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 densities
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Grant Edwards
grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com 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
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 prefers them.
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:
Since 16:9
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com 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.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com 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
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 alan.mckin...@gmail.com
wrote:
Then there's non-square pixels. Without funky voodoo graphics algorithms,
my screen displays circles as ovals.
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:14 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, Grant
Edwards did opine thusly:
On 2010-09-08, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com 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,
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
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? The 1200
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
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com writes:
On 2010-09-06, Allan Gottlieb gottl...@nyu.edu wrote:
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com 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
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
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 price
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
tools.
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*720, then yes, it is
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.
On Monday 06 September 2010 17:24:45 Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-09-06, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com 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.
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com 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,
Apparently, though unproven, at 17:18 on Sunday 05 September 2010, Grant
Edwards did opine thusly:
On 2010-09-05, John Blinka john.bli...@gmail.com 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
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com writes:
Apparently, though unproven, at 17:18 on Sunday 05 September 2010, Grant
Edwards did opine thusly:
On 2010-09-05, John Blinka john.bli...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, all,
My trusty Inspiron 8200 is on death's door and so I'm looking for a
new
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 to
22 matches
Mail list logo
