Re: [OT] Stupid consumers and inferior hardware (was: Monitor question)
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:03:24 -0500 (EST) Stephen Powell wrote: > > Manufacturers are not doing this because the consumer wants it. They > are doing it to cut costs. And they think they can get away with it. > And sadly, in most cases, they are right. Most consumers can't even > tell that they are being ripped off. If consumers stopped buying > these inferior items, manufacturers would stop producing them. But > they don't. They keep buying them. We're getting what we deserve, > I'm afraid. > they get away with it because most people run windows, the mfr provides the driver, and when it breaks, people expect it because it's windows. Remember the "tulip" ethernet chip ? Friend of mine loaned me a card for ethernet and it worked great. I bought one and it didn't work worth a darn. Got his board back - worked great. Examined the board carefully, they were exactly the same. oh, except for one minor thing. the tulip chip had "rev B" on it. My friends was "rev A". You will always be in trouble with hardware under Linux because of the lack of mfr's drivers, and when they do provide drivers they are generally binary objects, e.g. NVIDIA. It's very frustrating, so I for one appreciate your rant :-) Brian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101231095025.056bc...@bamboo.deldotd.com
Re: [OT] Stupid consumers and inferior hardware (was: Monitor question)
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:35:49 -0500 (EST), Charlie wrote: > On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:23:30 +0100 Simon Hollenbach wrote: >> Stephen Powell wrote: >>> ... >>> You might enjoy my anti-winmodem rant in the following web page: >>> >>> http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/tp600.htm >>> >>> It's in the "Crucial Background Information" section. >> >> Link broken, most certainly u meant: >> http://users.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/tp600.htm > > Your email program [Modest 3.2] must have broken it, because it wasn't > broken here? Apparently, WOW has re-organized their web site. If I type http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/tp600.htm in the address bar of my browser and press Enter, the page is displayed, but the address bar subsequently shows http://users.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/tp600.htm Something, somewhere, is providing a re-direction to another URL. Anyway, the actual URL is now apparently the one above, but the original one still works for me. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1507755871.1372783.1293746707724.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: [OT] Stupid consumers and inferior hardware (was: Monitor question)
- Original message - > On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:23:30 +0100 Simon Hollenbach > shared this with us all: > > > - Original message - > > > You might enjoy my anti-winmodem rant in the following web page: > > > > > > http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/tp600.htm > > Link broken, most certainly u meant: > > http://users.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/tp600.htm > > > > > It's in the "Crucial Background Information" section. > > > > > .''`. Stephen Powell > > Your email program [Modest 3.2] must have broken it, because it wasn't > broken here? > > Charlie its propably due to bad resolving of microb, the maemo browser. Thanks for the info, I'm gonna file a bug. Simon P.s sorry for private mail, Charlie, im gonna learn posting eventually :P
Re: Monitor question
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:58:42AM EST, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Johan Kullstam put forth on 12/29/2010 11:25 PM: > > Good for you. My gripe is that one can no longer choose. It's > > shortscreen or nothing. > > > > I had an old thinkpad t42 with a 14" 1440x1050 and it rocked. It > > weighed only 4.5 lbs even with cd drive. For me, it was an optimal > > size and weight. The current offerings are all inferior - they are > > heavier, have less vertical screen dimension and worse resolution. > > You're a member of a super-minority Johan. Nobody would deny that IT professionals are a tiny minority. Even if you add the comparatively much larger numbers of non-IT professionals, you are looking at a small share of the market, and not the most profitable thereof. The masses have much lower expectations/exigencies, resulting in higher margins. In a somewhat different walk of life, even Blackberry have gotten wise to these aspects and are now focusing on producing for the masses. > The majority of the marketplace wants wide screen, which is why you're > finding little or nothing else but widescreen. Even the little toy > netbook computers all have widescreen LCDs. And using them for anything but entertainment (movies, video & TV streaming, gaming..) is a nightmare. I was configuring one lately, 1024x600 screen resolution, out-of-the-box ubuntu/gnome desktop and even with a very small font, and I frequently had to use Alt+left mouse to drag the popup dialogs upwards: the ‘OK’, ‘cancel’ buttons were off-screen. Fortunately, I don't use GUI's much on my own machines, so I'm quite flexible, but right now it looks like 10+ years of tweaking the ergonomy of the desktop has gone down the tube in a matter of a few months. The only way out of this dilemma would appear to start off with the highest available resolution you can lay your hands on - ie. HDTV's 1080p, and try to recreate a sane 4:3 screen or thereabout and use only part of the display¹. As long as you are able to get such a portable system that features such high resolution, that is. I recently looked at the Thinkpad offering, and Lenovo's specs and customization pages have become extremely vague about the actual pixel dimensions of the displays available for their different models. From what I have seen, it looks like all Thinkpads except the 15 lbs. 17" W701ds come with 1600x900 as the highest resolution. And more often than not that is only an option. Now that's precisely 30% shorter than the hi-res screens of the past decade - ie. 1600x1200 or the wide-screen 1920x1200, and still 15% less height than the 1400x1050 that was commonly featured on 15" laptops before the advent of wide screens. Among other things, what this means is that you will have to use smaller fonts to make an entire page of a pdf document fit on one screen. To the point where you have to lean forward to read comfortably. And this is even more of a problem when the document you are viewing features the standard A4 paper size rather than U.S. letter because pages are an extra 8.5% taller. > That's very telling about the market. As in.. whatever the suckers' preferences, one size fits all makes good economic sense from the vendor/manufacturer's perspective? cj ¹ Ubuntu's new ‘Unity’ desktop appears to be a move in that direction. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101230220319.ga4...@pavo.local
