| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 01:42 on Monday 06 September 2010, Grant |
| 2 |
Edwards did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >> Yup, and 16x9 sucks -- it's just an excuse to ship smaller, |
| 5 |
> >> lower-resolution displays labelled with bigger numbers. |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> Complete ripoff. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > If you have 16:9 at 1280*720, then yes, it is going to suck. There is |
| 12 |
> > nothing inherently wrong with the aspect ratio, please desist from |
| 13 |
> > trying to make it so. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Yes, there is an inherent problem: in order to get what I consider |
| 16 |
> acceptable vertical size/resolution you have to buy something that's |
| 17 |
> rediculously wide. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Untrue. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Vertical resolution depends only on the available dimension and the number of |
| 22 |
pixels-per-inch of your screen. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
How do you manage to take the position that screen height somehow depends on |
| 25 |
the machine width? Remember that we are talking regular sized notebooks here |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> > There are good reasons for it. It most easily fits the overall |
| 29 |
> > dimensions of the machine, you have a wide and not very deep keyboard |
| 30 |
> > plus space for a touchpad and palm rests. It's all approximately |
| 31 |
> > 16:9. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> No it's not. At least only on any of my laptops. I suppose you can |
| 34 |
> tack on a useless numeric keypat to try to take up some of the extra |
| 35 |
> horizontal space that's required in order to get a screen that's tall |
| 36 |
> enough to be useful. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
I have a 16:9 in a regular sized notebook, a Dell M1530. There's no numpad. In |
| 39 |
fact the keyboard takes up less space horizontally than I'm used to. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
So please tell me again where this machine width thing comes from? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> > I paid the extra to get 16:9 @ 1920x1200. Best thing I ever did |
| 44 |
> > laptop-wise - I can get two webpages side by side on the screen |
| 45 |
> > looking very natural. |
| 46 |
> > |
| 47 |
> > Did you know that 16:9 is the eye's natural aspect ratio? |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> How do you explain the widespread popularity of portrait mode for |
| 50 |
> printed material? Text is much easier to read in tall, narrow, |
| 51 |
> columns. The more lines of code you can see at once when editing |
| 52 |
> source code, the fewer the bugs. Both those have been experimentally |
| 53 |
> verified. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Tall narrow columns come from newsprint and the average person does not |
| 56 |
display only text on a screen. Even the example you cite - printed material - |
| 57 |
is incomplete, in that few folks have only one of them when working. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
The usual case is one book for reference, and at least one other work area. |
| 60 |
Which is why I mentioned two web sites side by side at a very acceptable size. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
> > Test it sometime with outstreched fingers. |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
> I still vastly prefer 4:3 for all of the work I do. I guess if you |
| 66 |
> want to watch movies, and you don't mind hauling around a useless |
| 67 |
> numeric keypad, 16:9 is nice. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Once again, who mentioned a numpad? I didn't. You inserted that the bolster |
| 70 |
your argument, but I never put it there. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
Personally, I think you went cheap and bought a less-than-ideal screen based |
| 73 |
on price. I didn't make that error - I spent the extra bucks, sacrificed a few |
| 74 |
features here and there and went for the best on offer. I have full 1200 |
| 75 |
height (the same as I get out of my 21" CRT monitor) which instantly renders |
| 76 |
all your arguments redundant. |
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
So tell me again why there is something wrong with 16:9? |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
I think you have it conflated with 800 height which indeed is pathetic. |
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
|
| 83 |
-- |
| 84 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives