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

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

[John Blinka]

Hi, all,

My trusty Inspiron 8200 is on death's door and so I'm looking for a
new laptop - one that will run Gentoo straightforwardly, of course.

I really liked the 1600x1200 display on this machine, which I greatly
prefer to the 1600x900 display on the more modern Inspiron 1545 I own.
 Most of what I do now is through a web browser, and I can see much
more of a web page with 1200 lines of display than I can with 900.
And I dislike the massive width of the 1545 which makes it much less
portable than the old 8200.  I'd love to replace my 8200 with a
machine of similar dimensions, but thinner and lighter.  However, I
cannot find any machine on Dell's website with a 4x3 aspect ratio -
they all seem to be approximately 16x9 now.

So,  is 16x9 all that's available now in laptops?

If I'm stuck with a 16x9 aspect ratio, then I'd like to get something
significantly narrower and more portable than my 1545 (14.75", 37.5 cm
wide) and with as many horizontal lines in the display as possible.

Any suggestions?

(And, yes, I'm open to a non-Dell solution.)

Thanks for your suggestions,

John Blinka

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

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1969 bytes --]

Am 05.09.2010 14:58, schrieb John Blinka:
> Hi, all,
> 
> My trusty Inspiron 8200 is on death's door and so I'm looking for a
> new laptop - one that will run Gentoo straightforwardly, of course.
> 
> I really liked the 1600x1200 display on this machine, which I greatly
> prefer to the 1600x900 display on the more modern Inspiron 1545 I own.
>  Most of what I do now is through a web browser, and I can see much
> more of a web page with 1200 lines of display than I can with 900.
> And I dislike the massive width of the 1545 which makes it much less
> portable than the old 8200.  I'd love to replace my 8200 with a
> machine of similar dimensions, but thinner and lighter.  However, I
> cannot find any machine on Dell's website with a 4x3 aspect ratio -
> they all seem to be approximately 16x9 now.
> 
> So,  is 16x9 all that's available now in laptops?
> 
> If I'm stuck with a 16x9 aspect ratio, then I'd like to get something
> significantly narrower and more portable than my 1545 (14.75", 37.5 cm
> wide) and with as many horizontal lines in the display as possible.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> (And, yes, I'm open to a non-Dell solution.)
> 
> Thanks for your suggestions,
> 
> John Blinka
> 

I couldn't find a 4:3 laptop when I tried to replace my Dell Latitude
D520 which had a marvelous 1400x1050 display, either.

In the end I settled for an HP ProBook 6450b with the "better" display
option of 1600x900 (14"). The whole case is 33.5cm wide.

All at all pretty good.

Wifi drivers are not in-kernel but in portage (broadcom-sta). Everything
else works out-of-box.

Keyboard is also good for typing but needs a bit more pressure than the
Dell.

The docking station is inferior to Dell's. No SPDIF output and it lifts
the laptop to quite some angle.
On the plus side it has eSATA and the larger one even a built-in HDD.

Performance and noise levels are also good.

Hope this helps.
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

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

[Grant Edwards]

On 2010-09-05, John Blinka <john.blinka@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, all,
>
> My trusty Inspiron 8200 is on death's door and so I'm looking for a
> new laptop - one that will run Gentoo straightforwardly, of course.
>
> I really liked the 1600x1200 display on this machine, which I greatly
> prefer to the 1600x900 display on the more modern Inspiron 1545 I own.
>  Most of what I do now is through a web browser, and I can see much
> more of a web page with 1200 lines of display than I can with 900.
> And I dislike the massive width of the 1545 which makes it much less
> portable than the old 8200.  I'd love to replace my 8200 with a
> machine of similar dimensions, but thinner and lighter.  However, I
> cannot find any machine on Dell's website with a 4x3 aspect ratio -
> they all seem to be approximately 16x9 now.
>
> So,  is 16x9 all that's available now in laptops?

Yup, and 16x9 sucks -- it's just an excuse to ship smaller,
lower-resolution displays labelled with bigger numbers.

Complete ripoff.

-- 
Grant

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

[Al]

2010/9/5 John Blinka <john.blinka@gmail.com>:
> Hi, all,
>
> My trusty Inspiron 8200 is on death's door and so I'm looking for a
> new laptop - one that will run Gentoo straightforwardly, of course.
>
> I really liked the 1600x1200 display on this machine, which I greatly
> prefer to the 1600x900 display on the more modern Inspiron 1545 I own.
>  Most of what I do now is through a web browser, and I can see much
> more of a web page with 1200 lines of display than I can with 900.
> And I dislike the massive width of the 1545 which makes it much less
> portable than the old 8200.  I'd love to replace my 8200 with a
> machine of similar dimensions, but thinner and lighter.  However, I
> cannot find any machine on Dell's website with a 4x3 aspect ratio -
> they all seem to be approximately 16x9 now.
>
> So,  is 16x9 all that's available now in laptops?
>
> If I'm stuck with a 16x9 aspect ratio, then I'd like to get something
> significantly narrower and more portable than my 1545 (14.75", 37.5 cm
> wide) and with as many horizontal lines in the display as possible.
>
> Any suggestions?
>

The typical recommondation I read is Thinkpad.

Do a general search for linux laptops. I.e. I find:
http://linuxcertified.com/linux-laptop-lctp.html

Maybe look at ebay.

Al

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

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 17:18 on Sunday 05 September 2010, Grant 
Edwards did opine thusly:

> On 2010-09-05, John Blinka <john.blinka@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi, all,
> > 
> > My trusty Inspiron 8200 is on death's door and so I'm looking for a
> > new laptop - one that will run Gentoo straightforwardly, of course.
> > 
> > I really liked the 1600x1200 display on this machine, which I greatly
> > prefer to the 1600x900 display on the more modern Inspiron 1545 I own.
> > 
> >  Most of what I do now is through a web browser, and I can see much
> > 
> > more of a web page with 1200 lines of display than I can with 900.
> > And I dislike the massive width of the 1545 which makes it much less
> > portable than the old 8200.  I'd love to replace my 8200 with a
> > machine of similar dimensions, but thinner and lighter.  However, I
> > cannot find any machine on Dell's website with a 4x3 aspect ratio -
> > they all seem to be approximately 16x9 now.
> > 
> > So,  is 16x9 all that's available now in laptops?
> 
> 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.

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. 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? Test it sometime 
with outstreched fingers.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

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

[Allan Gottlieb]

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> writes:

> Apparently, though unproven, at 17:18 on Sunday 05 September 2010, Grant 
> Edwards did opine thusly:
>
>> On 2010-09-05, John Blinka <john.blinka@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi, all,
>> > 
>> > My trusty Inspiron 8200 is on death's door and so I'm looking for a
>> > new laptop - one that will run Gentoo straightforwardly, of course.
>> > 
>> > I really liked the 1600x1200 display on this machine, which I greatly
>> > prefer to the 1600x900 display on the more modern Inspiron 1545 I own.
>> > 
>> >  Most of what I do now is through a web browser, and I can see much
>> > 
>> > more of a web page with 1200 lines of display than I can with 900.
>> > And I dislike the massive width of the 1545 which makes it much less
>> > portable than the old 8200.  I'd love to replace my 8200 with a
>> > machine of similar dimensions, but thinner and lighter.  However, I
>> > cannot find any machine on Dell's website with a 4x3 aspect ratio -
>> > they all seem to be approximately 16x9 now.
>> > 
>> > So,  is 16x9 all that's available now in laptops?
>> 
>> Yup, and 16x9 sucks -- it's just an excuse to ship smaller,
>> lower-resolution displays labelled with bigger numbers.
>
> 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.
>
> 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. 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.

I agree with the thrust of Alan's reply, but his numbers require
nonsquare pixels.

With square pixels 16x9 is 1920x1080 (so called full HD is 1080p).  This
is my laptop's display.

My big (30") monitor is 16x10 (2560x1600) and is a joy to use.  I prefer
the current wide aspect ratio better then the previous 4x3 standard.

allan

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

[Grant Edwards]

On 2010-09-05, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 17:18 on Sunday 05 September 2010, Grant 
> Edwards did opine thusly:
>
>> On 2010-09-05, John Blinka <john.blinka@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi, all,
>> > 
>> > My trusty Inspiron 8200 is on death's door and so I'm looking for a
>> > new laptop - one that will run Gentoo straightforwardly, of course.
>> > 
>> > I really liked the 1600x1200 display on this machine, which I greatly
>> > prefer to the 1600x900 display on the more modern Inspiron 1545 I own.
>> > 
>> >  Most of what I do now is through a web browser, and I can see much
>> > 
>> > more of a web page with 1200 lines of display than I can with 900.
>> > And I dislike the massive width of the 1545 which makes it much less
>> > portable than the old 8200.  I'd love to replace my 8200 with a
>> > machine of similar dimensions, but thinner and lighter.  However, I
>> > cannot find any machine on Dell's website with a 4x3 aspect ratio -
>> > they all seem to be approximately 16x9 now.
>> > 
>> > So,  is 16x9 all that's available now in laptops?
>> 
>> 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.

> 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 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.

> 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.

-- 
Grant

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

[Al]

>
> 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.

And I like to have two documents open side by side. It has been
verified, that writing code und tests side by side reduces bugs much
more than debugging after writing the code.

Al

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

[Alan McKinnon]

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

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

[Stroller]

On 5 Sep 2010, at 23:04, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> ...
> With square pixels 16x9 is 1920x1080 (so called full HD is 1080p).   
> This
> is my laptop's display.
>
> My big (30") monitor is 16x10 (2560x1600) and is a joy to use.  I  
> prefer
> the current wide aspect ratio better then the previous 4x3 standard.


That kind of resolution is starting to sound appealing, however from  
what I can tell, you're looking to pay 2 or 3 times the price [1] for  
a monitor of this specification, as you will for a set of three  
1600x1200 TFTs. That makes it extremely hard to justify for me.

I'll certainly admit that dual-head is not perfect, but I can't help  
thinking that maybe a central display with two "aides", one at each  
side, might solve the "central bezel problem".

I'm having a lot of difficulty visualising how big high-quality  
widescreen monitors might compare to my good 4:3s, because I don't get  
to see them. Certainly the widescreens at the low-end of the market  
are much inferior, and a good 4:3 is not much more expensive than those.

Stroller.





[1] Please don't flame me if your maths on monitor pricing differs  
from mine; I didn't want to spend hours comparison shopping products  
I'm unlikely to buy right now. 

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

[Grant Edwards]

On 2010-09-06, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.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

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

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 4986 bytes --]

On Monday 06 September 2010 17:24:45 Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2010-09-06, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

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

[Allan Gottlieb]

Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> writes:

> 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).

It is certainly true that, if the height of the display is the key
factor and hence fixed, a wider screen will add more inches (I again
assume square pixels).

However, those extra inches and resulting extra pixels are far from
useless.  I believe you are selling "two up" short.  When I am preparing
a course, I have the html up in one (emacs) window and the resulting web
page in another (firefox) window immediately to its right.  Heck I very
much use and enjoy 3-up on my large (30" 2560x1600) monitor.

> 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!!

You are correct that this salesperson was, perhaps out of
ignorance--perhaps malice) making a specious argument.  But limiting
purchases to items for which a salesperson cannot argue speciously, is
not the best selection criterion.

allan

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

[Grant Edwards]

On 2010-09-06, Allan Gottlieb <gottlieb@nyu.edu> wrote:
> Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 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).
>
> It is certainly true that, if the height of the display is the key
> factor and hence fixed, a wider screen will add more inches (I again
> assume square pixels).
>
> However, those extra inches and resulting extra pixels are far from
> useless.

I'm not saying that a wide display is useless.  When it comes to
desktop displays bigger is always better (in either axis).

I'm saying I don't want to have to haul around a laptop thats 18" wide
so that I can have a display that's tall enough to comfortably edit
code on.

> I believe you are selling "two up" short.

No, I'm not.  Two up is great on a desktop, where the extra width and
weight aren't a penalty.

> When I am preparing a course, I have the html up in one (emacs)
> window and the resulting web page in another (firefox) window
> immediately to its right.  Heck I very much use and enjoy 3-up on my
> large (30" 2560x1600) monitor.

We're talking about laptops.  How would you like hauling around a 30"
wide laptop?

-- 
Grant

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

[John Blinka]

> 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.

Mind telling me what you got?  The 1200 part sounds attractive to me.

John Blinka

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

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 14:24 on Tuesday 07 September 2010, John 
Blinka did opine thusly:

> > 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.
> 
> Mind telling me what you got?  The 1200 part sounds attractive to me.
> 
> John Blinka


Dell XPS M1530 with nvidia GeForce 8600M GT

The machine is now 2 years ago so I reckon that nvidia has been superceded. 
But all the high end Dells have hi-res screens as an option. You won't find 
them on the budget and student ranges - those are cheap crap with hardware 
specs to match.

I figure that just like a top-grade mechanic should be looking at SnapOns or 
similar in his toolbox, this here sysadmin also needs high quality tools. My 
chief tool is my notebook.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

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

[Eray Aslan]

On 07.09.2010 15:29, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> I figure that just like a top-grade mechanic should be looking at SnapOns or 
> similar in his toolbox, this here sysadmin also needs high quality tools. My 
> chief tool is my notebook.

It's the weight not the price that is the deciding factor us.  I guess
depends on how much traveling you do.  There is no one final ultimate
answer.  It depends.  Labeling low res solutions as "cheap crap" was
uncalled for.

-- 
Eray

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

[Allan Gottlieb]

Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2010-09-06, Allan Gottlieb <gottlieb@nyu.edu> wrote:
>> Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> It is certainly true that, if the height of the display is the key
>> factor and hence fixed, a wider screen will add more inches (I again
>> assume square pixels).
>>
>> However, those extra inches and resulting extra pixels are far from
>> useless.
>
> I'm not saying that a wide display is useless.  When it comes to
> desktop displays bigger is always better (in either axis).
>
> I'm saying I don't want to have to haul around a laptop thats 18" wide
> so that I can have a display that's tall enough to comfortably edit
> code on.

