1 |
On 2010-09-07, Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 7:58 AM, John Blinka <john.blinka@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> I really liked the 1600x1200 display on this machine, which I greatly |
5 |
>> prefer to the 1600x900 display on the more modern Inspiron 1545 I |
6 |
>> own. ?Most of what I do now is through a web browser, and I can see |
7 |
>> much more of a web page with 1200 lines of display than I can with |
8 |
>> 900. And I dislike the massive width of the 1545 which makes it much |
9 |
>> less portable than the old 8200. |
10 |
|
11 |
Exactly they way I feel (for those of you who missed this entire |
12 |
thread). |
13 |
|
14 |
>> So, ?is 16x9 all that's available now in laptops? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Basically all laptops are widescreen (or shortscreen <g>) now, |
17 |
|
18 |
Good thing I mouth wasn't full of pretzel when I read that. :) |
19 |
|
20 |
> your best bet is to try to find one that is 16:10 instead of 16:9, it |
21 |
> will at least give you a little bit more vertical screen space. |
22 |
|
23 |
The "pixel" ratio is 16:10, is the physical size also 16:10? IOW are |
24 |
the pixels still square? |
25 |
|
26 |
[...] |
27 |
|
28 |
> Since 16:9 panels are the same shape as the ones TVs use, I assume |
29 |
> that's why they are cheaper and why the industry prefers them. |
30 |
|
31 |
I thought about that, but the sizes and pixel densities don't overlap |
32 |
at all between laptop panels and TV panels, so I don't see how they |
33 |
can be leveraging production processes or equipment. |
34 |
|
35 |
> I care deeply about vertical pixels, but also about DPI. I really |
36 |
> don't like using a tiny monitor, nor do I like to use a monitor with |
37 |
> less than 100dpi. This requirement usually makes the rest of the |
38 |
> details worth themselves out naturally. :) |
39 |
> |
40 |
> My laptop, which is a few years old now, has a 1400x1050 (116? dpi) |
41 |
> and that is a very comfortable resolution for me. |
42 |
|
43 |
That's what I've got now: a 15" 1400x1050, and it's great. The only |
44 |
thing better would be a 16" 1600x1200. |
45 |
|
46 |
> In order to get the same vertical pixels on a new laptop I'd have to |
47 |
> go up to 1680x1050 (16:10) or 1920x1080 (16:9) and it would probably |
48 |
> be at least an inch wider than my current laptop, which is 13" wide. |
49 |
|
50 |
To get the same physical height as my current 15" display, I have to |
51 |
go with an 18+ diagonal 16:9 display, which is about 4" wider than my |
52 |
current laptop. I guess I'd better take good care of my current |
53 |
Thinkpad. |
54 |
|
55 |
-- |
56 |
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I've read SEVEN |
57 |
at MILLION books!! |
58 |
gmail.com |