From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OsV4u-0001YZ-Mr for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:21:16 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EFB81E076C; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 06:19:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f53.google.com (mail-ew0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A51E076C for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 06:19:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy3 with SMTP id 3so2091956ewy.40 for ; Sun, 05 Sep 2010 23:19:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=F/MS/3DVW4ncvHPbdzzP/3Ug20Uw82XHtMP6sIZwKLk=; b=ZeWZogRxxOi9/3dZpAmlaIkwBi+IYlFmw3zb+gzMal1ZZm+ZQMRtjFDg3DcOIlCfM4 kqSihtX00LHN+nW12QAh1XnApvP1D6+c+Y7PWR1CNvDaKHc8QR9BVytVfFdBDhRuM4g3 qd/FCa0oYc9OlfWz/2U1foa3oLdjtRL5aMtUI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=tJjFkmjP/BOgK+7Sr7XiKoYZCYwWyGXAtYu6Igo5XF81JqWrFGaPX8Nv3OPMu5vdXI I/BxZGDQPyy2qMJdPOkkARImztNpWNke72lcaMTegfwuOPuiBqy8nYOYZbqOQ/yk0ZdB fTLMlUiLYFAhlXEtV2EQVAmlqg+rGkfPxJYNo= Received: by 10.213.62.206 with SMTP id y14mr919057ebh.34.1283753994677; Sun, 05 Sep 2010 23:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nazgul.localnet (196-210-183-214.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.210.183.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v59sm7518228eeh.10.2010.09.05.23.19.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 05 Sep 2010 23:19:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: OT: advice sought on new laptop for Gentoo Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 08:16:53 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-ck-r2; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201009052125.17134.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201009060816.53091.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: cc084b8c-667f-4f5f-b13b-bfa74e46253b X-Archives-Hash: 5390e830215774a2dd179673dd73f416 Apparently, though unproven, at 01:42 on Monday 06 September 2010, Grant Edwards did opine thusly: > >> Yup, and 16x9 sucks -- it's just an excuse to ship smaller, > >> lower-resolution displays labelled with bigger numbers. > >> > >> > >> > >> Complete ripoff. > > > > If you have 16:9 at 1280*720, then yes, it is going to suck. There is > > nothing inherently wrong with the aspect ratio, please desist from > > trying to make it so. > > 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. 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 > > > 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. So please tell me again where this machine width thing comes from? > > I paid the extra to get 16:9 @ 1920x1200. Best thing I ever did > > laptop-wise - I can get two webpages side by side on the screen > > looking very natural. > > > > Did you know that 16:9 is the eye's natural aspect ratio? > > How do you explain the widespread popularity of portrait mode for > printed material? Text is much easier to read in tall, narrow, > columns. The more lines of code you can see at once when editing > source code, the fewer the bugs. Both those have been experimentally > verified. Tall narrow columns come from newsprint and the average person does not display only text on a screen. Even the example you cite - printed material - is incomplete, in that few folks have only one of them when working. The usual case is one book for reference, and at least one other work area. Which is why I mentioned two web sites side by side at a very acceptable size. > > Test it sometime with outstreched fingers. > > I still vastly prefer 4:3 for all of the work I do. I guess if you > want to watch movies, and you don't mind hauling around a useless > numeric keypad, 16:9 is nice. Once again, who mentioned a numpad? I didn't. You inserted that the bolster your argument, but I never put it there. Personally, I think you went cheap and bought a less-than-ideal screen based on price. 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. So tell me again why there is something wrong with 16:9? I think you have it conflated with 800 height which indeed is pathetic. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com