OK if you don't edit code on your laptop.

>> I believe you are selling "two up" short.
>
> No, I'm not.  Two up is great on a desktop, where the extra width and
> weight aren't a penalty.

Laptop size and weight are indeed a penalty.  But you should assume that
even on a laptop, common usage for some is to have 2-up either for code
or course development

>> When I am preparing a course, I have the html up in one (emacs)
>> window and the resulting web page in another (firefox) window
>> immediately to its right.  Heck I very much use and enjoy 3-up on my
>> large (30" 2560x1600) monitor.
>
> We're talking about laptops.  How would you like hauling around a 30"
> wide laptop?

The first sentence was about 2-up and hence appropriate for laptops,
indeed for my very own laptop that I bring to NYU every day I teach.
My comment about the big monitor was to show that even 3-up is useful.
I don't see where I suggested that 3-up would be available for laptops.

Summary:

1.  Extra width for 2-up is for me *very* useful in a laptop.
2.  Specious arguments from a salesperson occur for all choices
    so don't seem to be a good criterion.

allan

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

[Robert Bridge]

I don't know how well it works with Linux, but if screen estate really
matters, has anyone looked at the Lenovo ThinkPad W700ds? I know
pretty much every CAD person I know drools over it as a mobile
workstation...

RobbieAB

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

[Grant Edwards]

On 2010-09-07, Robert Bridge <robert@robbieab.com> wrote:

> I don't know how well it works with Linux, but if screen estate
> really matters, has anyone looked at the Lenovo ThinkPad W700ds? I
> know pretty much every CAD person I know drools over it as a mobile
> workstation...

I don't know about that particular model, but Thinkpads have a pretty
good reputation for Linux compatibility.

I'd still rather have a 16" 1600x1200 4:3 display than haul around the
extra 3-4" inches in width.  But I seem to be in the minority, so it's
not going to happen...

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Civilization is fun!
                                  at               Anyway, it keeps me busy!!
                              gmail.com            

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

[Jake Moe]

 On 07/09/10 23:11, Eray Aslan wrote:
> On 07.09.2010 15:29, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> I figure that just like a top-grade mechanic should be looking at SnapOns or 
>> similar in his toolbox, this here sysadmin also needs high quality tools. My 
>> chief tool is my notebook.
> It's the weight not the price that is the deciding factor us.  I guess
> depends on how much traveling you do.  There is no one final ultimate
> answer.  It depends.  Labeling low res solutions as "cheap crap" was
> uncalled for.
He didn't say "low res" = "cheap crap".  He said student and budget
ranges were cheap crap.  Our execs like smaller laptops (not netbooks)
that are easier to use on airplanes that, because of the smaller screen
size, have lower resolutions.  That's not to say they're "cheap crap";
just because they're small doesn't mean they're no good.

Jake Moe

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

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 15:11 on Tuesday 07 September 2010, Eray Aslan 
did opine thusly:

> On 07.09.2010 15:29, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > I figure that just like a top-grade mechanic should be looking at SnapOns
> > or similar in his toolbox, this here sysadmin also needs high quality
> > tools. My chief tool is my notebook.
> 
> It's the weight not the price that is the deciding factor us.  I guess
> depends on how much traveling you do.  There is no one final ultimate
> answer.  It depends.  Labeling low res solutions as "cheap crap" was
> uncalled for.


It is cheap crap as evidence by the lower quality of component used.

I could be nice and PC and say "budget range" instead but it's all the same 
thing really.

And yes, I do own cheap crap machines myself. They definitely have their place 
- like when I'm on vacation or at a barbecue while on standby over a weekend. 
If they fall in the pool, it's 2k to replace not 20k.

But as a main work machine in my environment? No, they don't fit there.



-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

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

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 14:58 on Sunday 05 September 2010, John Blinka 
did opine thusly:

> Hi, all,
> 
> My trusty Inspiron 8200 is on death's door and so I'm looking for a
> new laptop - one that will run Gentoo straightforwardly, of course.
> 
> I really liked the 1600x1200 display on this machine, which I greatly
> prefer to the 1600x900 display on the more modern Inspiron 1545 I own.
>  Most of what I do now is through a web browser, and I can see much
> more of a web page with 1200 lines of display than I can with 900.
> And I dislike the massive width of the 1545 which makes it much less
> portable than the old 8200.  I'd love to replace my 8200 with a
> machine of similar dimensions, but thinner and lighter.  However, I
> cannot find any machine on Dell's website with a 4x3 aspect ratio -
> they all seem to be approximately 16x9 now.
> 
> So,  is 16x9 all that's available now in laptops?
> 
> If I'm stuck with a 16x9 aspect ratio, then I'd like to get something
> significantly narrower and more portable than my 1545 (14.75", 37.5 cm
> wide) and with as many horizontal lines in the display as possible.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> (And, yes, I'm open to a non-Dell solution.)