Re: [OT] Stupid consumers and inferior hardware (was: Monitor question)
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:23:30 +0100 Simon Hollenbach shared this with us all: >- Original message - >> You might enjoy my anti-winmodem rant in the following web page: >> >> http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/tp600.htm >Link broken, most certainly u meant: >http://users.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/tp600.htm > >> It's in the "Crucial Background Information" section. > >> .''`. Stephen Powell Your email program [Modest 3.2] must have broken it, because it wasn't broken here? Charlie -- http://www.skymesh.net.au/~taogypsy/ Registered Linux User:- 329524 *** An idea can turn to dust or magic, depending on the talent that rubs against it. Bill Bernbach *** Debian GNU/Linux - just the best way to create magic ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101231083549.7530e...@tao
Re: [OT] Stupid consumers and inferior hardware (was: Monitor question)
- Original message - > You might enjoy my anti-winmodem rant in the following web page: > > http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/tp600.htm Link broken, most certainly u meant: http://users.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/tp600.htm > It's in the "Crucial Background Information" section. > .''`. Stephen Powell
Re: Monitor question
Bob Proulx writes: > Johan Kullstam wrote: >> I had an old thinkpad t42 with a 14" 1440x1050 and it rocked. It >> weighed only 4.5 lbs even with cd drive. For me, it was an optimal size >> and weight. The current offerings are all inferior - they are heavier, >> have less vertical screen dimension and worse resolution. > > And that is exactly why I am still using my IBM ThinkPad T42 with > exactly that configuration. It does everything I need a laptop to do. > It has the best keyboard of any laptop I have ever used. But mostly > because all of the newer machines are less suitable. It is hard to > "upgrade" to something that isn't as good. I would still be using mine but lightning wiped it out. I got a strike near the house and it came through the cablemodem and ethernet. I have a t500 now. It has a much faster CPU, a decent screen, but it is bigger and heavier. -- Johan KULLSTAM -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87aajnxkub@emmy.axel.nom
[OT] Stupid consumers and inferior hardware (was: Monitor question)
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 06:53:00 -0500 (EST), Klistvud wrote: > ... > I would go with George Carlin here: When you see how stupid an average > consumer is, consider that half of them are even more stupid than that. > ... I enjoyed your rant. It reminds me of the "winmodems" which have been rammed down our throats as well. A similar thing is now happening with Ethernet LAN interfaces. The cheap Ethernet LAN interfaces built in to many modern motherboards not only cannot operate at full LAN speed, but they require proprietary non-free firmware to work at all! You might enjoy my anti-winmodem rant in the following web page: http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/tp600.htm It's in the "Crucial Background Information" section. Manufacturers are not doing this because the consumer wants it. They are doing it to cut costs. And they think they can get away with it. And sadly, in most cases, they are right. Most consumers can't even tell that they are being ripped off. If consumers stopped buying these inferior items, manufacturers would stop producing them. But they don't. They keep buying them. We're getting what we deserve, I'm afraid. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/820506395.1363641.1293721404818.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: Monitor question
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 23:58:42 -0600 Stan Hoeppner wrote: Hello Stan, > You're a member of a super-minority Johan. The majority of the > marketplace wants wide screen, which is why you're finding little or "The market wants what the market gets" is more true than "The market gets what the market wants". IOW, more often than not, what we get is dictated to us, rather what is what people /actually/ want. In no small part due to the fact that, by and large, people don't really know what they want(1). (1) People frequenting this ML almost certainly don't fall into that category. However, we're very much a minority of the computer buying public. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent" Bet you thought you had it all worked out Problem - Sex Pistols signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Monitor question
