It depends on how you look at it. I appreciate the extra width in this new day and age of modern IDEs with docked panels to the left and right of the editing window. You don't have to have as much stuff hidden. I'd much rather a wider format than a squarer one to accommodate this.
Ideally I'd like two Dell 24" screens. One setup horz and the over vert for surfing. :o) BTW Dell screens are exceptionally good, not many LCD screens deliver 16 bit color - the Dell does - often they state they do but actually only use 12 bits of the 16, so to speak. With my digital photography this makes a huge difference and is why I'm still stuck with CRTs at the moment. But if you play lots of games they suck due to the response times. Nahum. AC> Yes you are correct - and your rant is appreciated ;-) AC> If you excuse me working in inches: AC> a standard 15 inch display is 12x9 inches for a screen area of 108 sq inches AC> a wide 15.4 inch display is 13.44 x 7.56 inches with a screen area of AC> 101.6 sq inches AC> This makes a standard 15 inch display 6% bigger (by area) than a 15.4 AC> inch widescreen display. AC> A wide 17 inch display is 14.8 x 8.3 giving an area of 122.8 sq inches AC> Feel free to correct me - my math is usually rather poor (a side effect AC> of having a degree in mathematics) AC> So I guess the debate is between a 15 inch 4x3 ratio screen and a 17 AC> inch 16x9 ratio screen. AC> Alister Christie AC> Computers for People AC> Ph: 04 471 1849 Fax: 04 471 1266 AC> http://www.salespartner.co.nz AC> PO Box 13085 AC> Johnsonville AC> Wellington AC> David Brennan wrote: >> Screen sizes on laptops are a personal gripe I have with the way laptop >> manufacturers are going in general. Some relevant points: >> >> - 15.4" widescreens actually have less total screen real estate than 15" 4:3 >> screens did. >> - Widescreens are excellent for movies but for documents and programming I >> fail to see the point. I generally want lots of height when programming so I >> can see more code. If you are talking a 24" widescreen then it doesn't >> matter but the 15.4" widescreen is significantly shorter than the old 15" >> screens. >> - All LCD screens look best at their native resolution and resolutions have >> been climbing steadily. So if you buy a 15.4" widescreen laptop with >> 1680*1050 or worse 1920x1200 then you better have very good close eyesight >> or you are going to struggle to read things clearly (or turn large fonts on >> and have weirdness commence). Personally I find 1024x728 an excellent >> resolution for a 15" normal ratio screen but it is near impossible to buy >> laptops with pixels that large these days (I had to get my HP made up >> specially). >> >> It makes no sense to me. This insistence that 15.4 wide > 15 normal and that >> the higher the resolution the better is just baffling. It seems plain to me >> that for many (but not all) people the opposite is true. >> >> Rant off ;-) >> >> David. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On Behalf Of Alister Christie >> Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 2:06 p.m. >> To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Offtopic List >> Subject: [DUG-Offtopic] New Laptop >> >> Okay since we are on the topic of new hardware, I'm in the market for a >> new laptop - or rather more a "desktop replacement". >> >> I'm considering a Dell Inspiron(TM)9300 with a 7200rpm drive. I >> understand that the 9400 is due out shortly but it will probably be a >> bit pricy. I can probably get work to stretch to about $3500 price >> wise. I would like a 17inch display but 15.4 would be accecptable (tis >> better than my 14.1 1024x768 display I am currently using). >> >> Does anyone have any recomendations (or warnings)? >> AC> _______________________________________________ AC> Offtopic mailing list AC> [email protected] AC> http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/offtopic _______________________________________________ Offtopic mailing list [email protected] http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/offtopic