I seem to have deleted the mail you sent me direct :-( It was the one where 
you mentioned you'd been to dell.com and couldn't find something 1200 pixels 
high.

I see now what Dell have done - they change their model lineup periodically. 
My XPS M1530 seems to be replaced with the Studio 15. I have multimedia keys 
and speakers to the rear of the keyboard, this makes the notebook deeper by 
just over 1 inch and gives room for a gigantic extended battery. Screen size 
is determined by the height x depth so they made the pixels slightly non-
square and there's room for 1200 of them. True 16:9 is more like 1920x1080 and 
they've done that on the Studios to suit the HDMI native aspect ratio. Makes 
sense for a machine that will play multimedia a lot, I suppose.

That M1530 is an excellent notebox btw. Our techies can choose whatever they 
want within limits, I know 6 chaps that have them and none failed or gave any 
trouble whatsoever. Our devs hammer their notebooks :-)

The Inspiron is the cheapie and student range. I didn't bother looking there.

Of the Latitudes only the E6510 seems to have 1920x1080 screens - probably a 
side effect of the model re-arranging.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

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

[Paul Hartman]

On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 7:58 AM, John Blinka <john.blinka@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, all,
>
> My trusty Inspiron 8200 is on death's door and so I'm looking for a
> new laptop - one that will run Gentoo straightforwardly, of course.
>
> I really liked the 1600x1200 display on this machine, which I greatly
> prefer to the 1600x900 display on the more modern Inspiron 1545 I own.
>  Most of what I do now is through a web browser, and I can see much
> more of a web page with 1200 lines of display than I can with 900.
> And I dislike the massive width of the 1545 which makes it much less
> portable than the old 8200.  I'd love to replace my 8200 with a
> machine of similar dimensions, but thinner and lighter.  However, I
> cannot find any machine on Dell's website with a 4x3 aspect ratio -
> they all seem to be approximately 16x9 now.
>
> So,  is 16x9 all that's available now in laptops?

Basically all laptops are widescreen (or shortscreen <g>) now, your
best bet is to try to find one that is 16:10 instead of 16:9, it will
at least give you a little bit more vertical screen space.

If money is not an option: there is a 15.X" WUXGA which is 1920x1200,
16:10 ratio. It will probably be very difficult to find one with this
screen and the laptop will probably cost a fortune (or be old). I
think Lenovo and Asus made laptops with this resolution screen at a
sub-17inch size. Maybe Apple, too.

The most bang-for-your-buck will probably be 1920x1080, they are
mostly 17" models as well (lower pixel density) but it's easier to
find a 15.X" version of these than the above. Asus had a "gaming"
laptop about 6 months ago which sported a 15.X" 1920x1080 screen and
Core i7 processor for around USD$1500.

Since 16:9 panels are the same shape as the ones TVs use, I assume
that's why they are cheaper and why the industry prefers them.

I care deeply about vertical pixels, but also about DPI. I really
don't like using a tiny monitor, nor do I like to use a monitor with
less than 100dpi. This requirement usually makes the rest of the
details worth themselves out naturally. :)

My laptop, which is a few years old now, has a 1400x1050 (116? dpi)
and that is a very comfortable resolution for me. In order to get the
same vertical pixels on a new laptop I'd have to go up to 1680x1050
(16:10) or 1920x1080 (16:9) and it would probably be at least an inch
wider than my current laptop, which is 13" wide.

At home on my desktop machines I have a 4:3 20" 1600x1200 (100 dpi) as
well as a 16:9 23" 2040x1152 (100 dpi). The latter is essentially the
same height as the former, but wider. The 1600x1200 can be rotated,
often times I use it in 1200x1600 orientation if I'm mostly browsing
WWW or working on documents. (The particular graphics card and/or
drivers on that computer don't support acceleration in rotated mode,
though, so performance suffers.)