Dne, 30. 12. 2010 06:58:42 je Stan Hoeppner napisal(a): Johan Kullstam put forth on 12/29/2010 11:25 PM: > Good for you. My gripe is that one can no longer choose. It's > shortscreen or nothing. > > I had an old thinkpad t42 with a 14" 1440x1050 and it rocked. It > weighed only 4.5 lbs even with cd drive. For me, it was an optimal size > and weight. The current offerings are all inferior - they are heavier, > have less vertical screen dimension and worse resolution. You're a member of a super-minority Johan. The majority of the marketplace wants wide screen, which is why you're finding little or nothing else but widescreen. Even the little toy netbook computers all have widescreen LCDs. That's very telling about the market. -- Stan I would go with George Carlin here: When you see how stupid an average consumer is, consider that half of them are even more stupid than that. The majority of the marketplace doesn't "want" widescreen any more that it "wants" Digital Rights Management -- and yet it gets both rammed down its throat (or, sometimes, up some other orifice). Why is that? It's because they're too stupid (or careless) to really know what they want. Vendors, on the other hand, know *extremely* well what they want (to cut costs, increase production volume, increase market share etc.). It's not hard to imagine what happens when the twain -- an extremely cunning and an extremely careless subject -- meet: it happens on a daily basis, and it's called "the marketplace". The place you go to when you want to get royally scr***d. In an ideal world, you could counter that simply by being a well informed consumer instead of a careless one. In the real world, however, everything has already been decided in advance: usually, by the vendors and by the most careless and most uninformed -- the majority. -- Cheerio, Klistvud http://bufferoverflow.tiddlyspot.com Certifiable Loonix User #481801 Please reply to the list, not to me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1293709980.1006...@compax
Re: Monitor question
Johan Kullstam wrote: > I had an old thinkpad t42 with a 14" 1440x1050 and it rocked. It > weighed only 4.5 lbs even with cd drive. For me, it was an optimal size > and weight. The current offerings are all inferior - they are heavier, > have less vertical screen dimension and worse resolution. And that is exactly why I am still using my IBM ThinkPad T42 with exactly that configuration. It does everything I need a laptop to do. It has the best keyboard of any laptop I have ever used. But mostly because all of the newer machines are less suitable. It is hard to "upgrade" to something that isn't as good. Bob signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Monitor question
On 12/30/2010 12:58 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: Johan Kullstam put forth on 12/29/2010 11:25 PM: Good for you. My gripe is that one can no longer choose. It's shortscreen or nothing. I had an old thinkpad t42 with a 14" 1440x1050 and it rocked. It weighed only 4.5 lbs even with cd drive. For me, it was an optimal size and weight. The current offerings are all inferior - they are heavier, have less vertical screen dimension and worse resolution. You're a member of a super-minority Johan. The majority of the marketplace wants wide screen, which is why you're finding little or nothing else but widescreen. Even the little toy netbook computers all have widescreen LCDs. That's very telling about the market. I don't think so. But the whole bunch of us who have no use for wide-screen have been basically ignored by the vendors. I don't have room for a 23" wide- screen that would have the same screen height as my 19" old-fashioned monitor. How many people watch movies on their computers? That's what TVs are for. Just before the "standard" monitors disappeared, I bought another. Well, let's face it--the mfrs sell a lot more TVs than computer monitors, so that's what they make. The computing public be damned! --doug -- Blessed are the peacemakers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d1c2f50.9040...@optonline.net
Re: Monitor question
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 00:25:19 -0500 Johan Kullstam dijo: >Good for you. My gripe is that one can no longer choose. It's >shortscreen or nothing. > >I had an old thinkpad t42 with a 14" 1440x1050 and it rocked. It >weighed only 4.5 lbs even with cd drive. For me, it was an optimal >size and weight. The current offerings are all inferior - they are >heavier, have less vertical screen dimension and worse resolution. Your complaint is exactly the same as a local friend of mine, a long-time Linux user who also used a T42 for a long time. He actually retrofitted a tall screen onto a (I believe) T61, which he runs at 2000xsomething. I'll forward your e-mail to him so he can respond with instructions, if he wants. He probably will respond, as he is at least as annoyed by widescreens as you are. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101229222128.46aa6...@mailhost.pdx.edu
Re: Monitor question
Johan Kullstam put forth on 12/29/2010 11:25 PM: > Good for you. My gripe is that one can no longer choose. It's > shortscreen or nothing. > > I had an old thinkpad t42 with a 14" 1440x1050 and it rocked. It > weighed only 4.5 lbs even with cd drive. For me, it was an optimal size > and weight. The current offerings are all inferior - they are heavier, > have less vertical screen dimension and worse resolution. You're a member of a super-minority Johan. The majority of the marketplace wants wide screen, which is why you're finding little or nothing else but widescreen. Even the little toy netbook computers all have widescreen LCDs. That's very telling about the market. -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d1c1f92.2010...@hardwarefreak.com
Re: Monitor question
Gilbert Sullivan writes: > On 12/28/2010 09:40 AM, Klistvud wrote: >> It's also horrible for web browsing, and for many other tasks. It >> actually only has two uses I can think of: widescreen movies and >> side-by-side document viewing. Given that movies are best viewed on >> large TV sets anyway, the usefulness of widescreen computer monitors is >> further reduced to just side-by-side document viewing. Arguably, even >> for that task, dual-head setups are better. > > On the other hand, there are those of us who must use portable systems > for side-by-side document reading and/or tiled terminal window use > while traveling and are, thus, limited to a single screen. Widescreen > works better for us. Good for you. My gripe is that one can no longer choose. It's shortscreen or nothing. I had an old thinkpad t42 with a 14" 1440x1050 and it rocked. It weighed only 4.5 lbs even with cd drive. For me, it was an optimal size and weight. The current offerings are all inferior - they are heavier, have less vertical screen dimension and worse resolution. > My portable systems have 1920x1200 LCDs. I'm so > accustomed to them that I don't bother with multi-monitor setups at > home or at the office any more. Just one widescreen setup suffices, > and I don't have to fiddle around switching between multi-monitor and > single monitor setups any more. > > My totally unbiased and scientific $.02. > > ;-) -- Johan KULLSTAM -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ei8zygqo@emmy.axel.nom
