Apparently, though unproven, at 22:14 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, Grant
Edwards did opine thusly:
> On 2010-09-08, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > I need to shut up now. My hatred of pixelated display devices is
> > showing. I accept an LCD for my notebook as CRTs just don't fit, but
> > nothing be
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:27 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, Paul
Hartman did opine thusly:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Alan McKinnon
wrote:
> > Then there's non-square pixels. Without funky voodoo graphics algorithms,
> > my screen displays circles as ovals.
>
> That problem sh
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Then there's non-square pixels. Without funky voodoo graphics algorithms, my
> screen displays circles as ovals.
That problem should not exist on LCD if you're using the screen's
native resolution. For example, the most common case of this in
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Which raises another layer of confusion: when a spec says "16:9" does it mean
> physical dimensions, or pixel density? I've yet to find a device that clearly
> states *how* it arrived at the numbers it quotes in it's spec.
I think DPI is irr
On 2010-09-08, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> I need to shut up now. My hatred of pixelated display devices is
> showing. I accept an LCD for my notebook as CRTs just don't fit, but
> nothing beats a real CRT imho for image quality.
I presume you mean a nice monochrome display not one of those fuzzy
col
Apparently, though unproven, at 18:53 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, Per-Erik
Westerberg did opine thusly:
> On ons, 2010-09-08 at 17:40 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 17:24 on Wednesday 08 September 2010,
> > Grant
> >
> > Edwards did opine thusly:
> > > > Sinc
On ons, 2010-09-08 at 17:40 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 17:24 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, Grant
> Edwards did opine thusly:
>
> > > Since 16:9 panels are the same shape as the ones TVs use, I assume
> > > that's why they are cheaper and why the industry prefe
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Grant Edwards
wrote:
>> your best bet is to try to find one that is 16:10 instead of 16:9, it
>> will at least give you a little bit more vertical screen space.
>
> The "pixel" ratio is 16:10, is the physical size also 16:10? IOW are
> the pixels still square?
AF
Apparently, though unproven, at 17:24 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, Grant
Edwards did opine thusly:
> > Since 16:9 panels are the same shape as the ones TVs use, I assume
> > that's why they are cheaper and why the industry prefers them.
>
> I thought about that, but the sizes and pixel densit
On 2010-09-07, Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 7:58 AM, John Blinka wrote:
>>
>> I really liked the 1600x1200 display on this machine, which I greatly
>> prefer to the 1600x900 display on the more modern Inspiron 1545 I
>> own. ?Most of what I do now is through a web browser, and I c
Apparently, though unproven, at 15:11 on Tuesday 07 September 2010, Eray Aslan
did opine thusly:
> On 07.09.2010 15:29, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > I figure that just like a top-grade mechanic should be looking at SnapOns
> > or similar in his toolbox, this here sysadmin also needs high quality
> >
On 07/09/10 23:11, Eray Aslan wrote:
> On 07.09.2010 15:29, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> I figure that just like a top-grade mechanic should be looking at SnapOns or
>> similar in his toolbox, this here sysadmin also needs high quality tools. My
>> chief tool is my notebook.
> It's the weight not the
On 2010-09-07, Robert Bridge wrote:
> I don't know how well it works with Linux, but if screen estate
> really matters, has anyone looked at the Lenovo ThinkPad W700ds? I
> know pretty much every CAD person I know drools over it as a mobile
> workstation...
I don't know about that particular mod
I don't know how well it works with Linux, but if screen estate really
matters, has anyone looked at the Lenovo ThinkPad W700ds? I know
pretty much every CAD person I know drools over it as a mobile
workstation...
RobbieAB
Grant Edwards writes:
> On 2010-09-06, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
>> Grant Edwards writes:
>>
>>> For a given height, a 16:9 display is 30% wider. I want nice tall
>>> display (prefereably at least 9-10") without having to increase the
>>> width beyond what a standard "laptop" style keyboard takes
On 07.09.2010 15:29, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> I figure that just like a top-grade mechanic should be looking at SnapOns or
> similar in his toolbox, this here sysadmin also needs high quality tools. My
> chief tool is my notebook.
