Image Link Dump Thread.

[sabrage]

I use to wear a watch all the time, but I eventually stopped wearing one in favor of a cell phone. The past year or two I've considered wearing a watch again, some times it's annoying to take the cell out of the pocket to check the time. But alas, I have skinny wrist. I'm limited to the watches I can wear that wont look stupid on me.

If you're fishing for recommendations, I make a habit of exhaustive/obsessively researching before I make any purchase. PM me if you want me to go off; I think we've derailed this topic enough so I'll leave you with some watch porn: (spoiler for size)

[Ivo]

I'm not sure how to address this. I'm an obsessive phone-checker and my car's clock is never right, so I need a watch. By affixing the time to my wrist, it becomes a fashion statement (much like bending over to squint at my phone's display) and as such I want a piece that's as much a work of art as it is a tool of convenience. Analog clocks are both beautiful aesthetically and as a feat of engineering (at least to me) and I'd be interested to hear your arguments against them. Do you own a watch?

You don't need to address it. I use a digital watch. I respect people using analog, I just don't really get why. Fashion statement I guess as you say, but I don't see why digital watches need to be less fashionable.

Someone once told me that they considered analog watches to be better to get an approximate idea of what time it was, so that might be why most people would rather use them. I don't necessarily agree but that was a valid point to make.

Personally I think digital displays are better and that analog are mostly obsolete technology in terms of displaying the information (not discussing the other issues).

It boils down to, you want to know a number. You can have that exact number displayed explicitly (and if you only care about approximate you can get a digital display without the seconds or whatever).
Many or most people prefer to use pointers aiming roughly in the direction of a number, and further a number that usually isn't even there on the display (you just convert from portions of 12 and portions of 60).

That leads to a cluttered interface with pointers in front of stuff, one that points to portions of 12 and usually one or two other to portions of 60 (I'm aware that just the "hour" pointer is sufficient to know the minutes, but I would say that it is pretty bad for that). It is worse if you want to accommodate 24 hours (which is what I prefer), and in my opinion gets even worse if you add stuff like stopwatch and other features - although there are very clever solutions (usually in quite high-end watches).
I just think that is bad design, and an unfriendly user interface.

In contrast with something showing the numbers typically low-end watches can have extra features such as a stopwatch without even needing clever solutions to accommodate it in the watch.

Hopefully no one will resort to belittling me because reading time on an analog is very easy and you just need to get a tiny bit used to it. My point is that there is no need to get used to it now that there is a direct alternative (also I don't think I have trouble reading time on an analog display, but I would certainly say that new users such as kids need to train a bit - whereas if they already know numbers that is all they need to know with digital display).

I'll put it another way: I'm glad we don't use analog methods to display the date, even in analog watches. Wonder why that is? They could even use a pointer with the 12 for months.

Ivo.

[Hobie-wan]

But alas, I have skinny wrist. I'm limited to the watches I can wear that wont look stupid on me.

d00d just have some links taken out when you buy a watch. Takes them like 5 seconds to do it. That's what I have to do.

I totally get Ziggy here because I have the same problem. Watches tend to look ridiculous on my wrists too. Now perhaps just the right shaped face and watchband might work, but most do not. My other problem is that even though I'm not a particularly clumsy person, but things hanging off of me tend to get beaten up. The last wristwatch I had was when I was 13 and it died of a cracked face.

[Ziggy]

d00d just have some links taken out when you buy a watch. Takes them like 5 seconds to do it. That's what I have to do.

LOL, no it's not that. I mean, the face of the watch has to be the right size. If it's too large on my skinny wrist, it looks like a little kid's hand with a big ass watch. I hate the way it looks.

edit: Yeah, Hobie knows what I mean.

If you're fishing for recommendations

Wasn't fishing, just saying.

You ever notice how watches with Roman Numerals have a 4 like "IIII" instead of "IV"? Wall clocks are like that too. I've never seen a clock or watch that has a IV on it.

[Hobie-wan]

You don't need to address it. I use a digital watch. I respect people using analog, I just don't really get why. Fashion statement I guess as you say, but I don't see why digital watches need to be less fashionable.

Someone once told me that they considered analog watches to be better to get an approximate idea of what time it was, so that might be why most people would rather use them. I don't necessarily agree but that was a valid point to make.

Personally I think digital displays are better and that analog are mostly obsolete technology in terms of displaying the information (not discussing the other issues).

Of course this is amusing on a site where most of us appreciate 'obsolete' gaming technology. Expecially when you think of older bitmapped games as ditigal with their precise pixels and everything easily mapped in blocks. 3D games are trying to be as analog as possible as they attempt to imatate real life.

A well designed analog watch/clock can usually be read from farther away than a digital one. You can have a wind up analog watch. I guess technically you could have a wind up digital one that used those shutter numbers or moved fluorescent segments behind a grate but it would be more complex than moving 2 hands in a circle. Of course a digital watch can be ridiculously small with just the battery and the crystal being the bulky components.

But to each their own. Both are valid choices so it is just down to preference.

[Luke]

But to each their own. Both are valid choices so it is just down to preference.

A close friend of mine has been wearing the same IronMan watch for at least twenty years. And you know what? The watch still looks great.

My Father's Seiko is still ticking, and will probably outlast my Father's life. He's had the watch since his unfortunate tour in Vietnam, and it still looks great.

I'm kind of an idiot when it comes to buying watches. My clumsiness is definitely at a ten, and I've been through a lot of watches. I tend to wear Bulova and Tag watches, which I shouldn't, because I break them....all too often.