Re: Monitor question
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 08:46:38PM EST, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Chris Jones put forth on 12/27/2010 7:00 PM: > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:57:31AM EST, Camaleón wrote: > >> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:30:57 -0500, Mark Neidorff wrote: > > > > [..] > > > >> When it comes to LCD/TFT, you have to pay attention to native > >> resolution. > > > > I agree. And the highest you can get. > Not necessarily. This is highly dependent on the users(s) of the > monitor. > > I built my folks a new PC last year (Athlon II X2 Rigor 2.8 w/ ATI > north bridge video) and got them a 24" Asus widescreen LCD to go with > it. Dad is 73 Mom is 68. Dad wears trifocals and Mom bifocals. No > matter what font size (WinXP) [..] My remark was to be taken in the context of environments that are configurable to the users' rather than the vendor's preferences. ;-) cj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101228210701.gc4...@pavo.local
Re: Monitor question
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:11:28 +0100, Klistvud wrote: > Dne, 28. 12. 2010 15:49:26 je Paul Cartwright napisal(a): >> On 12/28/2010 09:40 AM, Klistvud wrote: >> > >> > It's also horrible for web browsing, and for many other tasks. It >> > actually only has two uses I can think of: widescreen movies and >> > side-by-side document viewing. Given that movies are best viewed on >> > large TV sets anyway, the usefulness of widescreen computer >> monitors is >> > further reduced to just side-by-side document viewing. Arguably, >> even >> > for that task, dual-head setups are better. >> >> so ( I'm REALLY late into this thread) what you are saying is, I should >> opt for dual-monitors rather than1 LARGER monitor? I had never even >> considered dual monitors for HOME use, I always thought it was a work >> thingie.. Right now I have a 20" flat panel, but I ALSO still have my >> "old" 17" flat panel that I use for my server.. I could I suspect, add >> IT to my desktop & make it dual monitors.. what would I need, another >> video card the same as my current NVidia card, or would it matter? I'm currently using that setup with lenny on a computer used for displaying presentations, videos and photos at the office. I'm using one video card with dual head capabilities (an old nvidia 7600GS) and here I use the closed "nvidia" driver. Setup was plain easy (in twinview mode, the two displays act as separated screens so I can launch two applications and get them maximized on each screen). There are VGA cards that allow to manage up to 4 displays with just one card attached :-) > I was only making a point; I have no direct experience with dual-head > setups. That said, I've seen them used in "home" environments too. I > guess it's your call really. As one of the posters said, given a big > enough monitor (> 30"), a single monitor can competently replace a > dual-head setup. Not in all use cases though. Dual-head setups allow you > to have, say, a VT on one monitor and a desktop environment on the > other, or a desktop on one monitor and a full-screen video (or OpenGL > game) on the other -- things not possible with a single monitor, AFAIK. > On the other hand, dual-head setups do (generally) require an additional > video card and they are (generally again) more complex and harder to set > up. You have to consider what you'll be using your setup for; > persaonally, I'd be more than happy with, say, a single monitor, as long > as it was at least > 28". Currently I'm on a 15" laptop LCD and am not > happy with it. I've used both (large displays -24"- and dual head setups -2 displays of 19"-) and having one large screen is not that easy in linux systems (windows are hard to position in the screen and dimensions are forgotten very easily so you end up moving windows all the time :-P). Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.12.28.19.12...@gmail.com
Re: Monitor question
Dne, 28. 12. 2010 15:49:26 je Paul Cartwright napisal(a): On 12/28/2010 09:40 AM, Klistvud wrote: > > It's also horrible for web browsing, and for many other tasks. It > actually only has two uses I can think of: widescreen movies and > side-by-side document viewing. Given that movies are best viewed on > large TV sets anyway, the usefulness of widescreen computer monitors is > further reduced to just side-by-side document viewing. Arguably, even > for that task, dual-head setups are better. so ( I'm REALLY late into this thread) what you are saying is, I should opt for dual-monitors rather than1 LARGER monitor? I had never even considered dual monitors for HOME use, I always thought it was a work thingie.. Right now I have a 20" flat panel, but I ALSO still have my "old" 17" flat panel that I use for my server.. I could I suspect, add IT to my desktop & make it dual monitors.. what would I need, another video card the same as my current NVidia card, or would it matter? I was only making a point; I have no direct experience with dual-head setups. That said, I've seen them used in "home" environments too. I guess it's your call really. As one of the posters said, given a big enough monitor (> 30"), a single monitor can competently replace a dual-head setup. Not in all use cases though. Dual-head setups allow you to have, say, a VT on one monitor and a desktop environment on the other, or a desktop on one monitor and a full-screen video (or OpenGL game) on the other -- things not possible with a single monitor, AFAIK. On the other hand, dual-head setups do (generally) require an additional video card and they are (generally again) more complex and harder to set up. You have to consider what you'll be using your setup for; persaonally, I'd be more than happy with, say, a single monitor, as long as it was at least > 28". Currently I'm on a 15" laptop LCD and am not happy with it. -- Cheerio, Klistvud http://bufferoverflow.tiddlyspot.com Certifiable Loonix User #481801 Please reply to the list, not to me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1293559888.586...@compax