I also have in my pocket a Nokia N900 which has a 800x480 screen (5:3
aspect ratio) with 256 dpi in a roughly 3.5" screen. I haven't tried
to install Gentoo on it... yet. :)

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

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 01:09 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, Paul 
Hartman did opine thusly:

> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 7:58 AM, John Blinka <john.blinka@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi, all,
> > 
> > My trusty Inspiron 8200 is on death's door and so I'm looking for a
> > new laptop - one that will run Gentoo straightforwardly, of course.
> > 
> > I really liked the 1600x1200 display on this machine, which I greatly
> > prefer to the 1600x900 display on the more modern Inspiron 1545 I own.
> >  Most of what I do now is through a web browser, and I can see much
> > more of a web page with 1200 lines of display than I can with 900.
> > And I dislike the massive width of the 1545 which makes it much less
> > portable than the old 8200.  I'd love to replace my 8200 with a
> > machine of similar dimensions, but thinner and lighter.  However, I
> > cannot find any machine on Dell's website with a 4x3 aspect ratio -
> > they all seem to be approximately 16x9 now.
> > 
> > So,  is 16x9 all that's available now in laptops?
> 
> Basically all laptops are widescreen (or shortscreen <g>) now, your
> best bet is to try to find one that is 16:10 instead of 16:9, it will
> at least give you a little bit more vertical screen space.
> 
> If money is not an option: there is a 15.X" WUXGA which is 1920x1200,
> 16:10 ratio. It will probably be very difficult to find one with this
> screen and the laptop will probably cost a fortune (or be old). I
> think Lenovo and Asus made laptops with this resolution screen at a
> sub-17inch size. Maybe Apple, too.

Not old. Expensive yes.

Dell offer this in the Precision range in a 15.6" screen size.

Beware of the Precisions, they are great big ugly chunky square brutes that 
make Thinkpads look incredibly pretty. Put caterpillar tracks on 'em and you 
got a good simulation of a rocket-proof Army battle tank. 

And they are *heavy* - they're basically desktops with a few concessions to 
power consumption.




-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

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

[Grant Edwards]

On 2010-09-07, Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 7:58 AM, John Blinka <john.blinka@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I really liked the 1600x1200 display on this machine, which I greatly
>> prefer to the 1600x900 display on the more modern Inspiron 1545 I
>> own. ?Most of what I do now is through a web browser, and I can see
>> much more of a web page with 1200 lines of display than I can with
>> 900. And I dislike the massive width of the 1545 which makes it much
>> less portable than the old 8200.

Exactly they way I feel (for those of you who missed this entire
thread).

>> So, ?is 16x9 all that's available now in laptops?
>
> Basically all laptops are widescreen (or shortscreen <g>) now,

Good thing I mouth wasn't full of pretzel when I read that. :)

> your best bet is to try to find one that is 16:10 instead of 16:9, it
> will at least give you a little bit more vertical screen space.

The "pixel" ratio is 16:10, is the physical size also 16:10?  IOW are
the pixels still square?

[...]

> Since 16:9 panels are the same shape as the ones TVs use, I assume
> that's why they are cheaper and why the industry prefers them.

I thought about that, but the sizes and pixel densities don't overlap
at all between laptop panels and TV panels, so I don't see how they
can be leveraging production processes or equipment.

> I care deeply about vertical pixels, but also about DPI. I really
> don't like using a tiny monitor, nor do I like to use a monitor with
> less than 100dpi. This requirement usually makes the rest of the
> details worth themselves out naturally. :)
>
> My laptop, which is a few years old now, has a 1400x1050 (116? dpi)
> and that is a very comfortable resolution for me.

That's what I've got now: a 15" 1400x1050, and it's great.  The only
thing better would be a 16" 1600x1200.

> In order to get the same vertical pixels on a new laptop I'd have to
> go up to 1680x1050 (16:10) or 1920x1080 (16:9) and it would probably
> be at least an inch wider than my current laptop, which is 13" wide.

To get the same physical height as my current 15" display, I have to
go with an 18+ diagonal 16:9 display, which is about 4" wider than my
current laptop.  I guess I'd better take good care of my current
Thinkpad.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I've read SEVEN
                                  at               MILLION books!!
                              gmail.com            

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

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 17:24 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, Grant 
Edwards did opine thusly:

> > Since 16:9 panels are the same shape as the ones TVs use, I assume
> > that's why they are cheaper and why the industry prefers them.
> 
> I thought about that, but the sizes and pixel densities don't overlap
> at all between laptop panels and TV panels, so I don't see how they
> can be leveraging production processes or equipment.

The intent is probably more that the picture will visually appear the same 
whether you view it on a laptop, HD TV or widescreen monitor.

Which raises another layer of confusion: when a spec says "16:9" does it mean 
physical dimensions, or pixel density? I've yet to find a device that clearly 
states *how* it arrived at the numbers it quotes in it's spec.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

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

[Paul Hartman]

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Grant Edwards
<grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
>> your best bet is to try to find one that is 16:10 instead of 16:9, it
>> will at least give you a little bit more vertical screen space.
>
> The "pixel" ratio is 16:10, is the physical size also 16:10?  IOW are
> the pixels still square?

