mike regish writes:

Digital systems are merely easier to read in some cases. Most people
nowadays (at least it seems) prefer digital watches.

Are you sure? Every time I look at watches, analog watches (with
hands) seem to outnumber the digital ones ten to one, especially at
the high end of the price range. The inexpensive watches sometimes
have a fair selection of digital styles, but everything above that is
analog. Then again, I think that people who spend $5000 for a watch
probably don't actually care about telling time, anyway (otherwise,
why would they settle for styles that have hands but no numbers, or
dials that are only 4 mm across?).

The watches that are marketed to engineering and geek types do seem to
be digital, but they're a small segment of the market.

Casio makes some nice digital, radio-synchronized ("atomic") watches
that are solar powered. No batteries, clear digital readout, and
accurate to one second in three million years. Ideal if you want
accurate timekeeping, and they aren't expensive.

If you want to be pretty, Chopard makes a very pretty analog
mechanical watch for about $100,000. Of course, it's hard to actually
determine the time from the dial, and it's off by six seconds a day
....

I hate digital speedometers in a car. They drive me nuts with the numbers
always flipping back and forth.

If they had three decimal places that wouldn't be a problem, but for
some reason they never seem to show fractions of a mile per hour. I'm
surprised they are digital at all, given the fondness most people have
for analog indications.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.