Re: Monitor question
On 12/28/2010 09:40 AM, Klistvud wrote: It's also horrible for web browsing, and for many other tasks. It actually only has two uses I can think of: widescreen movies and side-by-side document viewing. Given that movies are best viewed on large TV sets anyway, the usefulness of widescreen computer monitors is further reduced to just side-by-side document viewing. Arguably, even for that task, dual-head setups are better. On the other hand, there are those of us who must use portable systems for side-by-side document reading and/or tiled terminal window use while traveling and are, thus, limited to a single screen. Widescreen works better for us. My portable systems have 1920x1200 LCDs. I'm so accustomed to them that I don't bother with multi-monitor setups at home or at the office any more. Just one widescreen setup suffices, and I don't have to fiddle around switching between multi-monitor and single monitor setups any more. My totally unbiased and scientific $.02. ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d1a0015.1000...@comcast.net
Re: Monitor question
Dne, 28. 12. 2010 08:24:22 je George napisal(a): If you do your work in text mode, why do you want a widescreen monitor? Widescreen is good for films but horrible when it comes to reading, which is what you normally use your computer for. It's also horrible for web browsing, and for many other tasks. It actually only has two uses I can think of: widescreen movies and side-by-side document viewing. Given that movies are best viewed on large TV sets anyway, the usefulness of widescreen computer monitors is further reduced to just side-by-side document viewing. Arguably, even for that task, dual-head setups are better. Why is it then that the widescreen standard has taken over the computer market so preponderously? Well, forcing the widescreen format allows the manufacturers to charge us the *same* amount of money for a *reduced* screen real estate. It's all about marketing (also called indoctrination, or brainwashing): making buyers gladly accept less bang for the buck. Sadly, as many times before, we, the consumers, have allowed them to force this new obnoxiousness upon us without moving a finger. Let me give examples which will hopefully corroborate my assertions (the numbers given are however just illustrations and far from accurate). The widescreen fad allows a vendor to make a LCD panel having the overall area of a 15" classic panel (roughly), and market it as a 19" monitor. To get (roughly) the same vertical size as with a classic 32" TV, you now have to buy a 42" widescreen TV set. Of course, a 42" widescreen TV is much wider than a classic 32", no arguing with that: it may also be seen as a "widened" 32" TV, a 32" TV expanded with two additional lateral "bands". Incidentally, a figure of 42 is also a lot more impressive (and easier to market) than a humble 32. Maximum laptop width is limited -- by ergonomic and other factors -- roughly to ca. 40 cm. Well, with the widescreen format, that limitation allows a far smaller screen real estate than classic 4:3 screens did. In other words, the usefulness of laptops for serious display-dependent work has arguably *decreased* over the last decade or so. This trend is further enhanced with laptops progressively becoming more convenient, and more of a "toy" than a "work tool". About a decade ago, the absolute minimum resolution for LCD laptop screens was 1024x768. Finding 800x600 laptops was becoming increasingly difficult, and the standard was moving toward higher resolutions, such as 1600x1200 etc. A decade later, additionally spurred by the netbook fad, the absolute minimum is again set back to around 1024x600 or less, with entry-level laptops generally having a meagre 1360x768 resolution. Compare these numbers to, say, CPU speeds or hard drive capacities over the same period, and tell me the LCD marketing guys aren't sheer geniuses! Of course, this is strictly my personal, and quite biased, point of view. -- Cheerio, Klistvud http://bufferoverflow.tiddlyspot.com Certifiable Loonix User #481801 Please reply to the list, not to me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1293547219.586...@compax
Setting DPI (was: Monitor question)
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 13:39:40 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Ma, 28 dec 10, 09:13:00, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: >> >> I don't know how exactly it is done, but Linux takes into account the >> actual size of the display (which is reported along its supported >> resolutions) and not only the resolution to determine font sizes (and >> maybe icon sizes or other dimensions of the visual UI, but I have not >> experimented with that). So you get reasonably easy to read (for people >> with good eyesight, at least) fonts at all displays, at all >> resolutions. Under WinXP, if you use a high resolution, you get tiny >> fonts. > > Am I the only one experiencing this? > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23705 > > (Summary: Xorg forces 96 DPI and it is impossible to change it) Wow, how bad :-( I don't see any advantadge of having a fixed DPI. > Ok, it doesn't happen with the non-free nvidia driver (and possibly also > not with fglrx), but I expected a lot more people to use free drivers > here. I am using a VM (virtuablox) which has its own Xorg driver and hopefully still can change the dpi at my convenience :-) Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.12.28.12.20...@gmail.com
Re: Monitor question
On Ma, 28 dec 10, 09:13:00, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > > I don't know how exactly it is done, but Linux takes into account > the actual size of the display (which is reported along its > supported resolutions) and not only the resolution to determine font > sizes (and maybe icon sizes or other dimensions of the visual UI, > but I have not experimented with that). So you get reasonably easy > to read (for people with good eyesight, at least) fonts at all > displays, at all resolutions. Under WinXP, if you use a high > resolution, you get tiny fonts. Am I the only one experiencing this? https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23705 (Summary: Xorg forces 96 DPI and it is impossible to change it) Ok, it doesn't happen with the non-free nvidia driver (and possibly also not with fglrx), but I expected a lot more people to use free drivers here. Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Monitor question
