1 |
On 2010-09-05, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> Apparently, though unproven, at 17:18 on Sunday 05 September 2010, Grant |
3 |
> Edwards did opine thusly: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On 2010-09-05, John Blinka <john.blinka@×××××.com> wrote: |
6 |
>> > Hi, all, |
7 |
>> > |
8 |
>> > My trusty Inspiron 8200 is on death's door and so I'm looking for a |
9 |
>> > new laptop - one that will run Gentoo straightforwardly, of course. |
10 |
>> > |
11 |
>> > I really liked the 1600x1200 display on this machine, which I greatly |
12 |
>> > prefer to the 1600x900 display on the more modern Inspiron 1545 I own. |
13 |
>> > |
14 |
>> > Most of what I do now is through a web browser, and I can see much |
15 |
>> > |
16 |
>> > more of a web page with 1200 lines of display than I can with 900. |
17 |
>> > And I dislike the massive width of the 1545 which makes it much less |
18 |
>> > portable than the old 8200. I'd love to replace my 8200 with a |
19 |
>> > machine of similar dimensions, but thinner and lighter. However, I |
20 |
>> > cannot find any machine on Dell's website with a 4x3 aspect ratio - |
21 |
>> > they all seem to be approximately 16x9 now. |
22 |
>> > |
23 |
>> > So, is 16x9 all that's available now in laptops? |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> Yup, and 16x9 sucks -- it's just an excuse to ship smaller, |
26 |
>> lower-resolution displays labelled with bigger numbers. |
27 |
>> |
28 |
>> Complete ripoff. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> If you have 16:9 at 1280*720, then yes, it is going to suck. There is nothing |
31 |
> inherently wrong with the aspect ratio, please desist from trying to make it |
32 |
> so. |
33 |
|
34 |
Yes, there is an inherent problem: in order to get what I consider |
35 |
acceptable vertical size/resolution you have to buy something that's |
36 |
rediculously wide. |
37 |
|
38 |
> There are good reasons for it. It most easily fits the overall |
39 |
> dimensions of the machine, you have a wide and not very deep keyboard |
40 |
> plus space for a touchpad and palm rests. It's all approximately |
41 |
> 16:9. |
42 |
|
43 |
No it's not. At least only on any of my laptops. I suppose you can |
44 |
tack on a useless numeric keypat to try to take up some of the extra |
45 |
horizontal space that's required in order to get a screen that's tall |
46 |
enough to be useful. |
47 |
|
48 |
> I paid the extra to get 16:9 @ 1920x1200. Best thing I ever did |
49 |
> laptop-wise - I can get two webpages side by side on the screen |
50 |
> looking very natural. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Did you know that 16:9 is the eye's natural aspect ratio? |
53 |
|
54 |
How do you explain the widespread popularity of portrait mode for |
55 |
printed material? Text is much easier to read in tall, narrow, |
56 |
columns. The more lines of code you can see at once when editing |
57 |
source code, the fewer the bugs. Both those have been experimentally |
58 |
verified. |
59 |
|
60 |
> Test it sometime with outstreched fingers. |
61 |
|
62 |
I still vastly prefer 4:3 for all of the work I do. I guess if you |
63 |
want to watch movies, and you don't mind hauling around a useless |
64 |
numeric keypad, 16:9 is nice. |
65 |
|
66 |
-- |
67 |
Grant |