vision. > But close work is definitely a factor. There's a direct correlation > between the two. Reading glasses can prevent this needless suffering. Wait a minute. Wearing glasses is a _good_ thing now? > You owe it to your children to try it. What children do I owe it to exactly? Signature<http://designsbymike.info/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.info/shop/dance.cgi> Ballroom dance shirts & gifts > For several years in my early to mid 40s, my vision improved. While > wearing glasses. My opthamologist explained it was common in people > my age and had to do with changes in the lens (it begins hardening). > Alas, the end result was that a couple of years ago she prescribed > progressive trifocals for me. Same for me all around, except for the word "progressive". SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > > For several years in my early to mid 40s, my vision improved. While > > wearing glasses. My opthamologist explained it was common in people [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Same for me all around, except for the word "progressive". I got the latest from Kodak a couple of months ago... They really have improved my peripheral vision. About twice the cost of my old lenses, but I'm really, really, happy with them. (Follow-up set.) SignatureHelp improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups. http://improve-usenet.org/ > > An eye exam certainly demonstrates whether one's vision is had improved, > > gotten worse or remains the same. It doesn't say anything about why. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the end result was that a couple of years ago she prescribed > progressive trifocals for me. Except this occurred when I was MUCH younger. No close range deterioration at all influencing anything. Your experience is not the same. It is a miniscule percentage of the myopia public that ever has vision improvement before their close vision deteriorates. And almost ALL experience vision degradation year after year. Wearing glasses or contacts. Ask your myopic friends about their prescriptions. > > > You don't know of any scientific evidence in either direction because > > > you haven't so much as looked for it. HAVE you actually put any effort [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > them)? Oh, and why did I even need glasses in the first place, for > myopia, if I didn't wear glasses until I wore glasses? I know I'm wasting my time here but anyway......... > Where's any evidence that the glasses had anything to do with it? Because it was the only difference in my lifestyle. Duh. Nothing else could possible explain that. And many others have noticed the same thing. People believe what they want to believe. I've never met someone who likes wearing glasses or contacts. I offer a possible solution but most people would rather continue down the road that didn't work because its comfortable and familiar. This discussion is getting silly. Show me one way an eye doctor improves vision 20 or 30%! > I know I'm wasting my time here but anyway......... That is correct. >> Where's any evidence that the glasses had anything to do with it? > Because it was the only difference in my lifestyle. Duh. Nothing > else could possible explain that. Really? As you say below: People believe what they want to believe. > And many others have noticed the same thing. And that statement is based on solid research by an independent investigator? Or is merely your observation/opiniion? > People believe what they want to believe. > I've never met someone who likes wearing glasses or contacts. I have. And I myself like wearing my trifocals. It is nice to be able to see clearly. I don't have the luxury of going without them for days, weeks, months or years while waiting for a vision improvement that will never take place. > I offer a possible > solution but most people would rather continue down the road that > didn't work because its comfortable and familiar. But you just said most people don't like wearing glasses or contacts so how can that be a 'comfortable' road? > This discussion is getting silly. That is the second correct statement you have made here. > Show me one way an eye doctor improves vision 20 or 30%! May I suggest that you take your discussion of all this to another newsgroup such as alt.eyedoctors for enlightenment. >Not just me Mike. Many other people on vision forums have noticed the >same thing. And there won't be any scientific evidence to back this [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >long term costs. For anyone that's curious the information is out >there thanks to that marvelous information dispenser: the internet. Medical fields are full of this type of criticism - not as much as religious fields, but more than other technical fields. People who want to feel better are quite willing to believe what they wish to believe. All sorts of non-beneficial and even harmful treatments are available - with supporters accusing the establishment of hiding the cures. >> I have myopia and presbyopia as well as astigmatism. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That old wives tale, that wearing corrective lenses causes ones vision > to worsen, has been around as long as I can remember. Like so many other things in this thread, it is based on no real knowledge of vision or the eyes, but simply hearsay. I've been wearing glasses that correct my extreme myopia to 20/20 all my waking hours for nearly 72 years. In all that time no eye doctor has ever told me that I should take them off to rest my eyes, but I've heard it from certain types of people who really don't know what they are talking about on this subject--and many other matters. > >> I have myopia and presbyopia as well as astigmatism. > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > In all that time no eye doctor has ever told me that I should take them > off to rest my eyes, If you were an eye doctor would you willingly volunteer information that could severely decrease your revenue, risk ostracization from your peers, not to mention litigation from some of your previous patients? Few would have the courage to do that or the financial reserves to support themselves in a worst case scenario. Also they are simply not trained in this area. Much like most of the medical field. They are trained to quickly fix a problem which keeps the patient limping along, a little more pain free, but still sickly. An exceptional doctor, when you really think about it would lose most of their patients after showing them how to take care of themselves properly. Ironically, its really bad for business to be exceptional for your patients. > but I've heard it from certain types of people who > really don't know what they are talking about on this subject--and many > other matters. And the reason they believed it was because they tried it and it worked? :) That's why most people mention things like that. >>> I have myopia and presbyopia as well as astigmatism. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Like so many other things in this thread, it is based on no real >knowledge of vision or the eyes, but simply hearsay. It's based mostly on post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc reasoning. Kids get glasses, their eyes get worse, they get stronger glasses. But if they didn't get glasses, it's quite possible their eyes would have gotten worse anyway. Mine did both before and after I got glasses. They've stabilized since I've been an adult. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >>>> But even people with astigmatism benefit greatly by wearing their > >>>> corrective lenses a minimum of time or not at all if possible. > >>> Baloney. > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > worse anyway. Mine did both before and after I got glasses. They've > stabilized since I've been an adult. None of you have addressed the facts. My eyes got 20-30% better measured by eye charts! How is that hearsay? How is that an old wives tale? This thread is a perfect example of when clear indisputable evidence is presented, it is ignored by people who don't want to learn or admit that they have made grave errors throughout their lives when it comes to vision. And the medical profession is very similar. Only they have far more to lose if the facts every got widely known. Most people die not from diseases or accidents. They die from a closed mind. Sadly, education seems to close the mind even more. If you had trained for years and years and finally had a lucrative specialist practice as say an oncologist, then realized later that your patients were eating, smoking and exposing themselves to pollutants in their environment, would you tell them your thoughts, findings, evidence? I think not! Few would. To do so would would mean you would have to admit for years and years you have made error after error in your field of choice, both in education and practice. The medical field is miraculous when you get run over by a truck. But for disease, your time is better placed elsewhere. Time spent reading voluminous amounts on your condition and others' successes and failures with that condition. Thank God for the internet. And thank God for raw foods and fasting. >None of you have addressed the facts. My eyes got 20-30% better >measured by eye charts! How is that hearsay? How is that an old >wives tale? That happens. Controlled testing and statistical analysis needs to be done before someone with an open mind can draw meaningful conclusions about cause and effect. >This thread is a perfect example of when clear indisputable evidence >is presented, it is ignored by people who don't want to learn or admit >that they have made grave errors throughout their lives when it comes >to vision. And the medical profession is very similar. Only they >have far more to lose if the facts every got widely known. Clear indisputable evidence of what? That someone in the Internet (we all know how reliable that is) said he stopped using glasses and his vision improved? Sure, let me accept that for the moment. What is this evidence of? Why can't that evidence be disputed? Why should I infer that if these two things happened at a reasonable proximity to you that it is a cause and effect that apply to others? >Most people die not from diseases or accidents. >They die from a closed mind. I've seen figures about how many people die from diseases and accidents, but not about how many people die from a closed mind. Whose closed mind kills them all anyway? Any famous people in this "most people" that you can name and describe how that mind killed them? >Sadly, education seems to close the mind even more. Again - what groups of educated and uneducated people have you compared? I find closed minds at all education levels. What's your education level? >If you had >trained for years and years and finally had a lucrative specialist >practice as say an oncologist, then realized later that your patients >were eating, smoking and exposing themselves to pollutants in their >environment, would you tell them your thoughts, findings, evidence? My cardiologist has very strong opinions that my health is dependent upon my behavior in eating (I don't smoke), and exercise. So instead of hypothesizing, I just observe what I can. >I think not! Few would. To do so would would mean you would have to >admit for years and years you have made error after error in your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >failures with that condition. Thank God for the internet. And thank >God for raw foods and fasting. The Internet has advocates for everything - many of them give the same arguments that you have with exactly the opposite recommendations. You say that it's full of fools. I won't argue with this conclusion of yours. I will just ask you to point to the controlled studies that support your recommendations. I will assume that you have such. Otherwise... If your mind is already made up without evidence, then go ahead and decry the closed minds on the Internet, knowing that you will be illustrating the same. > None of you have addressed the facts. My eyes got 20-30% better > measured by eye charts! How is that hearsay? How is that an old > wives tale? How does that demonstrate cause and effect? > This thread is a perfect example of when clear indisputable evidence > is presented... This is actually a perfect example of how people leap to conclusions without any basis. Show us one shred of evidence that not wearing glasses _caused_ your vision to improve. > I think not And that's your problem. If you _thought_ you would learn exactly how sight impairment occurs physiologically and try to understand what you're actually claiming. Signature<http://designsbymike.info/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.info/shop/dance.cgi> Ballroom dance shirts & gifts > How does that demonstrate cause and effect? On further refelction, I owe you an apology. As I've learned from my nephew Kenny, teenage boys are never wrong about anything. We can continue this discussion when you're an adult. Signature<http://designsbymike.info/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.info/shop/dance.cgi> Ballroom dance shirts & gifts >None of you have addressed the facts. My eyes got 20-30% better >measured by eye charts! How is that hearsay? How is that an old >wives tale? It's easy; you're not a reliable source. You believe in fancy audio cables and other such nonsense. Believing in quack techiques for myopia cures fits right into it. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > But even people with astigmatism benefit greatly by wearing their corrective > lenses a minimum of time or not at all if possible. Unless, of course, they need to read something. Idiot. Andy. > > But even people with astigmatism benefit greatly by wearing their > > corrective > > lenses a minimum of time or not at all if possible. > > Unless, of course, they need to read something. Idiot. > Andy. How polite Andy. Now if you'd like to educate yourself on real world vision improvement there are scores of sites that can inform you. Corrective lenses strain the eyes. Do the test I mentioned and it will be proven. Our vision is always worse after wearing glasses than early in the day before putting them on. That tells you they are having a negative affect on your vision. It can be replicated consistently over and over again. Rid yourself of corrective lenses for a couple of weeks and your eyes will improve substantially. Worked for me. Had my eyes measured before and after with an eye chart. Of course I'm an idiot so I just guessed those letters on the chart....lol. I really fooled'em. Now if you really want to destroy your myopic vision, do close work, like reading or writing, with 20/20 corrective lenses on. Basically if you don't need them, don't wear them. And if you need them sometimes, wear them only sometimes. And never wear myopic corrective lenses for close work. For an experiment, some myopes (people that can see close but not far) wear reading glasses for close work even though they obviously don't need them. That way they are using their distance vision for close work as the + correction effectively moves their focal sharpness range farther away. An experiment in China had school children (who had a 80% rate of going myopic in their teenage years) wear reading glasses for their close work for a few years. That 80% figure dropped to 20%. And those were the ones probably not wearing them enough. Everything I said was taken off many, many vision websites. I've tried it and it works for me. Your mileage may vary. But what is a crime is seeing kids unnecessarily wearing myopic correction. That is sad. Because that prescription almost always gets worse every year. And kids that postpone glasses find their vision does not get worse year by year. It is odd though that most of us myopes found our vision deteriorating in our teenage years. Many attribute this to too much close work from school. But we really don't know. In article <replytogroup-39B36E.02081415112007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com>, > Now if you'd like to educate yourself on real world vision > improvement there are scores of sites that can inform you. > Corrective lenses strain the eyes. I have been wearing eye glasses for fifty-seven years; I get more eye strain when not wearing them than when wearing them during daily activities. > Rid yourself of corrective lenses for a couple of weeks and your eyes > will improve substantially. If I rid my eyes of corrective lenses, I wouldn't be able to drive a car, watch television see my computer monitor clearly, read a book (unless I held it within a few inches of my face), newspaper, magazine, snail mail, etc. > Basically if you don't need them, don't wear them. And if you need > them sometimes, wear them only sometimes. And if you need them all the time, then wear them all the time. By your logic, no one should get LASIK eye surgery because that would be a permanent correction, akin to wearing contacts 24/7. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > In article > <replytogroup-39B36E.02081415112007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com>, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > And if you need them all the time, then wear them all the time. Quite right. This is why I use varifocals. Also because I am a lazy sod. The thing is, I kept seeing my sister-in-law take her glasses off (fixed focus lenses) and then five minutes later not be able to find them. Puttem on and forgettem, is what I say. > > Now if you'd like to educate yourself on real world vision > > improvement there are scores of sites that can inform you. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > (unless I held it within a few inches of my face), newspaper, magazine, > snail mail, etc. I understand your eyes need strong correction. Those recommendations are for people before their eyes get to that point. Hence my concern over children getting corrective lenses. Another option that is recommended for people needing strong correction is to get glasses with only a partial prescription so it brings hopelessly blurred images to a livable blur. Most people can function fine with a livable blur (besides driving) as they just bring what they're focusing on closer. I"m myopic and use reading glasses of the computer. I am sit only 12 inches away from the screen but when I remove those glasses my vision feels so relaxed and looks bearable. If I forget to wear them, I'll sit a little farther back but when I get up and go outside my vision is much worse. People I could recognize before are a little too blurred then. Another very important point I forgot to mention is that myopes almost never have equal strength in both eyes. So its important to adjust the strength of the lenses in the reading glasses to even them out. One way is to use only one lens for the better eye (which focuses farther away) and remove the other. You want your focus to be about the same distance for both eyes. Otherwise one will be strained. And you always want to have your monitor or working area just slightly blurred. I don't know why this works but it truly does. Another way for this is to get 2 pairs of glasses of identical style, each pair matching each eye, and move the lenses so you have both eyes focused at the same distance. It doesn't have to be exact of course, but it needs to be close. As our working area (with larger monitors like 30 inchers and multi widescreen monitors) gets a lot wider, using your peripheral vision becomes mandatory and is actually very good for the eyes. > > Basically if you don't need them, don't wear them. And if you need > > them sometimes, wear them only sometimes. > > And if you need them all the time, then wear them all the time. Most people simply never need them all the time. Most people could rid themselves of corrective lenses most of the time. And a lot of people could rid themselves of glasses all the time if they don't have to drive. We get used to perfect clarity. But its really not necessary. Remember to use an eye chart or anything that requires reading at a set distance so you can constantly check your vision. Just make sure the contrast level (lighting) is always high so that's not influencing your ability to read it. > By your logic, no one should get LASIK eye surgery because that would be > a permanent correction, akin to wearing contacts 24/7. I haven't read much on Lasik but I don't believe that's an issue with it. For someone needing strong correction, and they are young, Lasik would be mighty tempting of course. And some people opt for getting monovision when they're older using 1 eye for distance and 1 for close work. Depends on your vision of course. And of course a certain percentage of Lasik surgeries are disasters, but thankfully they are getting smaller and smaller. But maybe not........but if you're vision truly sucks a few side effects like poorer night vision and ghosting would be understandably worth it. http://www.myopia.org/bbclasersurgery.htm http://www.vision3d.com/ http://www.iblindness.org/ http://www.chinamyopia.org/mainenglish.htm http://www.rebuildyourvision.com/#Exercise http://www.howstuffworks.com/lens4.htm http://www.preventmyopia.org/ http://www.visioneducators.com/ http://www.myopia.org/ "Over one third of our children, although born with normal vision, become nearsighted during their school years. Many have vision that has deteriorated to the point where they would be declared legally blind if they did not have the crutch of glasses to turn to. In some highly literate Asian countries, the incidence of acquired myopia has been increasing in recent years to the point where over 90% of college students are nearsighted! The eye doctors claim this is hereditary, even when there is no history of the problem in the family. But, of all our senses, why is it just our vision that so rapidly deteriorates at such an early age? What if one third of our children walked around with hearing aids or crutches? Would that be considered just "inherited"? The excessive amount of reading and other close work that we do in our modern society is the REAL cause of acquired myopia. And the glasses with minus power lenses that are normally prescribed by uncaring doctors make the vision get worse FAST!" >..... People I >could recognize before are a little too blurred then. The problem is recognizing people who are often removing their glasses. >Now if you'd like to educate yourself on real world vision improvement >there are scores of sites that can inform you. Corrective lenses >strain the eyes. Do the test I mentioned and it will be proven. Our >vision is always worse after wearing glasses than early in the day >before putting them on. But mine are at their worse early in the day. >That tells you they are having a negative >affect on your vision. It can be replicated consistently over and >over again. Rid yourself of corrective lenses for a couple of weeks >and your eyes will improve substantially. Worked for me. I only use glasses to read, and I went on vacation forgetting to bring them once. It didn't help. >Had my eyes >measured before and after with an eye chart. Of course I'm an idiot >so I just guessed those letters on the chart....lol. I really >fooled'em. I was having some trouble reading distant signs, and went to the eye doctor a couple of months ago. I found out that, yes, my distant vision is deteriorating - but it is still considerably better than 20/20. I wouldn't know - I can only compare it to how my eyes worked in the past. > >Now if you'd like to educate yourself on real world vision improvement > >there are scores of sites that can inform you. Corrective lenses [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I only use glasses to read, and I went on vacation forgetting to bring > them once. It didn't help. Those recommendations for myopia sufferers. Not for deteriorating close vision (prespyopia.) > >Had my eyes > >measured before and after with an eye chart. Of course I'm an idiot [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 20/20. I wouldn't know - I can only compare it to how my eyes worked > in the past. >> But even people with astigmatism benefit greatly by wearing their >> corrective lenses a minimum of time or not at all if possible. > > Unless, of course, they need to read something. Idiot. Hold a moment Andy! - Medically seen, it is best to take off the glasses - or contact lenses - now and then. this will give the eyes some rest. by this you won't make the eyes that much tired, - and this again will reduce the risk of pains in the eye sorroundings and reduce risk of headaches. cheers, Erik Richard Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rgds. Grüße, Mvh. Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC <mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk> <http://www.nisus.com> NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > In my dotage years, I first got half-glasses for reading, and now >> > have computer bifocals. The hardest thing to get used to is that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Why not use 1 pair of glasses just for the computer? That's why I called them "computer bifocals". Or are you assuming that if I'm sitting at a computer, I won't need to read a paper so I won't need two focal lengths? The mythical "paperless office"... > I was wondering if anyone had experience getting a dual-monitor setup > running with a G4 PowerMac (Mirror Drive Doors model)? It's got the ATI > Radeon 9000 Pro card, which appears to have 1 VGA and 1 ADC output. Is > it simply a matter of buying the ADC -> VGA adapter (expensive and hard > to find, apparently) and plugging in the second monitor? Small Dog has the Belkin ADC to DVI adapter for $37. <http://www.smalldog.com/product/12651830> > I was wondering if anyone had experience getting a dual-monitor setup > running with a G4 PowerMac (Mirror Drive Doors model)? Sorry, no. ...and I have the "same" model G4 (see sig). > I'm currently running a very old 21" CRT monitor at 1920x1200, and like > the 'real estate' of that resolution but text can be a bit small at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > know that it's just an awful idea and to just buy a new 24" LCD instead > are much appreciated. This is too weird, and coincidental: Only four days ago, I chucked my old Sony 21" CRT in the dumpster and replaced it with an Apple Cinema HD 23-inch display. <http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=F 9731674&fnode=home/shop_mac/mac_accessories/displays&nplm=M9178LL/A> It was literally plug-n-play and I couldn't be more pleased even considering its hefty price. The [four-into-one] cable providing all the connections, including the feeds to two USB 2.0 and two FireWire 400 ports, combined with "touch" controls for brightness (+ & -) and power/sleep along the right side of the bezel, and the gorgeous display proves, once again, that you get what you pay for. I highly recommend the same route to anyone upgrading as you are considering. Good luck! Signature:) JR PowerMac G4 MDD 1.25 SP Mac OS X 10.4.10 > This is too weird, and coincidental: Only four days ago, I chucked my old > Sony 21" CRT in the dumpster and replaced it with an Apple Cinema HD 23-inch [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I highly recommend the same route to anyone upgrading as you are considering. > Good luck! Hmmm....than |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message