Native is a lot sharper than low res, but can take a while to get used to. If the mouse feels smoother, then it is because you have more mouse resolution compared to pixels on screen. Input lag depends on the monitor, some monitors add virtually no input lag in non-native res while others add a lot, it depends on the quality of the scaler used in the monitor. Ghosting should be about the same, since that primarily depends on the time it takes the pixels take to change colors.

I meant the mouse movement usually appears to be smoother on lower resolutions. I have a 2233rz on which as far as I know there is very little input lag and ghosting regardless, so the question is more the following; is mouse movement in fact better at lower resolutions or is just in our heads?

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1842461
http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1852692
Check Memento Mori's posts.

Only real problem with widescreen monitors is that most people feel like their aim is different on the x and y axis. It's in their ( and my ) head though, simply due to the fact that there is most shit going around on the horizontal axis.

Nah, I force it to 4:3.

I read the posts and in effect youre saying theres nothing wrong with high resolutions except one has to get used to them?

Pretty much yeah. You hit the treshold were you start to feel like your crosshair goes jumpy-jumpy depending on your sens, dpi and screen res but unless you use an incredibly retarded high sensitivity with low dpi the engine will still get your orders to aim in between those jumps. It's like a little cog having to trigger a bigger one, it might need 3 rotations to trigger the big but it still does the job.

I'd be interested to know what is the absolute minimum number of ticks the engine can work with and still be perfectly precise but it's really for the sake of completion and being the ultimate mouse nerd.

so many people used smaller resolutions at qcon. I was surprised.

I thought it was weird that in the pictures from Quakecon, Stermy was using 4:3 and seemingly a lower res when I thought he swore by native widescreen on that huge CRT he has

iiyama 454 native res is 1600x1200at 85 or 100hz
it does 1280x1024 at over 120 though

native of course, only reason to use lower is the possiblity to have more hz.

I use different resolutions for different games. Kinda weird I guess

640x480 4:3 75hz - CS1.6
1280x960 4:3 75hz - DOD1.3, TFC
1280x900 16:10 75hz - QuakeLive/Q3
1680x1050 16:10 60hz - TF2/L4D

Use 640x480 on CS because the recoil feels nicer and used to the way it is + HUD is larger
1280x960 on DOD and TFC because if I use 640 it looks fugly (it's still pretty blurred on CS but not as bad) so I just double the size and it looks/feels pretty much the same
1280x900 widescreen on Quake because using 4:3 res just kinda looks ugly to me + I like to larger fov and higher hz that I can't use at 1680x1050. Funnily enough, I can use 75hz at 1440 but it just looks shit compared to 1280x900... No idea why
1680x1050 widescreen on most source games because no matter what res I set it to it won't seem to let me force the hz higher then 60 so I might as well use native.

Should I get a 120hz monitor, I'd probably stick with 640 on CS and use native for everything else

Unless you are worries about playing at non-byoc LAN's, use native.