On Seg, 27 Dez 2010, Stan Hoeppner wrote: I built my folks a new PC last year (Athlon II X2 Rigor 2.8 w/ ATI north bridge video) and got them a 24" Asus widescreen LCD to go with it. Dad is 73 Mom is 68. Dad wears trifocals and Mom bifocals. No matter what font size (WinXP) I selected, the native 1920x1080 panel res just didn't work for them although it was perfect for me. I ended up setting the res at 1280x720 with small fonts. It's not as sharp (to me) but perfect for them, and they can't fathom how they got along with a 17" MAG CRT for for the 5 prior years. Dad no longer has to lean forward and tilt his head back simultaneously. I'm surprised the old 17" CRT didn't cause a permanent craning of his neck. Windows (at least XP, I'm not sure if Vista/7 changed that) suck a lot in this regard (and others too, but I digress). Linux does much better. I don't know how exactly it is done, but Linux takes into account the actual size of the display (which is reported along its supported resolutions) and not only the resolution to determine font sizes (and maybe icon sizes or other dimensions of the visual UI, but I have not experimented with that). So you get reasonably easy to read (for people with good eyesight, at least) fonts at all displays, at all resolutions. Under WinXP, if you use a high resolution, you get tiny fonts. -- Talk is cheap because supply always exceeds demand. Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101228091300.771465aoy73kn...@mail.kalinowski.com.br
Re: Monitor question
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Mark Neidorff wrote: > I'm tempted by the crop of wide screen 25" monitors on the market. snip > 2. Are there monitors that do not support text mode out there? I'm asking > because I do as much work on my server as possible in text mode, only using X > when absolutely necessary. I also feel the need to watch the boot messages > go by at times. If a monitor can't display text mode, then it will be > useless to me. If you do your work in text mode, why do you want a widescreen monitor? Widescreen is good for films but horrible when it comes to reading, which is what you normally use your computer for. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinbwbjou39kuxrm56wbhfxd_03zfuycdu...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Monitor question
Chris Jones put forth on 12/27/2010 7:00 PM: > On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:57:31AM EST, Camaleón wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:30:57 -0500, Mark Neidorff wrote: > > [..] > >> When it comes to LCD/TFT, you have to pay attention to native >> resolution. > > I agree. And the highest you can get. Not necessarily. This is highly dependent on the users(s) of the monitor. I built my folks a new PC last year (Athlon II X2 Rigor 2.8 w/ ATI north bridge video) and got them a 24" Asus widescreen LCD to go with it. Dad is 73 Mom is 68. Dad wears trifocals and Mom bifocals. No matter what font size (WinXP) I selected, the native 1920x1080 panel res just didn't work for them although it was perfect for me. I ended up setting the res at 1280x720 with small fonts. It's not as sharp (to me) but perfect for them, and they can't fathom how they got along with a 17" MAG CRT for for the 5 prior years. Dad no longer has to lean forward and tilt his head back simultaneously. I'm surprised the old 17" CRT didn't cause a permanent craning of his neck. -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d19417e.10...@hardwarefreak.com
Re: Monitor question
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:57:31AM EST, Camaleón wrote: > On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:30:57 -0500, Mark Neidorff wrote: [..] > When it comes to LCD/TFT, you have to pay attention to native > resolution. I agree. And the highest you can get. > Look, 17" displays tend to use the same resolution (dots per inch) > than 19" ones (1280x1024) so people tend to think they gain when > buying a 17" screen because they get the same viewable area but they > pay less (17" monitors are cheaper). Being near-sighted, a 17" monitor suits me best: with larger monitors, I am so close to the display that I constantly have to move my head to the right, to the left, to the right.. and end up with a crick in the neck. :-) > But I prefer to stick to 19" LCD screens (and avoid as much as I can > those wide/narrow screens, 16:9 or 16:10) because text and icons are > larger than in 17" displays and I get a good resolution (1280x1024 is > better than a wide screen (1280x800). Have you had too much champagne over the holiday? :-) Last time I looked, all _affordable_ monitors I could find were 16:9 aka. Hollywood's preferred 1080p. And as far as recent laptop models are concerned, they are all 16:9. From what I understand, the manufacturers have stopped making proper _computer_ displays. The 4:3 aspect ratio displays that I like.. or the possibly even better 5:4 that you recommend are pretty much a thing of the past. If I had the money, I might purchase a couple of QSXGA 2560x2048 screens right now.. while they last. But apart from the fact that I am unsure they would play well with X/linux and run-of-the-mill hardware, the price of such fiends is rather a deterrent. [..] > OTOH, you can always adjust your DPI to a higher value (i.e., 120dpi) so > while you keep your current/recommended resolution, all, icons and text > will display bigger and your eyes will suffer less :-) Yes, that's usually the sensible approach when you want to stick with the native resolution of your physical screen (as you should) and globally adjust the size of your fonts, icons, etc. to whatever suits your particular preferences or your eyesight's idiosyncrasies. I have noticed that out of the box, and before you fool him by running X with a lower dpi (such as 96), gnome presents you with large fonts and icons that make your high-res display look as if it were a 1024x768 or less. Rather than change font sizes in all kind of never obvious places, reduce the height or the panels, etc. it is considerably easier and more reliable to change the dpi and restart X. cj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101228010017.ga4...@pavo.local
