[gentoo-user] Re: OT: advice sought on new laptop for Gentoo

[Grant Edwards]

On 2010-09-06, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote:

>> Yes, there is an inherent problem: in order to get what I consider
>> acceptable vertical size/resolution you have to buy something that's
>> rediculously wide.
>
> Untrue.
>
> Vertical resolution depends only on the available dimension and the
> number of pixels-per-inch of your screen.

Ah, how conveniently you ignored the _size_ requirement and
concentrated solely on the resolution.

> How do you manage to take the position that screen height somehow
> depends on the machine width? Remember that we are talking regular
> sized notebooks here

Of course screen height depends on width.

To get a display height equivalent to my current Thinkpad's 15"
display (height 9.2") with a 16:9 display, you have to buy a laptop
that's 17" wide.  My Thinkpad is 13" wide.  I simply don't wan't to
carry around that extra 4" of width.

>>> There are good reasons for it. It most easily fits the overall
>>> dimensions of the machine, you have a wide and not very deep keyboard
>>> plus space for a touchpad and palm rests. It's all approximately
>>> 16:9.
>>
>> No it's not.  At least only on any of my laptops.  I suppose you can
>> tack on a useless numeric keypat to try to take up some of the extra
>> horizontal space that's required in order to get a screen that's tall
>> enough to be useful.
>
> I have a 16:9 in a regular sized notebook, a Dell M1530. There's no
> numpad. In fact the keyboard takes up less space horizontally than
> I'm used to.

How tall is the display (physically)?

How wide is the laptop (physically)?

> So please tell me again where this machine width thing comes from?

Well, the height and width are related by a fixed ratio.  With a 4:3
display, the laptop's width has to be at least displayHeight*(4/3). 
With a 16:9 display, the laptop's width has to be at least
displayHeight(16/9).

For a given height, a 16:9 display is 30% wider.  I want nice tall
display (prefereably at least 9-10") without having to increase the
width beyond what a standard "laptop" style keyboard takes up (about
12-13 inches).

> Personally, I think you went cheap and bought a less-than-ideal
> screen based on price.

Now you're just being insulting.

My laptop display was almost top-of-the-line for IBM at the time: 15"
1400x1050.  There may have been a 16" 1600x1200 available in another
product line, but it wasn't available in the model line I wanted.

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but IMO the "cheap" factor is why we got 16:9
displays on laptops in the first place.  A 15" 16:9 display is roughly
10% smaller (cheaper) than a 15" 4:3 display.  But, the salesdroid can
talk the consumer into paying more for a cheaper product: "Wow, for
only $100 more we can move you up from a 15" regular display to a 15"
WIDESCREEN display!

$100 more and it's 1.6" shorter and has 10% less screen area!

What a deal!!

> I didn't make that error - I spent the extra bucks, sacrificed a few
> features here and there and went for the best on offer. I have full
> 1200 height (the same as I get out of my 21" CRT monitor) which
> instantly renders all your arguments redundant.

OK, how high is your display and how wide is your laptop?

> So tell me again why there is something wrong with 16:9?

Because I don't want a 17" wide laptop, and I do want a 10" tall
display.

> I think you have it conflated with 800 height which indeed is
> pathetic.

No, it's about physical form factor: height vs.  width.  I want a
physically tall display on a laptop that doesn't take up half of my
neighbor's tray table. 

My idea display on a laptop would probably be a 4:3 16" 1600x1200.

-- 
Grant