Fun Fact: People assume I'm a south paw since I wear my watch on my right wrist.

Another Fun Fact: I like surprising them!

[Ziggy]

My friend use to have a really nice pocket watch. It came with a pouch that you could put on your belt so you didn't have to go fishing around for it in a pocket or whatever. Of course, the watch was attached by a chain to the pouch. I'd wear something like that, though I suppose it's still not as easy as checking the time on your wrist.

[sabrage]

Like I said, it's entirely an aesthetic issue for me. I'll take a well-designed watchface:

over the dull grey of an LCD screen or bright LEDs any day. I'm neither here nor there about that quartz ticking sound, (unless it's loud) but a lot of analog watches make annoying little beeping noises when you adjust the time or use a function, which I hate. I also don't really believe in such a thing as a "high-end" digital watch; when it comes down to it, they all use the same basic technology. Not that I'm looking to break the bank on an analog right now, but I can't imagine why anyone would ever spend more than $25-50 on a digital watch, unless it's built to withstand a nuclear bomb. Then again, having zero interest in them, I haven't looked much at high-end digitals either.

As for the issue of clutter: I definitely agree that some watches really overdue it on the complications. I consider the Citizen Nighthawk, for example:

to be something of a minor abomination, but I think there's always room for a well-balanced chronograph for pilot's watches or a rotating bezel on a diver. I really only need a watch that can tell the time; I'll still use my phone/clock radio for alarms and a calendar for the date, but they're decent features to have. As with the watch itself, I consider complications to be as much an aesthetics statement as they are a means of convenience.

As far as finding a suitable watch: I've got lanky arms, but I can still wear a fairly wide watch without looking awkward. It's the thick (in terms of height) ones with metal bracelets that start to look weird, especially since most days I stick with a tee and maybe a flannel. Luckily, watch repair kits are cheap so I can always upgrade to a nice NATO band.

...Anyways, I finally put together my shortlist for possible buys, so I'll probably stop nerding out over watches until I actually have some spending money.

My friend use to have a really nice pocket watch. It came with a pouch that you could put on your belt so you didn't have to go fishing around for it in a pocket or whatever. Of course, the watch was attached by a chain to the pouch. I'd wear something like that, though I suppose it's still not as easy as checking the time on your wrist.

While I like the idea of pocketwatches, I own neither a bowler cap nor a stovepipe, so I'd feel a bit silly.

[Ivo]

I didn't mean to further de-rail the thread but this I find this to be an interesting discussion. Thank you for your input Hobie.
They are both valid choices, particular on wrist watches where its for you, personal preference trumps all and nobody needs to justify themselves to me or anyone else!

I don't think old game technology necessarily is obsolete if there are unique games to be played. That is the old stuff that I appreciate. There are certainly gaming technologies that I find really obsolete and only appreciate for historical value. I guess to some, reading the time is also an "experience" and they appreciate the uniqueness of doing it on other displays.

Many 3D games are indeed imitating real life in an "approximation to analog" (not all are though). For that type of game, I don't see the majority of customers preferring the "obsolete" digital style. For other type of games bitmapped games are arguably superior in some aspects (such as simplicity) so that is another discussion that we do not need to get into now.

Yet when you want to get a number, you don't even need to imitate with approximations, you can just do it perfectly basically and get that number displayed to you, most people prefer the "imitation" with analog pointers? On stuff like scales, thermometers and so on I think most people do prefer the digital displays (or am I wrong?), for dates as well, but for time during the day not?
This is a puzzle, no?
I wonder for example: assume you have a mobile phone with a large enough screen to support analog decently - would you change the clock to analog?
(heck for all I know the default on many of those phones may even be analog).

Although it doesn't apply to watches (for the wrist), you make a good point on distance for say wall clocks. I think this is a valid point, even if it isn't so simple - well designed digital clocks for use in walls and for being read at distances can be very easy to read from large distances as well. They don't need to use the "8" format (with 7 bars) that has a 9 being like the 8 just with one of the bars turned off, the 2 being exactly like a reversed 5 etc.
I'm not 100% sure with the same total area if the analog would still beat the digital clock given both top designs aiming for that purpose - particularly note that even if you can still check what hour it is on the analog from farther, it would be pretty hard to know decently the minutes. In principle if you can still read the digital you know the minutes precisely. I can also tell you that the clock I have on my OS occupies a tiny bit on the corner, and if it was analog with that same area I would have serious trouble reading it comfortably.
It helps that on the computer the numbers are displayed in a good, high-resolution font and each digit is very easy to distinguish.

Ivo.

[Ivo]

Funnily enough:

I also wear my watch on the right wrist, and I am not left-handed (like Luke).

I also like pocket watches, but I never got one (well there aren't many or even any nice ones with a digital display as well).

To Sabrage: I don't dispute that some analog watches look really nice. I claim the method of displaying the information is basically obsolete (possibly with some exceptions like the "read from a distance" point or such).
I also contend that if people had moved on from analog, you would have extremely nice digital watches, without annoying beeping sounds and so on for people like you to wear. I mean really what is to stop a digital display from looking really nice? Personally I think there are already some very aesthetically pleasing digitals, but I like the style of say Casio G-Shocks (that is just me and I'm sure many people just hate that style).

I can't imagine why anyone would spend more than say $100 on a watch, period, but there are digital ones that earn their value upwards of $50 with quite interesting features, without making the main feature (telling the time) cluttered.

Ivo.