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

[Mick]

On Monday 06 September 2010 17:24:45 Grant Edwards wrote:
> 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.

I have to agree somewhat with Grant on this, extra wide screens *can* be a 
marketing ploy.  I bought a 15.6" 16:9 1920x1080 Full HD Dell.  The picture 
clarity is fantastic for watching HD videos - definitely better than other 
lower resolutions at the same screen size of 15.6".  The catch is that if you 
try to read anything at the native resolution and font size you soon end up 
with eye strain and headaches!  Ha, ha!  I imagine that at a 17+" or even 
better at an 18+" screen size this resolution would be ideal, but at 15.6" 
we're talking about a marketing gimmick for anyone who does not intent to buy 
a laptop only for videos and gaming.  This is because although videos look 
fantastic, day to day usability is compromised.  I had to increase font sizes 
and change the DPI so that I could read a page in a browser without squinting.

If this were a desktop I would still go for the same resolution, but a much 
larger screen - probably 21" or so.  
-- 
Regards,
Mick