Re: Monitor question
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:30:57 -0500, Mark Neidorff wrote: > Running Lenny updated. > I'm wondering what I lose if I switch to a large wide screen monitor. I > currently have a "regular" 17" Viewsonic (VP171s). Works fine, but > since my eyes are getting older, I'm tempted by the crop of wide screen > 25" monitors on the market. If you want to tell me how great a > particular brand of monitor is, please e-mail me off the list (I don't > want to start a flame war on the list). My systems currently use the > on-board video that comes with the motherboards. (I have multiple > systems connected to the monitor) For my server, I want to keep using > the on-board video, but for my desktop machine, putting in a video card > is not out of the question. When it comes to LCD/TFT, you have to pay attention to native resolution. Look, 17" displays tend to use the same resolution (dots per inch) than 19" ones (1280x1024) so people tend to think they gain when buying a 17" screen because they get the same viewable area but they pay less (17" monitors are cheaper). But I prefer to stick to 19" LCD screens (and avoid as much as I can those wide/narrow screens, 16:9 or 16:10) because text and icons are larger than in 17" displays and I get a good resolution (1280x1024 is better than a wide screen (1280x800). As per display brand, I like Eizo the most. They are very expensive but they provide a superb quality :-} > So, questions: > 1. Will my on-board video cards be able to drive a new monitor to full > resolution? If not, will I be able to run the GUI in a usable fashion > or will I get a fuzzy display or will there be other compromises? Modern cards, yes, they are capable of managing higher resolutions. Check your card specs to be sure. > 2. Are there monitors that do not support text mode out there? I'm > asking because I do as much work on my server as possible in text mode, > only using X when absolutely necessary. I also feel the need to watch > the boot messages go by at times. If a monitor can't display text mode, > then it will be useless to me. I don't think so. You will only have to setup the resolution that fits your needs. > 3. Are there any other general suggestions about the wide screen > monitors that I should be aware of? None that I can think, just care about resolution, it can be "misleading". OTOH, you can always adjust your DPI to a higher value (i.e., 120dpi) so while you keep your current/recommended resolution, all, icons and text will display bigger and your eyes will suffer less :-) Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.12.27.15.57...@gmail.com
Re: Monitor question
On 12/24/2010 9:30 AM, Mark Neidorff wrote: Hi Folks, Running Lenny updated. I'm wondering what I lose if I switch to a large wide screen monitor. I currently have a "regular" 17" Viewsonic (VP171s). Works fine, but since my eyes are getting older, I'm tempted by the crop of wide screen 25" monitors on the market. If you want to tell me how great a particular brand of monitor is, please e-mail me off the list (I don't want to start a flame war on the list). My systems currently use the on-board video that comes with the motherboards. (I have multiple systems connected to the monitor) For my server, I want to keep using the on-board video, but for my desktop machine, putting in a video card is not out of the question. Well the obvious issues are: what type of CPU are you using: What type of video is onboard (does it use dedicated RAM); how much memory are you using for the entire system. Lenny is very capable of doing what you want, If you do decide to buy a new monitor then I can reccommend a Viewsonic as a good fairly inexpensive model. I recently built a new server & have a 23" Viewsonic doing nicely. Be sure to watch for rebates also, some good deals out there now. If you do buy a new one with a new video card, make sure you get both that have HDMI inputs & outputs. ATI video cards use propriatary drivers but they are fairly up to date in Debian now & you can actually get installable ones from ATI themselves. I personally like the Gigabit cards with ATI chipsets. I use a dual card setup with the crossfire mode activated. It allows streaming live full 1080p video. I'm sure there are many solutions for your concerns, these are just from my own experience & YMMV! So, questions: 1. Will my on-board video cards be able to drive a new monitor to full resolution? If not, will I be able to run the GUI in a usable fashion or will I get a fuzzy display or will there be other compromises? pretty much answered above. 2. Are there monitors that do not support text mode out there? I'm asking because I do as much work on my server as possible in text mode, only using X when absolutely necessary. I also feel the need to watch the boot messages go by at times. If a monitor can't display text mode, then it will be useless to me. No problem there with any of them. 3. Are there any other general suggestions about the wide screen monitors that I should be aware of? Can only be answered if we know what you want form the monitor. FYI: if you just want an easier to read screen text resolution, then reset it in the boot menue. X will be reset anyways to what ever is avaliable on the monitor. & is easily finetuned. Thanks, Mark -- John Foster -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d14e8e6.7090...@gmail.com
Re: Monitor question
