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
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
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 23:58:42 -0600
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com 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
Bob Proulx b...@proulx.com 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
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
Gilbert Sullivan whirly...@comcast.net 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
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.
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 00:25:19 -0500
Johan Kullstam kullstj...@verizon.net 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Mark Neidorff m...@neidorff.com 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
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
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
-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
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
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.
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
