| 1 |
Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> For a given height, a 16:9 display is 30% wider. I want nice tall |
| 4 |
> display (prefereably at least 9-10") without having to increase the |
| 5 |
> width beyond what a standard "laptop" style keyboard takes up (about |
| 6 |
> 12-13 inches). |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
It is certainly true that, if the height of the display is the key |
| 9 |
factor and hence fixed, a wider screen will add more inches (I again |
| 10 |
assume square pixels). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
However, those extra inches and resulting extra pixels are far from |
| 13 |
useless. I believe you are selling "two up" short. When I am preparing |
| 14 |
a course, I have the html up in one (emacs) window and the resulting web |
| 15 |
page in another (firefox) window immediately to its right. Heck I very |
| 16 |
much use and enjoy 3-up on my large (30" 2560x1600) monitor. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Perhaps I'm too cynical, but IMO the "cheap" factor is why we got 16:9 |
| 19 |
> displays on laptops in the first place. A 15" 16:9 display is roughly |
| 20 |
> 10% smaller (cheaper) than a 15" 4:3 display. But, the salesdroid can |
| 21 |
> talk the consumer into paying more for a cheaper product: "Wow, for |
| 22 |
> only $100 more we can move you up from a 15" regular display to a 15" |
| 23 |
> WIDESCREEN display! |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> $100 more and it's 1.6" shorter and has 10% less screen area! |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> What a deal!! |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
You are correct that this salesperson was, perhaps out of |
| 30 |
ignorance--perhaps malice) making a specious argument. But limiting |
| 31 |
purchases to items for which a salesperson cannot argue speciously, is |
| 32 |
not the best selection criterion. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
allan |
Archives