It's the weight not the price that is the deciding factor us. I gu
Apparently, though unproven, at 14:24 on Tuesday 07 September 2010, John
Blinka did opine thusly:
> > I paid the extra to get
> > 16:9 @ 1920x1200. Best thing I ever did laptop-wise - I can get two
> > webpages side by side on the screen looking very natural.
>
> Mind telling me what you got? T
> I paid the extra to get
> 16:9 @ 1920x1200. Best thing I ever did laptop-wise - I can get two webpages
> side by side on the screen looking very natural.
Mind telling me what you got? The 1200 part sounds attractive to me.
John Blinka
On 2010-09-06, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> Grant Edwards writes:
>
>> For a given height, a 16:9 display is 30% wider. I want nice tall
>> display (prefereably at least 9-10") without having to increase the
>> width beyond what a standard "laptop" style keyboard takes up (about
>> 12-13 inches).
>
>
Grant Edwards writes:
> For a given height, a 16:9 display is 30% wider. I want nice tall
> display (prefereably at least 9-10") without having to increase the
> width beyond what a standard "laptop" style keyboard takes up (about
> 12-13 inches).
It is certainly true that, if the height of the
On Monday 06 September 2010 17:24:45 Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2010-09-06, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >> Yes, there is an inherent problem: in order to get what I consider
> >> acceptable vertical size/resolution you have to buy something that's
> >> rediculously wide.
> >
> > Untrue.
> >
> > Vertic
On 2010-09-06, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> Yes, there is an inherent problem: in order to get what I consider
>> acceptable vertical size/resolution you have to buy something that's
>> rediculously wide.
>
> Untrue.
>
> Vertical resolution depends only on the available dimension and the
> number of p
On 5 Sep 2010, at 23:04, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
...
With square pixels 16x9 is 1920x1080 (so called full HD is 1080p).
This
is my laptop's display.
My big (30") monitor is 16x10 (2560x1600) and is a joy to use. I
prefer
the current wide aspect ratio better then the previous 4x3 standard.
Apparently, though unproven, at 01:42 on Monday 06 September 2010, Grant
Edwards did opine thusly:
> >> Yup, and 16x9 sucks -- it's just an excuse to ship smaller,
> >> lower-resolution displays labelled with bigger numbers.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Complete ripoff.
> >
> > If you have 16:9 at 1280*
>
> How do you explain the widespread popularity of portrait mode for
> printed material? Text is much easier to read in tall, narrow,
> columns. The more lines of code you can see at once when editing
> source code, the fewer the bugs. Both those have been experimentally
> verified.
And I like
On 2010-09-05, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 17:18 on Sunday 05 September 2010, Grant
> Edwards did opine thusly:
>
>> On 2010-09-05, John Blinka wrote:
>> > Hi, all,
>> >
>> > My trusty Inspiron 8200 is on death's door and so I'm looking for a
>> > new laptop - one tha
Alan McKinnon writes:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 17:18 on Sunday 05 September 2010, Grant
> Edwards did opine thusly:
>
>> On 2010-09-05, John Blinka wrote:
>> > Hi, all,
>> >
>> > My trusty Inspiron 8200 is on death's door and so I'm looking for a
>> > new laptop - one that will run Ge
Apparently, though unproven, at 17:18 on Sunday 05 September 2010, Grant
Edwards did opine thusly:
> On 2010-09-05, John Blinka wrote:
> > Hi, all,
> >
> > My trusty Inspiron 8200 is on death's door and so I'm looking for a
> > new laptop - one that will run Gentoo straightforwardly, of course.
On 2010-09-05, John Blinka wrote:
> Hi, all,
>
> My trusty Inspiron 8200 is on death's door and so I'm looking for a
> new laptop - one that will run Gentoo straightforwardly, of course.
>
> I really liked the 1600x1200 display on this machine, which I greatly
> prefer to the 1600x900 display on t
29 matches
Mail list logo