AFAIK all LCD displays have square pixels. 16:10 LCD were more common
before the 16:9 revolution. :)

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

[Per-Erik Westerberg]

On ons, 2010-09-08 at 17:40 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 17:24 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, Grant 
> Edwards did opine thusly:
> 
> > > Since 16:9 panels are the same shape as the ones TVs use, I assume
> > > that's why they are cheaper and why the industry prefers them.
> > 
> > I thought about that, but the sizes and pixel densities don't overlap
> > at all between laptop panels and TV panels, so I don't see how they
> > can be leveraging production processes or equipment.
> 
> The intent is probably more that the picture will visually appear the same 
> whether you view it on a laptop, HD TV or widescreen monitor.
> 
> Which raises another layer of confusion: when a spec says "16:9" does it mean 
> physical dimensions, or pixel density? I've yet to find a device that clearly 
> states *how* it arrived at the numbers it quotes in it's spec.
> 
> 

I guess it is the relation between horizontal versus vertical dimension,
it shouldn't matter what the pixel density is ... or does it?

  / P-E

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

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 18:53 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, Per-Erik 
Westerberg did opine thusly:

> On ons, 2010-09-08 at 17:40 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 17:24 on Wednesday 08 September 2010,
> > Grant
> > 
> > Edwards did opine thusly:
> > > > Since 16:9 panels are the same shape as the ones TVs use, I assume
> > > > that's why they are cheaper and why the industry prefers them.
> > > 
> > > I thought about that, but the sizes and pixel densities don't overlap
> > > at all between laptop panels and TV panels, so I don't see how they
> > > can be leveraging production processes or equipment.
> > 
> > The intent is probably more that the picture will visually appear the
> > same whether you view it on a laptop, HD TV or widescreen monitor.
> > 
> > Which raises another layer of confusion: when a spec says "16:9" does it
> > mean physical dimensions, or pixel density? I've yet to find a device
> > that clearly states *how* it arrived at the numbers it quotes in it's
> > spec.
> 
> I guess it is the relation between horizontal versus vertical dimension,
> it shouldn't matter what the pixel density is ... or does it?

Logically speaking, the physical dimension is what the average user is after. 
They want to know if a certain movie clip fits exactly on the screen with no 
distortion (and other questions that are basically similar).

We techies are often interested in pixel density. As in, how many rows of text 
can I fit in an xterm? I like 1200 pixels height for this reason - 80 lines on 
my usual layout.

Then there's non-square pixels. Without funky voodoo graphics algorithms, my 
screen displays circles as ovals.

I need to shut up now. My hatred of pixelated display devices is showing. I 
accept an LCD for my notebook as CRTs just don't fit, but nothing beats a real 
CRT imho for image quality. Pity about the desk real estate a CRT takes up...

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

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

[Grant Edwards]

On 2010-09-08, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> I need to shut up now. My hatred of pixelated display devices is
> showing. I accept an LCD for my notebook as CRTs just don't fit, but
> nothing beats a real CRT imho for image quality.

I presume you mean a nice monochrome display not one of those fuzzy
color things with the individual phosphor dots/bars on the screen.  It
was a sad day I was finally forced to give up my big, razor-sharp Sun
grayscale monitor for one of those small, fuzzy-looking, color things.

> Pity about the desk real estate a CRT takes up...

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I hope something GOOD
                                  at               came in the mail today so
                              gmail.com            I have a REASON to live!!

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

[Paul Hartman]

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which raises another layer of confusion: when a spec says "16:9" does it mean
> physical dimensions, or pixel density? I've yet to find a device that clearly
> states *how* it arrived at the numbers it quotes in it's spec.

I think DPI is irrelevant in the aspect ratio calculations. The aspect
ratio only describes the relationship between the width and the height
of the display.

AFAIK all LCD TV and monitors have pixels which are 1x1 size, so the
aspect ratio should apply both to the physical dimensions of the
screen as well as the pixel count.

Basically, divide width/height or X/Y pixels and you will get the
aspect ratio for an LCD monitor/TV.

For example, my monitor is an obviously clear mathematical case, the
screen is exactly 16" wide and 12" high and has a resolution of
1600x1200. Both 16/12 and 1600/1200 can be reduced to 4/3, or 4:3
(also referred to as 1.33 aspect ratio).

16:9 is 1.78, and 16:10 is 1.60.

When you get into source media, things can get crazy, as the pixel
aspect ratios are all over the place.