On 12/24/2010 04:30 PM, Mark Neidorff wrote: Hi Folks, Running Lenny updated. I'm wondering what I lose if I switch to a large wide screen monitor. I currently have a "regular" 17" Viewsonic (VP171s). Works fine, but since my eyes are getting older, I'm tempted by the crop of wide screen 25" monitors on the market. If you want to tell me how great a particular brand of monitor is, please e-mail me off the list (I don't want to start a flame war on the list). My systems currently use the on-board video that comes with the motherboards. (I have multiple systems connected to the monitor) For my server, I want to keep using the on-board video, but for my desktop machine, putting in a video card is not out of the question. So, questions: 1. Will my on-board video cards be able to drive a new monitor to full resolution? If not, will I be able to run the GUI in a usable fashion or will I get a fuzzy display or will there be other compromises? Probably will but that depends on video card specification. If your video card is capable of XxY resolution and your monitor will have the same than everything will be ok. 2. Are there monitors that do not support text mode out there? I don't think so. 3. Are there any other general suggestions about the wide screen monitors that I should be aware of? Thanks, Mark Probably everything will work just fine. In Lenny period I switched from 19" CRT to 24" LCD without a problem. -- Bye, Goran Dobosevic Hrvatski: www.dobosevic.com English: www.dobosevic.com/en/ Registered Linux User #503414 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d14df14.7050...@dobosevic.com
Monitor question
Hi Folks, Running Lenny updated. I'm wondering what I lose if I switch to a large wide screen monitor. I currently have a "regular" 17" Viewsonic (VP171s). Works fine, but since my eyes are getting older, I'm tempted by the crop of wide screen 25" monitors on the market. If you want to tell me how great a particular brand of monitor is, please e-mail me off the list (I don't want to start a flame war on the list). My systems currently use the on-board video that comes with the motherboards. (I have multiple systems connected to the monitor) For my server, I want to keep using the on-board video, but for my desktop machine, putting in a video card is not out of the question. So, questions: 1. Will my on-board video cards be able to drive a new monitor to full resolution? If not, will I be able to run the GUI in a usable fashion or will I get a fuzzy display or will there be other compromises? 2. Are there monitors that do not support text mode out there? I'm asking because I do as much work on my server as possible in text mode, only using X when absolutely necessary. I also feel the need to watch the boot messages go by at times. If a monitor can't display text mode, then it will be useless to me. 3. Are there any other general suggestions about the wide screen monitors that I should be aware of? Thanks, Mark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201012241030.58022.m...@neidorff.com
Re: Monitor Question: 20" Wide
On Saturday 21 October 2006 18:55, Justin Piszcz wrote: > On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Chris wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Can anyone make any suggestions for 20" flatscreen monitors? > > > > How can I tell if my Graphics Hardware will support the monitors > > resolution. 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 for instance. man radeon contains no > > information about supported resolutions. > > > > My hardware is: > > > > 01:00.1 Display controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon RV250 [Radeon > > 9000] (Secondary) (rev 01) > > > > And I'm running testing with xorg 7.0.22 > > > > Thanks, > > > > Chris > > -- > > C. Hurschler > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I think the first question you have to ask yourself is: what monitor do > you have and what is the recommended resolution for your paritcular LCD? > I'm thinking about what monitor to get, and I'd like not to have to buy a new graphics card. Chris -- C. Hurschler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Monitor Question: 20" Wide
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Chris wrote: > Hello, > > Can anyone make any suggestions for 20" flatscreen monitors? > > How can I tell if my Graphics Hardware will support the monitors resolution. > 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 for instance. man radeon contains no information > about supported resolutions. > > My hardware is: > > 01:00.1 Display controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon RV250 [Radeon 9000] > (Secondary) (rev 01) > > And I'm running testing with xorg 7.0.22 > > Thanks, > > Chris > -- > C. Hurschler > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I think the first question you have to ask yourself is: what monitor do you have and what is the recommended resolution for your paritcular LCD? Justin. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Monitor Question: 20" Wide
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:58:33 +0200, Chris wrote: > How can I tell if my Graphics Hardware will support the monitors resolution. > 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 for instance. man radeon contains no information > about supported resolutions. I can tell you that my 9200 three years ago supported 1920X1200; with blob fglrx, though. Uwe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Monitor Question: 20" Wide
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/21/06 06:58, Chris wrote: > Hello, > > Can anyone make any suggestions for 20" flatscreen monitors? > > How can I tell if my Graphics Hardware will support the monitors resolution. > 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 for instance. man radeon contains no information > about supported resolutions. > > My hardware is: > > 01:00.1 Display controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon RV250 [Radeon 9000] > (Secondary) (rev 01) > > And I'm running testing with xorg 7.0.22 Almost certainly it will. Especially if it has .GE. 32MB video RAM. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is "common sense" really valid? For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFOhC/S9HxQb37XmcRAtjyAJ4hBXr3yzrJs/iGfLdpw0Xj58EQfwCg4WVH ybXUTXJnDWNaQiCCzSLEK28= =JZ5A -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Monitor Question: 20" Wide
Hello, Can anyone make any suggestions for 20" flatscreen monitors? How can I tell if my Graphics Hardware will support the monitors resolution. 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 for instance. man radeon contains no information about supported resolutions. My hardware is: 01:00.1 Display controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon RV250 [Radeon 9000] (Secondary) (rev 01) And I'm running testing with xorg 7.0.22 Thanks, Chris -- C. Hurschler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