Even with HD the source media is not always 1:1 pixel aspect ratio,
for example HDV cameras use a 1440x1080 image resolution for 1080i
recording, which is a 4:3 pixel aspect ratio but 16:9 frame aspect
ratio. In other words, in this mode each pixel is 1.33 times as wide
as it is tall.

Old (pre-HD) televisions, CRT monitors, PAL vs NTSC, DVD, anamorphic
widescreen, etc. It's all a bit of a mess. They've really eliminated
that headache with HDTV and LCD displays for the most part.  (I'm
using the term LCD generically to also include other LCD-like
technology such as plasma etc.)

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

[Paul Hartman]

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then there's non-square pixels. Without funky voodoo graphics algorithms, my
> screen displays circles as ovals.

That problem should not exist on LCD if you're using the screen's
native resolution. For example, the most common case of this in CRT
days was 1280x1024 resolution which is not a proper 4:3 aspect ratio
(it is 1.25 rather than 1.33). In other to make a circle look like a
circle you'd need to use 1280x960 instead and adjust the monitor to
make the picture fill the screen, or your programs would need to be
aware of the pixel shape and adjust accordingly (those funky voodoo
graphics algorithms).

With LCD monitors, the 1280x1080 panels are actually a small bit
taller than a standard 4:3 panel, so a circle should look like a
circle without having to do anything special. (However, if someone
uses any other resolution their circle will be oblong).

I was a die-hard CRT guy but I've found LCD with at least 100 dpi to
be acceptable compared to the CRTs I've had in the past. And in the
case of my S-IPS monitor I think it is really superior to any CRT I've
ever used. (My monitor with TN panel, however, is pretty bad.)

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

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 22:27 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, Paul 
Hartman did opine thusly:

> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> > Then there's non-square pixels. Without funky voodoo graphics algorithms,
> > my screen displays circles as ovals.
> 
> That problem should not exist on LCD if you're using the screen's
> native resolution. For example, the most common case of this in CRT
> days was 1280x1024 resolution which is not a proper 4:3 aspect ratio
> (it is 1.25 rather than 1.33). In other to make a circle look like a
> circle you'd need to use 1280x960 instead and adjust the monitor to
> make the picture fill the screen, or your programs would need to be
> aware of the pixel shape and adjust accordingly (those funky voodoo
> graphics algorithms).
> 
> With LCD monitors, the 1280x1080 panels are actually a small bit
> taller than a standard 4:3 panel, so a circle should look like a
> circle without having to do anything special. (However, if someone
> uses any other resolution their circle will be oblong).
> 
> I was a die-hard CRT guy but I've found LCD with at least 100 dpi to
> be acceptable compared to the CRTs I've had in the past. And in the
> case of my S-IPS monitor I think it is really superior to any CRT I've
> ever used. (My monitor with TN panel, however, is pretty bad.)

I spent 10 years fixing TVs of every imaginable model and type from the best 
to the worst, and all the improvements in between. As a result I'm finely 
tuned to departures from the ideal with any display device. probably finely 
tuned to a fault :-)

I can see pixels refreshing on all flat panels, even the best of the best LED 
models from Samsung. I finally understood why when I found out how that "Xms 
refresh time" spec is actually measured. I can see non-square pixels by 
looking at thin but wide arcs, even more so when an oblong pixel is in a 
square grid.

LCDs are easiest driven in terms of pixels - it maps to video memory. If they 
are no-square, one has to know the horiz and vert dpi and apply a fudge factor 
to make the image proportional. If the pixels are on a square grid, then one 
does not fudge the image. All very horribly complex and frankly, more detail 
than I can really be bothered with.

Which all goes to say that I have an unusual frame of reference, one that is 
*not* universally applicable :-)

Your point about poor CRTs is taken. A lousy CRT is unwatchable but a lousy 
LCD is tolerable. The finest CRTs though still outshine even the best LCD 
(again, imho only)


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

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

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 22:14 on Wednesday 08 September 2010, Grant 
Edwards did opine thusly:

> On 2010-09-08, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I need to shut up now. My hatred of pixelated display devices is
> > showing. I accept an LCD for my notebook as CRTs just don't fit, but
> > nothing beats a real CRT imho for image quality.
> 
> I presume you mean a nice monochrome display not one of those fuzzy
> color things with the individual phosphor dots/bars on the screen.  It
> was a sad day I was finally forced to give up my big, razor-sharp Sun
> grayscale monitor for one of those small, fuzzy-looking, color things.

No, I mean insanely high quality colour CRTs with out of this world dpi. The 
kind where you cannot discern individual triads at normal viewing distance. 
Not quite medical quality (I'm not that crazy) but close.

Like I said in my response to Paul, a poor colour CRT has got to be the worst 
thing out there. Most of those colour things are like that. But the opposite 
does exist.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com